Posts tagged Obama

Where In The World Is Obamao?

0

 

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com

By Tyler Durden

Where In The World Is Obamao?

 

A funny thing happened during Michelle Obama’s public relations tour of China (where taxpayers are privileged to pay $8,400 for each night of her lodgings): T-shirts, coin purses and posters that show President Barack Obama portrayed as Chairman Mao are normally available for sale at the Great Wall. But on Sunday, when First Lady Michelle Obama visited the Chinese tourist spot with her daughters, the so-called “Obamao” souvenirs were no where to be found. “We don’t have them anymore,” said one peddler, a woman who declined to give her name. “But if you come back next time, you might find them. You could come tomorrow,” the woman said.

Obamao

Full story here.

Image credit: http://www.zerohedge.com

Nationalism or Internationalism? (video)

0

 

Nationalism or Internationalism?

 

111a

Next News Network video capture

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by Gary Franchi

About:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama are working both sides of the Atlantic this week. But their mutual target is Russia. Reid is busy on Capitol Hill in that regard, while the President is on a week long European tour. While Reid and Obama are wrestling with several issues besides Russia, they’re sending a mutual message that the U.S. will punish Russia for its military operation in Ukraine.

Furthermore, a pricey aid package for the newly installed Ukrainian government based in Kiev is in the works.

President Obama is meeting with leaders from the G-7 nations. His stop in Holland yesterday was widely regarded as an attempt to isolate Russian President Vladimir Putin and deter him from moving his forces beyond the Crimean peninsula and further into Ukraine.

Obama and the G-7 allies have also firmed up their decision to remove Russia from the annual G-8 economic summit. The removal appears to be official, which is why the G-8 is now being called the G-7.

Notably, the G-7 will meet in June 2014 in Brussels, Belgium, to discuss what organizers say is “a broad agenda.”

But what Obama and his allies are doing overseas has a way of softening up the folks back home in America—to justify foreign aid for Ukraine.

On the home front, Sen. Reid is stumping for an aid package for Ukraine as Congress embarks on a marathon session this week. Reid expects the Senate to work right through the weekend as President Obama wraps up his overseas trip.

For the record, the Senate:
· Will reconsider extending jobless benefits.
· Furthermore, unless Congress takes corrective action by April 1st, Medicare reimbursements to doctors will be slashed by nearly 25%.
· Reid also wants to officially raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But Republican support is lacking on that so far.

However, the first order of business this week will be the Ukraine-aid bill, which calls for $1 billion in loan guarantees.

Reid noted: “I am hopeful and somewhat confident that this legislation will receive the bipartisan support it deserves.”

But does a Ukraine-aid bill really deserve support?

During this busy phase in Washington, the missing argument is that the U.S. can scarcely afford the time and the money to play both sides of the ocean to aid Ukraine via the IMF.
Foreign aid is preferable to going to war, but the Constitution is silent on foreign aid. This means that the national charter does not authorize providing such aid in the first place.

Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced: “[I]t’s important to note that for every dollar the United States contributes to the IMF, other countries provide 4 dollars more.”

Lew added that the U.S. has developed an actual “package of bilateral assistance focused on meeting the most pressing needs in Ukraine, to include a 1 billion-dollar loan guarantee.”

Lew also has urged Congress to approve legislation to “support the capacity of the International Monetary Fund to lend additional resources to Ukraine.”

However, if money must be spent, it’s arguably better to avoid Medicare cuts and extend jobless aid for Americans—instead of extending foreign aid.

Indeed, all this talk in Congress and by President Obama to isolate Russia misses a key point.

That point is as follows: In a way, America needs to isolate itself from world commitments which force U.S. taxpayers to guarantee international loans. Like never before, the U.S. needs to get its own house in order.

