This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected

Tyler Durden's picture


Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:50 | 2972841 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Oh yes! The republicans have been soooooo much more respectful of the Constitution than the democrats! Puhleeez!!! Both parties have been using the hapless document for toilet paper for quite some time now. Isn't it time to stop the my party is better bullshit and start to recognize who the real enemy is?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:16 | 2973032 TomGa
TomGa's picture

This has nothing to do with party politics. The Republicans are just as bad.  Republicans are not, however, in power at present. Every one of these un-American pols needs to be denounced, ostracized, and cast out of this nation.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:27 | 2973091 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

"The Constitution of the United States stands in the way of what Barack Obama wants to do."

Not anymore.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:39 | 2972765 lostcause
lostcause's picture

 How come know one is discussing the major voter fraud that occurred in Oh and Co. Many counties had over 100% of eligible voters voting for Obama. There were several counties in Ohio where Obama had received 99% of the vote.  Below is another example in Philly.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:48 | 2972827 jomama
jomama's picture

i would be if you had more proof?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:56 | 2972882 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

OK.  Let's give Romney Colo and OH.  Oh wait...............HE STILL LOSES.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:28 | 2973102 Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

@lostcause at least one person is able to cut through the lies and MSM propaganda long enough to speak the obvious. once again the emperor has no clothes and only the little boy sees it! the evidence is rapidly mounting that this election was a sham, stolen and thankfully some are perceptive and courageous enough to realize it. aside from the transparently obvious manipulation of the MSM chearleaders foremost of which is CSNBC, the hacked and corrupted algorithmic software of Scytl and SOE swung the actual numbers to Obama. the fix was in for Obama. and the gambling oddsmakers who get the skinny from the organized crime cabalwith its connections to the WH and who Nate Silver gets his oracular percentages from had it right from the beginning. as if the statistical massaging of the BLS, the total immersion televised electoral propaganda wasn't enough, they threw in the 90 minute Obama/Christie Hurricane Sandy photo op for good measure. Not to worry though, they had it all backstopped with Scytl and nothing was allowed to escape their grasp even Obama/Clittons Benghazigate which should have been enough to sink every incumbent from Truman. The worst part was the insidious and cynical admission of the actual numbers though which had Romney ahead or at least in dead heat so necessay to the illusion of free and fair election. Dial up Bev Harris at among a host of other sources.This election follows the covert schemas of  9/11 and the fianancial engineering propelling this once nation into a black hole of economic and social destruction

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:19 | 2973573 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Because that's how we do national elections in the USA.

Let it go, already.  This was all handled back in 2000, remember? 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:37 | 2972777 JohnFrodo
JohnFrodo's picture

Romney lost because America saw him as a Goodfella's inspired bust up artist. Huntsman could have won.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:52 | 2972855 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

A Paul/Huntsman ticket would have been a good one in my opinion.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:40 | 2973157's picture

The Huntsman campaign was used as a vehicle to make Ron look like an insane xenophobe through the use of a false flag video. Remember this?



Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:54 | 2973468 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

A Romney/Paul ticket would've won easily, because all you fools who stayed home pulling your puds instead fo the lever would've voted. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:58 | 2973481's picture

Ron Paul would not have shared the ticket with Romney. He didn't even vote for the man.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:01 | 2973493 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

OK great, and what did that get us? 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:10 | 2973525's picture

What would a Romney victory have gotten "us?" You may be fond of that flip flopping fellow but I'm not.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:21 | 2973582 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Not Obama for one thing...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:30 | 2973608's picture

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Why promote evil? And what can one do when the candidates are equally evil?



President Bill Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley summed up our political system perfectly in his book "Tragedy and Hope," writing:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:39 | 2973641 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Pessism is the refuge of the lazy. 


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:04 | 2973718's picture

Doesn't your willingness to vote for an evil candidate indicate that you are the pessimist?  Are you too lazy to try to live your own life without asking Mitt Romney to give you a hand up with his Romneycare and "assault" weapons bans?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:53 | 2972817 booboo
booboo's picture

Cause Obama will get a pass from the tribal witch doctors (Sharpton and Jackson) when it burns to the ground. Someone has to keep the folks in the plantatation slave housing and off of Scarlets lawn.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:48 | 2972828 uncle reggie
uncle reggie's picture

"Moochers prevailed."

What insightful analysis! Seems like there's an extra serving of pure bullshit on ZH today. I like to hear the arguments of those spouting the corporate, crony capitalist gospel, as many here do, but I've already seen too much for one day.  

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:00 | 2972913 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture


Uncle Reg,

Precisely what solution, outside of capitalism, do you propose that does not involve me supporting worthless street scum and lazy fucks?



Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:52 | 2973465 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture must be one of them there, OWS guys...sucking the Obama ass.   Obama says to all of you..."You sure got a pretty mouth..."

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:51 | 2972846 Mad Mohel
Mad Mohel's picture

Hope all you bitchez like peas!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:53 | 2972865 kralizec
kralizec's picture


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:55 | 2972871 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture



I stopped voting when I asked for ID to buy cold medicine but it was not required to cast a ballot.

Every two years for the last 20 we have heard the cries of the inner city trash complaining about disenfranchisement, though picture ID is essential in order to draw from many of the entitlement programs upon which they survive.

I fully believe this is nothing more than another shuck and jive cover to keep vote fraud a viable part of the electoral process.

