cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Advisor

Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

paraphrasing of course.  Anyone remember him talking about renogotiating trade deals during the campaign?

 

from http://www.benzinga.com/10/11/596368/barack-obama-we-must-embrace-globalism-and-the-emerging-one-wor...

 

Although it received very little coverage in the mainstream media, Barack Obama made some comments about globalism during his speech in Mumbai, India that were very eye-opening.  As he was discussing the new realities of world trade in 2010, Obama warned against "those who see globalization as a threat" and he spoke of the "integrated world" in which we all now live.  But is merging the entire globe into a one world economy, a one world financial system and a one world labor market really the best thing for the American people?

For the past two decades, all U.S. presidents have been heralding the benefits of merging the American economy with the rest of the globe.  George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all steadfastly supported the emerging one world economy.  These presidents have each used different terms to describe this process such as "globalism", "globalization", "an integrated world", "the global economy" and even "a New World Order", but they have all meant the same thing.  All of these presidents have sought to integrate the United States even more deeply into the developing one world economic system.

Barack Obama showed very clearly how he feels about globalism when he made the following statement during his speech in Mumbai....

"This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities."

This is something that Barack Obama has obviously thought quite a bit about. In fact, during the same speech he warned that those supporting globalization will need to "guard against" those who would seek to put up barriers to the full integration of the economies of the world....

"If the American people feel that trade is just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous US market but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the people of the US will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both parties, not just among Democrats but also Republicans. So, that we have to guard against."

But in this new "global economy", aren't jobs leaving the United States and heading to developing nations at a blinding pace?  Of course, but apparently we are just supposed to shut up and accept this new reality.  In fact, Obama says that persistently high unemployment is "a new normal" that we are all just going to have to get used to.

Virtually all of the proponents of globalism understand that the process of merging the United States into a one world economy will be at least somewhat painful for the American people.  Our wages are going to have to go down and our standards of living are going to have to fall, according to them.

During this period of "adjustment", a "struggling economy" is just going to have to be tolerated.  In fact, Obama says that the U.S. economy might not be "fixed" for quite some time.  Obama now claims that there is a limit to what the U.S. government can do to help the economy....

"Especially an economy this big, there are limited tools to encourage the kind of job growth that we need."

But couldn't Obama and the U.S. Congress pass laws that would discourage the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs?

Of course.

Couldn't they cut regulations and taxes and encourage firms to keep factories in the United States?

Of course.

But instead, Obama and the U.S. Congress have just been piling on more taxes and more regulations and have made the business environment in the U.S. so toxic that it is amazing that anyone is willing to stay in this country at this point.

Meanwhile, every single month more of our jobs, more of our factories and more of our wealth gets shipped overseas never to return.

Every day there is more depressing news about the U.S. economy.  For example, it has just been announced that Harley-Davidson has decided to open a shiny new assembly plant in India.  Meanwhile, formerly great American manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rotting hellholes.

16 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

It is curious that the one world, one government people never really act legislatively that way.  If they did they would then dump the EPA and OSHA. 

To be on an equal footing with the so-called developing nations we need to dump our regualtions and our taxes.  No more social security tax paid by employers and no more unions. 

Then and only then would we be on a competitive base with other nations. 

 

Senior Contributor

We are frenemies

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

interesting point wehav, and another possibility is that the developing nations should adopt benefits for the underprivledged such as the proposed corporate tax in India to fund a social security plan there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6687545.stm

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

So that we can also be one big cesspool??

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

Exactly. Prescisely. Very good observation and points.

 

Sams article says:

 

"But couldn't Obama and the U.S. Congress pass laws that would discourage the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs?

Of course.

Couldn't they cut regulations and taxes and encourage firms to keep factories in the United States?

Of course."

 

Which leads us to why we have not, not that we couldn't. We always could have. But we have, and have had since the end of the 2nd W...and most dramatically since 1980...a corpoartist permanent government that is deeply commited to a sterile globalization inertwined with international moneterization among developed nations that determines conditions nearly everywhere.

To that system, the prevailing Amerrican lifestyle is a luxury. Essentially tolerated. heretofore, because we consume so much and pay for it, one way or the other and often well beyond any balance of what we produce and add to the greater system. So, for the rather extensive recent past  it has continued and been paid for with immense debt...on all fronts...not just the government. An ammoral, sterile system of crony capitalism has evolvved that funnels the cream off of that vat of debt to a small, international few.

 

So, yeah, we (Obama is we now, I guess) could pass those laws. Make those moves. And a huge portion of the land would become a gulag, with a feral populus run by mob rule. Bu maybe we should anyway. The end result will likely be the same, whether orchestrated and organized or not.

 

It seems ever more likley by the week and month that we are facing facsism...and that the people are going to demand it.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

Oh, HORRORS!!!

 

Who's next...China? That'll mess up the currency charts for sure.

 

Not us though...Simpson  and Bowles are going to lead us out of the Valley of Death.

 

DISCLAIMER: That comment on the debt commission draft was for effect...there is some really intriquing stuff in that draft and we need a jumping off point from somewhere and it's at least got the potential to open up a conversation.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

P.S. wehav....I just read your post agian to see if I'd seen it right.

 

Have you been reading Kevin Phillips and David Kay Johnston?

Senior Contributor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

And where`s the guy who last week said we were "Airheads" for describing Obama as a communist?  Maybe he should be objectively reading this...for his own good.

Veteran Contributor

Re: Barry: Americans must embrace poverty

BA where does this article infer communistic ideals? Or are you referring to the title supplied by the poster?