Young Americans received unwelcome news this week when an April 23 AP report found 53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are jobless or underemployed, and there is little hope for improvement in the near future. This news is grim for young Americans as well as an administration in reelection mode.
President Obama attempted to dull the pain young Americans are feeling when he recently told a group of college students in Florida that he “wasn’t born with a silver spoon” in his mouth, and then went on to blame the mess we’re in on capitalism. He described capitalism as a “broken down theory.”
Obama’s “broken down theory” statement is wrong on many levels, but chiefly because his statement conveniently erases a significant chunk of American history — that time when Ronald Reagan inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. It is the “worst” because Reagan and Obama inherited extremely similar recessions, but Reagan’s was coupled with double-digit inflation and a 20 percent prime interest rate. Reagan did a lot of things right, including lowering taxes, and before long, the economy boomed.
In sharp contrast, Obama has executed what many describe as “anti-Reagan” economic policies that have largely failed. His latest tax-the-rich scheme, the “Buffett Rule,” was defeated by the Democrat-controlled Senate last week. The Wall Street Journal says it would have added “$793.3 billion to the deficit over the next decade.” I reiterate: It would have increased, not decreased, the deficit.
It is as if liberals are caught up in a constant love-hate relationship with the successful, the job creators, and the “rich” — in that they despise their success, but know full well they’d be unable to spread the wealth around without their money.
At this point in time, Obama can’t help himself because he has surrounded himself with people that share the same anti-capitalism value system. One of those people, Bill Ayers, was recently caught on camera at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York saying, “I get up every morning and think today I’m going to make a difference, today I’m going to end capitalism.” At least he said it with a smile.
For the unaware, Ayers was involved with a group which bombed the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon during the Vietnam years, and openly admits he’s a “radical, leftist and small ‘c’ communist.” Ayers has wasted much of his life polluting the minds of naive college students, similar to what Obama appears to do when he stands before young audiences cherry-picking history and belittling the American Dream.
How disillusioned this group, who flocked to the voting booths en masse for Obama in 2008, must be. Most had no idea Obama’s “hope and change” would mean they’d not have the resources to pay for the federal deficit he’s piled on their backs, as well as the student loan debt they’re drowning in. They never dreamed “change” meant the end of their freedom of choice because Obamacare mandates that all must purchase health insurance, period. Most did not anticipate a lack of ample-paying jobs would force them to live in their parents’ basements post-graduation.
Young Americans deserve better and need to understand that the noise coming from the Left is just that. Statements suggesting that capitalism is “a broken down theory” are meant to dumb down their expectations to encourage them to exchange the hope of silver spoons for plastic forks. Frankly, the Democratic Party’s message of perpetual mediocrity is discouraging to young Americans who have a whole future before them and deserve the opportunity to pursue their version of the American Dream.
Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. E-mail Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.
mnjcpa posted at 10:16 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Brilliant piece Susan! I hope more people would open their eyes and see these liberals for who they are.
Cerulean posted at 10:21 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
The recession Reagan inherited was nothing compared to this recession.
President Obama inherited a recession where large corporations are hoarding lots and lots of cash – they are not creating jobs. On top of that, the fed will handout money free but Americans are not buying; we are trying to reduce our credit card debt.
Reagan thought he had the answer to inflation by doubling down on our national debt with tax breaks to the wealthy, theorizing that money “trickles down”. Money cannot trickle down (Reaganomics) when no one can buy. Jobs are at the core of our problem and Corporations with money, money, money are not giving away jobs. Period.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:17 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
How can Obama say that "capitalism is a broken down theory" when all the time he is clamping down harder and harder on the free market system with rules and regulations. If it's broken it's because of the policies the democrats have foster over the many years of their anti-business rule.
Example: The new ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) rule that requires a permanent chair lift for the ADA at public and private business pools. Even though many businesses have a portable chair lift they must now install a permanent chair lift or close their pools.
VofReason posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
So Reagan was really the bad President and nothing going on now is Obama's fault. Boy I had it wrong all along. You know, I have not been in business as long as some, but most of what I have seen were companies trying to acquire talented people to expand their business when time and money allowed. Not hoard money and try to lock people that could help the business grow out. I guess I have been confused this whole time. Heck, maybe Carter wasn't really the worst President ever, just a visionary as someone her once wrote.
Rich posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
"The recession Reagan inherited was nothing compared to this recession."
