For the first time since the debates I watched President Obama speak on television a couple nights ago. It was 60 minutes and he spoke mostly about the economy. I won't speak about how he is leading our country into socialism, or how he is undoing everything the makes our economy resilient, or how he is socializing the auto industry...The only thing that I will say about those things is that I believe that the government should have MINIMAL involvement in 'fixing' the economy. If the economy is left alone, companies that have made mistakes will be replaced by better more efficient companies. If we save every failing company, we take away the incentive for future companies to avoid risk because they know the government has their back. This 'free market' approach is more painful in the short term, but far better for our country in the long run.
Now, back to Obamamama. The only thing that I wanted to say in regards to his interview is the contrast of pre-election Obama to post-election Obama. Two completely different people!!! Because I have the perspective of someone who hasn't seen him speak since the debates I was able to contrast these two Obama's very easily. The pre-election Obama was very critical of the Bush administration down to very small details. He criticized his staff and administration RELENTLESSLY. He appeared messianic because he gave us the 'hope' that everything would be perfect under his rule. Reality has arrived and he now finds himself defending things and people that he would have been critical of if it wasn't his administration. He is now singing a tune of 'let's look at the big picture and stop being critical of every detail'-far different message than we were getting from him last October.
Last October he REAMED McCain for saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong preceding our economic recession. But now he finds himself trying restore faith and convince Americans that the fundamentals of the economy are strong (the fundamentals of the economy haven't changed since October). It is just interesting to me to see the contrast, it is easy to look messianic when you are being critical from the outside looking in. Good luck on the inside President Obamamama.
You are so right! I didn't see the interview but have noticed his change in stance since he's the guy in charge now. (Glad you liked the economics video. Andrew is to be thanked for that one.) See you tomorrow night!!
ReplyDeleteOne the one hand, he is like you said...different. But more alarming to me is that he is not all that different at all, and people didn't see it and still elected the guy! A difference for instance: He did as you said nit pick apart McCain, Bush and any other policy he didn't like. However, now he says things that he is not concerned about the gyrations of the stock market…why all the sudden is he no longer interested in the details?
ReplyDeleteNow to the similarities…he’s liberal. He always has been. His voting record (VERY brief) has given no indication that he is anything but liberal or that he has any intention whatsoever of reaching across party lines. I figure the only way he got elected was to do what Harry Reid (I’m ashamed to have that man as my senator soon and ashamed to be in the same church as that man by the way) and Nancy P. have done which is to scare people into change. They don’t care about actually changing anything; they just want to be in charge. That’s pretty much how every Democrat is! Look at the stimulus package load of crap they passed…how many years worth of wants did they put in there?? Anyway, that’s not the point.
Back to Barack…I guess I say he hasn’t changed because he only says what the masses want to hear. Contrast that with President Bush who did what he believed to be right at the cost of his popularity. If the people want to hear ‘free money’ Barack will tell them ‘free money.’ It doesn’t really matter what it is, he’ll say he’ll get this stuff done, but I think everything that is happening is not based on the good of the economy, but the desires of about 60 or so people who “represent the people.” That’s another interesting point…when did politicians stop representing the people and start using their power to get pet projects passed. It’s really sad. Back to Barack. The other thing that bothers me about Barack is his speeches are to rehearsed and shallowly charismatic. He writes EVERYTHING down…nothing comes from his heart. President Bush would have a few prepared remarks but then say what he wanted and for that I applaud him for being genuine. Barack can’t speak for himself…others write stuff down for him to say to work up a frenzy.
Last random point: Does nobody look at history? As a history major, this is quite disturbing to me!! I’m not even going to get into how people need only look at the history of socialism in other countries to see that its failed. Heck, not even full fledged socialism, just say a part…like health care. Didn’t work in Canada, England, or France…what makes Barack think doing the same thing is going to produce a different result? I’m thinking back to Roman times. Rome was great, easily the most powerful and influential country in the world. How is that any different than the United States now? (Or a decade or so ago atleast…whatever you get the point) Now a lot of things led to the fall of Rome, but I am of the opinion it resulted from internal contention among politicians who were out for themselves. (Sound familiar?) The Roman senate also ‘represented’ the people, that is until they became so powerful that they began telling the emperor what to do. Sounds kinda like today. A bunch of senators get together, come up with a stimulus bill and ‘tell’ the president to sign it. The greatness of Rome ended when the politicians failed to pay attention to their own problems/ the needs of the people or country and allowed their own agenda to become ‘law.’ Invaders invaded (terrorists), Rome divided (Dem vs. Rep), and Rome ultimately fell because while they were so busy loving themselves and their power, others caught up to them in skill, knowledge, and shrewdness. Sounds kinda like China today a little. Anyway, I don’t understand how nobody pays attention to history, either that we are not learning from recent history (socialized medicine) or ancient history and the fall of the United States.
Nice Justin. I would like to study the fall of Rome more and find more parallels, I bet they are there. But there is definitely a pattern in history where a free people give more and more power to their government, and the government becomes so big that it controls the people...instead of the people controlling it. Once that happens the only way to regain the freedom the people once had is through war and bloodshed. We aren't there yet, but our government grows in size and power yearly. If feels less and less like it is a government of the people. Thanks for your thoughts.
ReplyDelete