Sun Blogs: Borderline Inappropriate
Obama Attacks Teddy Roosevelt
Email: 
Share: 
Barack Obama’s campaign took a surprising turn yesterday as the presidential hopeful used an Iowa campaign stop to smear the reputation of former president Theodore Roosevelt. The freshmen senator from Illinois accused the Bush administration of creating a “second gilded age” by favoring the wealthy over working families.
Obama is of course referring to the late nineteenth-early twentieth century Gilded Age where rich industrialists preyed on the poor. As president, Roosevelt initiated the trust busting movement that broke up various corporations, who had seized monopolistic positions in the business market. Obama’s campaign has vowed to also take on large corporations and unfair marketplaces once elected into office.
There is, however, a large difference between the actions of Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Namely, Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly reform was rooted in capitalism—Obama’s campaign stinks of socialism.
Roosevelt broke up enormous trusts in order to encourage competition in the market. Roosevelt did not place an unequal burden on the moneyed class with the aim of discouraging wealth; rather, his legislation aimed at creating a larger moneyed class by enabling others to enter the capitalistic business market.
Obama’s plans of redistribution are the antithesis of Roosevelt’s reforms. After all, it is impossible for a government program to create wealth—it can only take money away from some and give it to another. If anyone in the business world did what Obama plans to do, it would be called embezzlement. The inevitable result of Obama’s taxation plans is a statist monopoly, in which the government, rather than a corporate trust, decides who will suffer and who will profit in society.
Such policies are destined to fail (e.g. Jimmy Carter’s entire economy, Hitlery Clinton’s Healthcare, etc.) and Obama’s will be no different. If George Bush heralded a second Gilded Age, then Obama will surely follow with a second Great Depression.
No, Obama believes in the Free Market
See this video of his economic Adviser
http://video.msn.com/v/us/money.htm?g=44448ce7-3f6f-4835-8177-45dd1cc463...
And this article on his economic advisers:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aIq1H6oFHXvg&refer=h...
Quick Question
Quick Question: Do you consider our nation's military a government monopoly? Wouldn't it be more effective to have private armies with private defense contracts, you know, in the spirit of competition and cost cutting...
...just seems like a big innefective government monopoly to me, stealing wealth and raising taxes and all-- they don't even use competitive bids, they just strike deals with their favourite companies... sounds like it's time for some trust busting...
What's Stinkin' is Your Thinkin'
You are in denial. Of course there are government programs to create wealth. The current Administration is rank with such programs, but to the benefit of the wealthy and the well-connected. For example, the tax cuts that have enriched the top brackets and shifted the burden for financing the war to the less fortunate. And the war itself, with its no-compete contracts that have benefited the Halliburtons and other GOP favorites. And what about the government financing of "faith-based" groups, who happen to be part of the party's core support, and some of which also happen to discriminate by refusing to hire people for government-funded programs who do not share the same religious beliefs.
You are rightfully scared of Obama, because he is prepared to reverse these "wealth-creating" government programs and get this country back to its founding principles. In fact, his refusal to accept PAC and lobbyists' money is fully in the spirit of Roosevelt, and with his election, we may yet see the owners of this government, the people, reverse the trend to rule by special interests.1
PS - I suggest you take some PS and Econ courses while you are lucky enough to be a t Cornell.
Twisted view of economics
That's funny - Roosevelt broke up the unfettered capitalists, and you stick a good label on him. Somebody else (Obama) seeks to do something similar, and you put a bad label on him.
You think that breaking up monopolies and trusts doesn't redistribute wealth??
Obama doesn't seek to put an "unequal burden on the moneyed class," he's clearly trying to equal the playing field. And what the heck is a "moneyed class" anyway - did you just make that up? Well, even if you did, it couldn't be clearer that what you're advocating here is class warfare, and the oppression of the middle class.
If Obama's policies fail, it won't be because they're not well-formed - it'll be because the ultra-wealthy are fighting back, trying to keep their privilege without having to work for anything.
You should actually read
You should actually read Teddy Roosevelt's statements on wealth before falsely representing his views: …is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest...The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government...The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power." Roosevelt spoke often and at length about his distaste for the influence of wealth in regards to the common man.