Home / Culture and Society / Obama Condemns Top Down Planning

Obama Condemns Top Down Planning

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Will the ironies never cease? President Barack Hussein Obama, the king of central planners and an avowed socialist, told people at a campaign rally held on June 22, at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, that, “We don’t need more top-down economics. What we need is some middle class-out economics, some bottom-up economics.” He actually said that! Here is proof, once again, that Obama will say anything, even contradict himself, in order to get votes.

But before we can examine what Obama is saying, we must understand what he means when he says top down. Some insight into his thinking (or should I say Teleprompter reading) can bein recent speeches. For example, on the same day,June 22, speaking at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Annual Conference, he said:

They [Republicans] believe the best way to grow the economy is from the top down. So they want to roll back regulations, and give insurance companies and credit card companies and mortgage lenders even more power to do as they please.

In another speech, at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 14, Obama said:

… the theory that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down. So they maintain that if we eliminate most regulations, if we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, if we strip down government to national security and a few other basic functions, then the power of businesses to create jobs and prosperity will be unleashed, and that will automatically benefit us all.

I know this will come as a shock to Obama (and his Teleprompter speech writers), but government mandates and central planning are the ultimate “top down” way to run things. Central planning, top down economics, refers to planning as a means of social engineering in order to manipulate economics in order to achieve the desired outcome.

  • Czars – he has appointed 32 (or more) czars to oversee all aspects of the economy, including one who is an avowed communist.
  • Healthcare – he has decided that everyone should have healthcare, and has mandated that we all pay for it.
  • Green energy – he has decided that green, or renewable energy, is to be thrust upon us, regardless of cost.
  • Stimulus – he crammed the economic stimulus down our throats, then joked that shovel ready projects weren’t so shovel ready.
  • We Can’t Wait – his effort to bypass the US Congress (and therefore the US Constitution) gave us this phrase.

These are all forms of intervention, of central planning, of top down economics. They try to manipulate outcomes from what they would have been had they been left alone.

So I guess that ultimately what Obama said was not contradicting himself. I guess his view of economics has evolved to the point where he doesn’t really know what he’s saying, just reading words from his ever-present Teleprompter. He had better get a new teleprompter speech writer: one who knows economics.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by


  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Do you know why the other BC conservatives don’t rush in to support your contentions? Because most of them are intelligent, and they know right away how easy it is for the mostly-intelligent liberals to blow away your talking points. They are no less dedicated to conservative causes than you are, but they also see the lack of logic – and often, the outright falsity – of your claims.

  • troll

    But that’s just my opinion.

    ….well sorta – more like another echo

    the central opinion of this piece – Obama’s ‘misuse’ of the “top down economics” phrase – was expressed by Erica Johnson over at Hot Air and further detailed by James Pethokoukis at AEIdeas and freerepublic a few days ago for example

    an attribution would have been……nice

  • Re: comment # 1, OK, Glenn, blow me away!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Crap. I had a whole freakin’ page refuting you, and my wife called me away from the computer and now it’s gone. Okay, it’ll have to be Sunday when I have time to get to you again, but I will.

    And Warren – welcome back. You might be wildly, incredibly wrong on so many issues, but at least you’re sincere – which counts for something in my book.

  • Warren Beatty(not the reactionary plagiarist)

    The ultimate top-down economy is when the monopoly corporate system is on top of the government and can jail and kill peasants while excusing corporate and banking criminals.

    Oh… that’s what we’ve got now.

    Never mind.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And yet you really want even MORE deregulation????

    “Corporations are people, my friend” – Mitt Romney

  • Re: comment # 6, Glenn, in EO 13590, which Obama signed, there is:

    Sec. 5. For the purposes of this order:

    (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

    (b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

    So, based on this, can we safely assume that Obama (and you) agree with Romney that corporations are, indeed, people?

    If not, if you cite the passage “For the purposes of this order:”, then I think it incumbent upon you to offer a source so we can at least be consistent.

    As for deregulation, have you ever heard the phrase, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren, when was the last time a corporation went to jail for committing a crime? ANY crime?

    A corporation cannot vote, nor can it serve in the military or die for its country.

    Worst of all, employees of a corporation have a legal fiduciary duty to that corporation, wherein they must do what is best for that corporation – not what is best for the nation or the people, but for that particular corporation, even when what is best for the corporation is NOT best for the nation…and if the people do what is financially harmful for the corporation, they can be held legally liable even if what they did is best for the people or for the nation.

    That, sir, is why NO corporation should have rights to free speech. What is best for a corporation is NOT best for the nation.

  • Glen, re #8 — True, corporations can neither vote nor serve in the military nor die for their country nor go to jail. The same is true of other institutions such as labor unions, PACs, partnerships, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and both houses of the Congress. However, the humans who are members of, work for and control them can.

    On your apparent theory, should not labor unions, partnerships and PACs, like corporations, not have rights of free speech?