Wednesday, August 18, 2010

THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT

I have wracked my brain trying to figure out why Barack Obama would effectively bankrupt America. Does he really want to have a legacy of unaffordable socialistic care? It doesn’t wash. In effect, he will be remembered for passing debt far into the future, burdening our children and grandchildren with heretofore unimaginable servitude to debtors.

It is perpetually repeated that Obama is exceptionally smart. I would say that he is incomprehensibly devious. I believe that he is a radical Islamic plant; assisted by billionaire George Soros to put the United States of American in such a disastrously devastating financial position that we can no long afford to fight radical Islam except on American shores.

That is the point of his policies. He has used expensive domestic programs to spend us into economic collapse and a foreign policy that broadcasts apologies and bows to all our enemies and rejection of our historical allies as signs of capitulation to radicals. In effect, his is putting us in a position that we can no longer defend ourselves globally, leaving his radical friends free to attack undeterred.

That is what Obama is America’s conquer from within. He is, as Rush Limbaugh said, America’s first elected Anti-America president. He is the Manchurian President.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

George Soros did this to England and like us is making billions off of it.
The scary thing is the left doesn't even care that he is doing it and they know what he is doing.
They are all pathetic back stabbers.
I can't believe how complacent voters were in 2008. I do believe they are regretting it now.
Let's hope in the future we never forget this time in history if it isn't too late.
Here's a video related to your post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh42v6790N4&feature=player_embedded#!


tos

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

"and like us is making billions off it."

Glad to know we're making billions, tos.

I actually agree somewhat. I don't like Obama's spending level. It's too luke warm to artificially pop up the economy. If he truly wants to create a "stimulus" that will make up for the lack in consumer spending, then the government hasn't spent enough. If the liberals are not really to jump fully in, then the luke warm response is probably worse than if nothing happened. If Obama and Bush had done nothing (and with this hypothetical it would also be better if Bush hadn't signed TARP or gone around the Congress to issue the first auto bailout) then certain parts of our economy would have failed. While that obviously is a bad thing for most of our lives, a complete collapse (and this is all on the proposition that with no action by either administration, that would be what happened), would indelibly alter the free market so that those market forces would create by magic economic inertia new ideas and incentives. Granted, the Recession probably would have/would be worse, but its arguable that the new economy would be more realistic for the globalized and internet economy we are currently in.

Regardless of the alternatives: 1) Greater government intervention and stimulus that continues to artificially prop up an economic model that is increasingly outdated; or 2) No measurable government intervention and the the banking and fiat reserve system collapse because we finally realize that the amount of actual currency is far less than the amount digitally represented, forcing a prolonged economic downturn followed by a new emerging economy of some sorts that I don't have the mind to pretend to imagine;; I think Obama's luke warm approach is a failure by ultimate standards. If we decide to persist in our current economic box, then I suppose he's successful in keeping that moving for a while, but he isn't radical enough to either let market forces take complete control or to dominate those market forces.

NewGnome said...

Lonely, I’ve taken great pains to directly address as many issues as I can specifically. But it makes for a long comment. I even included your comments so you could tell which issue I was addressing. It would be better to address them one at a time. It is an always be about “whose money is it anyway?”!

I actually agree somewhat. I don't like Obama's spending level. It's too luke warm to artificially pop up the economy. If he truly wants to create a "stimulus" that will make up for the lack in consumer spending, then the government hasn't spent enough. If the liberals are not really to jump fully in, then the luke warm response is probably worse than if nothing happened.

He didn’t spend enough? Where did Obama get the money from his secret stash as one of his supporters said? Your generation and the next will be paying for Obama’s debt travesty. You’ve been reading way to much Krugman. He is certifiable. All Obama did was to steal money from our right pocket, spend a lot of it and return some to our left pockets. In just 18 months Obama has increased the deficit to four time what it was when Bush left office. In 10 years, the deficit will equal the entire GDP of the United States each year if we continue Obama’s policies.
I read the NYT editorial today. It is staggering for its lack of grasp on reality. Its conclusions are very similar to yours. They and you forget that you can’t dictate what real Americans know: That over spending has to be repaid sometime. Even if they don’t know all the intricacies of the national economy, it comes down to knowing that when you overspend with no prospect of paying it back, the economy goes into depression which is where Obama’s policies are taking us. The Times of course, is still blaming Bush, which is getting hilarious.


If Obama and Bush had done nothing (and with this hypothetical it would also be better if Bush hadn't signed TARP or gone around the Congress to issue the first auto bailout) then certain parts of our economy would have failed.

In fact parts of our economy fail every year in good times and bad. It forces efficiency, eliminates outdated industries and corrects defective contracts (as is the cast in the auto industry.) Bush’s auto bail out was just another Union payoff just like Obama’s, except that Obama just nationalized GM and Chrysler rather than just giving them money. It’s too delicious to listen to the Union people sitting on the GM board saying that they have to cut labor costs.

Ford didn’t’ take any government money, and it is the strongest of the three. It would have been better for GM and Chrysler to go into bankruptcy than get bailed out so they couldn’t restructured their union contracts and maximizes efficiency which they have no incentive to do with bailouts.


PS. I have to do this in two parts because google restricts the html.

NewGnome said...