Every aspect of the system is so fully gamed that it is no longer worth my time.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:22 | 2973069 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

Um, didn't you get the memo?  You are no longer allowed to use the phrase "shuck and jive".  It denotes your latent racism and obvious hatred to all people of color.  Now, kiss Jesse's ass (Sr, not Jr) and make a donation please.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:35 | 2973131 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture



I have a stack of them next to my toilet.



Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:51 | 2973459 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Ah...and hence the REAL REASON Obama won...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:55 | 2972872 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

Obama has the WH and Senate, but no House.  And Barry doesn't like compromise.


It's going to be fun to watch.


Barry reports to Wall Street/Defense contractors and he knows it.  And when these markets turn down hard, like they did in 2010/2011 in Europe, Barry will have some essplaynin to do.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:56 | 2972879 Gimleteye
Gimleteye's picture

Offering the takers hard work and self-sufficiency is a loser. Instead, all conservatives who live in the blue states and are able to do so should make plans NOW to move to the red states. This will lower the population of blue states, cutting their share of votes in the electoral college and increase the population in the red states, increasing their share of the elctoral college. Romney lost by 66 EV, 11 red states gaining just  6 EV(pop per CD is 700,000 approx) would prevent a democrat from ever gain the presidency. A side benefit would be to remove makers from the blue states, hastening their fall. DeFacto Secession.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:31 | 2973114 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

Its too late for that. America is over as it was established

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:59 | 2972909 905ozs
905ozs's picture

Lol, whilst down here in south Africa we have our own tribulations, sure, sitting here pretty much "free" to chart ones own path (on the beach, 25c, a quality to life of sorts) it feels like I think 1950's USA.

But you Americans are so screwed.
How come most of you (not the illuciated ones on ZH I add) are so plainly dumb?

Sorry, but it is what it is...the Romans, the Brits, even the Dutch had a go for 300 years +, sadly, the US Dream WAS JUST, THAT A DREAM, didn't last even 100 years.
You know where the Rothschild Inc live and breathe, but you sit...WAITING TO BE CULLED.
Baaah bloody baah :)
Head down folks.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:03 | 2972943 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture




Perfect center-of-mass shot. Your corner of the world is looking particularly appealing these days.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:08 | 2972977 Ban KKiller
Ban KKiller's picture

Mr. Romney lost because he represented the "no science, no math" class as eveidenced by this writer. The dead Repbulican Party represented men who are strangers to vaginas, minorities,  the working class, immigrants and white guys over fifty who don't watch Faux News. In short, the Republicans got the Faux News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh group of dividers who think that only white people are Americans..who think that only white people work, who think that only white men over 50 are responsible...and the list goes on. I voted for Gary Johnson....not that he was the best but he was the least worst. We all know banksters, big corps and the Fed rule Amerika. Going out now to my free ATM, my free gas, my free food. All right down at the "free everything store". Don't have one near you? According to Faux news there are those places everywhere that voted for President Obama. Ha! 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:27 | 2973096 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

If given the chance, I would bang Megyn Kelly right in front of my wife AND her divorce attorney.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:09 | 2972990 jplotinus
jplotinus's picture

Let me see if i have this right. The article was composed by:

James E Miller
of the Mises Institute
of Canada.

Okay, Mr Miller of Mises of Canada,

We know what sort of society you dislike and we know what you think about social welfare.

Thank you for sharing.

Does anyone here wish to attach themselves to a political party espousing what Mr Miller/Mises/Canada dislikes?

If so, I applaud your desire to do so. I think you should field candidates, run ads, hold rallies, just so long, that is, as everyone brings their lunch, pays for their own signs and so on.

Of course, one of the signs they should hold aloft should be:


I wish you and your candidates best of luck.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:33 | 2973118 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

LVMI is unpolitical in the sense that they'll happily bash any president for its market intrusive policies, regardless of the party.

I've been reading their stuff since 2006.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:34 | 2973125 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"Does anyone here wish to attach themselves to a political party espousing what Mr Miller/Mises/Canada dislikes?"

You mean the Republican and Democratic parties?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:17 | 2973044 Doctor Moreau
Doctor Moreau's picture

Articles like this piss me off.  I'll never understand why anyone would think living on welfare and getting food stamps equates to some kind of awesome life.

Hate to break it to you but regardless of what you think, even in an Obama administration, it still takes hard work to find the American Dream.

Welfare and food stamps?  Sounds like the American Nightmare.

What else are we suppose to do with those folks?  Kill 'em?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:37 | 2973145 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

I don't think you need to assume living off welfare is awesome to have that opinion. What matters is what those recipients think and how politicians use their fears to control them and extort votes from them. These people think without an expensive welfare state, they'll starve (which is of course complete bunk).

Living on welfare sucks, that's why I'm against the welfare state. Makes people believe they are dependant and need it while taking away the need to be proud of earning your own income.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:48 | 2973212 Doctor Moreau
Doctor Moreau's picture

I think there are plenty of other reasons why people voted Obama.  I find pulling the welfare card in every instance to be lazy analysis. 

During the economic crisis all we ever heard about was "perception" and "confidence" as in to lack such is far more dangerous than the cash crunch itself.

In a shit bag economy, tell me how you are suppose to inspire confidence or give people hope?  Is it by having homeless starving to death?  Is it by having more families and kids on the streets?

I'm far from a welfare apologists, but then again I think we should put prisoners to work.

I pray these welfare programs are band aids, and if and when viable jobs return to the masses, it'll go away.

I'm sure zerohedge knows better, however.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:04 | 2973262 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Welfare is not a band aid, it's one of the root causes of poverty. There's still plenty of well paying jobs out there, pipe fitters, welders, IT, etc. all requiring minimal education and assuming you did not sign for a 500,000$ mortgage but that's your problem and certainly not the poor's lol. The welfare state takes the will out of people to take the leap.