Simply put, we need to operate on a more nationalistic impulse—not more internationalism.

http://NextNewsNetwork.com | Next News Network’s WHDT World News Program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://usmediavault.com/WHDT.html

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT

Like us on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet

Follow us on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

Former Obama Supporter Posts Viral Video

0

 

Former Obama Supporter Posts Viral Video

 

3-16-2014 6-13-05 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by Carey Wedler

 

Where In The Constitution Does It Say Obama Can Rule By Decree And “Do Whatever He Wants”?

2

 

Source: http://endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

Where In The Constitution Does It Say Obama Can Rule By Decree And “Do Whatever He Wants”?

 

Obama-I-Have-A-Pen-300x300By making “at least a dozen major adjustments” to Obamacare without congressional approval, Barack Obama is making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.  Throughout human history, political power has always tended to become concentrated in the hands of one man.  The Founding Fathers knew this, and they tried very hard to keep that from happening in the United States.  A system in which the people rule themselves is a very precious and fragile thing.  As humans, we all have the tendency to want more power.  That is why a “separation of powers” was such a radical concept.  As Bill Federer is constantly pointing out, the Founding Fathers made our federal government inefficient on purpose.  They wanted a system of checks and balances that would make it difficult to push through major changes very rapidly.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become extremely frustrated by this and has expressed his intention to rule by decree as much as he can during the remainder of his second term.

In our system, the legislature is supposed to make the laws, and the executive branch is supposed to execute them.  But Obama does not seem to care for that arrangement too much.  Just recently, he made the following statement…

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

And during a visit to Monticello on Monday, Obama said the following…

“That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.”

Of course that was probably a joke, but it just reveals what his mindset is.

Obama believes that he has a tremendous amount of power, and he has consistently exhibited a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

This week, Obama made another major change to the Affordable Care Act without getting congressional approval.  At this point, it has become clear that Obama believes that he can change any law, for any reason, any time that he likes.

The following is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about this most recent lawless act…

‘ObamaCare” is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Act not least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.

This latest “modification” directly contradicts the plain language of the law, and if the American people do not object to this it will let Obama (and all other future presidents) know that they truly “can do whatever they want”.

Charles Krauthammer is completely outraged by all of this.  He says that this is the kind of “stuff you do in a banana republic”…

But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
 
It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes — and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.

And he is right.

For those that have not read it, the U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed“.

If Obama wants part of Obamacare to be changed, he must ask Congress to change it.

He cannot change laws all by himself.

As Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell stated last year, the Office of Legal Counsel for the Justice Department “has always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to ‘refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.’”

What in the world is happening to this country?

Meanwhile, those that are objecting to the lawless behavior of the Obama administration are increasingly being portrayed as national security threats.  This is also the kind of thing that we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics.  According to a recent WND article, the Ohio Army National Guard conducted a training drill last year in which the “enemies” were supporters of the 2nd Amendment and had “right-wing beliefs“…

Internal documents from an Ohio Army National Guard training drill conducted in January 2013 describe the details of a mock disaster in which Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” beliefs were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
 
The Guard’s 52nd Civil Support Unit and first responders in hazmat suits conducted the training exercise last year in Portmouth, Ohio. In the terror-attack scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School teachers follow orders from a white-nationalist leader to poison school lunches with mustard gas to advance their “right-wing” beliefs about gun rights.
 
“It’s the reality of the world we live in,” Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told WSAZ-TV. “Don’t forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared.”

Sadly, this was far from an isolated incident.  For many more examples, please see my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“.

Whether you support Barack Obama or you are deeply opposed to him, hopefully we can all agree that he needs to follow the law.

Hopefully good sense will prevail and Obama will stop trying to rule by decree.  There is a reason why we have a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.  One man is not supposed to make all of the decisions.  The members of Congress should be loudly objecting to this massive power grab by Obama.

Please pray for Barack Obama and for Congress.  Up to this point, they have been behaving very foolishly.  Let us pray that they will soon return to following the U.S. Constitution.

