Climate Change Causes Mental Illness! Alarmists Link mental Illness with Climate Change

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

global warming hoax

If you’d like to take a look at some very tortured logic, take a gander at the theory that links climate change with mental illness…

Via Live Science:

For months after Hurricane Sandy sent nearly six feet of water surging into her home in Long Beach, N.Y. — an oceanfront city along Long Island’ s south shore — retired art teacher Marcia Bard Isman woke up many mornings feeling anxious and nauseated. She had headaches, and inexplicable bouts of sadness. She found herself crying for no apparent reason.

“I would feel really sad, and that’s just not me,” she said. “I felt like the joy was out of my life. I still haven’t recaptured it.”

What Isman is experiencing is one of the little-recognized consequences of climate change, the mental anguish experienced by survivors in the aftermath of extreme and sometimes violent weather and other natural disasters. The emotional toll of global warming is expected to become a national — and potentially global — crisis that many mental health experts warn could prove far more serious than its physical and environmental effects.

“When you have an environmental insult, the burden of mental health disease is far greater than the physical,” said Steven Shapiro, a Baltimore psychologist who directs the program on climate change, sustainability and psychology for the nonprofit Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). “It has a much larger effect on the psyche. Survivors can have all sorts of issues: post traumatic stress disorder,depression, anxiety, relationship issues, and academic issues among kids.”

A report released in 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation’s Climate Education Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicted a steep rise in mental and social disorders resulting from climate change-related events in the coming years, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicide and widespread outbreaks of violence. Moreover, it estimated that about 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate-related events in the coming years, and that the nation’s counselors, trauma specialists and first responders currently are ill-equipped to cope.

“The physical toll has been studied, but the psychological impacts of climate change have not been addressed,” said Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist and one of the report’s authors. “We must not forget that people who are physically affected by climate change will also be suffering from the emotional fallout of what has happened to them. Others suffer emotionally from a distance, especially those who are most keenly aware of the perils we face, or as in the case of children, those who feel especially vulnerable. And the psychological damage is not only over what is happening now, but what is likely going to happen in the future.

OK then, I think that the only thing one can conclude is that the only true mental illness mentioned here is trying to blame climate change for mental illness!   Of course, a person can suffer grief, depression, or anxiety from loss and continued stress.  That is not in question.  What is in question is the fact that OMG Climate Change! is being blamed.

Let’s go over some  facts…

1.  Sandy was a weak storm that “bombed out” over the impacted areas.  If global cooling global warming climate change The Big Lie were true, why wasn’t it a category 4, or even 5 storm, that utterly destroyed everything in it’s path?  We were promised more frequent and more powerful storm.  Where are they?  Sandy was a repeat of the 1972 Agnes storm, when Global Cooling was going to be the end of mankind!

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

2.  If Climate Change is going to cause more and more psychological trauma, shouldn’t we be pleased that 2013 had very low incidents of tropical activity in the Atlantic, and record low numbers of tornadoes in the US?

3.  Al Gore promised an “ice free” Arctic by this year, why did the ice increase by over 900,000 square miles?

4.  Were they depressed due to the horrific FEMA response?

5.  Were they depressed because the unions blocked non-union workers from entering, and therefore delaying the restoration of services?

I would venture to guess that more people are suffering from depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric miladies from the following…

1.  Losing their hours due to ObamaCare.

2.  Losing their jobs due to ObamaCare.

3.  Losing their plan due to ObamaCare.

4.  Losing their doctor due to ObamaCare.

5.  Giving up on the job search due to Obamaomics.

6.  Having a hard time making ends meet due to high energy prices.

Yeah, it’s Climate Change!

Share

Tongue in cheek or something else? UPDATED!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

While sitting here at work I often search the tawdry parts of the blogosphere to see what the lewd fellows of the baser sort are up to. I’m rarely disappointed when searching for cheesy examples of the liberal mind-set.  Liberals do make some extraordinary attempts at witty, clever, yet completely un-related to topic commentary. For example, yesterday I posted The left’s war on women. In that post there are numerous statistics pointing out the dangers to women’s health that accompany abortion. One was this:

Women have a 65% higher risk of clinical depression following abortion vs. childbirth.