And a lot of people who THINK the welfare state is good voted for Obama. They may not be moochers themselves, but they sure condone the system.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:29 | 2973609 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    pulling the welfare card in every instance to be lazy analysis.

It's not analysis.  It's really closer to a LIE.

Lots of folks hate blacks and use "welfare" as a rationalization.  It's not a good system and we really should have a discussion about a better approach to dealing with the folks who are unable to provide for themselves, but 9 times out of 10 when you hear bitching about "welfare" it's bitching against the inner-city blacks portrayed on the teevee, and not the po' toothless whitefolk in rural trailerparks in the red-states, DESPITE the fact that the population sizes are worth examining before bringing up the subject.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 13:15 | 2976533 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

And lots of folks hate jews and use "banks" as a rationalization.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 17:02 | 2977475 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Yep.  Can alternatively use Hollywood and/or "the media."

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:17 | 2973045 Doctor Moreau
Doctor Moreau's picture

Articles like this piss me off.  I'll never understand why anyone would think living on welfare and getting food stamps equates to some kind of awesome life.

Hate to break it to you but regardless of what you think, even in an Obama administration, it still takes hard work to find the American Dream.

Welfare and food stamps?  Sounds like the American Nightmare.

What else are we suppose to do with those folks?  Kill 'em?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:26 | 2973089 adr
adr's picture

I vote for Kill 'em. Hands down.

With all the government programs you can live far better than you can on any job that pays less than $60k.

How many jobs pay more than $60k today?

If you have a family of 4 with a household income of $60k you can't qualify for any government program. You must pay for health insurance, at least $4k a year. You can't qualify for SNAP, HEAP, WIC, EIC, Sec 8, and a myriad of other programs.

SNAP will give you about $400 a month.

HEAP caps utilities at $20 a month, go ahead and keep the house at 70 in the summer and 80 in the winter.

WIC gives you 2 gallons of milk for free every week, and can be compounded on top of SNAP for an extra $250 a month.

You can get subsidized internet and cable and free cell phones.

You'll need to wait for it but in most cities all residential buildings must be made available for low income housing. Your neighbor may be paying $900 for rent, but yours is capped at $200.


After all is said and done, your family have far more disposable income from your $15k a year job than the family of four living off $60k

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:46 | 2973443 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

You are a  fool...and clearly have no idea what you're talking about...unless you expect the publicly educated "idiot culture' to be disappointed they don't have self-reliance and the positive self-affirmation of people that truly know what liberty is. 


The american poor in this country have flat screens, cigarettes, malt liquor, condoms, cars, cell phones, plenty of nummy gubmint cheese.   


The poor in say, Africa, or those shit holes in the middle east, or undeveloped india are picking peanuts out of elephant shit, living next to open sewer trenches  just to stay alive. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:18 | 2973051 adr
adr's picture

The enemy of liberalism is math.

You can't make the math work to keep the country going, even as hard as Krugman tries.

I tried explaining to an Obama voter how we can't keep spending.

I said, "What happens when you put more stuff on a credit card?"

I got an answer of, "I pay more."

Then I asked, "The minimum payment right, because of interest?"

"yes" was the response.

I then asked, "What would happen if the minimum payment on your credit card was bigger than the amount of money you make in a month?"

"Uh, I couldn't pay it." was the response.

I then said that that is called a default. When that happens it means nobody gets paid. The USA already owes more than the amount it brings in and the people who were giving us more credit are no longer doing so. When the USA defaults, the moochers don't get paid.

The response was, "That wouldn't be good."

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:35 | 2973122 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"Uh, I couldn't pay it." was the response.

This is, of course, the incorrect answer as anyone that is familiar with the economics of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve knows.  The correct answer is: "I would just charge the payment on another credit card."

Stupid moocher!  He deserves to lose his Obamaphone.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:24 | 2973054 JR
JR's picture

Post-election blame and credit are everywhere, much of it centered around the Hispanic vote surge, a product of the 1965 Immigration Act. Included is bragging from some Jewish groups on their role in creating this legislation and complaints from other quarters on the catastrophic result.

Jewish activist Earl Raab calls it in the Jewish Bulletin in 1993 saying America now has a pluralistic culture because of the 1965 Immigration Act used by Jewish political activists to “alter the ethnic composition of the United States.”

Raab argues that the Jewish community took the leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy, thus, inhibiting anti-Semitism, by “increasing ethnic heterogeneity” in America to make “it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.”

It has been a successful campaign, culminating in the voting patterns of the 2012 election. The Census Bureau now reports that about half of the American population soon will be non-white.

We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century, says Raab. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the” heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible” and make our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Charles Silberman notes in A certain people: American Jews and their lives today (Summit Books 1985), that “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history,” that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups, or as recapped by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965. “It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social issues.”

Neo-Conservatives Julian Simon and Ben Wattenberg, who have advocated very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, do so according to Wattenberg  so that the U.S. will become the world’s first “Universal Nation.”

S.M. Neuringer in 1969 notes in “American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953,  that “Jewish influence on immigration policy was facilitated by Jewish wealth, education, and social status. Reflecting its general disproportionate representation in makers of economic success and political influence,  Jewish organizations have been able to have a vastly disproportionate effect on United States’ immigration policy because Jews as a group are highly organized, highly intelligent, and politically astute, and they were able to command a high level of financial, political, and intellectual resources in pursuing their political aims.”

D. A. Hollinger notes in 1996 in Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in mid-twentieth century American intellectual history, that Jews were more influential in the decline of homogeneous Protestant Christian culture than the Catholics because of their greater wealth, social standing, and technical skill in the intellectual arena.

According to MacDonald, referencing J. Judis’ “The conservative crack-up” in The American Prospect (1990), immigration targeting diversity from the Third World also has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neo-Conservatives and predominantly gentile paleo-conservatives.

“Neo-conservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleo-conservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants.”

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:20 | 2973060 905ozs
905ozs's picture

Open invitation to the ZH FELLOWSHIP...

Good cheap, beautiful country here,, happy to help anyone escape...:) Here we have a proud history of not taking any shit, White, Black, Green whatever, you know the story.

What's happened to the Americans? Was it ever the people or always Rothschild Inc. I have been to your shores 3 times, lots a good people there, lol, even more ignorant, I gave up visiting you in 2002...Clinton, Bush after Nixon, now Hussain, twice!

When the shit really hits the fan, the southern hemisphere is the place to be + we are the best rugby national pound for pound on earth :)

Grid Iron vs rugby, you are dead meat :)
Baseball vs cricket, ditto :)

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:22 | 2973068 brent1023
brent1023's picture

Articles by people who view all of creation through one very tiny analytic lens are amusing, but hardly worth reading more than a paragraph or two.

Of the thousands of things done and not done, said and not said, promised and not promised, by either candidate, the moocher effect (as opposed to the state provides help when no one else can) is one of many factors, no single one of which prevails over all others.

It is not one of the 13 keys to the white house.

People moving in very smaller circles until they vanish ...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:25 | 2973087 fledermaus
fledermaus's picture


The Financial Aristocracy asserts its interests over the 99% and then buys the complicity of the bottom 60% with largesse paid for by the top 19% of earners.
From Charles Hugh-Smith' s  post this morning.  Hopefully we're referring to all freeloaders not just the bottom 60%... While the middle class gets screwed and we play the false Right vs. Left game.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:29 | 2973106 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Some politician got elected by bribing people for their votes and this is supposed to be a controversy, on ZH of all places ?

Yes, voters are morons but I'm afraid this applies to a majority of ZH readers as well, no offense to the staff.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:30 | 2973108 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I for one do not welcome the idiot-bastard overlord-wannabes.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:39 | 2973155 richard007
richard007's picture

A reminder from Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:40 | 2973166 905ozs
905ozs's picture

Uncle Remus

But you ought not be one sir, or ma'am.


48hrs on, no MSM, no print, Rueters/AP...Rothschild Inc.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:44 | 2973177 Der Wille Zur Macht
Der Wille Zur Macht's picture

Mr. Miller is correct, never underestimate people's fondness for masochism. We absolutely LOVE burning our arm on the cornballer...EVERY DAMN TIME!

As long as a candidate suits the public's preconceived notions of what is 'good' and whose ideals require little or no original thought, they will prevail. If I promise more than you, I win.

Everybody wants what they don't have. Envy is the name of the game folks. And as long as it's not being taken from them specifically, then it's A-OKAY.

What they don't realize is we're all getting fucked.



Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:46 | 2973202 Tom of the Missouri
Tom of the Missouri's picture

Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et. al. hat it right when they exclueded women from the right to vote. Emotion i.e., women, should play no role in such important adult decisond as national defense, fiscal responsibility and the long term interest of society.   I would have added people that live in their parents basement should not vote either,  but reasonablle people can differ.   Male adults are also better at detcting charlatans and con men, but I digress.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:49 | 2973209 kestrel2012
kestrel2012's picture

The exit polls showed that the basic affinity groups didn't really change their voting in significant way.  Less than 1% has actually changed their vote.  This is why all the polls and expecting undecides to break for Romney were wrong. 

We didn't vote on the economy, women's health/rights, foreign affairs or anything else.

We voted on one thing... "What do you think about the BLUE DRESS?"   We all took sides then and have never moved which is why the world is divided.  Not a coicidence that Slick Willy was brought out again, as that was once again what the election was about.  (I do have to say that doesn't say much for single women though, but it is true)

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:50 | 2973217 ItsDanger
ItsDanger's picture

Most of the people I know work hard and make good livings.  They also would never spend more than 10 minutes in line to vote.  No chance.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:56 | 2973241 GCT
GCT's picture

Not going to argue politics with the fight clud today.  Foreign policy magazine did have the UN's thoughts on our elections the day after.  You can search it yourself.  Basically the un observers thought our system was unfair because ID is not required.  A very good read by the way and smothered by the media as well.

I predicted the Obama win a year ago based on the numbers. Married women voted for Romney 53% and single women 72% voted for Obama.  Not alot was going to change as most federal programs are indeed designed for single women.  Actually 56% of tjhe people in this country are on some type of Govt. handout.  Another eye opening number for me was the elderly they voted 65% for Romney!

My take if people wanted change the Congress would have changed and basically not alot happened there. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:05 | 2973273 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

As usual, 'americans' only expose propaganda to make room for theirs. This article is another fine example.

'Americans' have always voted for obtaining something from their State. It is one core tenet of 'americanism'

Now is simply a case when some 'americans' no longer feel the state works for their exclusive benefit.

The article also comes with no back up to show that the bribery works, that indeed people who received something actually voted.

But, hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from 'americanism'.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:18 | 2973307 akak
akak's picture

As usual, AnAnnoyingUs only exposes his posterior to make room for more roadside nightsoil. This typically anti-American comment is another fine example.

AnAnnoyingUS has always ranted in sweepingly bigoted but fundamentally unbacked assertions, damning all the inhabitants of one single nation for all of the earth's ills.

But hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from one's own unsustainably exploding society's faults and failings.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:15 | 2973311 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


But, hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from 'americanism'.

The criticism of America has always been a bit infantile. One is familiar with the theory from psychoanalysis, when people talk about transference, or when suppressed feelings or emotions are overcome by projecting them onto others. It may work for a while, improving one's feeling of self-worth by devaluing an imagined adversary. But it always falls short. Which is why the ritual must be constantly carried out anew.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:39 | 2973408 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

You are such a HUMP, do you ever tire of your own duplicity?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:19 | 2973572 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Don't bother, shit is shit, don't step in it...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:37 | 2973313 HD
HD's picture

I don't know why he bothered to write the whole article.  The use of "Barack Hussein Obama" in the first sentence tells you that it wasn't going to be a love letter to Barry.

...Show me one mainstream media puff piece that ever uses Obama's middle name.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:38 | 2973403 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

I saw nothing in the title that said it was? Perhaps you could write your own...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:18 | 2973568 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Funny how Obama used his middle name when swearing in.....

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:49 | 2973453 q99x2
q99x2's picture

My friend said that I should have made my speech on the FED last week interesting for the audience by starting it off with, "Barak Hussein Obama re-appointed Ben Shalom Bernanke head of the Federal Reserve" He said that could be the entire speech and that I could bow to the audience and walk off stage.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:55 | 2973467 Rastadamus
Rastadamus's picture

The GOP is going the way of the Whigs.

So white people, feel free to start Whiggin.

This ain't your country anymore. Jefferson Davis is spinning in his grave.

Fuck Dixie.

And yes, I'm taking as much free shit as I can get.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:09 | 2973504 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

The number one reason that Obama won is because TeeVee told people to vote for him.  Period.

The number two reason he won?   He isn't White. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:06 | 2973508 GernB
GernB's picture

Why Obama won: The republican establishment's strategy disenfranchies their most enthusiastic supporters. They ticked off liberatarians through their treatment of Ron Paul, and gave the tea party the finger, then tried to placate them through a Ryan VP pick.

Now they are trying to tell conservatives they are the problem and that they won't win again unless they give up this rediculous idea of having convictions and standing on them. The problem is, the republican party can change it's approach all it wants but people will not just change what they belileve in so easily. They might as well be begging for a third party to voice the views of all those voters who no longer like either party.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:16 | 2973558 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Still, by not voting or voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul, what did we get? 


You didn't vote because you were pissed the GOP didn't listen to you.  We punished the republicans.  Right?  Nope!

By your own post you now indicate how the GOP is blaming conservatives, or Paulians or whomever.  

But, in the end of all this, Obama is still president because you stayed home OR didn't vote for Romney, well over 3 million Republicans didn't vote, not to mention independents, Paul supporters, evangelicals.  Now all we have is sheer lunacy, neophytes, and idealistic marxists...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi...they're going to write the rules. 

Thanks for your efforts.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:17 | 2973771 GernB
GernB's picture

To be clear. I did vote, but I can completely understand why Ron Paul supporters did not. What purpose does it serve to vote for Romney if you think he's just Obama light. So there's a chance we don't get Obamacare if Romney is elected, but what will you get in ir's place: a big government compromise that benefits the health care industry, but not necessarily consumers and which progressives can now blame on consrvatives.

The lesson of the Bush years is that voting for the conservative because they are better than the alternative gets you an electorate that jusitfiably sees republicans as the problem and leads to 8 years of Obama.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:59 | 2974113 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Still, by not voting or voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul, what did we get?

A clear conscience.

You didn't vote because you were pissed the GOP didn't listen to you.  We punished the republicans.  Right?  Nope!

I'd say, based on all the whining coming from the losers that still think there's a rodent turd worth of difference between Barack "Hussein in the membrane" Obama and Willard "the rat" Romney, that yes, the republicans are indeed feeling a bit butthurt.

Cheer up, kids. After all, it's really just a one-party system, and as long as Barack or Willard wins, the party wins.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:11 | 2973532 mammoth mo
mammoth mo's picture

Well this is a fine place.

Lose and whine - lose and whine - lose and whine.

So Blacks voted 95% for Obama.  How dare they reject the Republican offer of the whip, the chain, or the rope.   Those Blacks must be moochers.  Lets see how do you spell moocher?   Let me see, Walmart patrons.  It's a darn shame those moochers are supporting so much of society with their payments at Walmart.  Stop the trucks from rolling the moochers are going to be cut off.


So Latinos went for Obama by over 70%.  How dare they reject the Republican offer of the whip, the chain, or the rope.  Those Latinos must be moochers.  We know how to spell moocher Walmart patrons.   Oh they and the Blacks also pay local sales tax and other assorted taxes.  Freaking moochers paying the darn regressive taxes.  If we can stop the moochers things will be fine.


So Women didn't want to be told about birth control by men who showed a thorough knowledge of the understanding of the human body and may I add a woman's true intentions.  Screw them, who told them to think when they vote.  All of us with a Penis know what is best for women.  Just ask us.


Enjoy the whine people - enjoy the whine.  Perhaps the Republicans can come up with something other than the whip the chain or the rope for minorites and something other than sex is consensual if a man says it is and you had better have my baby no matter what circumstances I knock you up under.


At this point the Democrats don't have to work hard to get votes.  Just point to the other guy and say what's he offering?  Hell, the Democrats aren't much better.  They too reward rich people first.  They lack the level of stupid offensive people at the front that repeatedly are trotted out by Republicans.


Your stupid if you think this election was about moochers wanting a free ride.  The moochers who want the free ride are the rich who get zero interest loans and then don't have to pay those back.   Any of you whiners feel like looking up how much paper work it takes for an individual to get on welfare and how much paper work it took to get millions in tarp loans from a bank get back with me.


Until then - enjoy the pity party while those of us who realize that the country needs to work together will move on with those who agree.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:32 | 2973813 GernB
GernB's picture

So wanting people to have freedom and choices is the whip, the chain, or the rope. Not forcing peolpe to pay for other people's brith control with money that is not theirs, is anti-women. Your answer is a society where the minority is crushed under the heel of a tyranical, all powerful, majority fed by an all powerful tyrnaical government that gets to decide who wins and who looses across all of society. Well, in that world everyonme looses. People who don't produce but just consume are not contributing to the prosperty of al,l because prosperity only comes from having goods and services that people make. The fewer people making goods and services because they don't have to because they can mooch off of others, the less prosperity there is for all.

You don't fix the problem of rich people getting zero interest loans by giving more people a free ride, you just perpetuate the problem with the idea that government gets to decide who gets a free ride. You fix the problem by disabusing people of the notion that they or anyone is entitled to another person money. Do me a favor, figure out, over their lifetime, how many extra years a typical person will have to work paying taxes to support someone else, and then compare than to the hours spent filling out welfare paperwork.Moreover, tell me what gives you the right to spend that other persons life like it was nothing.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:17 | 2974177 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

You dont work with a policy agenda that believes centralized government control is the answer

these policies that are being employed will starve the beast that is the government.

People will then find out dependence of the government lead to them starving 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:15 | 2973544 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

The reason Obama won was Repubicans are only interested in rich white people. That and four years of obstruction is not a plan worthy of a vote. Wingers will continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:25 | 2973597 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Holy shit, who let you in here?

If you have something to say that actually contributes anything to the discussion, please mention it, otherwise it would be best if you just shut up...I can get all your talking points just by turning on the TeeVee. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:36 | 2973627 spooz
spooz's picture

And you act like your half of the duopoly has any more credibility.  Lesser of evils is a sure road to serfdom.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:47 | 2973664 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

And I might add that voting for someone promising you serfdom is a surer road to serfdom. 

As much as these guys were the same, they were different if only slightly.   One man offered man offereed liberty. 

The people that spoke won, they chose government because idiots that knew better sat home.

68 new regulations a day.  Moratoriums on drilling in the west.  He hasn't even waited for the hangover to lift...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:52 | 2973693 spooz
spooz's picture

Wait, which one offered liberty?  The flip-flopping plutocrat?  You have been brainwashed or you are spewing propaganda.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:03 | 2974134 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

therearetoomanyidiots added himself to the count with:

And I might add that voting for someone promising you serfdom is a surer road to serfdom. 

As much as these guys were the same, they were different if only slightly.   One man offered man offereed liberty. 

The people that spoke won, they chose government

Why are you rehashing the Republican convention?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:34 | 2973607 spooz
spooz's picture

Chris Hedges (a real liberal) on the Obama election":

"The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents. Liberals, by voting for Barack Obama, betrayed the core values they use to define themselves—the rule of law, the safeguarding of civil liberties, the protection of unions, the preservation of social welfare programs, environmental accords, financial regulation, a defiance of unjust war and torture, and the abolition of drone wars. The liberal class clung desperately during the long nightmare of this political campaign to one or two issues, such as protecting a woman’s right to choose and gender equality, to justify its complicity in a monstrous evil. This moral fragmentation—using an isolated act of justice to define one’s self while ignoring the vast corporate assault on the nation and the ecosystem along with the pre-emptive violence of the imperial state—is moral and political capitulation. It fails to confront the evil we have become."

The Rs would have had an easy time knocking the imperial president off his throne with this kind of message, but that would have meant having some integrity.  When the other side of the duopoly agrees with the direction Obama is taking the country, towards an imperial presidency and police state, they try to fight with the wedge issues and lose.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:18 | 2973777 archon
archon's picture

That's a good quote, and thanks for that, but I don't think it would have done a bit of good to turn the election around, since that woulde require a truly "free press" to allow the message to be heard, and that its message would sound reasonable when falling on deaf ears.  We are, after all, talking about a news media that imposed an intentional blackout on the murder of an ambassador and four diplomats for two months prior to the election.  You won't break that kind of rigid discipline with a message that requires them to rat themselves out.  I agree with Pat Cadell that the news media, the very "Free press" that is supposed to be the guardian of our democracy, has actually become the enemy of the People.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:39 | 2973647 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

I  think Obama won becuse of all the threats of riots by blacks if Obama lost. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:48 | 2973675 spooz
spooz's picture

Speaking of the black vote, the Rs did the Ds a big solid with the voter suppression thing.  People tend to get riled up when they feel they are being targeted, gives them a rallying point:


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:13 | 2973948 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Keep the BS coming, son, it did you soo good this last election. Wingers never learn.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:40 | 2973651 loveyajimbo
loveyajimbo's picture

SUMMARY: Obungo is an asshole, as are all who voted for him.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:15 | 2973955 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

Then it was a contest of assholes vs morons.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:43 | 2973657 monad
monad's picture

Ask DCI Petreaus. He knows everything...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:00 | 2973717 Uncle Keith
Uncle Keith's picture

Moochers, huh? 