Obama-I-Have-A-Pen-460x306

 

This article first appeared here at the The American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

 

 

3dnew3-240x300


Image credit: http://endoftheamericandream.com
 

Obama in front of Jefferson’s Monticello: “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” (Video)

0

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Obama in front of Jefferson’s Monticello: “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” (Video)

 

Jefferson-quote-565x265

 

To say such a thing even if he thinks it at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson is amazingly arrogant. Has he no understanding of context? We try to give this the President the benefit of the doubt when we can but this comment I think reflects a contempt for the American people.

Some will argue that it was just a flip statement, and indeed I think it was. But it reflects where Mr. Obama is psychologically (to some degree.) To say such a thing on camera, at Monticello, is just terribly poor taste. Isn’t Mr. Obama supposed to be a “scholar.” Has he no idea what it means for a sitting president to say such a thing while strolling with the Socialist president of France? Did it not occur to him.

Sadly, it probably didn’t.

I suppose since he has been able to get away with changing the Obamacare law extraconstitutionally 27 times (so far), benefiting mostly large business interests and political allies, he might feel a little full of himself.

What a banner day for United States.

YouTube Preview Image

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

 

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

By Ron Paul

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

 

ronpaul-tst

 

President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority.  Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.

Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively adding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.

Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “….  guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”

Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians where labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.

Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.

The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war.  So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.

It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.

The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.

 

Why is Obama weighing in on CVS ending tobacco sales? Crony capitalism

1

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Why is Obama weighing in on CVS ending tobacco sales? Crony capitalism

 

obama-smoking

 

This is a place where the president has no business at all.

 

Just because CVS has decided not to carry tobacco any longer and to instead focus on the other highly addictive drugs which are prescribed by doctors every day, doesn’t mean the president has to toss in his 2 cents. It’s a business decision and shouldn’t be any of the president’s.

But there’s more to the story than just the president sticking his nose again into the real economy.

CVS wants Obamacare clinics in its stores which means no tobacco. This way though the pharmacy chain may lose $2 billion annually in the first year or two from this decision, in the long run it thinks it wins.  The company has secured the praise of the government in a very public way which protects it to a degree from government scrutiny and probably even actively helps the company with regulators and other political favors.

But more importantly CVS secures a stream of taxpayer dollars going to its bottom line through the Obamacare program. CVS will continue to be a drug dealer, just now the drugs are paid for by the American people. Tobacco, as good a revenue stream as it is can’t compete with dollars flowing straight from Washington.

(From Politico)
 
“As one of the largest retailers and pharmacies in America, CVS Caremark sets a powerful example,” he said in a statement early Wednesday morning. “Today’s decision will help advance my Administration’s efforts to reduce tobacco-related deaths, cancer, and heart disease, as well as bring down health care costs.”

Basically its play and be praised or don’t and be demonized and scrutinized by an activist federal government. Great choice. I’m sure the shareholders love it.

Click here for the article

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

 

Obama Doubles Down On Destroying The Economy

0

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Obama Doubles Down On Destroying The Economy

 

nuke-photo-cc1-565x480

 

Is the president really this ignorant of business and economics?

Telling American employers to raise their wages sounds innocent enough. But it ceases to be innocent when people lose their jobs as a result of it.

In his State of the Union address, the president called for higher minimum state and federal wages and added: “ I ask… America’s business leaders to…raise your employees’s wages.”

This is not the first time a president has made this “request” of employers.

After the stock market crash of 1929, President Hoover began talking about wages. They needed to be protected from cuts, he said, and preferably increased, so that consumer demand would increase. More consumer demand would supposedly get the economy through the storm.

As the economy sputtered and prices began to fall, the president acted on his pet theory. He began lobbying businesses not to reduce wages. He did more than lobby. He sent a clear signal that if his directive was ignored, the government might step in and legislate wages.

Businesses listened. But they also had their backs against a wall. With consumer prices falling, wage reductions were needed to protect profits. Without profits, a business fails and everyone loses their job.

