Jennifer Rubin Opens Yap

Does Barack Obama understand capitalism? This is a legitimate question that Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post would like answered, given that Obama is a Socialist bully who uses intemperate language and who is NEVER EVER THERE for America’s bff Israel and MIGHT take powers granted to him by Obamacare to legislate “ new and previously unimaginable infringements on individual liberty and decimating the federal structure of our government.“ His recent attacks on poor, defenseless Bain Capital can only mean one thing:  Obama does not understand Capitalism, because duh.

…[Bain's] “brand” of capitalismiscapitalism, and in its undiluted state does create hardship, but nothing in comparison to the amount of suffering inherent in other, less successful economic models. Two points should be kept in mind. First, we don’t have undiluted capitalism precisely because, while capitalism is the greatest wealth-creator the world has ever known (I think Obama even said this), we don’t as a compassionate society want undue suffering in the short term. Hence, we have unemployment insurance and an array of social safety-net programs.

Look, do you want to live in “other, less successful economic models” -- like the kind of social democracy they have in Sweden, where everyone has free health care and education and paid maternity leave? DO YOU? Do you EVEN KNOW what kind of freedom and liberty you'd lose? And the suffering, my god, the suffering. Because nothing compares to the amount of suffering you see amongst those Swedish commie socialist pinkos, not even the minimal amount of suffering you might see in undiluted capitalism, which we don’t even HAVE.

If we had that, we’d leave everything up to the whims of the invisible hand of the market. Instead, we let banks write their own legislation and decide which rules they play by , and install a sort of revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA , and worship the holy alliance of Goldman Sachs and the Fed . And if anyone accidentally gets left out of all of this wealth creation, it's probably because they are stupid losers. Lucky for them, we have the social safety net — you know, the one that Jennifer Rubin wants Paul Ryan to destroy? That one. But we really don't even NEED the safety net because the most important thing about capitalism is that it helps the poor.

Second, capitalism is unmatched in its ability to lift and keep people out of poverty. (On this topic I would heartily recommend “Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism” by Peter Wehner and Arthur Brooks, as well as Brooks’s new book, “The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise .”)

Yes, I’ll go on ahead and send those titles to the 46.2 million Americans that were living below the poverty line in 2011, and let them know that they have Jennifer Rubin's hearty recommendation. While I’m at it, I'll let  them know that they’re poor because they have no skills or work ethic, or possibly because of stifling regulation, one or the other, they can take their pick, you know, whichever feels right. Hopefully they will be sufficiently shamed into being Productive members of society. But anyway, the thing about attacking Bain is that it is an Incorrect view of wealth. There is a Correct view and an Incorrect view, and guess which one Obama has? You'll never guess!

Part of the problem with the Bain attacks, as well as the Buffett rule and Obama’s anti-Wall Street rhetoric, is a peculiar, and essentially incorrect view, of wealth. If Bain or the 1 percent are getting rich, as Obama would have us believe, then others are getting poorer or are being defrauded. So, naturally, government must step in to rearrange the slices of the pie. But we know that is not the case. Our economic opportunities are limited only by the impediments that government (taxes, stifling regulation, etc.) and individuals (lack of skills and work ethic) impose.

You know, Jennifer Rubin makes an excellent point. It IS peculiar, isn’t it? And incorrect. There is a “correct” view of wealth, which is basically that if someone has wealth, it in no way came from the increased productivity of employees or the purchasing power of consumers; no sir. It came from hard work and stick-to-itiveness. And also, that rich people shouldn't have to contribute to the public good, because that would be punishment and would discourage them from making themselves EVEN MORE MONEY. WINNERS NEVER QUIT AND QUITTERS NEVER WIN, because this is capitalism, the very best system of them all! So just sit back, and let the wealth trickle down in a golden shower of capitalism….