Why Obama liberalism is worse than socialism

In a post below I made the following comments which deserve a post of their own:

Many on the right have been suggesting that Obama's policies are socialist. They are not. They are worse than socialism. Socialism means the states owns and takes responsibility for the production of goods and services and subsidizes its operations with extremely high taxes. Experience has demonstrated that this model is inefficient and reduces most people's standard of living.

What liberalism does is allow the owners to stay in place, but it tells them how to run their business. It is the approach of the fascist states. Obama is big on telling energy companies and auto companies what they can and cannot produce and in diverting funds from them to companies that would otherwise be unprofitable.

But in doing so he ignores the fundamental failure of a command economy. No one, not even Obama , is smart enough to know how many eggs and slices of bacon are needed in New York city everyday. Anyone who tried would either get too many or too few in place on a daily basis.

With socialism and communism the state would at least have to bear the consequences of the screw ups they make. The Obama system would make the businesses and their shareholders Obama is bossing bear the consequences of his screw ups.
When Hugo Chavez screws up his state owned oil company he has to bear the consequences with reduced revenues and production. When Obama screws up domestic energy companies the owner and shareholders bear the consequences.

This is an argument that needs to be made now in opposing the Obama control freak agenda.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more