Part deux:

While that obviously is a bad thing for most of our lives, a complete collapse (and this is all on the proposition that with no action by either administration, that would be what happened), would indelibly alter the free market so that those market forces would create by magic economic inertia new ideas and incentives. Granted, the Recession probably would have/would be worse, but its arguable that the new economy would be more realistic for the globalized and internet economy we are currently in.

The NEW economy? What are you proposing a socialistic or communistic economy? Japan has being trying to bail itself out by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other for 15 years or so, and it hasn’t worked. It won’t work for us. But if you and those your age want to pay for it, hey, I’m outta here sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, so, you and the “all my kids”(who by the way will be helping you pay of this massive debt) will be paying for it. As for me, I subscribe to Churchhill’s economic theory as it applies to Obama’s tax hike January 1, 2011. "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Regardless of the alternatives: 1) Greater government intervention and stimulus that continues to artificially prop up an economic model that is increasingly outdated;

I would agree that Obama’s economic model is outdated. His policies are as old as FDR. They didn’t work then either. I don’t accept your proposition that the government can prop up any economy. Only entities that can actually create wealth, which isn’t government, can stimulate real growth and thus real employment and is the only prospect we have of getting out of this Obama mess.

or 2) No measurable government intervention and the the banking and fiat reserve system collapse because we finally realize that the amount of actual currency is far less than the amount digitally represented, forcing a prolonged economic downturn followed by a new emerging economy of some sorts that I don't have the mind to pretend to imagine;; I think Obama's luke warm approach is a failure by ultimate (ANY) standards. If we decide to persist in our current economic box, then I suppose he's successful in keeping that moving for a while, but he isn't radical enough to either let market forces take complete control or to dominate those market forces.

This is a long response Lonely, but we know that the stimulus is a complete failure and doing more is just more failure. Housing is crumbling again. Unemployment is starting to grow. Consumer spending is falling. We face both inflation and deflation, depending on some totally skewed and ridiculous Obama policies. One interesting aspect of your conclusions is that you ignore business strength, government regulations, business and capital gains taxes and government intrusion into daily business operations, not to mention unbelievable new bank regulations that will causes them to play turtle until we get a real president, not an incompetent “community organizer” who can read a teleprompter but doesn’t even comprehend democracy or capitalism.

Looking forward to November!

Anonymous said...

Great response NG and oh so true.
Looking forward to November myself so we can drain the swamp for real.
Then 2012 to get rid of this "Front Man" who is nothing more than a speech giver.Period. Unless he can be impeached for purposely bankrupting the country.

tos

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

NG -

I actually appreciate some of your remarks. I'm still not sure why I care (which isn't so much an insult, as a reiteration of a question you've asked me before), but I get a little less anger in my stomach when its clear that you've actually read what I wrote and don't just assume I'm Rachel Maddow and precede accordingly.

I really only have two points, one substantive and the other more meta.

The meta point first. I continue to find it amusing that in your pursuit to demonize me as a far left socialist you only criticize my liberal points (even when they're only present as one of multiple options and not actually endorsed by me) while completely ignoring anything that could be construed as conservative.

Second, either when I mentioned the "NEW economy" I wasn't clear or you misunderstood me. That was supposed to be a free market point. For the greater part of the 20th century the American economy was spurred by making stuff. I was suggesting that government interference in the manufacturing sector (most obviously the automobile industry) was an attempt to prop up this old economy, when apparently its not very profitable anymore. By new economy, I meant an economy that embraces computers, outsourced labor, and essential just overlooks a mechanized process, for one, or for two, makes money primarily off of providing information or information services that requires a very small work force. Because with our increasing tech capabilities the need for the individual worker is less and less. And I'm suggesting that if manufacturing wasn't artificial propped up by liberals in America, then manufacturing would mostly die, because in most circumstances, its not profitable on our shores right now. But the work that is profitable requires very little man power.

I don't want that happen. In fact, to suggest that I'm both a socialist and encouraging an information based economy that abandons manufacturing is a giant contradiction. The information/internet based economy favors the solo practitioner who can make a living in his home office on the computer without employing secretaries, janitors, office managers, assistants, etc.. To suggest that acknowledging that as the future of a non manufacturing economy is socialist is absurd. If anything, the means to produce a living without employing man hours or vast physical mechanisms of productions is technically the epitome of capitalism.

I hope that doesn't come across as intellectually superior or demeaning to you. And I suppose if it does, you'll edit this comment or not even bother posting it. But if it seems demeaning, its because I'm tired of being called a socialist for having some liberal beliefs. Socialism and liberalism are not the same things, but the very intellectual system you are endorsing now, denies me the ability to point that out. If I try to cite sources, to quote economists, that point out the differences between my liberalism and classic Socialism (or Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism - which are all distinct and unique systems) you inherently ignore me because trying to present that information makes me an ivory tower intellectual, and thus a horrible liberal, and probably all of the above, because frankly you, and many others, don't really care what the differences are.

NewGnome said...

It's probably not going to happen, tos, but impeaching Obama for purposely bankrupting the country is an excellent idea. It would be worth trying. NG

Anonymous said...

I think you enjoy this blog. Your input would be great there.

I use my real name "Lisa" to comment there


http://malcontentralphie.blogspot.com/


tos

NewGnome said...

Have been distracted with family issues. I looked at the blog and found it's a good site. Will try to comment when I get some time.
NG

Anonymous said...

great the more the merrier.
I know it's difficult to find the time. Hope the amily is oing well

tos