I stumbled across some pro-abortion, far-left extremist’s attempt at humor, referring to the above sentence. The attempt at humor in re-writing the above went something like this:

“Women who find themselves married to radical right wing extremist men probably can be shown to suffer some form of clinical depression as a result of their life mate choices.”

The guy/gal (not sure which) referred to the re-write as “tongue in cheek”. I think it’s more like ”head in ass” … but I don’t want to be rude … well, maybe I do.

These are the same people who are chomping at the bit, crying and howling (hey!) to murder an unborn child who is being protected by Texas law. The mother of said unborn child is brain-dead and on life support until the child is born. Now it’s being said by liberal news sites (referring only to the ones the criers and howlers linked to) that the child has some possible deformities. So these folks, placing themselves in the position of god, have determined this child must be killed, because the child doesn’t meet the requirement for a chance at life in the minds of these “gods”. The child is not good enough for your typical liberal. The child doesn’t deserve the same opportunity at life as everyone else according to the liberal.

Here is a piece that explains the above situation in Texas.  The Liberal justification for murdering unborn / new-born children … Better to kill them than take a chance they’ll be poor.

I have to add something here. I was just in my truck listening to the radio. It seems the decision to keep this child alive or kill it will be made in a matter of minutes. The reports of the child being “deformed” are false. There have been no … none … nada … tests done on the child beyond the one that determined there is a heart-beat. The father of the child, who is fighting to kill his own child is desperate to get it done before the first week of February which is when further tests will be done to test the viability of the child. I’ll let you know of the decision by the judge. Oh, by the way, this is taking place in Tarrant County, Texas which is where I work.

UPDATE: Okay, typical of liberals who proclaim America is a “nation of laws” the judge in the above case has ordered JPS (John-Peter Smith Hospital) to pull the plug on the woman, naturally resulting in the death of the child. The Tarrant County district attorney has until Monday to appeal. The law in Texas protects an unborn child until it’s viable outside the womb from being killed in situations like the above. The judge overruled the law. I don’t know, the murder of an innocent child is horrific yet cause for celebration for most liberals. The claim that it’s better to kill children rather than take a chance of them being born poor is a sick justification. I was listening to the radio and there were many folks calling in more than willing to adopt the child … but that’s not good enough … gotta kill it.  It’s disgusting, but at least the child won’t grow up with the knowledge that his father was relentless in trying to kill him just before he was born.

I guess that’s enough of picking on liberals for now. But know of a certainty I’m not through comforting the feeble-minded.

Original Post:  Cry and Howl

Share

The 7 Pieces of Advice by Trotsky for Obama, found in the 1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction’

Share

This image is taken from the 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?’. It focuses on the character of Leon Trotsky, who is laying out a series of policy goals for the United States. The Chicago Tribute suggested in its latest reprint of this cartoon that we take a look at this cartoon and see if it rings true in today’s political and economic climate.

Whereas others have focused on simply analyzing the larger cartoon to identify all the characters in it (for the best analysis see this post), today I am going to attempt to see if this cartoon sheds some understanding on the economic and political challenges facing today and whether it gives us as voters of a free nation any sort of guidance on how to vote in upcoming elections or which way to pressure our public officials:

  1. Motivations.

    Leon Trotsky was the founder of an ideology called Trotskyism, which is an extreme left-wing political ideology that believed that although the ‘working class’ had seized power in Russia, true socialism could not be established unless there was a global and permanent revolution led by vanguard parties of the smartest and best workers who would take control of society and achieve real change that would transform society. His vision of progress forward was defeated because even the communists saw that his economic and political theories were flawed and ignored the realities of of the world and did not lead to positive results as determined objectively. It is stunning how closely his ideas and thoughts mirror those of Obama.

    Although in specific there are differences that will arise from current US President Barack Obama’s general lack of referencing specifics and although Obama is by no means is a committed follower of Trotsky (I’ve suggested previously that Obama may in fact be a fascist), in the general Obama appears to echo the same ideas and beliefs of Trotsky. During his campaign he talked often about fundamentally transforming society by giving more power to bureaucratic elites, and one of the reasons why he was initially so popular overseas is that he translated his message of change and hope for workers and the working class to make it a call for an international and permanent struggle.

