Over the years, Obama has said some really disturbing things.
In my video on class warfare, I noted that Obama in 2008 said he wanted to raise the capital gains tax even if the government lost revenue.
It was necessary to punish success, he said, to promote “fairness.”
This was an utterly malevolent statement. It meant Obama is so consumed by the politics of hate and envy that he is willing to destroy private sector output even if it doesn’t result in more money for the political class.
Now there is a new statement that may be just as bad. In a recent interview on new fees from banks, the President said, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated.”
This statement is reprehensible because banks are only raising fees because of new regulations in the Dodd-Frank bailout bill. In other words, this is a classic example of “Mitchell’s Law,” which is my narcissistic way of describing how politicians mess up an economy with one bad policy and then use the inevitable damage as an excuse for imposing additional bad policy.
But there is an even deeper problem with Obama’s statement. He is saying that consenting adults in the private sector do not have a right to engage in voluntary exchange if some clown in Washington arbitrarily thinks that one side of the transaction is being “mistreated.”
At the risk of engaging in uncivil rhetoric, but the President can go jump in a lake. Under the U.S. Constitution, I do have an “inherent right” to engage in commerce. As Walter Williams has eloquently explained, it is the federal government that does not have the right to do things that are not listed in the enumerated powers section of the Constitution.
Last but not least, I’m not making a partisan attack on Obama. On my occasions, I have strongly condemned Bush for stating that, “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.”
Where the you-know-what did Bush get the right to declare that “we” have a responsibility? Why the you-know-what did he think that compassion is defined by spending other people’s money.
Heck, what Bush said is probably even more morally bankrupt than what Obama said.
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said really foolish things, but Donald Trump may have set a new record for economic illiteracy with this tweet. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said really foolish things, but Donald Trump may have set a new record for […]
[…] 2011, the president was complaining about bank fees and asserted that, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and asserted that, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] he arrogantly remarked that “at some point you have made enough money.” In 2011, the president was complaining about bank fees and asserted that, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and asserted that, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] Profits are not legitimate?!? Geesh, sounds like a certain President who also disdains profit. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and assertedthat, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or distorting […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and assertedthat, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and assertedthat, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and assertedthat, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or distorting […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or […]
[…] you probably remember President Obama’s infamous statement during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate for reasons of “fairness” regardless of whether tax revenues decreased (if you think I’m somehow exaggerating or […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] his class-warfare rhetoric, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that he will follow my sage advice. Daniel J. Mitchell […]
[…] his class-warfare rhetoric, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that he will follow my sage advice. Daniel J. Mitchell […]
[…] his class-warfare rhetoric, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that he will follow my sage […]
[…] his class-warfare rhetoric, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that he will follow my sage advice. […]
[…] his class-warfare rhetoric, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that he will follow my sage advice. Rate this: […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] That’s class warfare on steroids, and it definitely belong on the list of the worst things Obama has ever said. […]
[…] […]
Bush said when people are hurting, the gov. must move. Well, many of us are hurting because gov. is standing on our necks. I wish it would just move.
[…] Another of the big sign makers seems to be banks, evil banks. Banks that apparently have forced people to buy homes they couldn’t afford and now, dun dun dun, are imposing debit card fees. While I’m not happy about the fee’s and will take my banking business elsewhere, I know that the government, not the banks, are the guilty party. This is known to me as Mitchel’s Law: […]
Mitchell’s Law is baked into the voter…
Obama can of course be blamed for being the first openly class-warfare populist president in quite a few decades. A president who not only hides the truth from voters but fans this already inherent suicidal voter behavior.
Beneath the immediately visible economic tribulations of unemployment and declining prosperity, and right under the cacophony of futile perpetual motion machine, free lunch macroeconomic manipulations — which delusionaly aim to forestall voters realizing their decline — lies the pivotal issue behind America’s prosperity woes:
Loss of — once taken for granted — superior American competitiveness compared to the rest of the world.
Regardless of political ideology, morality of mandatory compassion etc.,…
– Is flattening the effort/reward curve going to make America more competitive on the world stage? Is placing burdens on the still worldwide competent to attempt to insulate the non competent from the consequences of their mediocrity going to make America more competitive on the world stage?
– Is the imposition of more regulatory constraints going to make the products that American workers produce more competitive on the world stage?
– Are the three billion people who are finally, after centuries, coming out of the ginnie-bottle of mandatory collectivism going to accommodate 0.3 billion privileged Americans, by slowing down their ascending growth/competitiveness?
The answer is NO to all three questions.
Therefore the dynamics of decline are on autopilot.
So bury your head in the sand American voter and hope nothing happens – hope the three billion people you once left for dead will now have the luxury of showing some leniency. You are in denial. You are simply living a story that has repeated many times over in many parts of the world: Decline.
If you ever wondered what decline would feel like, well, this is it. Somber mood and pink-elephant stories about how some centralized authority will lead people back to the good old times. Liking it yet?
The American middle and lower class was not satisfied with the 3-8x times world average prosperity it enjoyed, because others had more. So it has now finally fallen for class warfare and is consequently headed towards parity with the world average. The “America, 2000-2030” chapter in world history books will one day read: “The top 10% in worldwide prosperity finally wages war on the top 1% — and they all get absorbed into the Borg of worldwide averagedom”.
Why is anyone surprised? What exactly did you think communism was about? Holding hands and singing Kumbaya?
Communists are about stealing, and they are eager to kill to
facilitate the stealing, because they are also about murder.
Karl Marx abolished private property in principle, and with that
principle they have stolen everything from everyone in one fell swoop; since everything is already belong to them they believe they are justified in killing everyone, in one swell foop or however many foops it takes. They stink on dry ice.
The usage of “you don’t have right to” over the cost of something or somebody could have been quite appropriate but the usage of “you don’t have right to..” in a voluntary transaction is misunderstanding of correct morals.
Besides this, Obama wanting to raise the capital gains tax even if the government lost revenue isn’t just about being consumed by politics of hate and envy. But it also indicates that he backtracked from the alleged principle behind his proposal of raising taxes. Backtracking is accepting that what you asserted before was a lie; plus, people backtrack when what they believe in is not found on a solid principle.
Great post; keep it up; I’m appalled too. By it all.
…also known as Mises’ Law of supplementary interference
“If the government neither acquiesces in this outcome nor derives from it the conclusion that it is advisable to abstain from all such measures, it is forced to supplement its first steps by more and more interference until it has abolished private control of the means of production entirely and thus established socialism.” – Ludwig Von Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism