- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Is this the worst thing Obama has ever said?
Obama has said some pretty unsettling things in his time, but he may have just taken the biscuit.
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, 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 many 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.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, the free-market, Washington D.C. think tank. His articles are cross-posted on his blog, by agreement.
Print
Democracy is not the arbiter of morality, democracy can't say what is wrong or right. If the mayority say that killing is right, does it really make it right? No, the arbiter of morality is the individuals life, that is the only objective arbiter: something is wrong because it hurts an individual, and something is right because it benefits an individual's life (not requiring the sacrifice or harm of other's lives) The information that the costumers need are in the prices, you think the evil businesmen decide the prices? no!, the prices are decided by the people, if they value certain product more than another product, THAT will determine both product's prices. But when goverment regulates, those prices are not real, are not decided by the people, they're decided (arbitrarily) by the bureaucrats. So, politicians are good samaritans who help you and give you money bla, bla, bla. Money doesn't come from the sky, for the goverment to have money, it needs to take it from....oh, right, THE PEOPLE. Goverment is not capable of giving you something without taking away something else from you. I really don't like Reagan nor most of the republicans, but: Goverment is not the solution, goverment is the problem
The promotion of fairness is malevolent? Only in the brain of a far-right ideologue. Your article is a smear job. The rich do not have a God-given right to their wealth. Tax rates are socially decided and there is nothing very sinister about asking the rich to pay more when their wealth, and theirs alone, has exploded over the last 25 years or so -- thanks to a stacked deck that has privatized profit and socialized losses. As for Mr Contreras, you've obviously never lived in a society with little or no government: never seen a child die because of counterfeit drugs, or any of a thousand other things it is a government's job to prevent, and all of which you take for granted. Go ahead, strangle your government in a bathtub. China has clearly succeeded by doing just that. You've obviously made a study of this ... Instead of repeating talking points given to you.
"you've obviously never lived in a society with little or no government: never seen a child die because of counterfeit drugs, or any of a thousand other things it is a government's job to prevent, and all of which you take for granted. "
Strong, effective, non-corrupt law-enforcement is not to be confused with government activities that intervene unnecessarily in the lives of law-abiding citizens. The reason places with little or no government, as you call them, are so violent and dangerous, is because without strong, effective, non-corrupt law-enforcement, criminal thugs swiftly take over power and abuse it for their own good.
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
-
Hell no, American taxpayers should not bail out the IMF
-
The Obama administration is falling asleep at the wheel
By Ewan Watt
-
Religious Keynesianism and Obama's blind faith
By John Phelan
-
Quick View: How the state has made poverty worse
-
Why dysfunction is crucial to the workings of the American republic
By Ewan Watt
-
How to stop big government in America
It's hard to know where to begin when dissecting this childish drivel. The 'clown' in Washington is a chosen to represent the democratic will of the people so whatever he says is not arbitrary but the manifestation of democratic rights. Democracy is the ultimate arbiter of morality not unfettered commerce. Financial regulation exists because consumer financial products are inherently complicated and those who don't work in the sector don't understand them. This means that consumers need to rely on advice or information to understand it. If this information is inaccurate then you say that is the constitutional right of the seller? To lie to customers? To mislead them and deceive them? The same applies to, say, meat sales. The price of meat could be a hell of a lot cheaper without regulation but without regulation there is a far, far higher chance you could be poisoned. I am extremely happy the government intervene to stop me being poisoned by meat and stopping financial sharks from wiping out my savings with lies. I'm sure you would too but you can't admit it because you're an ideologue.