    Both Obama and Trotsky appear to be motivated by a sincere belief that their economic and political policies will indeed make the world a better place- but sadly, Obama is facing the same realities and objective results that Trotsky faced. One can only hope that he doesn’t end up some day with an ice pick in his back put there by a more committed Stalinist who works in his Politiburico.

  2. Spend Spend Spend.

    Soviet economic policy, as pushed by the most progressive and idealistic of the communists, advocated for higher and higher government spending. From a low of 8784 million rubles in 1928, Soviet government spending skyrocketed 106238 million rubles by 1937 (spending)- and the Soviet economy crashed, millions of people starved to death, the ruble fell heavily in value, and the standard of living fell. Even though the government spent more and more money, things got worse, which might be shocking to those who think that more government spending is good, but is perfectly understandable to those who see unelected and accountable bureaucrats taking money and property from those who earn it and blowing it on politically connected businesses in an inefficient manner.

    President Obama also has attempted to increase the wealth of society and make people more free by increasing government spending, and the United States has seen similar results to those experienced by FDR and the Soviet Union in the 1930’s- economic depression. And the worse is yet to come- unlike past spending programs which were structured in the immediate time frame, President Obama’s spending programs are paid for through debt, promises, and IOU’s, a ticking time bomb which is going to destroy the prosperity of future generations. It simply does not work to take property from others, either via taxes or fees or through borrowing money paid for with interest or future payments, and then have it spent by politically connected bureaucrats. It destroys wealth and property because this property and wealth is spent inefficiently and in a manner that violates the unseen supply-and-demand hand of God.

    Both the rulers of the Soviet Union and President Obama may sincerely believe that their economic policies of spending more money will indeed stimulate the economy and lead to a more prosperous people. President Obama has completely unhinged from reality on this, and his reply to mounting staggering debts and deficits is to borrow more money from foreign nations and spend that as well. Sadly, these policies have led to a long and lingering recession, matched only by the Great Depression that occurred the last time these ‘spend spend spend’ economic policies were employed.

  3. Under the Guise of Recovery.

    The main reason that the people of Russia went along with the economic plans put forth by Lenin and later Stalin were that they were desperate to recover from the effects of various calamities. World War One destroyed the Russian economy and so the people desperately empowered Lenin to implement his communist policies. The results of these early communist policies proved to be devastating economically, and so everyone looked forward to Lenin’s New Economic Policies. These more-capitalistic policies proved to be successful, but took power away from the elites and politically-connected, and so as soon as Lenin was dead, the tyrant Stalin proclaimed them failures and implemented his own economic policies, which turned into even worse failures. It was by disguising these various policies as responses to some sort of crisis that made the people willing to go along with them, willing to sacrifice seeing objective positive results, willing to sacrifice their property, liberty, and eventually their lives.

    In the United States, our nation has also gone along with the ‘under the guise of recovery’ swindle, giving up freedoms and property in a desperate attempt to recover from the Bush years, which we are all told were awful but are increasingly looking good in comparison to the lingering Obama recession. In response to various crisis’, many of them provoked by Obama’s very policies or policies which he supported during his short time in elected office, our nation is embarking on a historic redirection towards more government control over industries, more government control over our lives, and more divisive class warfare and bitter partisanship. It’s a crisis, we are told, and the only response is more cowbell, and so our nation continues to empower the very man who is pushing the very policies that are making the crisis worse.

    Same excuses used in both communist Soviet Union in the 1920’s and 1930’s and those used by President Obama and the Democratic Party today. And sadly, both groups appear to be supported or intimidated or fooled by the public that they are making poorer and less free.

  4. Bust the Government.

    A little history lesson for you- with the death of Lenin in 1924, the Russian political system was in flux. Before 1924, the Politburo and other communist institutions had run the nation, which Lenin having a great amount of power but Stalin and Trotsky also having big roles to play. Lenin’s death led to a power struggle won by Stalin, who eventually excited Trotsky. Later problems in the Soviet Union were blamed on Stalin’s political enemies, who were killed off in the Great Purges of the late 1930’s. The key to understanding what was happening this time is that the government and political structures were continually being broken by the very men who were promising to fix them- Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.

