“It’s worse [Obama's Administration] than I could have imagined possible.”–UPDATED

February 19, 2009 / 9:33 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

A blogger friend and I were talking yesterday and she lamented the Obama administration’s long-lasting affects and it was only one month into his presidency: the drive to nationalize banks, the class-warfare, the hostility toward achievement, the secretiveness, the cult of personality, the talk of inclusion then the actions of exclusion, etc.

The current push by the administration is to pass Employee Free Choice Act (more double-speak, this law is about everything besides free choice) that would eliminate secret ballots–so employees could be intimidated into voting for a union. At first blush, this seems like no big deal. Unions have been known to be heavy handed but so what. So what? So, this legislation would go to the heart of the economy where it is still humming: the South. Businesses in the sunshine belt, where unions and taxation are less likely, thrive precisely because there is no collective bargaining to coerce the companies into bad business practices. Even further, the employees in these places live as well or better because the states have less personal income tax (Texas has none, for example) and can make up in cost-of-living savings anything a union might be able to gain.

But this legislation isn’t about what’s good for the individual, business, community or state. This is about evening the playing field. That is, states with egregious taxation suddenly retain businesses because the business environment everywhere in the United States is made universally punitive. Unions represent more workers because workers are coerced into unionizing. As it is, the unions are aggressive and seem to not comprehend that many workers don’t want unionization.

That workers resist unions shouldn’t be difficult to understand, really. Look at what the UAW is up to in Michigan. Once again, even in the face of GM, Chrysler and Ford failing, they concede nothing. This will mean, of course, that business leaves Michigan and jobs are lost. Sure the few jobs that remain will be flush, but the vast majority of workers won’t have a job. Flint is a ghost town for precisely this reason. Workers in the South have seen the “benevolence” of the unions (many are transplants after all) and want no part of it.

Taking away secret ballots would create a hostile work environment for those who resist the union. What if the union takes hold and you, the worker, fought against it? Yeah, life will be hard. {More on the outrage that is Card Checks here.]

And this is just the beginning of Barack Obama’s drive to reshape the American landscape into one of “fairness”, i.e. mediocrity. Fairness means those who achieve and thrive are penalized and those who, say, can’t afford a house, buy over their ability to pay, and default are rewarded–with the money of those who live within their means.

There are plenty of Americans who have lived within their means over the last few years even with banks sending outrageous numbers of credit cards with “O% Financing!” and “No Interest For A Year!”, etc. And there were people who did not. The banks gave money to people who shouldn’t have been given money. The people who could not handle the money not surprisingly spent it all without considering tomorrow. Then the banks saw the impending balance sheet woes and lobbied Congress to make filing bankruptcy more difficult. So people were forced to keep paying enormous amounts of interest, enslaving the debtor for years and years. And then, when the person got overburdened, he walked away from his house–his largest liability. And then, the banks asked for a bailout for all their stupid lending decisions.

Now, Barack Obama (and President Bush started this before him), bailed out banks that gave money irresponsibly. But then again, that was because they were coerced by Congress to give money to people who couldn’t afford to pay. See what happens with the government tries to make things “fair”?

All these attempts to “level the playing field” and promote “fairness” sound great. What it means is that the people who make bad decisions control those who live responsibly. And really, that’s the ultimate goal.

While I find Europe’s soft socialistic society pathetic, American Democrats look at the various countries with envy. Barack Obama’s language in both Germany and France revealed his contempt for America and Americans. He saw their world and wanted to transport that society to America.

Far from being the agent of hope and change, Barack Obama represents hate and contempt. He fundamentally despises the individualistic American impulse. He scorns the notion of hard work and achievement. He believes America is a bad place that needs to be changed into something good. Something, say, like Europe.

He is succeeding in fulfilling his dream. It’s going to be a nightmare for America.

P.S. Ultimately, the problem is that to far too many Americans, Barack Obama’s words and actions appeal to them. The same people who couldn’t see to the end of their own misfortune, can’t see how Barack Obama is promising them “easy credit”, too. There ain’t no free lunch–this bill will be paid.

UPDATED:

My co-blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News, interviewed economist Walter Williams about his latest book. This is what Williams says about rich people verses the government:

…There is so much demagoguery against the rich and in that column I was asking the reader: Bill Gates, the richest person on the face of the earth — what can Bill Gates make you do? That is, during the 70s and 80s, the era of busing, could he have made you send your kid to a school that you did not want him to go to? Can Bill Gates deny you the right to dig holes on your property or put up a little shed on your property? He cannot do any of those things, but a lowly town clerk can…destroy your life just by denying you a permit to add an addition to your house. Bill Gates can’t stop you from doing that. I think that politicians and those that want to control our lives get us to focus away from the power that government has over our lives and cast our attention to rich people.

It’s working.

Cross-posted at RightWingNews

  • Ellis

    Adam Smith will be resurrected after this “experiment” fails much like it did in the late 70s.

  • http://rightwingsnarkle.blogspot.com Rightwingsnarkle

    Wow. Amazing. You’ve managed to take uninformed wingnuttery to places it’s never been before.

