Obamanomics: Fear, Naivete/Naïvety or Deception?

Having just watched President Obama deliver his first prime time news conference, I have to wonder what this administration is telling – or not telling – the American people.

Could Obama be completely naive about how the economy took a sudden dramatic turn for the worse? He also cited the “lost generation” in Japan which went unchallenged by even the media. (Do they even know their history?)

At the same time, I feel as if Obama was trying to sell the $800 PLUS BILLION “stimulus” plan given all the opposition by the American people burning up the phone, email and fax lines over the last week. Many of us believe that this administration is using a Trojan horse strategy by scaring the hell out of everyone in order to socialize financial institutions, health care and any other sector of the economy. Fear is an incredible motivator and Obama and Congressional Democrats have seized this opportunity to radically and irreversibly change the American economy.

Finally, could it be possible that things are really worse than what Obama is telling the American people? Does the administration fear the worst but simply cannot tell us because it would create widespread havoc and unrest nationwide? Would the truth cause a run on the banks or even imposing Martial law?

A final note: Where are all the liberal celebrities who moaned and groaned during the Bush Presidency about how there was so much fear and anxiety?


Comments

  1. James Davidson says

    The Leftist extremists who now run Congress are using the current recession as a ruse to pass or fund all the pet programs and loony ideas they have waited 16 years to be able to enact. The “stimulus bill” is a con game, purely and simply. Unfortunately the people in the blue states, who are ruled by emotion rather than logic, are gullible enough to fall for it. If Congress really wanted to aim at stimulus it would focus on two things: Tax cuts and infrastructure. The rest is either ideology or pork, not economic stimulus. With lower taxes people can buy more of what they want, not what some Leftist extremist in Washington thinks is good for them. Roads, hihways, bridges, and the like both create an immediate demand but also ave a long term effect in building productivity.

  2. DSW,

    You’re right, I wish you weren’t but. I am starting to wonder what IS POTUS’ plan. What finally got us out of the great depression? It wasn’t the WPA, Tennessee Valley Authority, or the dumping of milk to jack up dairy goods pricing. It was World War II.

    This , Mr. Obama, just threw his own VP under the bus tonight. This press conference was totally staged with our President only calling on ‘journalists’ in a preplanned fashion. He is frighteningly arrogant and very certain he’s the HMFIC.
    It’s not even been a month. Where does this go from here?

  3. Rightwoman,

    “This press conference was totally staged with our President only calling on ‘journalists’ in a preplanned fashion.”

    Wow. How was the coma you were in during the last eight years? Comfortable? Stop being outraged about stuff you weren’t outraged about during the Bush years.

    “What finally got us out of the great depression?”

    I know it’s the latest conservative tactic to try to discredit FDR and Obama, but the New Deal lowered the unemployment rate from 25% in 1933 to 14% in 1940. WWII helped, but the New Deal was working (and of course, we could look at GDP during that time too, and how it increased every year, except 1937 – the year FDR tried the GOP’s idea of tax cuts).

  4. I also noticed that Barack Obama and HIS Vice-President are NOT on the same page.

    Or, it was a blatant “punt” on the question which, if that is the case, he’s already breaking his vow of transparency and accountability. How can you trust this President if he doesn’t know what HIS own Vice-President is doing or saying or he’s avoiding answering the question. Oh, I forgot, the liberal media let that one go! Didn’t you hear them laugh it off?

    What about Helen Thomas’ question about the “so-called terrorists” in Pakistan/Afghanistan? BO also let that one go as well.

    This gets better and better!

  5. It is right that you bring up WWII. WWII was a super government stimulus bill/policy that lasted for years. Some have said that the stimulus spending package is way too small [compared to the amount spent during WWII–taking to account inflation/GDP) to jump start the economy.

  6. Basil St. John says

    On the bright side, at least he’s not being controlled by his vice-president…

  7. Basil St. John,

    I do have to admit, THAT was funny!

  8. I have to wonder, after the last 8 years of everyone talking about what a bumbling idiot George W Bush was, and how he couldn’t speak & made up his own words…at least he could SORT OF stumble through a press conference without “uhhh” & “ummm” every other word.
    You would think after the way that the media beat up Caroline Kennedy for her lack of speaking skills, Obama’s “great skills as an orator” would be up for debate too.
    But I forgot, we’re supposed to turn a blind eye, since he is the messiah and all.

  9. I don’t know if it will matter much if Uncle Sam turns all the financial institutions into Socialistic Bank of America. If they are not willing to lend to a majority of individuals and businesses, you won’t see much change in the economic status of the country fo years to come. Currently we have over a 10 year glut of new houses sitting empty valued at 50% less than what it cost to build them. There are hundreds of thousands of new multi-family structures that no one can afford to rent. Oh, and don’t forget the millions of square feet of new commercial space ready for businesses that will never occupy. Where is the stimulation for that? I don’t think even a war would help at this point.

  10. Banks loaning money to everyone is partially what got us into this economic situation. Even BO said that the days of buying a home with no down payment are over for those that can’t afford it.

  11. Again, I understand that conservative Republicans are the least educated among us, but there is no such word as “naivety” as in your headline. The noun form of the adjective “naive” is “naivete.”

    It’s foolish to address the comments of a semi-literate lunatic fringe, but I’d commend to those of you who have at least an eighth-grade reading level Newsweek’s cover story, “We All Socialists Now.”

    It will show you all just how irrelevant to the current debate you are:

    “The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

    Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton’s end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don’t trust government and still don’t want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and “liberal” an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew.”

    Again, no need to thank me for educating you on your language and on the issues. I am, after all, a teacher.

  12. Richard,

    Thanks for the “spell check.” I should have consulted dictionary.com for the proper spelling before posting. With that said, we are in agreement that George W. Bush made a horrifyingly bad decision in throwing $700 Billion at the financial sector. However, I, like many other conservatives, do take exceptions to the generalization that “conservative Republicans are the least educated among us…”

  13. On another note, I was stunned to see a member from Huffington Post sitting in the front rows of the press conference!

    I do remember Arianna saying that she talks to Barack Obama frequently on his Blackberry.

  14. James Davidson says

    Richard Grayson:

    My aren’t we a smarty pants? “The noun form of the adjective ‘naive’ is ‘naivete.’” But shouldn’t we write, “The nominal form . . . ” or has the adjectivalization of nouns passed completely from the collquial to standard grammar? I believe “naïvety” does appear in Random House, but I expect you lefty teachers are too addicted to French spelling to accept an anglicization. (Let’s ignore the absence of an umlaut in the headline. Not everyone makes use of it or has it on his or her word processor.)

    It is typical of Lefties to call names. After all it was de rigeur (to borrow the from that darn French again) to call Presidents Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush all dumb. Recall Clark Clifford’s sobriquet (sorry I have a tick for that nasty French) for President Reagan: “amiable dunce.” Of course Mr. Clifford, a doyen of Washington Liberalism of a certain era, ended his career in disgrace, while President Reagan destroyed communism, brought back prosperity, restored American greatness, and generally is considered the best and most effective president of the second half of the 20th Century.

    Newsweek’s cover story was typical Lefty prattle. If anyone thinks European socialism is the way to go, please get used to years of stagnation, high unemployment, and stifling and centralized regulation. It is the Nurse-Ratchet way of doing things.

Leave a Reply