Obama’s “Regime Change” of Socialist Control

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

With all the solutions available from the private sector and from around the world since day one, to deal with the oil spill, President Obama has stalled on allowing any of these going forward for the following reasons:

To increase the power of government over the private sector. To allow the private sector to solve the problem would defeat and undermine Obama’s assertion that only government and government-owned companies, bureaucracies and labor unions can provide the solution. Obama sees the private sector as inherently evil, as reflected in the fact that he refused to meet with BP to establish a working relationship with the company to cut through all the bureaucratic red tape.

While BP attempts to cap the Deep Water Horizon well, it has to be remembered that the government forced BP to drill at a depth of 5,000 feet, one of the deepest wells ever drilled, creating the crisis. BP had wanted to drill at a depth of 500 feet. The result of the blowout has been that the government, Obama, and Democrats in Congress have threatened and talked down BP and its efforts. On the one hand, they require BP to obtain approvals from the government to move forward, while on the other hand they vilify the BP president and CEO during Congressional hearings, due to the government’s own delays.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration failed to grant requested waivers to the 1920 Jones Act that would allow foreign ships and skimmers to enter U.S. water, refusing international assistance from 33 countries and stalling and minimizing Louisiana’s creation of sand barriers, as well as stalling numerous private sector solutions that the Administration has refused to take heed of. One such example offered on May 3 was from Dr. Henry Crichlow, the leading oil blowout specialist worldwide, who developed the blowout engineering after Gulf War I for 800 or more wells in Kuwait, who provided quick relatively inexpensive solutions to either recover the oil with the Crichlow connector from the pipe a mile down or to “Kill the Spill” completely.

As part of the orchestration of the crisis, liberals in Congress threatened to put BP into receivership, while Obama played to the radical left with a threat to take over BP’s assets, if they could not force BP to allocate $20 billion in an escrow for a government appointee to administer. The result was that despite BP’s balance sheet, the U.S. government has succeeded to cause a FITCH downgrade of BP’s unsecured debt from AA to BBB, with BP shares losing a market cap value of $90 billion. The Obama Administration demanded that BP make payments it had already agreed to make, thus financially weakening the very company the government asserts it wants to be able to shoulder the burden of the fines, the oil cleanup and claims of lost revenues for the Gulf states.

Force Obama’s Cap & Trade bill and energy tax through Congress. Under the Obama policy of “don’t let a good crisis go to waste,” such stalling and delaying mentioned above allowed the crisis to get bad enough for Obama to have the “audacity” in his Oval Office speech to the nation to contrive and justify his Cap & Trade climate bill. Since the beginning of the blowout, the private sector and the States have been fighting with the Administration to get approvals to take action. However, the longer the Administration could stall, the worse the situation would become for BP, the States and Gulf coast businesses, exacerbating a crisis further by creating a moratorium on current and new shallow water drilling threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Cap & Trade, involving a Chicago carbon exchange and other companies that Obama and/or his associates may have financial interests in, was all but dead in the water until the BP oil blowout crisis renewed “hope” that he could revive it again. Cap & Trade is designed to increase the cost of energy to the private sector by more than 10 percent, lowering GDP in the process.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) studies have demonstrated that for every 1% reduction in the cost of energy there will be a 3% increase in manufacturing and industrial output. This occurred when President Reagan deregulated the oil industry, creating an economic boom. Obama is moving in the opposite direction—that of higher taxes and more federal government control on a permanent basis.

To effect “regime change” toward statism. Why would the Administration willfully let the Coastal region be damaged, destroying revenues and lives to create a crisis, as an “end justifies the means” call for Cap & Trade? The answer is that we just need to look at the cause of the systemic financial crisis itself, which was intended to achieve, as Mohamed El Erian, CEO of PIMCO, himself called it, “regime change” in the U.S. and globally. “Regime change” in the U.S. means an inexorable shift of control and ownership of private sector capital and productivity of the populous to the federal government and Federal Reserve.

“Regime change” in the United States entails a paradigm shift away from free enterprise capitalism and the establishment of a socialist government which assumes ownership and control of capital and human resources. Its projected culmination to a “New Normal” of slow economic growth and bigger government within four years will make it forever impossible for the U.S. to reinstate the free enterprise capitalist system, as every political and social act will be dictated by the elite in Washington.

Such “regime change” was facilitated by the government’s stealth regulatory change on November 9, 2007, from hold to maturity accounting to “mark-to-market” accounting, which caused the collapse in private sector capital formation and access to credit in 2008 and 2009, unless accompanied by government ownership or guarantees that allow such debt to be reclassified under the government’s sole right hold to maturity valuation.

Without the mark-to-market regulatory change, the markets would not have collapsed and we would still have a booming economy. Instead, we have a loss of over $10 trillion in private sector wealth and a shifting of private sector ownership and control of capital to the government and Fed. Thus, clearly, if the government and “special interests” are willing to orchestrate an unmitigated economic collapse allowing over $10 trillion in private sector savings to be lost to effect a “regime change” to a “New Normal” culminating in their total ownership and control of financial and human resources, then government stalling in its response to the oil spill to create a crisis to justify the resurrection of Cap & Trade to further such “regime change” is small potatoes by comparison.