Faced with this reality, but afraid to make any reduction in wages, businesses did the only thing they could do to try to stay afloat: they cut jobs. Millions were thrown out of work who might have kept their jobs at reduced pay but for Hoover’s intervention.

When the new Roosevelt administration came in, it embraced the same bogus economic theory. Both prices and wages were tightly controlled by the National Recovery Act. In a famous incident, a New Jersey immigrant worker, Jacob Maged, was sentenced to jail for three months on a charge of pressing a suit for 35 cents instead of the legislatively required 40 cents.

These policies had the paradoxical effect of making some Americans newly affluent even while throwing millions out of work. Since prices had fallen sharply, those who kept their jobs at the old wages could in many cases buy twice as much with the same money.

The Hoover/Roosevelt/ Obama policy meant that some got a windfall; others got destitution. Economic inequality sharply worsened. In general, the Roosevelt administration’s most powerful supporters, labor unions, saw to it that their members did not lose jobs, while those without unions were the ones laid off.

It is noteworthy that the same thing happened when the Obama administration bailed out General Motors. The non-unionized workers, even those in the most efficient plants, lost everything: jobs and retirement benefits. Unionized workers allied with the president kept both.

In the same State of the Union speech, the president did not just ask employers to raise wages. He also required them to pay a higher minimum wage if they had a federal contract. Hearing this, employers can only wonder what further wage controls will be proposed next.

If more federal wage controls do come, it is not even clear that lay-offs could be used as they were in the 1930’s to save businesses from closing. Economist Paul Krugman has proposed federal controls on the right to lay-off or fire workers. The president himself has proposed giving workers the right to sue if they apply for a job and are turned down.

The economy itself provides sufficent reason to be cautious about hiring. The Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy and regulatory rules make it very difficult to persuade a bank to finance expansion. And Obamacare creates a strong disincentive to hire the 50th employee.

With all this in the background, why would any employer in 2014 hire a new worker if not absolutely necessary? This is especially true for small businesses, and small businesses have always been the chief source of new jobs.

This is all part of a larger picture. To thrive, an economy needs free prices. Free prices not only provide the truthful signals that producers and consumers need in order to make good decisions. They also provide the discipline that any economic system requires.

The Soviet Union’s collapse was an object lesson for the world. No system can survive in the long run without free prices, and wages are among the most important prices.

The Obama administration’s whole approach is to try to substitute government regulation for the private price system. As a result, we only have “engineered” prices left on Wall Street and in medicine, and both finance and medicine are in grave jeopardy as a direct result.

Fixing the economy is not all that difficult. All we have to do is let producers and consumers sort out prices together and the engine of job growth will start up. Meanwhile the present administration offers one initiative after another guaranteed to keep the middle class and especially the poor in a state of economic hopelessness.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

 


Hunter Lewis
About Hunter Lewis

Hunter Lewis is co-founder of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. He is co-founder and former CEO of global investment firm Cambridge Associates, LLC and author of 8 books on moral philosophy, psychology, and economics, including the widely acclaimed Are the Rich Necessary? (“Highly provocative and highly pleasurable.”—New York Times) He has contributed to the New York Times, the Times of London, the Washing­ton Post, and the Atlantic Monthly, as well as numerous websites such as Breitbart.com, Forbes.com, Fox.com, and RealClearMarkets.com. His most recent books are Crony Capitalism in America: 2008–2012, Free Prices Now! Fixing the Economy by Abolishing the Fed, and Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts. He has served on boards and committees of fifteen leading not-for-profit organizations, including environmental, teaching, research, and cultural and global development organizations, as well as the World Bank.

 

Okay Mr. President, you want to talk about “inequality”? Let’s talk about it.

0

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Okay Mr. President, you want to talk about “inequality”? Let’s talk about it.