Actually. having lived through and dealt with the first and dealing with the second, the only difference is how the government handled it. Under Reagan, through private companies, think Apple, Southwest, Microsoft. Private companies, private capital and the only government help provided was some de-regulation. Under Obama, it's one governmental program after another, think 'shovel-ready', Solyndra. Aside from that, about the same.
The idea of hoarding money is a bit skewed, though not wholly untrue as government has created an uncertainty that tends to make wait and watch a responsible business philosophy. Hiring into the teeth of things like a healthcare law, massive new regulation, and over five hundred million in loans to pipe dreams creates an uncertain business climate and investment uncertain, therefore, if you can, you hold. Also a lot of assets changed hands due to foreclosure, so a lot of companies look a lot fatter than they are with assets that are not liquid.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:53 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Two points:
• It's one thing to be wrong -- I often am. It's another thing to lie -- which Ms. Brown has done in her column.
The premise of her entire column is this comment: "He described capitalism as a 'broken down theory'.”
That is a lie. I found the speech she refers to, the one earlier this week at Florida Atlantic University. He's what he really said:
"A lot of the folks who were peddling these same trickle-down theories -- including members of Congress and some people who are running for a certain office right now, who shall not be named -- (laughter and applause) -- they're doubling down on these old broken-down theories."
That's clearly not an attack on capitalism; it's an attack on a economic strategy.
In fact, earlier in the speech, the President said this: "I believe the free market is the greatest force for progress in human history."
Here's a link to the text of the speech -- http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/full-text-of-president-obamas-speech-at-fau-2294568.html?page=2
Point two -- Brown contrasts Reagan to Obama, conveniently omitting that for most of Reagan's time in office, the top marginal personal, corporate and capital gains rates were higher under Reagan than they are under Obama. If she's advocating going back to those rates, it sounds like she's agreeing with Obama.
Rich posted at 3:20 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
" Brown contrasts Reagan to Obama, conveniently omitting that for most of Reagan's time in office, the top marginal personal, corporate and capital gains rates were higher under Reagan than they are under Obama."
Again you cherry pick. How are those rates figured in relation to what? The GDP? Production levels? Interest rates? Until you establish something the percentages don't mean a lot. Percentages of what? What would you rather have? A 12% return under Reagan's rates or a 3.3% return under Obama's? (those are just prevailing mortgage rates as an example). One of the best ways to lie is to do it with numbers. In contrast to the GDP, interest rates, production levels, Reagan's rates were a lot lower.
Cerulean posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Rich,
This administration has targeted tax incentives to a specific industry, energy. Alternative energy is a growth industry with room for expansion and many added benefits; reduced dependence on oil, cleaner environment, etcetera. That is smart. Reducing the education budget is not smart. Healthcare is not an area of uncertainty; it is and will continue to grow but, hopefully, the profit margin will shrink so that the rest of us have money to spend elsewhere.
If there is uncertainty, it is created by Republicans shaking the saber rattle at Iran. The European economy is recovering so there is far less uncertainty there. Uncertainty is NOT the reason American business not hiring; it is overextended household debt.
samkat posted at 5:13 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
There is one point I will contest about Obama's statement. He might not have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth but his White grandfather got him into a prestigious school for native Hawaiians that my children could not get into when I was stationed there. Go figure.
zingerslinger posted at 5:27 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Mike Mcclellan obviously did not read the transcript comprehensively. Anyone with a high school degree or above should have the aptitude to read/listen to Obama's words during the speech to understand Obama was indeed describing capitalism. Is not Brown an opinion columnist? If so, she's entitled to her opinion. Sounds to me like someone's been sipping the kool aid again. Accusing someone of lying is defamation of character, is it not? Hopefully the editor will take note.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:04 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
zinger, did you read the entire speech? I did. First, he never said what she claimed he did. Second, I'd hope the editor does take note, because this columnist lied.
Now, if someone equates that with capitalism, then that definition is one that most economists wouldn't share. You, zinger, apparently do. You're mistaken.
At least, that's my opinion. Sue me.
As to Rich's point, well made. Which is exactly mine -- tax rates in and of themselves are not the economic wreck or savior some see them as. There are a variety of factors that affect a country's economic health, many of which no one has even a remote control over. Folks like Ms. Brown, on the other hand, see taxes as the one factor that must not be touched.