    And today, President Obama is stunning in his disregard for the historical political system that is established by the Constitution. In many instances he has violated passages of the Constitution, if not legally according to the letter of the law than in dozens of instances realistically according to the spirit of the law, from recess appointments to ignoring the War Powers Act to governing without budgets to drone attacks to appointed czars. At perhaps no point in the last century has our political system been as broken and busted as it is today, with the nation increasingly sharply divided and bitter and partisan attacks commonplace. The Democrats in the US Senate, Obama’s allies, are even going so far as to seriously contemplate removing the filibuster so that they can jam legislation past the minority because they allege that the old historic political ways of doing things in our nation need to be broken.

    Breaking government and busting society, whether you call it permanent revolution by the proletariat or the forward march of progressives, destroys property, makes people less secure in their rights, and eventually causes death. It happened in the past- and it is happening today.

  5. Blame the Capitalists for Failure.

    Trotsky blamed capitalists for both the political and economic problems facing humanity, arguing that the economic boom and bust cycle that led to the destruction of so much wealth was caused by capitalists and that the lack of political power held by workers was also their fault. He believed that private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit was at the root of the problems facing society, and that the solution to this was a genuine workers’ state where the working class controlled all the political power and the state owned and controlled the means of production. His desire was for the workers to really rule and the government to run industries for their good. But in reality what Soviet Russia ended up with was a nation ruled by a bureaucratic caste, where decisions were made by special interest groups and labor unions that controlled these various bureaucracies and made economic and political decisions to reward their supporters and not benefit the nation as a whole (or even ‘the workers’).

    The modern day Democratic Party, led by Barack Obama, has apparently subscribed to these very same ideas, and is reaping the very same results of the implementation of these ideas. Running in 2008 President Obama promised to be able to smooth out the boom and bust cycle of capitalism- especially the banking industry and investment of capital- by empowering government agencies to have stronger oversight over them. In another example, he argued that government ownership of healthcare, a major industry in the United States, would prevent healthcare costs from rising. And it was his belief that by having the government take over major automobile companies and then turn over that ownership to ‘the workers’ that both the automobile industries and the workers would benefit. And everywhere that his Trotsky-like ideas have been implemented, the results have been economic and political failure. Industries have failed to prosper- even General Motors is only profitable right now because it was bailed out by billions of dollars and given billions more in government support- and politically power has shifted farther away from the workers and increasingly towards the bureaucrats. The gulf between the rich and poor has widened, not narrowed, as as result of Obama’s Marxist policies, and this has been bad for America.

    And through all the failures of Trotsky and Obama, even as their own policies resulted in more failures, they have blamed ‘the capitalists’, ‘the rich’, ‘the bourgeoisie’, or ‘the 1%’. Deficits skyrocketed, currencies collapsed in values, the world became more unstable, civil unrest became more common, individual liberties were less protected, unemployment went up, and GDP stagnated- and yet still Trotsky and Obama blame capitalists.

  6. Junk the Constitution.

    A constitution is a body of fundamental laws that set up the principles, structures, and processes of government- and although I’ve been reading about the Soviet system of government over the last couple days, honestly I can’t really figure out how it works, especially during the 1920’s and 1930’s that are addressed in the cartoon. The principles of government appear to be ‘junked’ by the 1930’s- no longer holding to idealistic communism but instead succumbing to the reality of human nature. The structures of governing appear to be junked as well- the various political structures that Lenin may have used like the Politburo appear to have become merely tools for the people in power instead of actual structures of governing. And the process of creating laws to govern the actions of men appear to have been junked so much that in the Soviet system it really became all about decrees and directives from the ruler, whether it was Lenin or Stalin.

    And in America over the last couple of years under President Obama and his allies in Congress, we are seeing the same junking of our governmental principles, structures, and processes. The process on how the Affordable Care Act became law still confuses me- my students always ask me “just how did it get through the filibuster in the Senate” and my explanation, even though I explain it correctly, still rings hollow and untrue. In discussing how our nation is going to put in place laws to avoid the fiscal cliff or sequestration, I’m forced to spend a lot of time talking about ‘secret negotiations’ and backroom discussion between government elites, wondering the whole time where the time-honored processes involved in creating legislation through Congress and committees went. During President Obama’s run for the President, one can’t help but notice that his campaign was devoid of governing principles and that Democrats who ran for Congress also seemed to lack governing principles as well- they didn’t talk about their economic philosophies, or the politicians that they would emulate in office, or the latest political philosophies that they were students of, preferring instead discussions about power and demonetization of their opponents. And the czars and other bureaucrats who appear to be gaining more in power outside of the traditional structures of government are clearly similar to the bureaucrats and czars who ruled Soviet Russia.