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Revisionist history and red herring journalism strikes again…

    Paulson, under Bush, nationalized the two largest banks in history, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Number three was IndyMac. Nobody twisted Bush’s arm – Paulson BEGGED congress and the American people for the bailout. The banks didn’t have to make sketchy loans – they got greedy and figured the write offs would be low in relation to the volume they generated. They repackaged shitty loans and combined them with other “investment products” and sold them globally. This happened in plain view under Bush’s nose via Paulson and Bernanke.

    You are right in calling out Obama for doing exactly the same thing – only he wanted more oversight and a cap on executive pay if their respective companies received PUBLIC money. In typical fashion, repubs wanted no oversight or caps on the PUBLIClY DONATED money (donated, because let’s face it, we’re never going to see it again…).

    Again, you continue to call out Obama for acts that Bush committed with full support of the republican faithful. Once again, you are a HUGE hypocrite – you should be bashing Bush for starting this f’ing mess, but instead you heap your venom and your laughable “Obama ruined the economy” crap upon us (he ruined the economy in 30 days? Yeah, right!).

    I remember a post after the election where you said that you hoped he would succeed. Nothing could be farther form the truth. You and yours have taken a page from the Limpbaugh playbook and stabbed at him at every conceiveable opportunity. The only devisiveness that I can see is coming from your party – and you all sit here and wonder why you lost…

  • Chalmers

    upChuck,

    Would that be the revisionist history where you imply that Bush was writing legislation during the final two years of his Presidency? Who was it again that pushed for Freddie and Fannie to write loans to low income, high risk borrowers? I believe the video of Republicans begging for oversight of F&F is easily findable on youtube.

    No one said Obama has ruined the economy (although I do like your liberal use of quotation marks), he is the one saying the economy is ruined. He has merely bankrupted our future. Bush may have been pushing the economic failure snowball down the hill, but Obama has drop kicked the sonofabitch halfway to Tahiti.

    Still is nice to have you around though Chuck, seeing as how you are the reformed conservative, moderate, independent, right?

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Chalmers,

    Way to miss the point, dittohead. I WATCHED video footage last night of Paulson begging congress for the money, money that congress refused to let go of the first time around.

    Yes, SOME repubs years ago asked for oversight of F&F, but who let it slip by and turn into the big pile of dogshit that it all became during the last eight years? There were warning signs early on in Spendalot’s term (I personally know bankers who were nervous in 2004).

    Actually, the dear doctor in an earlier post said “Obama lied, the economy died” (liberal use of quotation marks intentional, Herr grammar nazi). The economy IS ruined, and unless you’ve been living in you mother’s basement for the last 2 years without TV or other communication devices (ok, maybe you are…) you would know this. Bush did far more than get the “snowball” started and you know it. Sweet Jesus, get a clue or pay someone to find one for you.

  • Ellis

    When Bush took office the economy was clearly already in a recession. Yet, everyone blamed him and not Clinton. Now Obama comes in in similar (but worse) circumstances and we still blame Bush. (At least Bush has some responsibility for this one.) Revisionist history before the tasks are even completed.

  • http://mkfreeberg.webloggin.com Morgan K Freeberg

    Chuckles,

    Unfortunately it comes down to this. Yes, Bush did some stuff to keep this situation going, but he didn’t do anything to get the situation started, because it started with the community reinvestment act under Carter. And everything Bush did to make the problem worse, he did by acting like a damn DEMOCRAT.

    Fact is, this whole problem is just a big sinkhole opening up under the market; the sinkhole came about from a huge-and-expanding gap between reality and overly-exuberant investor make-believe; and the make-believe came about from the government trying to make life “fair.” Had there been more respect paid to the free market, the kind of respect people pay it right before the democrats come along to call them “greedy” and clamor for more regulation — none of this would’ve happened. Unfortunately, your Replacement Jesus is showing a lot of signs of making the problem much worse, and not any better.

    So the point of the article stands. Your B-b-but Bush!! excuses do nothing to take away from it.

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Morgan,

    The problem with your argument is that Bushco (republican congress + Bush) further deregulated lending standards in a major way in 2002 (ratio changes). I could stomach the whole “It’s Carter’s fault” argument if Bushco did nothing, but the fact is they added fuel to the fire. Sorry, but they have to bear a major portion of the blame. And as I said earlier; Many bankers, right down to the mortgage broker level knew several years ago that this thing was going to blow up, so what excuse did the fed under Bush have not to act? All of the bankers were playing musical chairs hoping they would get a seat before the inevitable happened. When it did, Paulson went hat in hand on behalf of his banker buddies to borrow from the public.