Rich posted at 7:10 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Take any political system, why does it exist? Why did farmers give a share to the knight in the castle? Especially when he did nothing and they worked sun up to sun down and could starve him to death whenever they felt the urge? A thousand farmers on subsistence and a fat knight? Why did it exist? Because a hundred Vikings might show at harvest time. The knight had to sell protection. Obama was selling that, in a way protection against the evil rich, who, like Vikings in their dragon boats, take your crop. It was easier to understand then, because real money was in the form of wine, or bread, money was just a way to exchange it. Now money itself, is more, but a value we don't understand, nor can we really deal with. Capitalism is a bit of a jungle, it needs the production of the farmers, the protection of the knight, and the Vikings. Without the Vikings, we don't need the knight, without both, we only get subsistence. It's only been since the beginning of the twentieth century we could actually produce enough for subsistence. A century and somehow, we are supposed to be good at it? We still fall for the knight with the answers, and still buy the Vikings next harvest. It's only been a century, I trust that, eventually, the farmers will get the hang of it. We really don't need them, but all we get, in November, is a vague choice between the two. Such is politics, and yes, Obama promises safety from the Vikings, who, in turn, promise us a share of the plunder. Call it socialism or capitalism, or even feudalism if you prefer. If you are a farmer, you're the only one that produces, the only one who matters. From there, you pick your poison.
onerebel posted at 8:42 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
The Liberal experiment is destroying our country. Check out ( If I wanted America to fail ) on youtube and decide for yourselves whether or not this describes the Liberal agenda !!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
Dale Whiting posted at 6:47 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Mike,
Don't be so hard on the likes of Susan Stamper Brown and Michael Reagan. They have to earn a living, too. And telling lies is the only way they have to keep their audience interested in what they have to say.
k33j88 posted at 7:00 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Thank you Miss Brown for that well thought-out piece of professional journalism. Marxists/statists will never admit to the positive effects of a lower tax, less intrusive, de-regulated capitalist environment. In their twisted mind-set, federal gov't is always benevolent, forever having the answers to all one's needs.
zingerslinger posted at 8:15 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Boys like Mike and Dale don't have the intelligence to carry on a debates without name calling. I bet they are afraid of pretty women like Brown. Anyone out there noticed how ugly liberal women are? Watch MSNBC sometime. You can't tell which end is talking to you.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:03 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Well, Zinger, I guess this qualifies as name-calling:
The only time I've addressed you is with this pair of sentences:
"Now, if someone equates that with capitalism, then that definition is one that most economists wouldn't share. You, zinger, apparently do. You're mistaken."
"mistaken" now qualifies as name-calling.
Meanwhile . . .
"Mike . . . [doesn't ] have the intelligence to carry on a debates without name calling"
"I'll bet they're afraid of pretty women."
"Anyone out there notice how ugly liberal women are?"
Apparently those comments qualify as Buckley-like commentary.
My mistake, zinger -- you are of course correct. I'll not call you "mistaken" again. That's insulting. My apologies.
StotheizzE posted at 9:42 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
What amuses me is that no one addressed Mike McClellan's point that Brown out and out lied about what Obama said in that speech. I read it, it was clear to anyone that can read on a third-grade level that what he was calling broken down was the theory of trickle-down economics.
There are plenty of points in that speech that Brown could have attacked without lying about what Obama said. But, she took the lazy approach, she didn't read the entire speech and she jumped on some random e-mail or blog post and used it as a basis of fact. Google "Obama calls capitalism a broken down theory" and see how many people have latched onto this lie.
Attack what he said, what he really said, and then we can debate the merits of it, but to base a whole column on something that didn't happen is unprofessional.
VofReason posted at 3:57 pm on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Yes, everyone knows that the economy trickles up from poor people.
zingerslinger posted at 5:50 pm on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
I've been laughing my b*lls off reading the comments from those on this thead who haven't a clue what capitalism or socialism is. Go grab your koolaid boys and turn on the tv to get your fill of brainwashing by your favorite b*tt-ugly MSNBC commentators. LOL.
Thank you Ms. Brown for an excellent column.
Rich posted at 8:38 pm on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
"What amuses me is that no one addressed Mike McClellan's point that Brown out and out lied about what Obama said in that speech. "
I gave you an extended metaphor that addressed that. If you weren't smart enough to understand it, well, no, she didn't.