    Principles, structures, and processes- look at how these are increasingly becoming junked in our nation as our nation moves away from the founding principles, the structures established in the written Constitution, and the processes of making laws and executing those laws that governed our nation for the first several hundred years. Just like the Soviets junked their Constitution as Trotsky recommended, Obama and the Democrats are junking ours today.

  7. Declare a Dictatorship.

    The last piece of advice that Trotsky wrote to Obama all those many years ago was to declare a dictatorship. This is the last step on the path to tyranny and injustice and the final attack on property and those people who create property, and is the end goal of all tyrants. Although Trotsky might have been suggesting that the dictatorship should be some sort of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ where the political and economic power was controlled by the worker class within a democratic system, the reality is that his allies and friends and supporters and fellow Marxists eventually established a classical ‘dictatura’ where a small group of undemocratic elites control the economic and political power in the nation.

    And although President Obama sees himself as some sort of transformative community activist who is going to empower the workers or middle class or whatever he calls them, the reality that we are seeing is where an smaller group of appointed individuals are increasingly gaining in economic and political power. Trotsky saw himself as a fighter for the community too, but much like his experience, the reality that the Tea Party on the right and the Occupy Wall Street on the left can both plainly see is that political and economic power is moving father away from the common man, the middle class, or the worker and increasingly being concentrated in the hands of those who have the right political connections, who are the union bosses, those who have control over the bureaucracy, and those who have families and inherited wealth. The political classes enrich themselves while the workers become poorer, all due to President Obama and the Democratic Marxist policies which are supposed to due the opposite.

    President Obama is not declaring a dictatorship in the sense that he is going to announce that he is some sort of dictator for life- rather he is going to declare that the America and the world should embrace a new arrangement of economic and political power which empowers a smaller elite to make decisions for everyone based on some sort of notion of fairness or social justice. It’s a sneaky sort of declaration of dictatorship, but is one none-the-less, and the results will be that you personally will have less power over your own property, less power over decisions regarding your own healthcare, less choice in your own actions, and less protection of your life. It’ll be a dictatorship different than the sort that Trotsky advised, softly declared by a smooth-sounding teleprompter reading tyrant.

President Obama is not an evil person or a conspiracy theory or a giant plant or someone who is secretly planning on the destruction of the United States. He is just a guy who spews rhetoric that some people believe in, and he does it so well and campaigns so effectively that he has become the President of the strongest and most influential nation in the world. From this position, he is in place to implement his economic and political theories, which are proven failures that have driven nations into depression and war in the past, but which he is ignorant of because of his overall ignorance of economic and political history combined with his stunning conceit and confidence.

The advice and truths that Trotsky is writing in this cartoon are advice and truths on how to establish a tyranny and destroy life, liberty, and property, and it appears from an objective standpoint over the last several years that President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress (and some Republicans too) are following this advice and believing these truths. They are rejecting other truths on which our nation was built- that all men are equal, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that the purpose of government is limited to protecting these rights from men who would take them away, that these rights are the right to live and live in freedom and earn and keep property, and that governments that abuse any of these rights are tyrannical and deserve to be abolished so that men may put in place better governments to protect these rights.

America is playing out some sort of Greek play, where our main character in his hubris thinks that he can achieve positive results by implementing the same policies in the past that only achieved negative results. Opposition to him and his agenda should be motivated by knowing that history, morality, and truth are on our side and not with him, and that where he is taking our nation and the world is to a place where life is less secure, liberties and freedoms are broken, and property and wealth are not protected.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt

Share

History repeats itself, and when the economy crashed in 2008 there was a great opportunity for President Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) to play the role of former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). And as time has gone on, the comparisons between these two Presidents and their actions has become more clear. Following are Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt:

1. Both candidates ran for election the first time as moderates but have governed from the start as radicals.

In 1932, FDR ran for election on a platform promising less spending, less government, and vague policies and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Hoover attacked Roosevelt as a capitalist president who would only make the Depression worse by decreasing taxes, reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting “trade [with] the world”, and cutting “Government—Federal and State and local”.

