Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama: I'm a Limited Government Kind of Guy
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, President Obama thoughtfully cleared up his real views on the proper role of the government in the economy. For those of us who thought his was more of a radical, big government approach, we, evidently, were mistaken:
I think the irony...is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government.
Now that that's cleared up:
And so it's puzzling to me sometimes to hear the standard conservative critique of what we're doing, when essentially every step we're taking really involves cleaning up the mess that we found when we arrived here at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Beyond that, the last thing that I want is to be running a car company, or to be having to make decisions about what the auto market of the future is going to look like.
This is interesting. It seems as though Obama has been misleading us all with these bank bailouts, stimulus packages, and auto company takeovers. Either that or we just didn't realize he was a limited government kind of guy.
|6.17.09 @ 6:08PM|#
What people say is meaningless. (*) If you want to know and
understand them, watch what they do.
(*) Depending on your metaphysics, you may or may not conclude that
this makes most of the Internet meaningless.
|6.17.09 @ 6:08PM|#
Jesus! Could this guy be more full of shit? I simply cannot
stand lawyers in high office--parsin', spinnin', and otherwise
playing with the truth. Or, at least, that type of lawyer.
Of course, the big problem is that his core audience will accept
all of these contradictory statements as true.
|6.17.09 @ 6:13PM|#
I think the irony...is that I actually would like to see a
relatively light touch when it comes to the government.
I hate when people use the word "irony" to mean: lie told with a
straight face.
EJM|6.17.09 @ 6:17PM|#
It seems we have a new guy...er, girl.
She's apparently so new that she doesn't even
have a title yet.
|6.17.09 @ 6:18PM|#
And so it's puzzling to me sometimes to hear the standard
conservative critique of what we're doing, when essentially every
step we're taking really involves cleaning up
accelerating the mess that we found when we arrived here at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
There you go Mister President. Fixed that misstatement for you.
|6.17.09 @ 6:27PM|#
every step we're taking really involves cleaning up the mess
that we found when we arrived here at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Hmm... That seems to me that it would involve REVERSING Bush's
mistakes, instead of compounding them. Just sayin'..
-jcr
|6.17.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Geez, this guy is worse than Clinton. Instead of artful hedging we get flat-out lies. Thanks again to all the "libertarians" who voted for this jerk.
|6.17.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Beyond that, the last thing that I want is to be running a
car company, or to be having to make decisions about what the auto
market of the future is going to look like.
He doesn't *really* even want to be President. He only allowed
himself to be talked into it for the good of the little people.
He'd rather be grading papers.
Kap|6.17.09 @ 6:49PM|#
the last thing that I want is ... to be having to make decisions about what the auto market of the future is going to look like.
The sad thing is, even most real CEOs don't have the hubris to
presume that they are dictating what their market of the future
is going to look like. Anybody with even a whit of experience
working in the private sector - serving customers, not a captive
governed class - would realize that the dictating mostly flows in
the opposite direction...
|6.17.09 @ 6:59PM|#
I see nothing inconsistent here. By limited government he simply
means government that ONLY controls 90% of your life, as opposed to
100%.
You can pretty much say what you want when you leave out
relativities.
|6.17.09 @ 7:00PM|#
This guy is caught with his dick up a hooker, but his liberaltarian fans still praise him for his fidelity to his wife.
|6.17.09 @ 7:00PM|#
Obama's replacing a big chunk of money in the economy that was
essentially destroyed. Somebody has to replace all that money that
was removed in order to keep the economy from a very, very
long-term recession or even depression.
Maybe we should cast an accusing look to those that removed laws
against fraud in the name of deregulation. If you doubt me, just
think about what a credit default swap is.
Obama's no worse than anything else we've had in the White House
for some decades now. Hell, Clinton seems to be the best of the
bunch ever since Reagan.
Mad Max|6.17.09 @ 7:01PM|#
OBAMA: Libertarians have a perfect right to play a part in our
movement.
REG: Why are you always on about libertarians, Obama?
OBAMA: (pause) I want to be one.
(pregnant pause)
REG: What?
OBAMA: I want to be a libertarian. From now on I want you all to
call me Lysander Spooner.
REG: What!?
OBAMA: It's my right as a left-liberal, big-government
supporter.
JUDITH: Why do you want to be a libertarian, Obama?
OBAMA: I want to open up a corner pharmacy and operate it free of
all taxes and regulations.
REG: You want to have a pharmacy without government
involvement?!?!?!
OBAMA: It's every big-government advocate's right to run a small
business free of government interference if he wants to.
REG: But you can't operate a pharmacy without having to comply with
all sorts of laws and regulations which you, as a big-government
supporter, believe in.
