Please don't quote the whole post, it's too long
Come on guys,
This from Dick Morris, not some blogger etc.
Let's look at his concerns:
1.
He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit ? indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible ? Obama will do them all rather quickly.
^ That's not "paranoia" or "anti Christ" stuff by any means. Aren't we expecting this? Aren't many here, in fact, arguing for it? Aren't we seeing a pretty big disregard for national debt under the banner of 'economic recovery'?
2.
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.
^ This is a fairly mainstream concern about reducing the percentage that pays taxes, while simultaneously increasing those who receive government support. It's not as though this concern/theory lacks any common sense. That dynamic can certainly be expected to motivate the non-taxpaying, yet gov benefit receiving, voter in some predictable ways. And once critical mass in reached in terms of voter %'s those favoring a different policy will have a major uphill battle getting support for changes.
Imagine trying to get elected on a platform of reducing gov (benefits). This is similar to concerns about the number of people employed in government, now about 50% (when state/local/federal are aggregated). How many Governors have successfully run on a platform of reducing state/local gov and the number of employees?
It's also another use of the class warfare divide and conquor tactics that have been used by the fed gov for decades (it was employed to enact the 16th Amendment - promises that only a few hyper wealthy would ever face income taxation etc).
3.
Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
^ Whether by design or coincidence, we look to be on this path now. Given the debt from Iraq, dumping another $2 trillion (not sure of the mount, I've lost track) may result in this dynamic (the 'anti-Reagan' type plan). I see nothing crazy here either.
4.
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.
I thougt we were already doing this (gov purchase of preferred stock)? And he is correct in his assertion that preferred stockholders must be paid before common stockholders. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on common stock prices, and it's ability to pay dividends (much of those dividends are used to fund retirement/pension plans). AFAIK, this hasn't been done previously in the USA so it's difficult to forecast all the ramifications. But as a financial professional I believe his concern has merit and is a plausible problem.
5. Health care
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
I don't see how there is any question that a UHC systems that injects so many more people cannot help but to overwhelm the current system/infrastructure. Will "rationing" result? Well, seems it does elsewhere (e.g., Canada). I see nothing 'paranoid' here.
6. Immigration?
He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting.
We've done that before. It's already recently attempted. I'll be surprised it we don't see another attempt at similar legislation in the next 4 years.
7. Unions
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections
Same as above.
8. ?Fairness Doctrine?
The Dem leadership and prominent Congresspersons are already publicly for this. Obama against it? Maybe, maybe not. This wouldn't be his first change on a stance. No matter, he may have to go along with it to get some other of his proposals passed.
9. Rapid Inflation?
Aren't most already predictng this?
It is fact that these are all issues now. The outcome that Morris predicts are, well, predictions. But none seem paranoid or implausible.
I bet we see some, if not most, of these occur; I think the real question is to what extent.
Cliffs: See above sentance.
Fern
Facebook
Twitter