Why Obama Continues to Work To Destroy The Economy
It seems to me that many conservatives are completely missing the point. The worst thing that could happen to Obama is for the economy to improve. When your constituency is made up of those who are dependent on the government, you want to expand that same group to the greatest extent possible. It is this “demographic” which the Left has consistently worked to expand, and there is no question that they have been successful in doing so. The Democratic constituency tends to be made up of those who have an interest in expanding the size and scope of government and represents the unholy alliance of those who receive funds and those who retain power by taking it from others to feed the group who supports them. There never seems to be any thought given to the question which asks from whom the funds will come when the producers have had enough. The impression seems to be that the funds will come from “the government” which can only mean that the government will soon be, as BH seems to advocate, not just the tax collector, but the producer from which everything of value emanates. The problem with that paradigm is that it never seems to end well.
Conservatives have the habit of thinking that what is objectively good is good and that the electorate is composed of people who have the same values of independence, hard work, and freedom which they do. This is simply not the case. Recent polls have shown, for example, that small business people overwhelmingly reject BH re-election campaign and thus isn’t it obvious that Obama would like to see less of them? This doesn’t even take into account the fact that small businesses are basically in the way of the Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor movements. One has to wonder if anyone still remembers the moral of the story regarding the goose who laid the golden eggs.
In virtually every speech or proclamation, BH makes known his disdain for the worker and his belief that independent initiative should not be rewarded. This actually makes sense when one takes into account his lack of managerial experience and his political leanings. The less confident, and less experienced, manager is always the one who wishes to micromanage and reacts to any perceived rejection of his authority as a major act of rebellion. Most of us have known the manager who prefers to take all the credit while at the same time absolving himself of any responsibility when things go wrong. This is also the manager who tends to have a problem working with others, and often simply ignores the directives of the group while claiming the right to do as he wishes. When one looks at BH’s words I ask you, how often does he share the credit, and how often does he reject the blame?