OBAMA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Obama -- you can't be an totally
independent businessman unless you work to change the laws which
you support.
(OBAMA starts crying.)
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't
actually be an independent businessman, not having a right laws,
which is nobody's fault, except perhaps his own, but that he can
have the *right* to *want* to be an independent businessman.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your
right to be a businessman, comrade. Fellow freeman, sorry.
REG: (pissed) What's the *point*?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have a business
free of government regulation, when the laws he supports don't
allow him that right?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
alan|6.17.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Obama's replacing a big chunk of money in the economy that
was essentially destroyed. Somebody has to replace all that money
that was removed in order to keep the economy from a very, very
long-term recession or even depression.
Money wasn't destroyed, capital was destroyed, and it quite a bit
more complicated than the watchman wasn't watching, since he was
watching, and not only watching but stirring the shit, encouraging
the price explosion in real estate, making securitization necessary
while dangling moral hazard like a cheap hooker to the banks.
By the way, how is Obama going to replace that capital? Sell off
some Navy vessels and land for oil exploration, get rid of some
liabilaties like Medicare so it more fiduciary and fiscally sound,
maybe?
|6.17.09 @ 7:22PM|#
Obama's replacing a big chunk of money in the economy that
was essentially destroyed. Somebody has to replace all that money
that was removed in order to keep the economy from a very, very
long-term recession or even depression.
Funniest troll of the month so far.
IceTrey|6.17.09 @ 7:29PM|#
This makes perfect sense. It's the old Vietnam doctrine, "In order to save the village we have to destroy it". He wants to burn the economy to the ground so it can be built back better than ever!
Seward|6.17.09 @ 7:34PM|#
Jack,
Obama's replacing a big chunk of money in the economy that was
essentially destroyed.
Money is never "destroyed" (except in the physical sense of burning
it or some such). Now some of the value of various assets took a
hit, but they were overvalued in the first place due to the Fed's
efforts. Keeping in mind of course that the value of something is
ultimately subjective.
|6.17.09 @ 7:38PM|#
And I'm a little amused by the argument since those who make
it seem to have a pretty short memory about where we were just a
year ago under all their economic theories - or not even a year
ago; six months ago - where we had a pretty good experiment in the
approach that they thought we should take. And we - knock on wood -
had just barely averted disaster.
That's quite a blanket statement. People who are truly economically
conservative did not want what Bush was selling. It was not an
experiment in "our" economic theories, it was a prelude to your
bullshit wasteful spending. Both you and Bush can suck my
balls.
MNG|6.17.09 @ 7:41PM|#
Jesus, someone make sure that Antimatter Pro L doesn't touch our
world's Pro L!
The result would be something not even the Guardians of Oa could
fix...
Hugh Akston|6.17.09 @ 7:42PM|#
I think the irony...is that I actually would like to see a
relatively light touch when it comes to the government.
I think the key word in this phrase is "relatively
light touch." Relative to say, taking off and nuking the site from
orbit.
B|6.17.09 @ 7:50PM|#
"Of course, the big problem is that his core audience will
accept all of these contradictory statements as true."
And just like they did with his total fucking bullshit claim about
"saving 150,000 jobs", the media, with the exception of about three
people, will keep swallowing this bullshit whole and not question
him on any of it. Maybe ABC can do a special from the White House
on how Obama is really a small government kind of guy.
Thankfully, the whole "Bush did it" bullshit is starting to wear
thin in the eyes of the American public and less and less,
according to various opinion polls, are believing this ridiculous
excuse for his out-of-control statism. I think Lyndon Johnson and
Franklin Roosevelt would be on this asshole's case. 2012 can't
fucking get here soon enough.
robc|6.17.09 @ 7:50PM|#
To make up for whiffing on the antimatter post, I give you a
quote from BtVS that somehow seems appropriate, for multiple
reasons.
Buffy: Want to see my impression of Ghandi?
[Buffy smashes the demons head in]
Lily: Ghandi?
Buffy: Well, you know, if he was really pissed off.
Seward|6.17.09 @ 7:51PM|#
Hugh,
Nice "Aliens" allusion. :)
Danny,
Well, Obama isn't an economist or an economic historian.
B|6.17.09 @ 7:52PM|#
"Beyond that, the last thing that I want is to be running a car
company, or to be having to make decisions about what the auto
market of the future is going to look like."
Then stop fucking doing it then, you arrogant asshole.
Invisible Finger|6.17.09 @ 7:53PM|#
Beyond that, the last thing that I want is to be...having to
make decisions about what the auto market of the future is going to
look like.