I work for a 3rd generation rich guy. 3rd. His grand-pappy made his money as a war profiteer (WWII). Truman was right: those people were scumbags. Their decendents are little better. Anyway, I work for a subsistence wage - not a reproductive wage. The business owner just doesn't understand why he should pay more than the prevailing wage the market demands. So, I never reproduced. Neither did a lot of other folks from my generation. This attitude is commonplace, dare I say, Nearly Universal.


The 99.95% of us who find ourselves in the same boat - those working to enrich the already too-rich-for-society-to-afford - have had enough of the arrogance and "me first" of the Top .05% and require that the Tide Turn. The fact that the author of this piece is reacting like a Nationless Prick pretty much sums up the problem: The Deification of the Wealthy while labelling everyone else as a dehumanized commodity.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:42 | 2973840 GernB
GernB's picture

I don't think you phrased that right. Your employer does not understand why he should make himself uncompetitive by trying to tell consumers they should value your labor more than they do.

The thing is, the market is you, Every time you buy something you make value judgements about what something is worth, and in so doing what the labor to make it is worth. You don't decide what something is worth purely to deny someone good wages, you make the choice because that is your right. People want to pretend like companies are the problem and exist totaly appart from the consumer. Well, every employee is a consumer and when you rob companies of the right to make decisions that benefit consumers you rob consumers of the right to decide what things are worth to them.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:53 | 2973870 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Not that you're getting that one tiny little piece of the equation WRONG, but you do have to keep in mind that a consumer can only "choose" to pay whatever they can AFFORD to pay.

A good chunk of the USian working-class is *literally* UNABLE to afford decent housing, quality food, and trustworthy professional services when needed. 

It's unreasonable (not to mention counterproductive) to fault the individuals for making bad "choices" when the only choices available are shit.  Spend a year living on $1500/month and reassess your argument above.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:02 | 2973903 GernB
GernB's picture

I don't blame the individual. When we pass laws to distort market forces and allow the government to decide what labor is worth (or pass laws to protect entites like unions and alllow them to dictate to consumers what their labor is worth), the result is that labor is re-priced out of the reach of some consumers, with the inevitable result being that the working class is unable to afford things.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:33 | 2974234 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    When we pass laws to distort market forces...

Right right, like the laws that built the railroads and the phone network...I know, I know.

We'd all be much better off if the Feds never did that stuff, but we also wouldn't have a national phone network and rail infrastructure.  There are opportunities and costs with *either* approach.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:30 | 2974022 Market Man
Market Man's picture

Why don't you develop some skills that are in demand so that you can get a better job?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:30 | 2974224 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

No matter what happens with Uncle Keith, you have to keep in mind that the vast majority of ANY population will be unable to rise to the top of the economic ladder.  This is inescapable statistics.

The question is: what happens when 50% of the population is fundamentally UNABLE to achieve survival success based on the way resources are distributed?

That's where we are *now.*  It's all well and good to tell any individual he could do better, but if things are failing on such a widespread scale, it's not a problem that CAN be solved by each individual.  Most people just aren't that talented. 

We face structural problems--they have to be fixed with structural changes.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:09 | 2973743 archon
archon's picture

Obama won because, in a world that's going up in flames, his supporters cared more about free contraception, "equality", "safety nets", social issues, and a host of related touchy-feely "humanitarian" things...  as if all those things were better for the people concerned than the complete, abject poverty and enslavement they will suffer when the whole sh!thouse collapses on top of them.  On that day, the headlines of the New York Times will read something like, "Global Financial System Collapses!!  Food Shortages Cause Mass Starvation! Widespread Rioting and Civil Unrest!  Martial Law!  WOMEN AND MINORITIES MOST SEVERELY AFFECTED!!!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:21 | 2973785 swmnguy
swmnguy's picture

Same old class warfare bullshit from the same people who won the class war.  Really boring.  At all costs, make no admission of the fact that Romney lost becaue he ran a rotten campaign.  Anybody who thinks our economy is suffering because of food stamps and welfare is really bad at math, which isn't much of a testimonial for an economist; even a think-tank economist.

The cherry on top is to quote Thomas DiLorenzo, who has argued that black people were better off under slavery, and was among the first to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the housing finance bubble while completely denying that derivatives, fraud, and the looting of the bond market had anything to do with anything.  Quoting DiLorenzo should be a new corollary to Godwin's Law; just like comparing your opponent to Hitler, quoting DiLorenzo means you lose the argument.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:55 | 2973880 GernB
GernB's picture

Fine Romney also lost because he had a rotten campaign.

It's only a math problem if you only consider the cost of food stamps nd welfare. What about the cost to society of having so many people produce nothing, but continue consuming things other people produce.

The community reinvestment act is to blame. Without it there would have been no push to lend to people who could not afford it, and no need to use wall street as an outlet to sell bad loans made to people who could not afford them (beacause they did not meet traditional requirements for them to be bought). Wall street did not decide how the system for making home loans and selling them, government did. There were plenty of oppponents to the community reinvestment act who predicted that what government was doing would cause the crisis. they were ignored and now apppologists like you want to re-write history to claim that somehow the regulated entities were at fault for the regulations.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:08 | 2973926 spooz
spooz's picture

The Financial Inquiry Commission's Report does not agree with you, but go on repeating your sound bites.  Most people don't bother to check facts.

