If you want to know why the White House wishes to discredit Fox News, look no further than this post. Today, I'm going to post something I first heard from Glenn Beck (cue the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth). This is from a 2008 speech by Ron Bloom, President Obama's Manufacturing Czar:
Here's are Ron Bloom's relevant words from that video again:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."
Here we have Obama's Manufacturing Czar saying the free market is nonsense. This is the guy who's in charge of creating jobs in the manufacturing sector (yikes. Maybe the Associated Press is right when they say higher unemployment is "the new normal" for America). Bloom has a heavy union background, which is fine, but I'm left to wonder where Bloom thinks those union manufactured products are going to be sold, if not on that nonsensical free market. What is Bloom's alternative ? Is his alternative some type of government-controlled market ? When Bloom says in his next breath that he agrees with Mao that political power comes from the end of a gun, it does sound like government control is what he's talking about. If so, that's pretty frightening stuff, and about as unamerican as you can get.
I actually don't want to believe this. I hope there's some other explanation for Ron Bloom's words, and there could be. I hope this video is taken out of context, and he meant something else altogether, but I couldn't find anything on the internet to counter or provide more context to his statements. I really hope we don't have people in positions of authority in this country who believe such things.
Several conservatives are now running around saying, 'oh, look. Here's another Obama official endorsing Chairman Mao.' I have to take some issue with that, based upon my current knowledge. This isn't the same thing as Van Jones, Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, being an avowed communist. This isn't the same thing as Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, saying Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers. This is just Ron Bloom agreeing with one thing Mao said, and I actually agree with Bloom and Mao about that one thing. Political power often DOES come from the end of a gun. That's why our founding fathers designed a Constitution to limit government power. That's why I believe in that Constitution, and believe in limiting government power as much as humanly possible. The more power we cede to the government, the more powerful that government gun becomes. That's also why the free market is NOT nonsense, as Bloom would have us believe. The free market is essential to a free country. There is no acceptable alternative. As our founding documents state, our rights do not come from men, they come from a higher power. Our government exists to secure those rights, not to trample all over them.
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe the developing government/corporate/union complex will sell manufactured items to Americans at the barrel of a gun. I've never felt I needed a pile of union-made chrome-plated hydraulic cylinders, but what the hay? Maybe the kids can play on them or something.
In their eyes the free market has become nonsense because they need their lemmings to believe that. They need their constitiuents to believe that Wall Street is evil, as are the business owners. They need to convince their people that managers above them, that recieve large salaries are evil because they are taking their share when in reality these mangers are the one that give them their daily bread and that actually they deserve nothing and if they don't like what their managers are offering they can go elsewhere to work. What they need to tell their people is the truth. That the free market does work, the govt and the unions have ruined the average joe's future by stealing these companies profits. That govt did this by by taxing and feeing them to the point to where they decided to pack up and go elsewhere to create and sell their goods. Why did the companies do this? Because they can and they will. Profits took them there. The greed of the govt and unions pushed them there And actually the govt held the door open for them. And continues to hold the door because even though these companies left the US they are still getting their tax money. Again the middle class are their victims.
What they tell their constituents reminds me of a man that cheated on his wife, who was a great mother and spouse, who took care of his every need and whim cooked for him, took care of the kids for him, shopped for him made love to him even when she was too tired and just satified his every life's need and was a great life family manager and companion giving him as much money and benefits as she could afford and when he got caught he turned the table and told everyone she was a no good whore. To his friends he came out the victim, smelling like a rose and she was looked down upon and never spoken to again. In this story the govt and unions were the abusive husband and the wife was the one that supplied the needs. She left and now all he has are memories and still lies to his friends and for some reason is perplexed why she left him and is trying to create a life out of nothing. He still talks bad about her and takes no responsibility for his actions. She on the other hand has found a new spouse that loves and embraces her and what she has to offer. We'll call him China or maybe India or Malaysia or even Africa.
Capitalism and the free market does work that's why China is changing to it. The planks are stacking up. I wish the dem/lib constituents would just sit up and take a little notice before we are ruined.
joe,
When they convince enough Americans that profit is evil, as they've been attempting to do for decades now, and as they get enough Americans dependent on the government for their daily bread, as they have been attempting to do for decades now, and as they get every American industry under the thumb of the government, as they have been attempting to do for decades now, then THEY will reach their goal. I only wonder how any American citizen can fail to see how nefarious that goal is.
larry,
Once that day comes, you can always sell those chrome-plated cylinders on the black market.
They are doing what they do best, making the weak their victims.
Just a side note…Building permits were expected to be down 1.3%. Actual: down 13.7% That was a huge blow to the construction investors and the dollar spiraled to new lows. For those that haven't taken the time to learn about the markets….that's a bad thing.
