Posted on 05/10/2009 3:13:05 PM PDT by lewisglad
Does President Obama want the U.S. economy to decline further? Or is he just simply naïve about what is required to make the economy grow, and about the differences between good and bad economic policy?
Ive pondered these questions several times since January 20th, not only in the column I write here for this publication, but on talk radio, and in columns published elsewhere. And in light of the Presidents behavior within the past ten days, the questions are worth reviewing again.
Back in February and March I began stating - - in writing and on talk radio - - that this President has no intention or desire to grow the U.S. economy, but rather, wishes only to grow U.S. dependency. In my remarks, I defined U.S. dependency to mean a dependency on government welfare by U.S. citizens, and, ultimately, a dependency of our entire nation on China and other nations abroad.
Thats ridiculous I would hear in response, why would any U.S. President want to weaken the country? Because in the American liberal mindset, economics is a zero-sum game I would explain. Other nations are economically weak, because America has become the worlds economic superpower. Weakening America economically - - even just a little bit - - will allow other nations to be a little bit stronger, or so goes the theory, and if Obama can achieve this, he will have made the entire world a more fair place.
It all sounds so absurd and sinister, doesnt it? Settle down I was told back in March by a friend who is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer in Boston. Its not like hes a closet socialist, Austin, hes just a bit naïve about business and finance. But hell figure it out, and well be fine.
Okay. Lets consider the possibility that President Obama is, simply, a little naïve. So was it this presumed naivety that led him to defy U.S. bankruptcy law, and insert himself in between a corporation and its secured creditors?
According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its secured creditors before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.
In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, bank X to accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you, well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.
But the private sector economy got in the way of Obamas plans to save the world, because some of Chryslers secured creditors are hedge funds, that, unlike the bailed-out banks, are NOT under Obamas control. Several of the hedge fund managers involved in the situation did what they are permitted to do under bankruptcy law, and demanded more than the meager pennies on the dollar loan repayment that President Obama was ordering them to accept.
And this is when dear leader Obama moved in to tirade mode. Lashing out at the hedge fund hold outs, he succumbed to name-calling and insults, claiming that the greedy hedge fund managers were standing in the way of saving Chrysler.
Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious - - that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds - - were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, get credit flowing in America again, while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will save the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?
President Obama has now demonstrated to the worlds investors that rules and laws dont matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.
If Obamas objectve is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a more fair world, hes well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford
Obama’s goal is to lower the standard of living in the United States. He does not think it is fair that we have more than other countries. He said so during the campaign. He said we should not be driving SUVs or keeping our ac turned up, since citizens of other countries were not able to. Of course, he wants our economy to fail. That is his goal. Are people in power finally seeing what Obama’s goals are?
The goal is to destroy the US dollar, which will cause a horrible depression. The American people will then demand that Obammie the Commie (”our President”) sign us up with the global economy overseen by the World Bank and IMF, that we give up the US dollar for whatever world currency they create (”the safety, security, prosperity, and liberty for all Conjober).
Obammie the Commie's goal (and those who are pulling his strings and orchestrating all this) is to force the American people to march themselves into the New World Order (global Socialism).
But let's be clear. The Socialists chose that term because “Communist” was tarnished.
These are communists, of the Stalin type, not the G.B.-Shaw-smile-and-sit-down-and-have-a-pint-together type (not that Shaw was, either).
I think it is a lot of both.
With the historical track record showing that what they are doing with the economy has never, ever worked I can only conclude that this is intentional. Stupid, yes, but intentional, nevertheless.
So much for the best n brightest...the question should be: Best at what? And brightest at what?
What you h ave stated is true....but Obama is desperately ignorant of Economics, whether it be Micro-Econ. or Macro-Econ.(and his knowledge of history is not so hot either).
I wonder if Obama is aware of what a vast country he governs. I wonder if he has ever driven much in this country - or if he has always just flown over parts of our land. When I drive across some of this country and see its majesty and beauty, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to destroy it. But we have a president who hates this country. I wonder if he even realizes what a tremendously beautiful country he hates.
Remember, Ubama's benefactor, George Soros recently said he's having a very profitable recession.
If memory serves, Soros's built his wealth on the strength of manipulating markets and currency to tank.
The object is power, nothing more and nothing less. If millions have to die and millions more live in poverty, slavery and misery, so much the better - from their point of view. This may not be Obama's exact point of view, but it is the worldview of those he serves.
The only way to avoid this fate is going to be resistance and revolution - swift, violent and brutal. History is my witness.
I believe Obama’s economic initiatives are both naive and, to some extent, intentionally destructive.
Part of the justification for the entire leftist approach to government is that the rich (both individuals and nations) obtained their wealth by exploiting the less prosperous. They have to believe that, or admit that some just work harder, are more capable, are more responsible, etc., and admitting that would undermine their entire nonsensical philosophy.
That's about the limits of his intellect. The guy can't think any further than slogans and soundbytes. He's just Axelrod's tool.
This is what you get when you put an EEO lawschool graduate in a position of responsibility ~ it's called IDIOCRACY.
They may come to some massive power. But, as you said, there are millions upon million who wouldn't mind fighting back.
Their victory would be short-lived. Our standard of living would be ruined for centuries, perhaps. But we'd throw them off our backs.
Obama was born, bred and instructed in Communism from day one. He cannot be anything but an avowed dedicated Communist.What he does is done with deliberate intention to bring about Communism here and world wide. Its in his DNA!
Both.
His naivety has led him into being intentionally destructive toward Capitalism.
Well, that's very easy for them to believe, that's how they got there
Hubby getting too many requests for him to help companies pull their investments out of the US. Even if Americans want to cotinue to believe he is niave, the rest of the world, Asia in particular, is pulling their investments out of this country.
“Obamas goal is to lower the standard of living in the United States.”
I agree, and the frightening thing about this, is, although I believe it’s his sentiment to damage the standard of living in the name of socialistic “change,” it’s George Soros who’s really calling the shots. Soros has long wanted to destroy this country and with a puppet in the White House, is well on his way to doing it.
Obama doesn’t care about America he cares about staying in power. He is not a deep thinker. He’s just someone high on himself
0 will do the things that buy him votes and tell the lies that buy him popularity
I think his only goal is to get reelected. The “stimulus” and other spending is designed to shore up his support base (unions, welfare recipients, etc.).
Nothing else matters as long as he gets reelected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.