Except for all the blathering about CAFE standards etc, alternative
fuels, etc.
The guy is a pathological liar. He doesn't even have the
dimwittedness excuse of Dubya.
Invisible Finger|6.17.09 @ 7:58PM|#
Money wasn't destroyed, capital was destroyed
Neither.
Credit was destroyed.
If you don't understand these simple concepts, you are part of the
problem.
Craig|6.17.09 @ 8:22PM|#
If by "limited" you mean "limited only by the wildest imagination of the nationalizing Obammunists who voted me in."
Craig|6.17.09 @ 8:25PM|#
Maybe we should cast an accusing look to those that removed
laws against fraud in the name of deregulation. If you doubt me,
just think about what a credit default swap is.
Maybe instead of trying to start over with better regulations that
might have prevented some of the current mess from happening, we
should just let those whose poor decisions and excessive
risk-taking would have bankrupted them to actually, you know, go
bankrupt.
I think that might prevent a recurrence a lot more effectively, and
would cost the taxpayers and their children and grandchildren a
heck of a lot less.
|6.17.09 @ 9:02PM|#
His "light touch" is business so cowed that they scour his every comment looking for His Will, which they fearfully obey before he had to act directly enough to be held accountable for the results.
JB|6.17.09 @ 9:10PM|#
Obama is such a lying piece of shit. When I take dumps, they are
more honest than this fuckbag.
Lying socialist cunt.
alan|6.17.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Money wasn't destroyed, capital was destroyed
Neither.
Credit was destroyed.
If you don't understand these simple concepts, you are part of the
problem.
No, you are missing an important distinction, it wasn't by accident
I said capital and not credit. If it was mere credit, than printing
money out of thin air solves the problem and there is nothing to be
concerned about. Ask yourself, what backs the credit, IF?
Olaf|6.17.09 @ 9:42PM|#
Wow! I knew this clown was a lying, arrogant, narcissistic Marxist - but he's completely delusional as well! That this man is the President is VERY scary!
|6.17.09 @ 9:51PM|#
I wouldn't say capital was "destroyed", exactly, it was
misallocated and ultimately wasted.
The actual money got dispersed out into the pockets of people in
the housing market, was used to build unneeded houses, and
subsequently was frittered away in the consumer economy, ending up
in China somewhere for the most part.
So the banks have no capital to loan out any more, meaning there is
not a concentrated pool of money available to lend to anyone to
invest in business expansions or start-ups.
IMO, this isn't that big a deal, because banks don't really create
the wealth, they are just vehicles for lending out existing pools
of capital. Printing money via the Fedm and feeding it to the
banks, is not a good substitute for allowing people to turn
profits, build up concentrations of wealth, and reinvest it in new
companies.
alan|6.17.09 @ 10:11PM|#
I wouldn't say capital was "destroyed", exactly, it was
misallocated and ultimately wasted.
That is a better way to put it.
When I was glancing over to this post, and noticed Jack's response,
I had just finished reading a daily summary from Blumert, and this
caught my attention:
Global trade is collapsing - with exports from all the major
exporting
nations down by double digits. Exports are even going down in the
US.
Remember how the dollar's decline was supposed to be a good
thing,
because it made US exports more competitive. But with global
trade
declining, US manufacturers - along with everyone else - are
finding it
harder to sell on the world market.
Of course, any trade surplus would count towards the Capital
Account Surplus, and since there isn't going to be one there is
that accompanying loss of capital that IF objected to.
It will be years if that before we see real capital reformation.
With the Obama agenda it seems we might find ourselves in the same
situation we had in 1968 where new tax laws strangled venture
capital and gave us the rough ride of the 1970's.
What Jack fails to understand is that a great many businesses that
have sprouted up in the last thirty years that we all take for
granted would never have got off the ground under the old rules,
and the credit markets were not allowed to be flexible. Exactly
what the Obamanistas are threatening to do.
Mike|6.17.09 @ 10:37PM|#
"And so it's puzzling to me sometimes to hear the standard
conservative critique of what we're doing, when essentially every
step we're taking really involves cleaning up the mess that we
found when we arrived here at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
Here's the point Obama, they weren't your messes to clean up! When
a company fails, the government's only job is to go through the
bankruptcy process. There was no need for all of this intervention.
Of course, he knows all this. He's just a lying, socialist
bastard.
Brett Stevens|6.17.09 @ 11:24PM|#
Either that or it's just like his crowd-pandering
campaign:
Say one thing, do the opposite, as is convenient.
The guy's a used car salesman.
|6.18.09 @ 12:33AM|#
Kaysian economics says that if you simply gave away 1 billion $
of borrowed money to a 1300 random people then you would improve
the economy.
