The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos


NY Times Favorably Compares Obama Stimulus Spending to Nazi Stimulus Spending


By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards
April 4, 2009



It had to happen. The NY Times and the rest of the dying mainstream media have been the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and in the tank for the Fraudinator-in-Chief for so long they will say anything to prop up their guy and hope you will buy it. Every excuse in the book has been used to cover up for this pathetic, cheap Chicago pol that occupies the White House.

Fifty-sixty percent of you, according to the Zogby and Rasmussen polls, are still buying The Big Lie.

So confident still is the mainstream media that you will believe anything they say about Obama, that they can get away with ignoring all of the negative goings-on about this presidential incompetent, that they can and will print anything.

The NY Times finally went over the cliff with its Obama propaganda...they compared Hitler and his stimulus spending in the 1930's to Obama and the Dems stimulus spending over the last 3 months.

Nazi spending included infrastructure, stadium and monument construction, and, most importantly, military spending. "He made the trains run on time" was the sarcastic popular refrain that excused the death camps. Apparently, the NY Times takes that remark seriously. What the Times conveniently left out was that Hitler had supreme power, a secret police force, and had designs on all of Europe. They don't tell you it all ended rather badly in 1945.

In addition, The Times doesn't say anything about Obama's planned ten percent across the board cut in military spending either. The usual liberal sin of omission...leave out the stuff that doesn't advance the agenda.

The NY Times got it partially right though. There are certain parallels between Obama, Mussolini, Hitler and facist progressivism, none of them good. And they are just now starting to become clear:
  • The creepy cult of personality that surrounds Obama.
  • Insane over-spending.
  • Class warfare and the war on Wall Street, corporations and the "rich"...in the 1930's it was the Jews that were keeping you down.
  • The nationalization of the car, banking and healthcare industries.
  • Obama reaching into GM and firing CEO Rick Wagoner and packing the GM board with his own cronies
  • The cap and trade climate change hoax...a scheme to sieze wealth by raising energy prices...more sophisticated than the Nazis...they simply seized everyone's bank accounts, jewlery and expensive artwork.
Recall that in the 1920's and 30's progressivism was all the rage in the U.S. Woodrow Wilson was a huge proponent as was FDR. The NY Times shouted Mussolini's praises. Well, what's old is new again. The media has been in the tank for the Dems forever but this article achieves a new low.

Herewith, the ulimate coverup and big lie Obama article to date:

Stimulus Thinking, and Nuance
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/
01leonhardt.html?_r=4&ref=business



Every so often, history serves up an analogy that's uncomfortable, a little distracting and yet still very relevant.

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany - Nazi Germany - then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn't look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn't become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

No sane person enjoys mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular importance this week. In the run-up to the G-20 meeting, European leaders have resisted calls for more government spending. Last week, the European Union president, Mirek Topolanek, echoed a line from AC/DC - whom he had just heard in concert - and described the Obama administration's stimulus plan as "a road to hell."

Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that's been answered pretty clearly in the last century.

Yes, stimulus works.

When governments have taken aggressive steps to soften an economic decline, they have succeeded. The Germans did it in the 1930s. Franklin D. Roosevelt did so more haltingly, and had more halting results. Even the limp Japanese recovery plan of the 1990s makes the case. Although dithering over a bank rescue kept Japan in a slump, government spending on roads and bridges made things better than they otherwise would have been.

No matter what happens in London on Thursday, President Obama and other world leaders are sure to claim the meeting as a success. ("I do not regard the economic conference as a failure," Roosevelt said in 1933.)

But if the meeting is going to be an actual success, it will have to do more than put a happy face on trans-Atlantic disagreements. It will need to begin nudging the discussion about stimulus toward a more accurate reading of history.

The Americans and Europeans aren't really as far apart as Mr. Topolanek's AC/DC homage suggests. Europe is doing less than the United States, but the gap isn't huge. It just seems so because European stimulus tends to arrive quietly, from existing safety net programs. In this country, where the safety net is weaker, stimulus comes largely from new laws.

Yet the rhetoric from Europe - even the more subdued recent remarks, like those of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany - still creates a problem. Stimulus skepticism today will make it harder to pass more stimulus tomorrow. And more will probably be needed.

George Soros, the billionaire investor who was born in Budapest and works in New York, came to Washington last week and captured both the problem and the potential for a solution. "I think they can be brought around," he said of the Europeans. "I am actually hopeful something constructive can happen."

The objections to stimulus tend to come in two forms: Its costs are too high, and its benefits too small.

Mr. Topolanek and German officials have been pressing the first argument. They say that the additional government spending can lead to inflation and government debt. The Weimar Republic of the 1920s, where inflation helped lead to Hitler's rise, casts a long shadow.

Stimulus opponents here in the United States - mainly Congressional Republicans (though not, tellingly, Republican governors of some large states) - have been warning about debt, too. But they have also been making the second argument. When the government spends money, they say, it simply displaces spending by the private sector. Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken to citing a recent book by the journalist Amity Shlaes, "The Forgotten Man," which claims the New Deal didn't work.

Theoretically, neither of these arguments is crazy. But they don't have much evidence on their side.

The best takedown of Ms. Shlaes's thesis came from Eric Rauchway, a historian, who pointed out that her favorite statistic did not count people employed by New Deal programs to be employed. Excluding the effects of the medicine, the patient is as sick as ever!

When Roosevelt stuck to a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all - World War II - did the rest. It's true that economic models say the economy shouldn't work this way. When resources are sitting idle, businesses should find a way to use them profitably. But they often don't.

People become irrationally pessimistic during a downturn. They are driven by what Keynes called animal spirits. Only government can typically change the dynamic.

Could the government spending eventually lead to inflation and crippling debts? Absolutely. But the mistakes of the last 80 years have gone in the other direction. During the Great Depression, Japan's lost decade, the Asian financial crisis and even the last 18 months, governments didn't act aggressively enough. Deflation and lack of growth ended up being the real risks.

These are precisely the risks facing the world economy now. In Spain, prices are already falling. Layoffs are still mounting around the world. Financial firms have more losses to acknowledge.

Given the diminished standing of the United States, Mr. Obama won't be able to get the Europeans to fall in line behind him this week. But he can still make progress. He and the American delegation can, in gentle terms, ask the Europeans to live up to their own standard - and remind them of their self-interest.

Two weeks ago, responding to criticism, an executive of the European Central Bank wrote a letter to an Italian newspaper claiming, "fiscal stimulus in European countries is wholly comparable to that seen in the United States." That simply isn't true, as the chart at right makes clear. The difference amounts to about $200 billion over three years.

Because the global economy is in many ways integrated, Europe can benefit from American stimulus without pulling its own weight. But because the global economy isn't completely integrated, European stimulus would still help Europe more than anywhere else. And that presents the American delegation with perhaps its most persuasive case.

Right now, Eastern Europe appears to be one of the world's most vulnerable places. It is a relatively poor region, where the population is disaffected and where the economy is shrinking rapidly. In both Estonia and Latvia, the gross domestic product fell 10 percent last year.

At the G-20, the leaders of the richer European countries will be asking the world to help Eastern Europe. By all means, the world should help. But Europe should reconsider its part, too.
Reading List