Remember what Reagan said, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." Is there a better description of this government ? I don't think so. This government thinks all things come from government, and that's about as scary as it gets.
We DO know that the current U.S. free market is nonsense. Huge monied interests bribe political figures to pass laws giving those interests an edge in the "free market." It's been that way for decades. That's what Bloom was talking about…and he was right.
As far as the Mao frenzy goes….not you King, you're not doing that, but others are…..I fail to see the crime in knowing about world philosophers. Pat Buchanan makes a living quoting the likes of great philosophers like, you know, Hitler. Buchanan admires the early Hitler and is very open about saying it.
*sigh* If my husband cheats on me, does that make it okay if I cheat on him? NO! If Pat Buchanan admires a despot, does that make it okay if Anita Dunn admires a different sort of despot? Again, the answer is NO! So, take that weak argument elsewhere, will ya?
We need leaders, whether conservative or liberal, to respect the limits of our constitution. Our constitution is an amazing plan for government that too few government leaders have any knowledge of these days.
Mao was a man with no redemning persoanl qualities. He was responsible for the deaths fo millions of people. His gaol was to remake the traits that define humanity through the all powerful use of revolutionary spirit. The new man was not to be limted by human folibles but reduced to a source of production to make the stae more powerful to allow Mao to evntually rule the world. Mao lived the live of an Emperor and the ruling elite indulged in the traditional excesses of the old warlords.
This is not the Mao that these people refer to. It is the left's romanticized version of Mao and the revolution. A world in which economic and social justice is achieved through the direction of the state and in the process a new man emerges–one that has shed indivudal concerns for that of the collective. In order to acheive this goal a new elite must emerge to direct the revolution and these people have annonited themselves as the new elite.
Sorry for the mistakes but it is hard to concentrate while watching my Phillies
Citing beck is like citing the National Enquirer, or more accurately, a blubbering moron.
@NF:
Except Beck usually has EVIDENCE to back up his allegations. If you doubt, ask Van Jones.
Tory..
" If Pat Buchanan admires a despot, does that make it okay if Anita Dunn admires a different sort of despot? "
Frankly, I don't care who they admire. My point was that words of recommendation about people most of us would consider evil tyrants or dictators, are commonly spoken by political and teevee talkers.
And…after your endless support of Constitution-violaters Bush and Cheney, it's interesting to see your renewed appreciation for the Constitution.
Mr. Wright, you're a funny one. Actually, you didn't make much of a point if that were your intent. You never made any indication that was the point you were going for, only citing a singular example of a Republican who quotes Hitler. I figured your point was that it's okay if Anita Dunn or Van Jones thinks genocidal leader were groovy, because there's a Republican who thinks that a genocidal leader is groovy, too.
Your last paragraph also makes no sense. Endless support? Constitution violators? Has either been convicted in any arena other than the media of violating the Constitution? I don't think that they have. As I recall, Kucinich had no supporters in his lame attempst to impeach Bush and Cheney and his resolutions were sent to die in a committee, rather than be debated on the floor. The Democrats in the House didn't want to have to debate Kucinich's silliness, because then they would have had to come up with evidence. In any case, I don't believe that saying or thinking that Bush acted as he did because he was earnestly trying to protect our country is endless support. For that matter, I think that Obama thinks what he's doing will help our country. And I sure don't endlessly support Obama, lol.
New Franklin,
I see we have another Beck hater with us. Where do you get your info about him? I am sure you never watch him but do wonder if it is Daily Kos, or HuffPo you get your info from. Other libs with all the same views?
Oh yeah, I watch Beck daily and if I can't watch I just tape him. Could you come up with some of the lies he told yesterday? Since you don't watch him you can catch the whole show, sans commercials at http://www.glennbeck.com Watch the first 15 minutes and let me know all the lies you caught.
Once again , my friend, you are mistaken.
Nancy Pelosi knew she didn't have the votes to impeach. There was more than enough evidence.
Evidence, by the way, that you still deny.
I support Obama when he does the right thing, and criticize him when he does the wrong thing. Something Bush-supporters rarely, if ever, did.
Lol, Rev. Apparently, you weren't really paying attention. Something people with liberal blinders on seldom are capable of doing. Lumping me in with these ambiguous "Bush-supporters" is still offering me no evidence. I don't think I've ever seen you with any solid evidence, just rumor and innuendo. And if Pelosi thought she had the evidence to impeach him, why would she care about the number of votes she had? If the evidence were brought to the floor and it was strong enough, would not the American people cry out for impeachment?
She simply had nothing, but that never stopped any Democrat from running his or her mouth. You know what I mean.
