Is Obama Responsible for the Slow Recovery?

Is this poster correct?

The poster is correct, but only to a certain degree. Obama bears some responsibility for the slow creation of jobs. First of all, Charlie Brown was dumb enough to get fooled by Lucy time and time again. Likewise, President Obama was stupid enough to get fooled by his own economic advisers over and over again, notably by the Wall Street toadie, Lawrence Summers.

For example, Obama’s original stimulus package was about three times too small to engineer an economic recovery, and there were plenty of worthwhile economists who said so, such as Nobel prize winners Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz.

Second of all, Obama continues federal policies that redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent, his masters, such as the Crown Brothers of General Dynamics. Those policies began under Ronald Reagan, and include such legislation as free income redistribution trade treaties. Obama has already signed three of these treaties into law knowing they would cost the 99 percent jobs, and the difference between the old higher wages here and the new lower wages there are going into the pockets of the 1 percent via higher corporate profits, rising dividends and surging share prices. Obama knows this. He isn’t stupid, like Charlie Brown. Now the Obama man is negotiating the biggest free income redistribution treaty in USA history, the Trans Pacific Partnership. This scam will redistribute even more income from the 99 to the 1 percent than Nafta. The Guardian calls it “Nafta on Steroids.”

Sure Republicans obstructed Obama’s agenda for the last four years, but Obama’s agenda included sucking the middle class dry and shifting their former income into the already fat wallets of the 1 percent. So he bears quite a bit of the responsibility for our slow economic recovery.

Obama also failed to recognize that the redistribution of income from the 99 to the 1 percent over the previous 26 years has stifled the demand for goods and services from the 99 percent because they earn less money than they used to. That stifles job growth and has lead to the anemic recovery. Not only that, Obama’s agenda has invigorated America’s economic slow motion collapse.

As for the 1 percent, they usually invest their money in things that destroy rather than create jobs, such as derivatives, buying politicians and legislation, and free income redistribution treaties.

Worse yet, the 1 percent now steal about 31 percent of all US income, compared to 8 percent 31 years ago. That means the 99 percent earn 69 percent compared to 92 percent in 1980.

That’s why President Jimmy Carter looks like such a genius compared to the president’s that have followed him. The deficit was historically small under his watch compared to when Obama, Bush and Reagan have been president, but 208,000 jobs a month were created under Carter, and with rising wage rates. That was with an economy with 60 percent of the GNP and population as we have today. It was because the 99 percent had way more money to spend then, making job growth far more robust compared with now. Obama knows this as surely as I do. But he dare not do much to alleviate the burdens of the middle class for fear of angering his corporate backers. Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden is very much the same as Obama, in this regard.

Read Full Post »

Obama and Jobs: Hostage to Fortune

Based on his background as CEO, sole director and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney says he can manage the US economy better than President Barack Obama. But as president, it appears that Wall Street Mitt intends to run the terribly weak economy into the ground even more by wiping out jobs and pensions and shifting production of goods and services overseas if his business experience is any indication of his intentions.

As CEO of Bain, Mitt redistributed income from working Americans to his 1 percent self by shifting jobs overseas. Wall Street Mitt pocketed the difference between the former old wages here and the new lesser wages there. As president one can assume Mitt intends to redistribute income from working Americans to his fellow 1 percenters by pushing legislation that redistributes more income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

An editorial in the Guardian newspaper said it best.

“For a candidate who has made his own business background exhibit A in the argument that he could run the US economy better than his opponent, Mitt Romney has a case to answer over his involvement with Bain Capital. He plainly did not “leave” the private equity firm in 1999, if a series of filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission show him listed as the sole shareholder, sole director, CEO and president two years later. Instead of denying he had anything to do with the firm that helped other companies outsource jobs overseas, lay off steel workers and wipe out their pensions, Mr Romney could lay the matter to rest by publishing his tax returns and the minutes of Bain Capital meetings for that period.”

The Guardian goes on to ask a simple question; “But none of that means it is particularly clever for Barack Obama to keep on attacking Mr Romney over his asset-stripping days. It’s fine for his electoral base, but what about the independents he also needs to swing behind him? What these American voters will want to know in November is what Mr Obama has done to turn the jobs figures around.”

A point well taken since Obama has avoided taking the advice on these matters from people who always seem to be correct in their economic remedies, people like Nobel Prize economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Neither of these two, however, have identified the culprit for the weak US economy. That, of course, is the redistribution of income and wealth that has been legislatively enacted over the last thirty years.

Right now 99 percent of the US population earn about 73 percent of the total US income compared to roughly 92 percent 30 years ago. That means the 99 percent have less money to burn, which depresses wages and job creation. Free trade treaties are a primary culprit in the redistribution process.

Meanwhile, the 1 percent have increase their share from 8 to 27 percent over the same time through their political control of congress, and, of course, their presidents, including Obama. They use their money to purchase legislation to ship jobs overseas and deregulation, thereby redistributing more income from working Americans to themselves. In this way, the 1 percent have stolen 93 percent of total US income growth since 2009.

Click the link below for the rest of the story.

From the Guardian–Obama and jobs: Hostage to Fortune

Read Full Post »