To start the nationalization of oil and other major industries. An outright government takeover of BP and other oil companies could be the next phase of Obama’s “regime change” policy.

link

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Milton Friedman, the godfather of Libertarianism is the one who came with the idea of Cap and Trade. It was subsequently promoted by prominent Conservatives like Newt Gingrich. Of course, you can't expect much honesty from a man who used to call Walter Cronkite a Soviet dupe.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Milton Friedman, the godfather of Libertarianism is the one who came with the idea of Cap and Trade. It was subsequently promoted by prominent Conservatives like Newt Gingrich. Of course, you can't expect much honesty from a man who used to call Walter Cronkite a Soviet dupe.

i don't see any of those 3 mentioned in the blog.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Reading this you'd think things hadn't changed much in the US since the 1950s and the height of McCarthyism.

Socialism = the big evil

[evli1966 88]

Reading this you'd think things hadn't changed much in the US since the 1950s and the height of McCarthyism.

Socialism = the big evil

:thumbs:

+1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was being sarcastic. I think this kind of thing is utter guff.

[evli1966 88]

I was being sarcastic. I think this kind of thing is utter guff.

That is to bad.

My thimbs up and +1 stand fro what you say even if your intentions were not there.

Edited June 20, 2010 by evli1966

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US has a bizarre fear of the 'S' word which doesn't translate into anything tangible.

Perhaps people in the US are too used to idealogues and sensationalist news media commentators.

[evli1966 88]

S word is Socialism

all societies have it.

most people in the USA hate socialism because of it's negative affect on Capitalism

What makes America strong is the individualism of its citizens with a balance of both Socialism and Capitalism.

The Obama administation has left the building from it's views that mirroed most americans (the middle class and poor class) in it's effort to increase socialism.

The Adminstration is not in line with middle to big business because of the damage to capitalism to support their social agendas.

The way they are going about it is in media sensationalism as you call it.

For example: they stated they havent read the SB1070 bill but denounce it in the media to try and when support for their view through propaganda.

This is negative socialism and is not in line with the majority of the citizens of the USA.

He is seeking to tip the scales to far in the direction of Socialist control.

One more example: In a previous dicussion you were all about the rights of someone to fly another flag above the American flag and against the guy that broke the law to take it down.

In a socialist society the 1st person would not have the right to fly another flag and quite possibly could have been fined, arrested or worse. The second guy breaking the law more than likely would not recieve a fair trail or sentence.

This is the huge arguement of The adminstration going to far in socialism.

Edited June 20, 2010 by evli1966

[Pooky 3,784]

To start the nationalization of oil and other major industries. An outright government takeover of BP and other oil companies could be the next phase of Obama’s “regime change” policy.

If Obama's administration tries this, watch American assets abroad get wiped out in a heartbeat, as foreign governments seek to isolate and financially punish the USA for going the way of Venezuela.

The government took over GM because it was an American company. BP is an international company. Try the same thing and things will go South faster than you can blink.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

S word is Socialism

all societies have it.

most people in the USA hate socialism because of it's negative affect on Capitalism

What makes America strong is the individualism of its citizens with a balance of both Socialism and Capitalism.

The Obama administation has left the building from it's views that mirroed most americans (the middle class and poor class) in it's effort to increase socialism.

The Adminstration is not in line with middle to big business because of the damage to capitalism to support their social agendas.

The way they are going about it is in media sensationalism as you call it.

For example: they stated they havent read the SB1070 bill but denounce it in the media to try and when support for their view through propaganda.

This is negative socialism and is not in line with the majority of the citizens of the USA.

He is seeking to tip the scales to far in the direction of Socialist control.

One more example: In a previous dicussion you were all about the rights of someone to fly another flag above the American flag and against the guy that broke the law to take it down.

In a socialist society the 1st person would not have the right to fly another flag and quite possibly could have been fined, arrested or worse. The second guy breaking the law more than likely would not recieve a fair trail or sentence.

This is the huge arguement of The adminstration going to far in socialism.

if that's your case for American becoming some sort of socialist enclave, you aren't presenting a very convincing case. Your "flag" example is a case in point.

What on earth do you base these preconceptions on?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Obama's administration tries this, watch American assets abroad get wiped out in a heartbeat, as foreign governments seek to isolate and financially punish the USA for going the way of Venezuela.

The government took over GM because it was an American company. BP is an international company. Try the same thing and things will go South faster than you can blink.

It's not even remotely likely to happen.

I think the administration is letting BP get on with it because of the negative public perception resulting from the bailouts. There is certainly no small amount of grandstanding going on, but seems to be another case of damned of you do, damned if you don't.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

if that's your case for American becoming some sort of socialist enclave, you aren't presenting a very convincing case. Your "flag" example is a case in point.

What on earth do you base these preconceptions on?

Socialism is what happens when you least expect it, and clearly some of us do expect it because we're paying attention.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Socialism is what happens when you least expect it, and clearly some of us do expect it because we're paying attention.

What does that even mean? Why do people in the US insist on taking these ridiculously sensationalist interpretations of things?

[Pooky 3,784]

It's not even remotely likely to happen.

I think the administration is letting BP get on with it because of the negative public perception resulting from the bailouts. There is certainly no small amount of grandstanding going on, but seems to be another case of damned of you do, damned if you don't.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the administration is doing the best it can to realign BP's market position downward. It's a convenient target among oil companies, because it's not American-owned, so they can be seen to be anti-Big Oil, without hurting American companies.

What hurts most is that innocent bystanders in Louisiana, Florida, et al, are paying the price for this policy, when they deserve their government doing everything to avoid the damage in the first place, not just making sure that someone else pays for the clean-up operation.