Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Downfall IV: The Self-Destruction of Obama – The Economy UPDATED

This morning brings the surprise news that the nation’s economy as measured by GDP shrunk by 0.1% in the fourth quarter of 2012.  The news media is stumbling all over themselves to explain this with “one-time factors” and the like.  And, of course, there are various reasons a large economy grows and shrinks.  But there is one very important one-time factor behind this shrinkage that is being ignored – the re-election of Barack Obama.

There is no question that companies, businessmen, and investors made negative decisions because of the re-election of Obama.  That included mass layoffs and hour reductions, some more publicized than others.  The inevitability of higher taxes, Obamacare, and no telling what executive orders and regulations prompted many to go into economic self-preservation mode instead of the investing, hiring, and risk-taking a healthy economy needs.

And, still, after getting higher taxes, Obama has let it be known that his idea of a “balanced approach” to reducing deficits is even more higher taxes on the evil “Rich.”  So we are back where we were in early 2009, when it seemed every week brought new Leftist attacks on economic freedom from the Obama regime. 

If Obama would just lay off (No pun intended), declare victory, and let it be known that he will henceforth leave businessmen and investors alone and not raise taxes or pile on regulations any further, at least then they would know what the playing field is and make constructive economic decisions based on that.  But Obama clearly is determined to impose his Leftist agenda without relent.  Therefore the economic playing field remains uncertain, muddy . . . and likely to get worse.

The resulting weak economy will likely be a major cause of his political downfall.  Admittedly, Americans have been more patient with Obama on the economy than I had expected, mainly because things were difficult when he came in.  But that patience is not limitless.  Another year or two of economic stagnation or worse, as this morning’s GDP may be foretelling, will sap much of the goodwill toward Obama and make the electorate more disposed to stop tolerating his diverse enormities.

As I’ve mentioned before, a good economy can make people overlook and forgive a lot from a president.  See Bill Clinton.  But a bad economy . . .

Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.



Ed Morrissey goes yard on Obama’s malignant neglect of the economy and debunks some of the absurd blame-deflecting.  I cannot do better than him.  So get thee hence.

But I do have to add that the continued efforts by the noos media and Democrats (Forgive the redundancy.) to ignore the elephant in the room, namely that Obama’s re-election put a hit on the economy, amuse me greatly.


DeeBee said...

It takes an awful lot of trying to make me wish for the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. Obama has managed to do so without even breaking a sweat.

BillB said...

After seeing a post on another blog of a purely political nature and with the knowledge of one of Barack's father's beliefs, until the "evil rich" are taxed at rates more like France (75%) or higher he will not be satisfied. Within this term the "evil rich" will include the middle middle-class. The post I refer to refereed to a comment to an article by the blogger on a news site which stated that all money that one earns past what pays their bills should be confiscated by the government. I would believe that the government approach to this would go further and determine how large ones bills should be and take away the rest. Barack's father believed that people could be taxed at 100% and then given what the government determined they need. I believe that the current Leftist powers believe in the later for most people with the prior idea as the intermediate step. Naturally the Political Elite(one could say Aristocracy) would be exempt from this.