    BTW – the only one’s calling Obama “Jesus” here are you folks. I have no strong allegiance to the man – most politicians are full of crap, and no doubt he is as well to some degree. I realize it’s a whole lot easier for you if you can paint everyone who is “not us” with one color (liberal, right?), but that just makes your thinking myopic. Sure, there are nutjobs who would lick his boots, but there are plenty of these on the right as well (witness the bawling McCain supporters after his loss). I choose not to have party allegiance because truthfully no party really represents my viewpoints fully. I’m issue driven and not consumed by party zealotry. Sorry, but “not republican” doesn’t make me a pachouli oil wearing, birkenstock clad halfwit on his way to a Phish concert. Spare me the liberal label and I’ll spare you all the racist homophobic redneck monikers as well.

  • http://mkfreeberg.webloggin.com Morgan K Freeberg

    I realize it’s a whole lot easier for you if you can paint everyone who is “not us” with one color (liberal, right?), but that just makes your thinking myopic…I choose not to have party allegiance because truthfully no party really represents my viewpoints fully.

    Yes, I can see you’re so much more nuanced than I am. No party can possibly approach the integrity of your towering intellect, and that’s why your reasonable sense of moderation just shines through, Mister Refree. That’s why I’ve said more negative stuff about Bush than you ever will about your Replacement Jesus, and it’s also why you say things like…

    “You and yours have taken a page from the Limpbaugh playbook and stabbed at [my Replacement Jesus] at every conceiveable opportunity.”

    “The only devisiveness that I can see is coming from [Republicans] – and you all sit here and wonder why you lost…”

    “Way to miss the point, dittohead.”

    “The problem with your argument is that Bushco further deregulated lending standards in a major way in 2002.”

    Obama is the answer to people who desperately want to believe in a God, and don’t want to belive in Him outright. And, to people like you, who desperately want to be partisan shills without admitting that’s what they are. And, also, to people who desperately want to destroy the free market without admitting they want to do that. Seriously — how many times has the Government jumped in to overrule the market forces, over the last seventy years, and “fix” everything? And how many times has that worked out?

    If you still have some hope for this Replacement Jesus to fix everything, or anything, you’re just not paying attention. Seriously. If you wanted to fix everything, the first step would be to have an open and honest…and let us not forget skeptical…debate about Keynesian economic theory, to find out if it really has a chance of working. On the other hand, if your goal was to pump a bunch of loot into bull-feces liberal social programs, your first step would be to hurry up and spend the money before anyone started paying attention. Well, now. Which one did your Replacement Jesus do? Have an honest debate about Keynesian economics, or hurry up and get the money spent?

  • frenchie

    i’m french, and please don’t look what happened in europe, the economy of my country is going worse and worse, of course we can be retired at 50 -55 the government pay for the retirement, we don’t have to spend one dollar.
    however the medical cost is good, but each year the debt is growing, now to heal people when they are sick, the debt is 15 billions
    Obama, want to create 2-3 millions jobs, where , more latinos will clean your car for 5 bucks, clean trash at costco, etc….
    small job for less money, and the price for food is always up. i think the situation is bad everywhere in the world. GM needs money, there is 6000 dealers toyota has 1500, close dealers, and maybe it’s the solution. obama want to give american between $400 and 1500 credit of taxes, and swcharzie, want to increase taxes !!!!!!!!!!!!
    don’t save the bank, let them go belly up
    it’s my own opinion
    phil

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Mr. Morgan K. Freeberg,

    Yes, it was a real crime when the government jumped in during the thrities to try and correct the depression. The “free market” had worked out so well prior to FDR’s intervention, both in ’29 and during Wilson’s term earlier in the century. There has never been a true free market, and there likely won’t ever be one because of self interest from both unscrupulous marketeers and bleeding heart liberals. This viewpoint doen’t make me an anti-capitalist – I own a business. However, letting the robber barons of wall st. loose with no controls got us where we are today, and it was the same in ’29. People pulled HUGE sums of money out of their homes back then too, based on the investing advice of a handful of wall street giants. They promptly dumped their shares when the ordinary schmoes of America had driven thier holdings through the roof and made a fortune. The resulting cascade caused suffering for millions. Another fine example of the market taking care of itself. I have finally been alive long enough to understand that for repubs it’s all about private profits and public bailouts, and for demsit’s about pretending to be for the “people” while lining their own pockets with special interest money. However, when the “free market” finally takes it’s toll, repub fatcats are among the first to stand in line for that “bullshit socialist” public money.

    Sorry Mr. Morgan K Freeburg, but I stand behind what I said earlier. I never claimed to be “nuanced”, and I’m not looking for a replacement Jesus. Again, you further proved my point that anyone “not you” is some sort of souless marxist engaged in Obama worship. For guys like you it’s all about those who are in or out of the set – you’re either “with us or against us”, right? No one can be independent in your little universe, so fine – count me out. I’d rather stand on the outside than believe the political lies of either party.

    As far as my “towering intellect”, yes, you’re right. I am but a lowly contractor with only a bachelor’s degree. I’m sure that I could never compete with your stunning intellect and credentials. Funny thing though – I thought intellectual snobbery was the bastion of liberal dems…

    One other thing – if and when BHO steps on his chorizzo I’ll be among the first to call him out on it. Given that he’s only been in office for thirty days, there just isn’t much to say (unless you wanted him to fail from the start…).