"The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report]"

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:40 | 2974057 swmnguy
swmnguy's picture

The banking industry, all the way up to 2007, was lobbying as hard as it could to repeal the CRA.  Why?  Because it was keeping them from wallowing in the sub-prime hog trough directly.  They had to wait until the non-bank lenders, like Countrywide, WaMu, IndyMac etc. made the loans and converted them into horseshit bonds.  Then and only then, on a secondary basis, could the banks get in on that hot subprime action.  Pressure to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back?  Hah.  That was like the pressure on toddlers to eat their Halloween candy.  They couldn't wait to make loans to people who couldn't possiibly pay them back, because they were way smarter than everyone else; they had figured out the secret to infinite risk-free profit.  Just lump the loans together and use them as collateral for piles of bonds and bond-related derivatives.  Come on.  This wasn't during the Paleozoic Era.  This was, at most, 5 years ago.  People do remember.

Of course government determined the system for making home loans and selling them.  They were paid very handsomely to do so.  Refer to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000.

As for the cost of food stamps, welfare, and the costs of people consuming but not producing anything.  There's a reason they're not producing anything.  It's because we're in a Depression.  Depressions tend to be rough on production.  And there's a reason we have welfare and food stamps.  It's because 80 years ago, we had bread lines and soup kitchens.  In places like that, people who can't find work or food on their own tend to recognize their numbers and cook up trouble.  It's a lot tidier for those who benefit from compression of the labor market that these people get their soup kitchens and bread lines in the mailbox or direct deposit every month, and stay in their homes, isolated.  You want millions of hungry, angry people marching and breaking things?  Go right ahead and cut off the welfare and food stamps.  None of this is being done out of some "My Little Pony" sense of equanimity.  Nor is it being done to spite the righteous.  It's to preserve civil order.  Look to Greece and Spain to see how people respond when pushed to the wall.  We can argue that maybe some civil unrest and violence in the streets would be good for us, but I don't think most would agree.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 22:41 | 2974930 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    We can argue that maybe some civil unrest and violence in the streets would be good for us...

That's being demonstrated in Greece, Spain, etc.  We should get to see if their problems are fixed before Germany's.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:47 | 2973852 WhiteNight123129
WhiteNight123129's picture

As Napoleon said

L’histoire est une suite de mensonges sur lesquels on est d’accord.

"history is a set of lies agreed upon ".


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:03 | 2973911 Keegan11
Keegan11's picture

Thus spoke Zarathustra

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:18 | 2973967 archon
archon's picture

This is where the path leads when you allow the "common good" to be determined by someone who's not affected, or not affected much by the decision to re-allocate resources for the "common good".  Who gets to determine whether there is more "common good" in taking a million bucks from someone and re-distributing it to "victims", than there is in that person spending their own million dollars on creating jobs, perhaps jobs for "victims", or just spending that money on goods and services that require other people to have jobs to produce them?  What God-given wisdom does anyone have to determine that there is more "common good", or "social justice" in doing one thing as opposed to another?

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 11:35 | 2976100 spooz
spooz's picture

Except "job creators" is a myth.  Job outsourcers and labor exploiters like Walmart who pay less than a living wage and force the government to make up the difference is more like it.  Check out the effects of trickle down on the real wages of the middle class.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:33 | 2974034 Market Man
Market Man's picture

This article is right on....  ignore it at your peril...  in any event, the US is not the only country on the planet.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:47 | 2974082 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Romney going out of his way to piss off the Ron Paul supporters certainly did not help his cause, but like the author says - likely wouldn't have made much difference. It's like Obama and Romney were in a car going 100 mph approaching a cliff and one guys says hit the gas, lets go 120mph, that'll make it better and the other guy says whoa, slow down to 95mph and we'll have a soft landing.....

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:28 | 2974214 swmnguy
swmnguy's picture

Good analogy.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:38 | 2974255 dolph9
dolph9's picture

The gist of this article is correct, but we should make sure to realize the fault lines aren't really political.  There are plenty of moochers on the right, and plenty of productive workers and savers on the left.


You just have to understand the way the system works.  Your labor is used to fatten the coffers of huge subsidized corporations and banks.  These corporations and banks then collude with the government to hand out all sorts of free stuff to people to keep them from rioting.  The resulting debts are monetized, causing inflation, much of which is exported to the rest of the world.

So even that poor sap in China toiling away in the factory is feeding the ghetto dweller in the U.S.!  And everybody worldwide agrees to this system.

So the system isn't going to change unless it collapses, which it will.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 11:32 | 2976091 spooz
spooz's picture

Yes, to keep them from rioting out of desperation in a system that cannot provide basic needs like health care, food and shelter, let along a living wage. The globalists would choose to increase the number of ghetto dwelling units that can be exploited like the Chinese.  They are getting their wish as inequality grows in the US.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:50 | 2974296 Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

The dollar bubble will collapse between 2013-2015.   Who will Obama blame when it happens?  The truth is that the Fed and and 50 years of past Congresses will be at fault, but they will not be scapegoated.   

The fall of Rome lead to the dark ages.  To what will the fall of America lead?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:02 | 2974338 resurger
resurger's picture


Mon, 11/19/2012 - 03:52 | 2995293 cgagw
cgagw's picture

The section of the Tacul and Maudit are both quite steep with section of 35/40 degrees, and make this the most technicalnorth face outlet berkeley of the four routes,The Grand Mulets route is the easiest ascent technically and was the route taken by Balmat and Paccard when they became the first people to summit Mont Blanc. The section of the Tacul and Maudit are both quite steep with section of 35/40 degrees, and make this the most technical of the four routes,The Grand Mulets routenorthface outlet is the easiest ascent technically and was the route taken by Balmat and Paccard when they became the first people to summit Mont Blanc.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!