#rsrh Shorter Atlantic: Obama not man enough…

to fix the economy.

I paraphrase: they’re trotting out a variant of  ‘the country’s problems are too much for any one man’ line that Democrats love to use whenever one of their guys is in office and something’s gone wrong.  At some point these folks will realize that all this does is reinforce the meme that “Democratic pundits” = “whiners”…


Moe Lane

PS: What? Oh. Well, the reason why we’re in our economic mess is at bottom very simple: the Democrats have been consistently taking energy out of the system, and then wondering why things are so sluggish.  Deliberately inflated fuel prices, coupled with deliberately depressed energy supplies.  Deliberate destruction of the food supply.  Constantly-expanding federal bureaucracies.  A godawful new health care rationing system. An accelerating program of deficit/debt spending.  A petulant refusal to accept that we cannot spend as much on the government as we used to.  One of the most hostile regulatory and tax stances towards small businesses that I have seen in my lifetime.  And, of course, absolutely no leadership whatsoever coming from the Democratic elite.

Oh, yes, let’s not forget rampant pseudo-populist demagoguery about the rich by Democratic-aligned hacks.  Or, more accurately, rampant pseudo-populist demagoguery about the rich not currently plugged into the Democratic party’s patronage system.

Since people asked.

3 thoughts on “#rsrh Shorter Atlantic: Obama not man enough…”

  1. The curious thing is, they aren’t simply opposed to the “rich”, but more particularly to those with high incomes. Those with existing wealth — *cough*Kennedy*cough* — seem to be their darlings.

    I’m constitutionally (heh) opposed to taxing wealth, but unless I’ve missed something, it’s also not pushed by the mainstream Democrats. Their rhetoric defines “the rich” in terms of income — if you bring in $249,999 but have assets worth $300 billion, hey, you’re not “rich”.

    Am I missing something? Or does anyone else see the left more concerned with people earning wealth than holding onto wealth?

  2. I’ve made the same observation, Rob. They don’t give a tinker’s damn if you’ve already made your money (as long as you give it to them), it’s the ones who want to get there that seem to be the recipient (if not the object) of their ire.

    And then they wonder why so much capital and talent sits on the sidelines….

  3. It’s almost as if their primary goal was preventing the rise of the nouveau riche. “Not our class, dear” as the motivator of rich Democrats?

Comments are closed.