From the time he first entered the national stage, Barack Obama has been an enigma. We knew very little of his background, his accomplishments or his beliefs. During his election campaign, we learned a few facts: that he was a community organizer, supposedly intelligent and a great speaker. He ran on a platform of hope and change which were left undefined.
After three plus years of his presidency, we now have some basis for judgement. We now know his bias for government solutions, his antipathy toward free enterprise and those who excel in it, his unconcern for constitutional principles which interfere with his agenda, his seeming indifference toward an unsustainable national debt, his penchant to divide us and not unite us and his tendency to view America not as "a shining city on a hill" but a country for which he must apologize.
Through his policies and actions, he has made a bad economic situation worse. Unemployment and underemployment remain high. The housing market has not recovered and there is no prospect that it will for some time. The cost of energy has risen affecting not only travel but the costs of everything we buy. And the national debt keeps rising, a problem for us and future generations as well.
We will not improve our economic health by redistributing wealth in a static economy. The government's role should be to establish the conditions under which free markets and free individuals can function to the benefit of all. We do not need or want a government that seeks to "transform" America and which imposes unconstitutional mandates.
Much of our problems are due to the fact that we now compete in a global economy in which we are not competitive. To fix it, we need less government regulation, not more; less taxes, not more; less government spending, not more; less special interest favoritism, not more and less debt, not more.
After three plus years of his presidency, we now have some basis for judgement. We now know his bias for government solutions, his antipathy toward free enterprise and those who excel in it, his unconcern for constitutional principles which interfere with his agenda, his seeming indifference toward an unsustainable national debt, his penchant to divide us and not unite us and his tendency to view America not as "a shining city on a hill" but a country for which he must apologize.
Through his policies and actions, he has made a bad economic situation worse. Unemployment and underemployment remain high. The housing market has not recovered and there is no prospect that it will for some time. The cost of energy has risen affecting not only travel but the costs of everything we buy. And the national debt keeps rising, a problem for us and future generations as well.
We will not improve our economic health by redistributing wealth in a static economy. The government's role should be to establish the conditions under which free markets and free individuals can function to the benefit of all. We do not need or want a government that seeks to "transform" America and which imposes unconstitutional mandates.
Much of our problems are due to the fact that we now compete in a global economy in which we are not competitive. To fix it, we need less government regulation, not more; less taxes, not more; less government spending, not more; less special interest favoritism, not more and less debt, not more.
So, youre not a fan :) I think a lot of the assumptions that the decisions made to stimulate the economy were uniquely Obama's or Democrat-specific in nature are faulty. For the past 30 years, there has been a growing love or need for increased debt to support the economy/wars of the world. We live in a central bank-planned economy built on debt. As Europe and the rest of the world have shown, there is no way out. Not austerity, not increased spending. It is going to take some radical ideas/concessions to hit the reset button and escape this downward spiral. If a Republican had been in office the last three years, I have full confidence the efforts, while potentially different, would have been equally ineffective.
ReplyDeleteI think a critical eye turned at the previous administration could see equal breaches of constitutional rights in the name of 'national security'.
The ideas of less government, less spending, less taxation in the name of free enterprise are all good. To get there from here is going to take a bold leader capable of making wholly unpopular decisions and accepting the consequences. Shrinking government means increasing the number of unemployed, which means more debt. Lowering taxes means less revenue, which means more debt. Less regulation is a scary proposition as many industries have shown that they are full comfortable defrauding or endangering the public in the name of profit.
Good times. Hopefully my coffee-fueled rant made some sense.
I love this idea that Corporations can be left to regulate themselves. They can't be trusted now to do the ethical thing, with all the regulations in place. Can you imagine if there were no regulations?!
DeleteThank you Ryan for your comments. You are a thoughtful contributor and commentator. I agree with you that the Constitution has been trampled on by both Republicans and Democrats not only in recent history but in the past as well (as for instance the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII).
DeleteMy comments recognized that the government needs to regulate; my point is that the government also needs to stay within constitutional parameters. No constitutionalist would want an overbearing central government any more than he/she would want a concentration of industries (or any organization) with too much power. In any free economy or free society, individual sovereignty must be paramount and competition between commercial entities maintained.
Thanks again for your comments.
I want to clarify the statement in my previous comment about the internment of citizens in WWII. That statement should have read: "(as for instance the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII)."
DeleteNorm , I think you have been watching too much Faux News.
ReplyDeleteAnon, from your comments, I'd suppose that you are a liberal. You really should come out of the closet as you might have a lot to contribute.
DeleteI attempt to be "fair and balanced". I will try to engage you in the future, but I didn't think that a good Republican would want anyone to "come out of the closet" !
DeleteAnon
DeleteAu contraire--we conservatives love to engage liberals--I hope to hear from you soon--maybe I can turn you around.
"Conservatism is dynamic, evolving and relevant to our times." If, like most of the Republican Party, you're living in the dark ages!
ReplyDeleteDiva
DeletePlease explain your comment. Is not the Constitution still relevant? Is not the idea of individual freedom still important? Are they not worth defending? What exactly is your point of view? What are your alternatives to the current crises?
Dear Decorating Diva,
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure where to begin with you. You may be beyond saving but I'll try. Regulations have a time and a place. Regulation is a spectrum, not a binary "on/off" thing. During the first industrial revolution (there have been 2 and we are in the midst of a 3rd) children as young a 6 were chained to machines. That's wrong. Regulation of labor markets fixed that. Factories belching out smoke is bad and if you've been to China you'll appreciate the EPA- within reason.
However, we now have 106 regulations that cost $100 million or more EACH to comply. That's up from 46 under Bush. Complying with regulations, many of which conflict with one another, cost money. That cost is passed on to consumers. There are regulations for EVERYTHING from the size of a screw on a plane to a ramp for a pool for the elderly.
Now, on to your next comment on the 'dark ages'. The Republican Party was created to defeat slavery. Republicans have pushed equal rights legislation for the past 50 years most of which has been thwarted by the likes of Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and the other racist democrats. So, who is living in the dark ages? For more on this I refer you to Deneen Borelli's book "Blacklash".
Conservatives (some of whom are Republicans) stand for the U.S. Constitution which has as its foundation the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states that men are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIEANABLE rights. I put unalienable in caps because it means that they can not be abrograted by the government - something Mr. Obama is attempting to do. Example? Who is pro-life? Can't pursue liberty and happiness if you're dead.
Please do more before you spout off here.