Man, are you reading WAY too much into this.
Holy Obtuse Batman!!
"Free markets" don't exist. They haven't existed for many years. Unless of course you're a Greenspanner who believes in pixie dust.
Watch and learn.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
"Free markets"…..
LOLOL
Chris I missed that piece the other night, I'm glad you brought it up. There is a lot more that contributed to the collapse of the economy but the derivitives market is important.
Funny how the names Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan keep popping up with these crazy investment schemes. Funny how Al Gore is in business with David Blood former CEO of Goldman-Sachs and the developer of some of these crazy schemes. Still believe in Global Warming? Suckers. This is Blood and Gores biggest scam. Goldman needs investigated however not only are they too big to fail, they are also to big to be investigated. Especially by a Democrat led administration. Especially since Obama has brought back many of Clinton's characters from the roaring 90's. It seems that maybe the 90's may go down as one of the most govt corrupt decades in our history.
Chris,
Good link. Free markets don't mean unregulated markets, and the government does exist to oversee markets to keep them in check (not take them over). What happened in the housing meltdown and subsequent recession, however, was not the government overseeing the market to insure it's smooth operation, it was the government manipulating the market for political reasons. The bundling and securitizing of risky mortgage loans was setup by the government to alleviate risk (ha ha) to the banks. The derivative dangers on top of that were ignored because the housing market and Wall Street were booming.
And those same manipulators are still in control today.
This is not true…
" ….. the government manipulating the market for political reasons. The bundling and securitizing of risky mortgage loans was setup by the government to alleviate risk (ha ha) to the banks. The derivative dangers on top of that were ignored because the housing market and Wall Street were booming."
King keeps stating this lie over and over…..it's still not true.
King believes that, primarily, Democrats wanted minorities to vote for them and so they hogtied and compelled banks to quit verifying income when blacks or Hispanics wanted to buy a house. King thinks, incorrectly, that the government forced banks to trick minorities and poor folks into paying 15% mortgages. King continues to claim that the government forced banks to inflate home appraisals so they could lend more. None of that is true.
King must also think that the government forced banksters to come up with new gambling games, like credit default swaps, …….ditto the ratings industry, King must believe that the feds compelled the ratings industry to give anything that moved AAA status.
King can believe all this…..but, naturally, none of it is true.
Rev,
I have offered ample proof that my above statement is true. You have offered NO evidence that it is not. In addition, my contentions are NOT partisan, as you would have people believe. Both parties were in on it. If you want me to take you seriously, you have to make a serious point.
from the story….."We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch."
Sounds like he's talking about Enron and the California energy market.
is the free market nonsense when it comes to military spending and contractors are gaming the system?
from Counterpunch…….
"There are 28 Reapers, or Predator Bs, in existence, and each one costs approximately $10 million to build. They are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems— a San Diego based company that supplies both the U.S. Air Force, and Navy with its equipment. The company's Web site states that it "provides unmanned aerial vehicles and radar solutions for military and commercial applications worldwide." Our interest is in the aerial solutions it provides for our military and with our tax dollars.
Notably, GAAS parent company, General Atomics, was reportedly the single biggest corporate underwriter of congressional trips between 2000 and 2005. General Atomics spent more than $500,000 on close to 90 trips taken by members of Congress, at taxpayer expense, most of which were supposedly focused on the unmanned Predator spy planes used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, in 2002, a top aide to a Republican California congressman, Jerry Lewis, was allegedly paid by General Atomics to vacation with her husband in Italy. Shortly after returning from her trip, Letitia White resigned her position, and went on to become a lobbyist for—you guessed it, General Atomics.
It does get dicey. While she was still working for Rep. Lewis, who represents a district conveniently close to GAAS headquarters in San Diego, the congressman just happened to be at the helm of the House Defense Appropriations Committee.
Oh, and right around the time of the first MQ-9 flight, in 2001, General Atomics was sued for overcharging the U.S. government, and taxpayers, for projects the company completed between 1992 and 2001.
Rep. Lewis currently serves as the ranking Republican member on the House Appropriations Committee which is responsible for funding all federal programs, a fact Mr. Cheney, no doubt, finds heartening given that Lewis was among those who signed off on unmanned aircraft vehicles in much the same way that Cheney effectively converted the executive branch into a vehicle that can be run by remote control"
http://www.counterpunch.org/stahl10232009.html
walt,
….."We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch."
Sounds like the federal government to me. Health care reform specifically meets the criteria.
I thought the whole point was to cut and paste the latest Counterpunch article, in any case.
King sez……"Sounds like the federal government to me."
