Posted by
ConservaTease on Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:39:35 PM
Why is it that a free people are willing to elect a President who constantly and consistently blames American success, for America's failure?
How can the American people be subjected to three years and ten more months of press conference after press conference of sixties-style radical delusions about our economy, our world and our purpose on Earth?
If you did not watch the Obama press conference, apart from being lucky that you didn't waste a boring hour of incoherent droning, you missed a perfect encapsulation of President Obama's shredded philosophy about your role in the economic recovery.
First, Obama spent most of his time blaming other people for the problems he has been busy creating in the last few months. He blamed President Bush many times, he blamed Republicans in Congress and he complained that they don't have a budget alternative to his. Most chilling, however, was the fact that he blamed AIG as a group of individuals who "brought us to our knees".
It wasn't Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who burst the bubble. And it wasn't Congress who pushed the home mortgage industry to it's limits. It wasn't Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, who lined their pockets with political contributions from these companies. And it wasn't the trillions in spending, and thus over-whelming deficits, that the federal government just had to have...immediately. And it certainly wasn't Obama himself, who was too busy laughing at our economic problems while single-handedly crushing our free market economy as we know it.
It could not have been those things that brought us to our knees, because those entities and people are government-based. And government-based entities, according to Obama's incoherent ideology, are the ONLY answer to EVERY problem. Period. And according to Obama the private sector is always the cause of "bubble and bust" economic cycles.
Well, in a way he's right, I guess. Since Obama seems completely unedg-u-mi-cated about simple economics, let me explain. In capitalism, there are economic cycles. We have growth, and contraction, and always in a free market economy, on the other side, we have more growth at potentially jaw-dropping rates.
In socialism, however, we only EVER have contraction. Contraction of wealth. Contraction of success. Contraction of ideas. Contraction of skilled men and women. Contraction of individual liberty. Contractions of hard work and innovation.
Most of the wealth, success, ideas, skilled workers and individual liberty dissipate. Some of it emigrates to freer countries. And some of it lands in the laps of the cold, calculating government bureaucrats. But none of it makes it into your lap. Not wealth. Not success. Not education, or skills. And most certainly not liberty and freedom.
Obama is trying to use a necessary, healthy and intrinsic characteristic of capitalism, the presence of economic cycles, to argue against the free market system. Central control, which sees no cycles because there is no growth in a socialist/communist economy, is Obama's answer.
Afterall, wouldn't it be easier to just accept a static existence of socialist poverty, than to experience the peaks and valleys of free-market success and, yes, sometimes contraction? To answer this question, take a look at what you put on your dinner table every evening...even in this, the worst economy since the dawn of man. And consider what North Koreans are eating for dinner tonight. I'd say contracting your dinner menu to Hamburger Helper a few nights a week is better than serving your children cardboard and grass, which is what North Korean parents are forced to feed their children on a regular basis.
The problem with static existence under socialism and communism is that your economic graphs look like the worst possible readout from a heart monitoring station. It flat-lines at the level of poverty, and the economy is never resuscitated.