In 2008, BHO ran for election on a platform that promised a balanced budget, more efficient government, and vague rhetoric and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Both won on these moderate platforms- but after winning both instead pushed for radical policies and betrayed voters by not doing anything that they promised to do.

FDR did not lower spending- he increased it. FDR did not deliver less government and less socialism- he expanded government and pushed for more socialism by government. FDR did not govern in a way that would appeal to a broad range of voters- he capitalized on crisis and wars to maintain power for too long while governing in a radical way. Hoover proved to be exactly wrong in his attacks on FDR- although FDR ran on a particular platform, he proved to govern in the opposite manner.

BHO also did not balance the budget and cut the deficit in half like he promised, instead doing the exact opposite by pushing for budgets that produced the largest deficits in history and drastically raised the amount of debt that America was forced to borrow from China and other nations. BHO has not even tried to create more efficient, smarter, faster, and responsive government, instead working hard to massively expand the size and scope of government bureaucracy and insulate it from any accountability or oversight. And Obama has not governed in a nonpartisan way that bridges the gaps between red and blue voters, instead actively promoting divisiveness and spewing forth bitterly partisan rhetoric and now presently engaging in the most relentlessly negative campaign in the history of our nation.

2. Both candidates inherited a bad recession and responded to it by turning the recession into a long and lingering depression.

In 1932, FDR did inherit a recession- after the economy collapsed in 1929 Hoover had responded to it by doing everything wrong, expanding the size of the national government, restricting free trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and having the government meddle in markets. The response to this liberal intervention by Hoover was predictable- the economy did not bounce back as it had from earlier recessions and instead lingered and got worse.

In 2008, BHO also inherited a recession- major companies were bankrupted by union policies, bad debts and investments caught up to banks and investors, and the housing market collapsed because government policies and community activists had encouraged and supported risky and unsustainable actions. This sharp recession hit in the later part of 2008 and likely would have lingered until 2009, after which the bottom would have been hit, bad investments written off, bankrupt companies gone under, and businesses and consumers adjusting the economic recession. But both FDR and BHO took these recessions and made them into depressions.

FDR responded to the recession by killing off economic activity by raising taxes and regulations, made investors and businesses nervous by rapidly changing the rules of the game and acting in an arbitrary manner, and soaking up excess capital by pushing for more government spending that turned out to simply be giveaways to political friends and allies. The economy did not improve- the Great Depression continued, the economy sank into another depression, and it wasn’t until after FDR’s death that the economy once again recovered to where it had been before his presidency.

BHO also responded to the recession by working to kill off the recovery and choke off economic recovery. During his entire administration he has pushed for increased taxes, in particular increased taxes on small businesses, investors, and ‘the rich’, making small businesses, investors, and the rich nervous about their income and become anxious to protect it from predatory government policies promoted by Obama. BHO has soaked up excess capital and money that should have been available for lending to consumers by instead borrowing massive amounts of money, turning money that could have built new businesses and fueled new investments into slush funds given to political allies and bad investments in green energy and other outlandish schemes. Efforts to reform businesses and labor were met with hostility by the Obama administration, which seized private companies that showed signs of economic distress by dividing them in half between themselves and labor, and working to punish companies that attempted to become leaner and more efficient through labor reforms. Even attempts to build new thriving and profitable industries in energy were met with hostility by Obama, which has worked tirelessly to kill off this economic activity and prolong the recession and deepen it so that the short recession turns instead into a severe depression.

3. Both inherited an unstable world situation and have through their policy actions made the world more unstable.

In 1932, Japan invaded Manchuria, unemployment was rising in Germany, Stalin’s continued to implement disastrous centralization programs in the Soviet Union, there were political upheavals in Brazil and Mexico, and there was instability in the Middle East.