Me, I see it as republican California congressman Jerry Lewis gaming the system along with General Atomics. I see it as individuals rather than the federal government. I just wonder how much those drones would have cost the American taxpayer if free marketeer republican California congressman Jerry Lewis and free market proponent General Atomics had actually let the free market work? More? Less?
The point is that no matter whether it was republican California congressman Jerry Lewis or General Atomics, or both that were gaming the system, in this case the free market IS nonsense.
this from Paul Craig Roberts at Counterpoint………..
"Are You Ready for the Next Crisis?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Evidence that the US is a failed state is piling up faster than I can record it.
One conclusive hallmark of a failed state is that the crooks are inside the government, using government to protect and to advance their private interests.
Another conclusive hallmark is rising income inequality as the insiders manipulate economic policy for their enrichment at the expense of everyone else."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10262009.html
the free market is indeed nonsense
I knew the whole point was to cut and paste or in this case link the latest from counterpunch.
So, larry…all objections to America's "free market" not really being a free market are really what? grossly exaggerated, non existent…what?
Because walter pastes Counterpunch pieces here….does that prove that the free market is, like, really a free market?
I never made such an argument, Reverend. The problem is Obama's commie shadow government is working to make it less free, not more. I'm sure you're fine with that, but what does walt's reliance on a single source because he can't come up with an argument of his own have to do with anything?
Personally, I think he should claim his friends or French relatives have the inside scoop, or something.
larry….maybe I should make stuff up like you do…….you know, like saying I wrote something filthy about Mexicans.
republicans Bush, Cheney and ped0phile protector Boehner gave it away to military contractors and oil companies. democrat Obama is giving it away to banks, Wall Street and insurance companies. What commie shadow government are you talking about?
walter, I was sure that if Obama won the election he would make that promise to shut out those insiders and lobbyists as he promised to do and so far it is at least as bad if not worse than before. What does counterpunch say about that?
Walter,
If you agree that the free market is nonsense, what's your alternative ?
Get back to me as soon as Counterpunch supplies you with an answer.
You have the nerve to call someone a pedophile protector after what you wrote about the Obama girls last Saturday, walt?
Unbelievable!!
King….you and your fellow republican rodeo clown Glenn Beck critisized Bloom for saying the free market was nonsense. All I'm saying is that in some cases Bloom is correct. The manipulation of the energy market in California by Enron was an example. The cozy relationship between congresspeople and military contractors was another. $147/ bbl oil. CDS and derivitives. According to you and Beck,just because it's not illegal, you should do it. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife…..so just do it?
larry…….you give a whole new meaning to the term shitbag
walt,
Bloom's statement that "the free market is nonsense" was unqualified, making it an absolute statement. That's what I was objecting to, because the free market is NOT nonsense. It is essential to a free country. You providing a few examples of how the market can be manipulated by Enron or manipulated by the government does not nullify anything I said.
And this statement by you, " According to you and Beck,just because it's not illegal, you should do it," is just one more in a long line of your outright lies. I said no such thing.
I didn't think you'd have a coherent response to my question. You didn't disappoint. After filtering through your spin, in essence you seem to agree with me – there is no alternative to the free market. You could have just said so, and left out all the nonsense.
King, how about this…… just because it's not illegal, you should do it. Yes or No?
if the answer is no, then you like Bloom, think the free market is nonsense
King sez…."Walter, If you agree that the free market is nonsense, what's your alternative ?
a free market where there is enough regulations to prevent scammers like Kenny "Dead Boy" Lay and Jeff Schilling from taking advantage of Americans.
of course, then it wouldn't be a free market
what we have is a half assed regulated free market where the gamers and scammers have made lots of money at the expense of American people. What King and his fellow republican rodeo clown Glenn Beck seemingly want is a true free market giving even bigger opportunities for the scammers and schemers to take advantage of the American people. Is a totally un-regulated free market nonsense? No…..it is insane .
but then, what else would you expect from Beck and his fellow republican traveler King
how does it feel to pee into the wind, walt ? getting wet yet ?
I said this about 20 comments ago to Chris. "Free markets don't mean unregulated markets, and the government does exist to oversee markets to keep them in check (not take them over)."
You're arguing about nothing. Is it really that important to you to prove me wrong about something/anything that you'll simply make things up ? It seems so. That's your problem, not mine.
King sez….."Free markets don't mean unregulated markets, and the government does exist to oversee markets to keep them in check (not take them over)."
King's new definition of the day……free market does not mean free market
what do you think the "free" in free market means? Duh
Poor walter. Read the Constitution.
Clearly we hold differing definitions for free market…..you think a free market is freely regulated by the government where I believe that free market is free from government regulation.
just saying