Sunday, January 25, 2009

Do you want Obama to succeed or fail????

A friend of mine asked me the other day, do you want Barrack Obama's economic stimulus package to succeed. I said: "It depends."

He said, "What do you mean , 'It depends.' Either you want America to succeed or you do not."

So I had to explain myself. It went something like this. Now, if you hear other republicans -- or conservatives -- explaining this, you can expect the media to take certain parts of it out of contexts. So, bear with me here.

I want America to succeed. I want my children to live in a prosperous and opportunistic world where they know if you work hard you can be anything you want to be. If you educate yourself and work hard, you can become as rich as you want.

However, if we punish the rich by taxing them, that pretty much takes away the incentive to be rich. If you make the hard working upper class no more powerful than the middle class person, you will take away any incentive for people to become rich.

Of course, based on his campaign, we really don't know what Obama is going to do. If he endorses an economic package similar to Ronald Reagan where their are tax cuts to stimulate growth. If he endorses a package that puts faith in the people to solve their own problems, then, yes, I do want him to succeed.

However, if he endorses an economic stimulus package that calls for tax cuts, even tax cuts on the rich; if he proposes to take money from the earners and give them to the people who are poor; if his final plan calls for building more unproven government programs like the New Deal;
if he proposes using government to solve people's problems, and thus growing the beast that is government, then I hope he fails.

I am a person, who at the core, believes that the people have the ability to solve the economic problems that ail us, and the government will only make those problems worse. You can look back at Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and the first seven years of W's administration to see what happens when you trust the American people to solve problems.

On the contrary, you can see what happens when you trust government to solve problems by looking at FDR and the New Deal. If you look back in history, you will see that the economy, that the depression, was far worse in 1936 after six years of the New Deal's big government programs, than it was in 1929. Unemployment was way higher in 1936 than it was in 1929.

I do not want that to happen again. I believe, as Reagan did, that if you have a crisis, and you want to stimulate an economy, you have two choices. One, you can trust the government to spend this money as FDR did with his failed New Deal. Or, two, you can trust the American people.

History has shown that the people are fully capable at solving the problems that ail us and the government has failed every time it has happened. And, therefore, I do not -- at the core of my heart -- believe that the government should be used to end this recession.

Likewise, I believe that adding programs such as Universal Health care and redistributing of wealth as Obama proposes, will create a more socialistic -- stagnant -- economy like that of Europe. Where there really is no incentive to save and invest in capitol. There is no incentive to start new businesses.

Speaking of this, why is it that people start new business? Why is it that people and businesses put so much time and effort into inventing and discovering new products? It is because they want to get rich. And, with government barriers in the way, such opportunities will be stymied.

And that is why I do not want Obama to succeed if his plan to save the economy is by using government. Sure I might be better off in the short term with his middle class tax cut. But, in the long run, I believe it is not about me. I believe that country should come before me. As McCain said, "Country first."

Democrats, liberals, want to create an America where the economy may be slower, where the poor may be trapped in poverty because of welfare. They want this because the more victims, the greater the power of democrats. Democrats want to give things to people to buy their votes. Democrats "feel your pain." Democrats tell you that you don't need to worry about paying your bills" when they are in power.

Essentially, they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. I hear a lot of people saying things like this since Obama was elected: "Now that Obama is president I don't have to worry about paying my bills. I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

Um, is that the message we want to send to our kids, that if you vote for a liberal president you don't have to go out and work hard and create a living for yourself. That you don't have to be competitive if you want to get rich because you can't get rich anyway. That you might as well sit at home on your couch and let the rich make the money, pay the taxes, and give that money to the government so the government can give it to you.

Personally, I believe that if we are going to give money to anyone it should be back to the people. I think that the people know far better, and are far more capable, of knowing how and where to spend that money than any government program.

And that is the core difference between liberalism's economic views and conservatism. And I pray, from the bottom of my heart, that republicans to not fall to democrats and vote for Obama's economic stimulus package that doesn't have the needed tax cuts that will in turn empower the people.

I, at the core of my heart, do not believe that government is the answer to solving our problems, and, most important, I do not want the kind of America that would result. I do not want my children to be dependent on the government. I do not want them to have the attitude that I don't have to work as hard to make a living. Why? Because that attitude is the attitude of failure.

It has failed every time it has been tried by individual businessmen. It has been failed every time it has been tried in the history of the world. And therefore, again, if Obama's plan is for a larger government, I hope he fails and fails big time.


Ted said...

Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951 to an American mom “Millie” and an American dad lawyer & WWII Fighter Pilot in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Since ‘President’ Obama now wants to silence El Rushbo even before BHO has a chance to try to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” to silence all conservative talk radio, I’ve got three questions (but answers to only two of them):

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT under either and/or both of two theories — (1) BHO refuses to show Birth Certificate to deny Kenyan birth/res ipsa loquitur “action speaks for itself” or (2) BHO admits dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen at Jr’s birth), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

Anthony Palmer said...

All I can say is that if you WANT the new President to fail, you are hoping that America has a miserable four years. When Bush won in 2000 and 2004, I was very unhappy. But I didn't wish failure upon him because we're all in this together. But in Bush's case, I believe he failed on many grounds. Criticizing a president for past failures is totally different from hoping that a brand new president fails less than one week into his presidency. After all the Republicans' talk about flag pins, saluting the flag, and being unpatriotic, hoping for their new commander in chief to fail seems very surprising.