Ah, music to my ears (pdf file). Let's talk about a presidential candidate who fails to understand "the fundamental problem of increased production":
by encouraging great numbers of Americans to believe that it is possible to grow richer by working less and producing less; by fostering the idea that there exists somewhere a great fund of wealth which has only to be divided more equitably in order to make everybody prosperous; by permitting important members of the Administration to preach the doctrines of class jealousy and class hatred."
That's not a conservative diehard railing against the candidacy of Barack Obama. That was The New York Times in 1940, explaining in an editorial why it was supporting Wendell Willkie instead of endorsing FDR for a third term. But times change, and the Times now supports Barack "spread the wealth" Obama. How could a paper have such smart people then and such dumb ones now?
(via Best of the Web)
