Method to the madness?

[sirs]

It's been opined before, by myself included, that a theory behind Obama's policies wreaking havoc on our economy and the private sector, is largely by design.  The more the Economy and "Wall Street" appear to be screwed, the more Government needs to "bail out" (translated, bigger with more control & authority).  And isn't that precisely what the left argues all the time?....the need for Government to take control of these evil coporations and "Big X"

IF that's a legitimate theory, and we find no one on the left refuting such a policy (need of the government taking over more and more) the issue then becomes a race.  Can Obama and the Dems screw it up so bad, that the only thing left that's "too big to fail" is that of the Federal Government, before the electorate come to their senses and not just vote out those trying to screw this country, but have a majority party with the cahones to defund, followed by a repeal those policies that have been screwing the country?

Time will tell

[sirs]

Down With Big X

Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen -- even though just about everyone thought they would.

Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.

Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.

How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units -- Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.

In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.

The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.

The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.

The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.

Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.

Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.

The conformist "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by non-conformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.

Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.

The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.

Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.

What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.

Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.

But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.

In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?

Op-ed

[Kramer]

I think as the reality sets in, to high ranking movers and shaker citizens, that indeed Obama is either a severely retarded president or worse committing treason, will leave them no choice but to call for decisive action to remove him from office. I see more and more people looking for loop-holes in Obama's Constitutional qualifications to occupy the presidency. It won't surprise me if sometime in the not to distant future there is an attempt to remove him. It could be via impeachment, or challenging his nationality/citizenship, or even whether his mentally fit to serve. But it' is quickly becoming apparent that his supporters are scampering away. His legal removal is quickly becoming our only option to save the nation.

Note: (I'm way ahead of the curve) When I say certain things I'm way out front of the crowd, others it takes time for to catch to me on to what I already see. !/2 way through next year, the economy worse off then today, and no good news will push people to the inevitable reality that I already see we are heading to -- which is removing Obama from office.

[sirs]

IF.....it could be demonstrated an overt superceding of the Constitutional election process by gross fraud & criminal misconduct, then perhaps I can jump on such a virulent bandwagon

The problem is Kramer, that the Constitution, gives Americans the freedom to be stupid, to make stupid mistakes, and to vote for someone like Obama.  Whether they were too ignorant to know what his ideology was and voted for him because it was such a "historical vote" in American history, or whether they knew precisely the kind of leftest he was, and wanted him in an even more uber socialist mode, if he's elected, he's elected.  And as much as I empathize with you and WND, his legal status as being born in the U.S. is already largely a done deal....legally, he is a citizen, and that's all that matters.  He's not required to prove he's of Hawaiian ancestry, merely that's he's an American citizen, and the paperwork to date, proves precisely that

The electorate gets to decide, not a mob minority, or majority for that matter.  So says the Constitution.  And we can forget impeachment.  He's done nothing to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors required for such.  Stupid socialist policies and an uber liberal ideology are not crimes, as much as you might wish they were. 

However, IF Obama and company attempt to circumvent the constitution, in a vane effort to maintain power and majority control of congress, THEN we can start to entertain the notion of a more....."active" role at removing him from office and/or Pelosi as speaker.   

[Kramer]

IF.....it could be demonstrated an overt superceding of the Constitutional election process by gross fraud & criminal misconduct, then perhaps I can jump on such a virulent bandwagon

The problem is Kramer, that the Constitution, gives Americans the freedom to be stupid, to make stupid mistakes, and to vote for someone like Obama.  Whether they were too ignorant to know what his ideology was and voted for him because it was such a "historical vote" in American history, or whether they knew precisely the kind of leftest he was, and wanted him in an even more uber socialist mode, if he's elected, he's elected.  And as much as I empathize with you and WND, his legal status as being born in the U.S. is already largely a done deal....legally, he is a citizen, and that's all that matters.  He's not required to prove he's of Hawaiian ancestry, merely that's he's an American citizen, and the paperwork to date, proves precisely that

The electorate gets to decide, not a mob minority, or majority for that matter.  So says the Constitution.  And we can forget impeachment.  He's done nothing to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors required for such.  Stupid socialist policies and an uber liberal ideology are not crimes, as much as you might wish they were. 

However, IF Obama and company attempt to circumvent the constitution, in a vane effort to maintain power and majority control of congress, THEN we can start to entertain the notion of a more....."active" role at removing him from office and/or Pelosi as speaker.   

I said legally remove him.

[sirs]

Cool

[Christians4LessGvt]

[sirs]

What Is President Obama Thinking?

Americans might soon have another reason to ask themselves: ?What is the president thinking??

With the flourish of a veto pen, President Obama is likely to disappoint and confuse both friends and some foes this fall; an interesting choice given his approval-rating challenges.

How will President Obama manage to infuriate some conservatives and many liberals all at once? By vetoing a defense spending bill ? a bill that would please some national defense conservatives by supporting our troops and please liberals by foolishly ending the military?s ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell? policy.

So why would he miss what some political observers call a win-win opportunity?

The provision the Obama administration opposes (so strongly that they will choose a veto) is actually one many Democrats and Republicans support. If enacted as-is, the bill would anger social conservatives(we are group he never counts on) and one interested party: a large defense contractor.

As passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the defense bill funds development of two engines for the Joint Strike Fighter ? a plane that will be the fighter jet of the future for both the U.S. and our allies around the world.

Development of two engines means pitting two manufacturers against one another. The competition will breed innovation and cost savings over the life of the fighter jet?s program. The two-engine approach also means having a backup if for some reason there is a problem with the engine that ultimately makes it into the fuselage of the plane. For reasons from efficiency to safety, the development of two engines is the chosen approach of the U.S. House of Representatives. It also has a cost-benefit stamp of approval from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The competition that is encouraged by the two-engine approach is, however, not an ideal scenario for manufacturer Pratt and Whitney, who otherwise would fully own the Joint Strike Fighter?s engine development and production for as long as the plane is in the sky. That?s big money billions over decades - so it's not surprising that company has pulled out all the stops in its lobbying campaign.

The U.S. Senate will act on the defense-spending bill after they return from recess. If they agree with their colleagues in the House and the experts at the GAO that the two-engine approach is the best way to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, then the President has promised to uncap his veto pen. This will be big news, and it will be a bad story for the president. While homosexual rights groups will be disappointed over the missed opportunity to repeal the conservative supported ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell,? most Americans will be stunned by the willingness of the president to put off funding for our troops.

Why the Obama administration has dug in its heels on this issue? Is it an example of successful lobbying? Could a single defense contractor really have that much influence over the Obama administration? I doubt it.

Or could the Joint Strike Fighter engine veto threat simply be a straw man that will enable the president to strangle needed support for our troops in the Middle East, thereby hobbling their effectiveness and laying the groundwork for an early withdrawal? Perhaps.

Has his support for so-called progressive social policy in the armed forces been simply lip service to an influential left-wing constituency? I don't think so.

No one knows the answers to these questions. But they will surely be asked. Many will once again ask ?What is he thinking??

We report. You decide.

Perhaps it is just madness