I think I would go along with that plan then to go along with
Obama's current 13 trillion in pay outs to his friends.
Paul|6.18.09 @ 12:49AM|#
Why didn't he just say so at the beginning. Then all this criticism wouldn't have been necessary.
|6.18.09 @ 12:57AM|#
Obama? A limited government guy? How many Czars has he
created?
It's like saying that the cooling we've experienced over the last
eight years is proof of global warming.
Fuck.
Laughs|6.18.09 @ 5:40AM|#
I find it hilarious that so many libertarians heap the term "arrogant" on Obama as an insult, when Libertarianism, especially Ayn Rand's brand, is the most extraordinarily arrogant philosophy there is.
|6.18.09 @ 6:18AM|#
when Libertarianism, especially Ayn Rand's brand, is the most extraordinarily arrogant philosophy there is.
"I'm no Ayn Rander! She didn't go nearly far enough!"
sorry, couldn't resist.
Abdul|6.18.09 @ 7:11AM|#
If this is the relatively light touch, I really don't want to see what his idea of heavy intervention is.
|6.18.09 @ 7:31AM|#
If this is the relatively light touch, I really don't want to see what his idea of heavy intervention is.
Careful! You'll Godwin the whole thing!
|6.18.09 @ 7:32AM|#
Seems to me the only thing Obama is good at is giving speeches
and giving our money away!
R
www.anonymity.tk
roy|6.18.09 @ 7:40AM|#
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Now...if you expect to fool me repeatedly and brainwash me into
defending you, believing your completely meaningless promises to
change and praising you for your high ideals and selflessness while
you enrich yourself and your buddies at my expense and threatening
me with the loss of my freedom if I attempt to resist, my life if I
succeed.... well, you're delusional if you expect me to play that
game.... if I did, I would deserve everything I got.
So expect no sympathy from me for american taxpayers. You should
have revolted long ago.
MNG|6.18.09 @ 7:45AM|#
"I find it hilarious that so many libertarians heap the term
"arrogant" on Obama as an insult, when Libertarianism, especially
Ayn Rand's brand, is the most extraordinarily arrogant philosophy
there is."
I think what they mean is that he is arrogant for thinking he can
control the economy and such.
ed|6.18.09 @ 7:50AM|#
Ayn Rand's brand is the most extraordinarily arrogant
philosophy there is
I know! Don't you just hate self-reliant
individualists?
|6.18.09 @ 8:08AM|#
I know! Don't you just hate self-reliant individualists?
They're like wolves, man.
|6.18.09 @ 8:25AM|#
They're like wolves, man.
They're self-reliant wolves. You know, a lone wolf. And she's got a
kid, so she's a Lone Wolf and Cub.
Single mothers will become assassins if social services are
cut.
I hope she keeps her dÅtanuki well-oiled.
PR|6.18.09 @ 8:25AM|#
The thing about being the "I didn't do it" kid is that it has a limited shelf life.
Abdul|6.18.09 @ 8:29AM|#
Single mothers will become assassins if social services are
cut.
It could be worse. In these tough economic times, contract killing
is a growth industry.
Mike in PA|6.18.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Ok...
Auto industry
Utilities
Financial system
Health industry
Housing market
What did I miss? Where is the light touch? It's like he senses 1/2
the problem - government caused these problems. But now he
thinks more government will fix them?! These guys really don't get
it at all. It isn't one party or the other - it's the government!
And they're both to blame.
Forty-Two|6.18.09 @ 9:31AM|#
A while back, somebody posted about how O, when at the Harvard
Law Review, convinced conservatives that he was moderate by
demonstrating he understood their position on affirmative
action.
To me, this is another example of Obama being smart enough to
understand what his political opponents want to hear. It's also a
good example of Obama being dumb enough to not understand that his
actions speak louder than his rhetoric.
Gilbert Martin|6.18.09 @ 11:05AM|#
"And so it's puzzling to me sometimes to hear the standard
conservative critique of what we're doing, when essentially every
step we're taking really involves cleaning up the mess that we
found when we arrived here at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
That claim/excuse was never vaild in the first place and has
already worn so thin it's practically invisible.
proud libitard|6.18.09 @ 1:14PM|#
I think the irony...is that I actually would like to see a
relatively light touch when it comes to the government.
This is like the "Let's see who can hit the softwest" game in grade
school? I guess Bush went first...
|6.19.09 @ 4:36AM|#
Let's not forget that none other than Bill Clinton described
himself as "sort of a libertarian."
What sort?, I always wondered. Perhaps Obama's sort.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245