{"id":2553,"date":"2011-09-28T19:54:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-28T19:54:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/68.169.38.31\/?p=2553"},"modified":"2014-04-06T23:46:12","modified_gmt":"2014-04-06T23:46:12","slug":"obamanomics-picking-winners-and-losers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gormogons.com\/index.php\/2011\/09\/obamanomics-picking-winners-and-losers\/","title":{"rendered":"Obamanomics: Picking Winners and Losers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>A president’s foreign policy is typically referred to as their doctrine, especially if it redefines national priorities in foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine, for example, basically European powers were not to interfere or further colonize the Americas, and America will not interfere in European affairs. Since that time, the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (43) Doctrine evolved, largely to address the Cold War, or in Bush’s case, the war on terror.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Of note, the foreign policy escapades of Ford, Carter, Clinton and to date, Obama are ill defined. Ford wasn’t around long enough. Carter, despite reports to the contrary didn’t really have, or at least implement one. The Clinton Doctrine probably could be summed up fire some cruise missiles to take Monica off the front page of the Washington Post. Obama, well, Lead from Behind sounds like a nice start.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This post isn’t about foreign policy, rather it’s about domestic policy. Ever since Reagan took office, economic policy has been labeled <president’s name>onomics. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In the case of President Obama, there has been a clear pattern the government exerting a combination of pressure and regulation to pick winners and losers of its own choosing. The auto bailout, Solyndra, Gibson Guitar and Boeing are but a few of the legion of examples of this phenomenon. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n