The Future of the Obama Administration

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:38 am

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

...

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

...

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

...

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

...

But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:52 am

And here is another gem from the prostitute toe sucking Dick Morris.

Hater, let me give you a tip - Bush already effectively nationalized the banking system with the bailout funds.

I might also suggest that you chill out a bit or you are going to be in for an angry 4 years.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:54 am

And here is another gem from the prostitute toe sucking Dick Morris.

don't turn this into too hot

Hater, let me give you a tip - Bush already effectively nationalized the banking system with the bailout funds.

and I opposed him when he did that, too.

I might also suggest that you chill out a bit or you are going to be in for an angry 4 years.

This is rich. The last person I need telling me to chill out is you, slider. I have the right to be outraged over a socialist President, and I will be.
[/quote]

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:58 am

And here is another gem from the prostitute toe sucking Dick Morris.

Hater, let me give you a tip - Bush already effectively nationalized the banking system with the bailout funds.

I might also suggest that you chill out a bit or you are going to be in for an angry 4 years.

8 years right?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:00 am

Socialist President? That is really rich.

Well then rant on. Now you know how I am the majority of the American public felt like for the long national nightmare that was the Bush Regime.

And for the record, Dick Morris is a narcissistic self serving egomaniac whose only goal is to get his name in the paper. Considering how absolutely wrong he was as a pundit last year, you can pretty much guarantee that anything he says will be wrong. And he was busted and kicked off of Clinton's re-election campaign because he was caught sucking the toes of a prostitute. That is not name calling, it is staing a fact. Kind of like Eliot Spitzer or Rod Blagojevich giving a lecture on morality.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:04 am

And here is another gem from the prostitute toe sucking Dick Morris.

Hater, let me give you a tip - Bush already effectively nationalized the banking system with the bailout funds.

I might also suggest that you chill out a bit or you are going to be in for an angry 4 years.
8 years right?

I hope so. I do look forward to the Republicans nominating Sarah Palin in 2012. In fact, I might donate to her campaign to help her get the nomination. That one will replicate the landslide of FDR in 1936 or Reagan in 1984 for Obama.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:07 am

Palin won't get the nomination...she's a joke just like Edwards for the Democrats.

Hoping Jindal runs.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:08 am

And he was busted and kicked off of Clinton's re-election campaign because he was caught sucking the toes of a prostitute. That is not name calling, it is staing a fact. Kind of like Eliot Spitzer or Rod Blagojevich giving a lecture on morality.

kinda like vowing more transparency yet controlling what media are allowed in at presidential re-swearing-ins...or withholding the names of the 'senior officials' involved in the guantanamo process...hey - he called for transparency and isn't following through yet i'm not calling him a two-faced hypocritical liar or anything.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:42 am

I don't necessarily think Palin would be a good selection for President in 2012, but Hater come on...don't compare her to Edwards...she may not be an elite or super-intelligent but she's not a complete fraud!

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:44 am

She's a clown, just the same as Edwards. When Edwards speaks you laugh because you know the guy is just not a leader and doesn't have what it takes. How he gained any political legitimacy is amazing to me. Now, Palin is, I believe, a better person than Edwards, but politically, they're equivalent.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:51 am

one's a governor, one's only just a senator...big difference imo.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:04 pm

Funny, because I and a lot of others I know don't see her as a clown at all...she's the only real person I've ever seen in politics. Does that make her a good leader? I dunno, but she's not a complete idiot or a clown...IMO.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:07 pm

Hater, let me give you a tip - Bush already effectively nationalized the banking system with the bailout funds.

False, IMO. If they were effectively nationalized then people wouldn't be out there making the argument that the banking NEEDS nationalization to survive OR other people out there saying nationalization won't help. The common shareholders would also probably already be wiped out if they were effectively nationalized.

I can see the argument you're making but there are real differences between TARP as it stands and effective nationalization, IMO. Those distinctions matter.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:07 pm

Funny, because I and a lot of others I know don't see her as a clown at all...

Who are these "others"? I brought up her selection with a lot of conservatives (men and women), and almost all of them viewed it (and her) as a joke that played a part in the demise of McCain's bid for the presidency. It was difficult for me to find even the most die-hard of republicans who could defend her with a straight face. I'm not saying she's a bad person, but a VP or POTUS? C'mon...

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:40 pm

[move][glow=red,2,300]GET UR TROLL ON!!![/glow][/move]

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:56 pm

Funny, because I and a lot of others I know don't see her as a clown at all...
Who are these "others"? I brought up her selection with a lot of conservatives (men and women), and almost all of them viewed it (and her) as a joke that played a part in the demise of McCain's bid for the presidency. It was difficult for me to find even the most die-hard of republicans who could defend her with a straight face. I'm not saying she's a bad person, but a VP or POTUS? C'mon...

Well, I know a couple that thought it was a good pick because she appealed to the "base". However, the vast majority thought it was a major foul-up. Just like there were some who actually voted for Edwards even though they were heavily outflanked.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:57 pm

I initially thought it was a good pick, but she flopped during interviews and debates. They really should have emphasized her "maverick" qualities, standing up to the old-school GOP corruption in Alaska and fiscal conservatism.