Thursday, November 4, 2010

When the President of the United States was the most powerful man in the world

It’s official: the most powerful man in the world is no longer the President of the United States, that would be Hu Jintao leader of the Peoples Republic of China. At least according to Forbes and they the self appointed experts about these things. The question is whether the premier magazine of the business world is acknowledging the damage done by forty years of Republicans dominating economic and trade policy or is it just a cheap shot at Obama as we begin the 2012 campaign.  

Obama has indicated that he will completely give in to anything and everything that corporate America wants. Maintaining the Bush tax giveaway to the rich is apparently no longer a problem as long as the middle class gets a few crumbs. The US Chamber of Commerce is circulating the news that they can now work with Obama with his change of heart over expanding free trade. There are at least three agreements leftover from Bush that have been languishing on Obama‘s desk that will soon become the law of the land.

That Consumer Protection agency that you were looking forward to will be nothing but an empty shell if Republicans have their way with funding and regulation reviews by Congressional Committees. The President does have broad powers to go ahead with all manner of regulation thanks to precedents put in place during the Unitary Executive Administration of co-Presidents Bush and Cheney. Although Obama may not want to ruffle the feathers of his new “friends” in the business community.

The Federal Reserve driven market bubble took off in earnest today with the DOW hitting a new post crash high by gaining 2% to close at 11,434. The price of gold also set an all time high as the USD continues to decline with the prospect of 600 billion in new cash being put into the system. The other shoe to drop is the 3 trillion the Fed had already printed up to stimulate the economy that has been sitting around in corporate money bins. Will this money come into play or not? Hyper-inflation anyone? More likely they will continue to sit on it, bringing it out only when a killing can be made.

Some economists think the FED is being far too timid if they really want to jump start a 15 trillion dollar economy and they need to set their inflation goal much higher or the money will continue to just sit there. The big Wall Street banks and corporations are getting this money for little or nothing and have no incentive to do anything productive with it. They are just sitting around waiting for deflation to set in and then they can use all this free money to buy up the remainder of the US economy for themselves.

In the mean time they can continue to churn the markets up and down taking a piece of the action every day. Wall Street will take a record 148 billion in bonuses this year for doing nothing. Keep in mind that since they do nothing that money has to come from somewhere. The economy is a closed system, you can’t just make money, somebody has to do something productive to create wealth.

Wall Street’s preferred method is to steal it from people who have done the work. That’s why Reagan’s people invented the 401(k). All of that 148 billion plus the cost of maintaining the Wall Street ponzi scheme comes from people who have worked for generations to build wealth and it’s just disappearing right in front of them. Ironically the more wealth an American has the more likely he will vote for the people that are stealing it from him.

If Hu Jintao caught any of his people doing the things that Wall Street does, they would be shot and their organs sold. China uses its wealth to build things, we used to do that, when the President of the United States was the most powerful man in the world.  www.prairie2.com

9 comments:

Tony said...

The funny thing is how the President seems to have learned no lesson from the "shellacking" he took. Wild Bill apologized and then got stuff done. Obama could either do that or instead grow a backbone like he said he would during the 2008 election, and take these guys on.

Instead he is still going to pretend like he can be bipartisan, and he setting himself up to be bitch slapped by the worthless Republicans.

As the last president tried to say: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

It looks like Obama wants to get fooled again.

Anonymous said...

And we are the biggest fools of all if we continue to tacitly support poor performance like that in our leaders by voting for them.

prairie2 said...

No, the biggest fools accept the rightwing talking point that we shouldn't vote. You have a civic duty to at the very least choose between the least of two evils. Did you support a better candidate in the primary? If not, stop whining.

Anonymous said...

I think blaming and/or praising presidents and their respective parties for their economic decisions is a little off point. Remember, Clinton also repealed the Glass Steagall act, Bush passed TARP, and Obama has let Bernanke do whatever he wants by running the Fed. If you look at all of the contributors of campaign elections since Reagan (and before that, actually) you will find nothing but banks and investment firms paying for BOTH sides, democrat AND Republican. There is a reason for this—it’s because it doesn’t matter who becomes president. None of the economic decisions over the last 80 years have ever been made by a president—they have been made by those who have paid for them, operating behind the curtains. There is no lesser evil. Left or Right you will always be voting for the banks. Thomas Jefferson warned us about this eventuality a long time ago, if we ever let banks control the currency. And if I’m wrong about all of this, then THANK GOD.

Anonymous said...

I kind of feel bad for Obama, though. The poor son of a gun thought he was going to change the world just because he was elected president, and now everyone blames him for everything. I wonder how long it’s going to take for before the sick freaks who control Wall St. start using black guys as hedge fund managers.

Anonymous said...

"No, the biggest fools accept the rightwing talking point that we shouldn't vote. You have a civic duty to at the very least choose between the least of two evils. Did you support a better candidate in the primary? If not, stop whining."

I definitely did. I find it amusing how so many on the so called left tell the rest of us to hold our candidates accountable and push them and then when we do we are *whining* or *crybabies* or *fucking retards*. That worked great in 2010. Lets see how far that gets the Democrats in 2012.

prairie2 said...

You can complain about what the do or don't do and as long as it's rational that's great but to whine that you aren't going to vote anymore because the unicorn they gave you doesn't fart the right color glitter.... The right has all the money, power and the military, industrial, intelligence establishment behind them, we are lucky to have survived this long.

Anonymous said...

"You can complain about what the do or don't do and as long as it's rational that's great but to whine that you aren't going to vote anymore because the unicorn they gave you doesn't fart the right color glitter.... The right has all the money, power and the military, industrial, intelligence establishment behind them, we are lucky to have survived this long."

Nothing in any of these posts state to not vote. Nor did it talk about glitter or unicorn disappointments. We could go into detail about the myriad of Bush era policies Obama has continued and enhanced but you are a smart guy Prarie and I am sure are more than aware of them.

Nor did this thread talk about voting Republican. We have other choices as long as enough of us make them together, just like any other election. There are many states that the Greens ran candidates in and as long as enough people vote for them they too could win. As it turned out in this election that number was between 2 to 3% in most cases. Which means that most people voted for the same old same old.

prairie2 said...

I was responding to the line of thinking which is often put forward by Republicans with the intention that it be picked up by disaffected liberals who then don't vote or vote for some hopeless third party candidate to make a statement. I don't want to debate anybody point by point on this, you're probably right but it doesn't change anything. Yes, I have some big problems with Obama, but he's the only game in town.