 

SOTU-cc-565x376

 

I woke up this morning to Steve Liesman on CNBC explaining the theme of tonight’s State of the Union Address. You see, since 1980 middle class wages have only gone up only 50% in inflation adjusted terms whereas for the top 1% of earners income has gone up by 210%. Something clearly must be done. How can such a disparity be? This is unfair. Can’t the government “solve” this?

The new narrative which has likely been crafted by John Podesta super crony capitalist extraordinaire, is that Congress (specifically the Republican controlled House) isn’t letting the president address the issue of income inequality.

“It’s those old guys who don’t care about you who are holding back the manna from heaven aka Washington DC. It’s their fault not mine. I’m not incompetent and way out of my league even after 5 years in the White House. Not my fault. It’s the selfish and rich Republicans. They want you to remain poor.”

Rally the base when times are bad is the old political wisdom, and they are very bad for this president. Shore up the folks who will defend you no matter what and change the conversation from Obamacare. Anything but Obamacare.

Given that the ACA is Obama’s chief “achievement” to date this is a particularly sad state of affairs. The president’s “pivot” (the word is right up there with “optics” in my book) toward income inequality is a cynical political move. The White House is desperate to regain at least some momentum in the face of a 2013 which was one failure after another.

But since Mr. Obama seems keen on bringing it up, let’s talk about inequality.

Despite what the establishment #oldmedia always say, the increased income inequality that we see is not the result of the “rich” taking advantage of unfettered markets and then making a mint at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism, free markets, free thinking, entrepreneurship, innovation, is not the problem. Capitalism is in most respects the cure. No, the problem is that business and government have increasingly partnered with one another to make some very rich and to shut out others. It’s too little capitalism which is the problem.

Let’s take a look at the most obvious example, Wall Street.

Has Wall Street reaped the windfall it has over the past 5 years because of the free market, because of capitalism?

Absolutely not. Had the free market been allowed to work in 2008 Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citi, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley would probably be history. These banks leveraged themselves out too far and got caught exposed. Their greed did them in. Mr Market made a margin call and many “masters of the universe” turned out to have feet of clay after all. The banks should have been allowed to collapse so that better managed banks could fill in the space.

The banks weren’t too big to fail. They could have failed and life would have gone on. ATMs would have kept working. The sun would have still risen in the east. The economy after a period of adjustment would have righted itself and emerged much healthier for having jettisoned the poorly managed firms. Lloyd Blankfein would have been out of a job, but he’d have survived somehow in the Hamptons.

But that isn’t what happened as we know. The managers of these institutions knew how to manipulate the levers of power. They were able to engineer a massive bailout, which started at $700 billion and just grew from there. In the years after the bailout bonuses were paid out at the big banks with abandon. These bonuses were for the most part paid for by the American taxpayer. No wonder people are angry.

But the bailouts weren’t capitalism. The bonuses which were paid to Jamie Dimon and friends weren’t a result of “free markets.” They weren’t the just rewards of building a better mousetrap, or even building a better derivative algorithm. They were the result of crony capitalism, a soft form of fascism, which is of course a form of socialism. The bankers made millions because the state redistributed the income of everyday Americans and gave it to Wall Street.

Or take for example the sell off of the taxpayer’s (forced) position in GM at a loss last year. In addition to losing $10 billion on the deal for the taxpayers, the deal done by Treasury unleashes the executives which so long as money was still owed to the taxpayer couldn’t go nuts with executive compensation. Now, after the $10 billion taxpayer loss they and the GM board are free to do as they wish in the pay department.

Or what about the huge percentage of so called “green” energy initiative grants and loans which went to politically connected people in 2009. Folks made millions, in wind, solar, algae, and who knows what else, all again courtesy of the US tax payer. Almost none of the ventures were economically viable. But lots of people got paid that is for sure.

