Posted by
Reasonsjester on Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:46:05 PM
Many people believe that Obama is a national socialist, which is only
partially true. National socialists believe in government
control of the economy and in compensating the workers for their labor as they see fit. What Obama is, more accurately, is a
global socialist, who seeks to redistribute the wealth from "oppressive" capitalist states (which is to say,
successful states) to the poorer nations of the world.
What
is important to bear in mind when attempting to make sense of Obama's
economic policies is that his handicapping of America is
intended.
The G8, including President Obama, are all on board with trying to cut
CO2 emissions by an alarming 80% by 2050 (though Waxman-Markey only
targets 13% by 2020). Waxman-Markey would fertilize the economy for
"green shoots" of ivy to sprout up all over the national economy to
strangle productive business.
The question remains:
Why?
Why would the Obama administration get on board with such a Titanic of
a bill? There are some hints that lie in the difference between what
Obama says and does at home and abroad.
The recent
speech
by Obama in Ghana was extremely enlightening as a matter of where his
heart lies in terms of economic policy. Obama admits in his speech that
corruption and a predatory state stifle an economy. He also admits that
there is no reason that Africans cannot have a sustainable economy,
especially in agriculture. This is a
huge admission by Obama
that we are officially in a post-colonial era, and more importantly,
that when the state gets out of the way people can be productive. Obama
is basically advocating to the Africans the economic principles that
made America great.
When you contrast these points with the way
Obama is treating the American economy, including raising graduated
income taxes on couples making over $250,000 and singles making over
$200,000; supporting the cap-and-trade bill, which the WSJ described as
the "largest tax in American history" and which would lay the basis for
a patron-client state of government-provided "green jobs";
nationalizing failing and uncompetitive industries; rescuing banks that
engaged in risky behavior; and generally choking the will to succeed by
mandating thousands of disincentives to work hard and get ahead, as
well as to invest for the long-term, I think what Obama's game is becomes
pretty clear.
It is
pay back time for: America's sordid
past in the slave trade, which ended in 1808; for the enslavement of
blacks, which the North partially went to war to end; for "greedy,
selfish" capitalism, which was so horrendous it provided an engine for
wealth and a market for countries all over the world; for the
corporations for providing jobs to foreigners, jobs that would not
otherwise exist; for the American "empire" of providing security to
Western Europe during the Cold War; for keeping the sea lanes clear for
international trade; and for deterring madmen like Saddam Hussein, and
Kim Jong-Il from attacking their neighbors.
Obama is a true believer in socialism - but on a
global scale. As Obama put it in his Ghana speech:
As
for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than
just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our
foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But
the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that
helps people scrape by — it is whether we are partners in building the
capacity for transformational change.
Obama seeks not just
to redistribute the wealth of the (majority white) middle class and
upper class to lower-class minorities, but from the wealthy "usurpers"
in America to the poor countries of the world. Why these countries were
poor before America was even a country, and have remained in their same
impoverished state for millenia, apparently neither crosses the
president's mind or is ignored. Obama's speech suggests the latter -
and that even a skilled Chicago politician is not capable of holding
the
doublethink in one's mind that a corrupt oppressive
government is bad for Africans, but somehow good for the United States.
Obama's admission that the future is up to Africans to build, but
somehow the path to prosperity and success for Americans runs through
Washington is a contrast in philosophy too strong not to be part of
some larger vision of cutting the U.S. down to size.