Cerulean posted at 6:54 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Vof, If money is not trickling down, and it is not, then the more capital in the hands of those with purchasing power (99% of us) means that money trickles up, yes.
Susan Stamper Brown definitely lied.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:47 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
You bet she did, Cerulean.
And these died in the wool "Reaganomics by another name" supporters are either too dishonest to admit it or just too dumb to realize it. But it smells the same, doesn't it! But I suppose the question is "Are the likes of Susan Stamper Brown and Michael Reagan knowingly lying to us or doing so in ignorance?" I'm unsure of that.
fae4now posted at 10:08 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Wonderfully entertaining thread here! Thanks to all for participating.
It is clear that Ms. Stamper Brown misquoted the President. And in doing so she has clearly rattled some cages.
VofR, I'll take your bait. It was I who called President Carter visionary. Consider his National Energy Program of 1977. Had we followed his lead to reduce consumption and dependence on foreign oil 35 YEARS AGO we would have dramatically reduced the funding of terrorism that led us into 2 wars and have contributed mightily to our debt/ deficit and economic instability. Just for starters.
Keep bringing it! I'll keep responding.
fae4now posted at 10:10 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Oh, and thanks to President Reagan for overturning that policy for us and promising cheap gas for everyone.
That's working out real well for us.
Cerulean posted at 11:05 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Dale,
Susan put words in quote and said that President Obama spoke them “to a group of college students in Florida”. President Obama has been critical of the way our current economic system is not working but he did not use the words “broken down theory” in his speech. Yes, I think it was intentional and lazy, because by using “theory” singularly, she can direct attention to a singular idea - voodoo economics. Meaning there is no room for “theories”, multiple problems or multiple solutions.
Cerulean posted at 2:33 pm on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Vof, I think I rather like the idea that money evaporates-up in lieu of trickles-up.
Rich posted at 6:06 pm on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
"I think I rather like the idea that money evaporates-up in lieu of trickles-up."
Actually, in today's world, money is an abstraction, a fantasy. Most of it never existed and never will. It has no basis in reality, and, like all fantasies it goes where we wish it to. Trickles down, evaporates up as you wish. 'Voodoo' economics is as good as any other kind. In fact it lasted longer than about anything ever has, but like all bubbles, it eventually burst. We have over-produced. There is almost nothing with any value. Almost nothing to base value in. Money is just a fairy tale we believe, millions are made or lost in stock markets around the world hourly, but nothing really changed. Some ways to deal with are 'good', others 'bad.' The sad fact is that no one alive knows which are what. 'If all the economists in the world were laid end to end:' "They'd point in different directions" - Harry S Truman or "I wouldn't be a bit surprised." - Dorothy Parker
Cerulean posted at 10:24 pm on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
“If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end -- I wouldn't be a bit surprised.” Parker
Funny [wink]
davidflucier posted at 7:43 am on Mon, Apr 30, 2012.
The only thing that is getting "dumbed down" here is this column and its author. Mischaracterizations, false premises, and a large dose of sophomoric, fundamentalism are what we find throughout this column. It is not even remotely based upon any historical facts nor is it based upon any intellectual or rational conclusions.
What I find it to be is intellectually flabby and morally questionable.
And, BTW, I find the author neither motivational nor do I find any evidence of her being a "military advocate".
Cerulean posted at 6:24 am on Tue, May 1, 2012.
"If all the economists in the world were laid end to end:' "They'd point in different directions" - Harry S Truman"
This is absolutely true; economists, like all people, will argue about the best way to achieve a goal. However that does not mean that economies cannot be described and predicted. President Obama is saying that we have tried the other routes, it is time to change course.
mnjcpa posted at 3:30 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
And so Obama says we have tried other methods and they don't work? And because Obama says so - what - we're supposed to agree? Obama's the most radical left wing politician we've ever had and for someone that's never run a lemonade stand - he is hardly the voice of authority on the subject. America was built on individualism, entrepreneurship, freedoms - virtues Obama seems all to happy to destroy.
downtownresident posted at 8:47 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Were you even born when Reagan was president? No! So, aside from repeating what you have been told you are completely ignorant of all the circumstances involved.
You are also ignorant of what it takes to run a country. It takes honesty and ethics, neither of which are possessed by you or the Tea party fanatics that want a free tax ride.
Lies, distortions and fantasy won't help this country. Grow up.