There are probably thousands of other examples over the last 10 years or so (and many more going back way before the past decade,) ranging from war profiteering of all sorts, to cronyism in the new healthcare law, to draconian copyright laws which are a subsidy to Hollywood, to, well, there are many other examples which we have chronicled at Against Crony Capitalism.

So we shouldn’t be surprised that there is so much income inequality. Business and government in this country have partnered up. Sometimes the government has the upper hand. Sometimes business does. But both parties engage in the crony capitalism waltz to enrich themselves, to the exclusion of a large part of the American population.

And at the heart of it all, is the Federal Reserve.

Nothing creates illegitimate inequality (there is legitimate income inequality which exists in a free price system) like the Federal Reserve.

0% interest rates are for the most part pretty good for rich people. Money which is super cheap can be used to speculate and invest at almost no cost. In theory such low rates are also good for home buyers. Low rates keep monthly payments lower. More people buying homes (with lower payments) spurs the economy and then the economy roars back to life as we all buy Sub Zero freezers and SUVs. This was the logic behind the housing boom in the mid 2000s and it is the same logic the Fed is using now (with less success.)

But 0% rates also means that savers are hung out to dry. The prudent middle class is hammered. Those who have a nice nest egg built up over a lifetime of hard work and thrift find that unless they take on significant risk there is no return for their money. $500,000 in a CD not so long ago yielded an yearly payout of $25,000. Now because of the Fed keeping money cheap artificially that same $500,000 might yield $5,000 on an annualized basis if one is lucky.

Over time granny finds that $5000 per year isn’t enough to get by on even though her house is paid off. She finds she must dip into her nest egg a little more each year, which also in turn lowers her already modest yield. Soon the nest egg is gone.

Of course she can always seek increased yield in other places like the stock market, (which though they won’t say it is exactly where the Fed wants granny to put her money) but widows and orphans really have no business there. It’s bad enough for granny to lose her pool of wealth over years. Losing much of it in an afternoon is tougher to take. But that is what our current monetary policy encourages.

Not so long ago granny could keep up. She could beat inflation and pay her living expenses. When she died her wealth was passed on to the next generation.

But now, thanks to the Fed and it’s policies which benefit the hedge fund guys instead of the average saver it is unlikely that much of granny’s wealth will be passed on. Wealth has been pulled from the middle class.

“Inequality” has been exacerbated by a government which is too large. The only way to get the economy on track is to lessen the footprint of government. Free prices. Free markets. Let people create. Make it easier to start businesses

But tonight Obama is unlikely to talk about how after years and years of failure government must now get out of the way. (Boy how great would that be?) Or how government sponsored public/private partnerships steal money from the average American. Or how the government enabled the biggest bonus binge Wall Street has ever seen. Or how granny is getting clobbered because of loose monetary policy.

No, my bet is that he will talk about how the economy has worked for the “rich” while others have fallen behind. But he won’t call for freer markets and an end to price fixing at the Federal Reserve. He will instead insist that government “do something.” What that something is I’m not sure but the term “shovel ready” will likely make an appearance tonight along with its old buddy “infrastructure improvement.”

The president will probably wag his finger at the House GOP a bit and threaten to use executive actions to go around them. He’ll try to look like he means business.

Obama will also talk about the need to raise the minimum wage, which is basically economic suicide but makes for good sound bites. He will give hope to people who are hurting but who unfortunately may not understand that if the minimum wage is raised they may soon be out of a job.

In short Obama will be long on proposals, long on rhetoric, but woefully short on understanding. Pretty much the to story of his presidency.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

 

Why Obama Speech Spells No Change to Global Surveillance| Brainwash Update

0

 

Why Obama Speech Spells No Change to Global Surveillance| Brainwash Update

 

1-19-2014 12-05-53 AM

Abby, NSA “hope and change” from where?

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by breakingtheset

Abby Martin calls out Obama’s long awaited speech regarding NSA surveillance, dissecting aspects of the speech that suggest no real change to global surveillance policies.

 

Go to Top