Presidential Economics Based on Personal Preferences
(JBS) There are a number of disturbing aspects in the change that seems to be offered by the Obama Administration, especially concerning his economic policies.
One has to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter, such as, “Where will the Canadians go if the United States institutes national health care?”
A recent interview in the New York Times entitled, “His Economy,” meaning Obama’s, opened up many more questions than it answered. The article even raised the question of how the elderly will be cared for medically if it is too expensive? The idea that we need to have a debate to see how much we are willing to pay to keep them alive was subtle, but it was there.
Euthanasia is a reality in the Netherlands and Germany today, one overtly, the other covertly. I wonder which will be the case here, as Obama has more than hinted that health care will be rationed, with some less viable persons possibly being left without care based on cost-effective policies and protocols.
In the article Obama admitted that he — and his fellow elitists — do not have all the answers, but they have all the regulations. Extend the lines on that one. It is frightening to think that a president of the United States can set in motion regulations that will affect the entire economy and citizens of our country and yet admit that they do not have the answers necessary to know if what they are doing is the proper solution or not.
On the front page of the same Sunday, May 3 edition of the Times, the article about Obama’s view of the law is equally scary. Law, by definition, means that it is stable and unchanging. If it is law, it is based on principle and what is right. It should be the same today and tomorrow. If it is right today, it is right tomorrow. If it is wrong today, it should be wrong tomorrow. The Ten Commandments, an obvious case in point, used to be taught in school. Perhaps if still even mentioned, they will have become the “Ten Maybes” by now.
But Obama views law as being pragmatic; that the court should never get too far ahead or behind public sentiment. Under such thinking the law becomes whim. According to his premise we should take a poll and decide what the law is! No wonder our Constitution is in trouble. Under our stable law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If it becomes whim, we will all be ignorant.
We can plainly see that the law is becoming what the leader says it is. No wonder they do not want God’s Law in the schools. It interferes with those who think they are God.
Who gave the power to the President to change the CEOs of corporations? Who gave the power to the President to change ownership of corporations? Since when can he tell Chrysler that the union now holds the majority ownership? Can you spell s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m?
The real worry is that due to the government policies contracts no longer have the weight they once had. The contracts for loans and other financial instruments mean nothing in the wake of the Obama bailouts.
Has anyone ever heard of stockholders? Creditors? People have put their earnings into financial packages for their retirement that include some of these corporations. Contracts have been negotiated and signed, lending money to these corporations that now have been told “too bad, you lose.”
In addition, we see that our largest corporations are now being forced into operation by foreign giants, such as Fiat. NAFTA didn’t suck industry and jobs out of the country fast enough for certain politicians so another route was chosen.
Having Germany’s Daimler in the mix a few years ago did not help our automobile industry. Now we have Italy’s Fiat. More and more we are driving Japanese cars.
One can argue that the government has the right to do these things if they are putting up the money. But do two wrongs make a right?
It is wrong — unconscionable and unconstitutional — that the government is bailing out anyone. Let us not let them forget it isn’t their money — it’s the taxpayers’. You know, the ones who are becoming more impoverished and unemployed as the days go by.