But during the course of FDR’s administration, events around the world spiralled out of control, culminating in a World War. To be fair, at this time in history the United States had far less influence on world events and it is debatable whether or not actions by the United States might have been able to stop the Jewish Genocide, the Japanese invasion of China and the related atrocities there, the outbreak of a massive World War, the horrible results of Stalin’s government policies which resulted in the murder of millions, or any of the any other many bad results around the world. But it is also fair to say that these things all occurred under FDR, mostly as he stood by and watched- or even in some cases supported them.

BHO also inherited an unstable world situation- Afghanistan still was dealing with terrorism, dictatorships in the Middle East were facing efforts to replace and reform them, and China was exploring whether or not it could begin to seriously challenge the US in a range of areas.

And yet, only a short 4 years later, the world has not responded to Obama’s policies by becoming a safer, more stable, more humane world. The entire Middle East has now been engulfed a confusing and bloody uprising that President Obama has alternately and seemingly randomly supported and acted to suppress, highlighted by radical terrorists becoming more powerful in Egypt, a deadly civil war in Libya, continued oppression and atrocities in Syria, and instability in surrounding regions. Perhaps the only area that appears to be improving in Iraq- and Obama spent most of his life being critical of our actions there. Iran has moved steadily closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, captured one of our drones, fired on our troops, and continued to support terrorists around the world. Afghanistan has gotten worse, and Obama has responded by firing generals who supposedly disrespect him in tabloid magazines. Russia and China have filled the void in world leadership that Obama represents, mocking him as the weakling that he is and laughing as they routinely outmaneuver Obama and damage US interests around the world.

These are only three examples of how President Obama has governed like President Roosevelt- there are many more out there. Here is one article that does so- Comparing the Great Depression to the Great Recession. This is not good- FDR’s leadership was characterized by the Great Depression and World War Two, and although many people think that these are positives and that FDR is to be applauded for being a leader during a massive economic depression and a horrible world war, in my opinion it is much preferable to have a President like Reagan who presided over an economic boom and increased world stability. We can only hope that President Obama does not serve any more terms of office and that we get a nice moderate after him (like how Eisenhower eventually followed FDR) to restore the good times to America.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression

Share

History teaches lessons- it allows those of us in the present to see how results in the past worked. Economic recessions are a great teaching tool for policy makers and average citizens, because they teach us how the recession may have happened and how to emerge from the recession and therefore inform us as to the policy actions that we must take and those that we as citizens must support.

The problem is though that policymakers and citizens really only have learned about one historical economic recession, The Great Depression, and the lessons that they have been learned regarding this recession are usually the wrong lessons. There are other recessions that our nation has battled through and the lessons we can learn from them may be more instructive to policy makers and average citizens, especially in light of the current Obama recession.

The version of the Great Depression that most Americans learn is that unregulated capitalism, free trade, lax regulation, and unequal distribution of wealth led to a massive collapse of our economy in 1929, then President Hoover did nothing to intervene and help, and our nation didn’t recover until FDR actively and aggressively acted with his New Deal policies of massive spending, massive debt, massive regulation, and massive changes to the American system. The problem with this version of history, and the lessons that it teaches, is that it is almost wholly false.

The Great Depression resulted from government policies- the Federal Reserve messing with rates, the regulations and taxes from the Wilson administration, etc- combined with restrictive trade policies and the collapse of a major economic power (Germany), which resulted in a recession in 1929. President Hoover then acted in a very active and ultimately destructive manner, increasing spending, regulation, and activity by the government, resulting in the recession deepening and lasting until 1932. FDR took these mistakes and expanded on them and enlarged them, and the result was that a real recovery never took place and rather the nation dropped into another recession (1937), leading us to just lump this whole time period together as the ‘Great Depression.’ Although the world war helped mask many of our economic problems, it wasn’t until the death of FDR and the ending of his policies that our nation began to recover in any real economic normal sense, and wealth began to be created again. This is a closer version of events, with entirely different sets of lessons to learn.

But don’t take my word for it- check out the following books to become more educated on the Great Depression- America’s Great DepressionGreat Myths of the Great Depression (this one is great- only $2, a dozen pages, and a great gift for any history teacher to receive), or Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.

In my next post I’ll address other economic recessions and the lessons to learn from them.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share