A.J. DiCintio
Obama's ginormous trickle-down hypocrisy
By A.J. DiCintio
With the imprimatur, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this ad," the television spot running fast and loose in swing states features a very serious Bill Clinton telling us the president is the choice for voters who care about lifting up the economy and the middle class because there's no way he'd ever be guilty of engaging in mindless acts of deregulation or "trickle down" economics.
Now, Clinton has cleaned up his image with the public to the extent that he is the only national Democratic figure who can speak inconvenient truths about Obama's attributes and policies without incurring the Democratic Establishment's wrath.
Why, then, would he risk resurrecting the image of finger pointing, what the meaning of 'is' is Slick Willy by agreeing to the ad's colossal, double-barreled whopper?
The answer to that question lies in two parts.
First, with regard to criticizing bad deregulation, Clinton is looking out for (surprise) himself because by associating the mistake entirely with Republicans, he hopes to steer voters from the fact that in 1999, he signed into law the mother of all dunderheaded deregulation bills, specifically, the one repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which, for 69 years, had prevented banks from engaging in the investment business.
Yes, Clinton could have vetoed the bill; but he signed it, thereby unleashing the nation's big banks to go after big money by speculating, even with options, futures, swaps, and other dangerous "derivatives," in stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, and (how can we forget?) humongous bundles of poisonous junk euphemistically written and sold as "sub-prime" mortgages.
Second, while he merely relishes the opportunity to present himself as an unshakably pure saint with respect to both of the economic sins mentioned, he absolutely loves the thrill of having an embattled Barack Obama, a man whose qualifications and policies he has trashed with some seriously nasty language, come begging at his feet.
With those truths in the open, we can examine the quality of the former president's endorsement with this question:
What has "change agent" Barack Obama done regarding perilously huge banks that to this day don't earn their money the "old-fashioned way" but rake in mountains of cash from casino operations that employ relatively few people?
To which the answer is this:
Since he took office four years ago, the president who now urges us to reelect him with the appeal, "Let's finish what we started," hasn't made a single serious start in rectifying even one fundamental error of the madly flawed deregulation bill to which Clinton affixed his signature.
What Obama has done, however, is energetically support Ben Bernanke in an attempt to stimulate the economy and create jobs not just by madly printing money but piling it obscenely high at an all-you-can-eat, virtually interest free buffet offered exclusively to the nation's modern, multi-trillion dollar financial Robber Barons whose computerized trading programs exempt them from the needless stress of thinking as well as the back-breaking exertion of shuffling paper.
If we think about it for just a few seconds, the Obama/Bernanke policy represents an instance of "trickle-down" economics so effete, unproductive, and harmful to the nation that by comparison it makes economic angels of the 19th century's muscular, materials heaving, earth moving, goods producing industrial Robber Barons.
With John Q. and Jane Public in mind, here are facts to support that conclusion.
To begin, Barack Obama promised that by now, the trickle-down effect of his bank buffet would have knocked the unemployment rate down to a satisfying 5.7%.
In reality, however, last month his administration reported a rate of 8.1% but only because his labor department has cut millions from the labor force to hide the fact that actual unemployment is 10-11%.
Moreover, underemployment is at a shocking 16%, explaining why with respect to the subject, Obama keeps as silent as a Chicago Machine Politician taking the Fifth.
However, the country's problem is not just about jobs; it's also about the quality of jobs being created.
So, what about the nature of the few jobs that have trickled down to the American people as the burgeoning financial industry sucks up more and more of GDP?
Obama conveniently doesn't publicize the statistics; but millions of thoroughly disillusioned college, technical school, and trade school graduates can testify to the reality that the lion's share of them are in the low-paying clerical and restaurant sectors.
High, nagging unemployment and underemployment, however, are not the only result of the Obama economic plan; for while the big banks as well as their top executives and traders have seen their bottom lines rise dramatically, Americans in every age group under 65 have experienced an income decline since the beginning of the "Obama Recovery."
In fact, using up-to-date census data, Sentier Research (sentierresearch.com) has found that median annual household income is now a painful 5.7% below its level in June, 2009.
But that statistic alone doesn't tell the entire sordid income story, for the fearsome inflation threat looming as a result of Obama's printing press economics has already begun to bite hard on John and Jane's everyday spending.
For instance, the weak dollar resulting from Obama's funny money policies and the supply stresses caused by his pie-in-the-sky energy dreams have contributed mightily to a 100% increase in gasoline prices over the past four years($1.90/gallon to $3.80).
How much is that incredible 20% annual inflation rate costing a nation that consumes 367 million gallons of gas every day?
A simple calculation reveals that in 2012, the American people will cough up at least 254 billion dollars more for gasoline than they did four years ago.
However, we won't hear that truth from the man who promised the most honest, most transparent administration in the nation's history; for while he makes time for a lot of little things, he can't find time to do a little arithmetic about frightfully big, crucially important numbers.
But we can, regarding trillions of printed Fed dollars that have boosted only the bottom lines of banks and other powerful speculators, a trillion more over four years just to pay for the increase in the price of gasoline, hundreds of billions lost to savers (especially seniors) because of artificially low interest rates, and the unthinkable number of dollars that may well be stolen by the devastatingly ugly inflation monster, who, as we have seen, has already begun to shove his obscene hand deep into John and Jane's pockets.
When we finish our addition and consider the sum and its consequences, we find that Barack Obama, who constantly rails against harmful deregulation and trickle-down economics, is an outrageously ginormous hypocrite.
© A.J. DiCintio
October 1, 2012
With the imprimatur, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this ad," the television spot running fast and loose in swing states features a very serious Bill Clinton telling us the president is the choice for voters who care about lifting up the economy and the middle class because there's no way he'd ever be guilty of engaging in mindless acts of deregulation or "trickle down" economics.
Now, Clinton has cleaned up his image with the public to the extent that he is the only national Democratic figure who can speak inconvenient truths about Obama's attributes and policies without incurring the Democratic Establishment's wrath.
Why, then, would he risk resurrecting the image of finger pointing, what the meaning of 'is' is Slick Willy by agreeing to the ad's colossal, double-barreled whopper?
The answer to that question lies in two parts.
First, with regard to criticizing bad deregulation, Clinton is looking out for (surprise) himself because by associating the mistake entirely with Republicans, he hopes to steer voters from the fact that in 1999, he signed into law the mother of all dunderheaded deregulation bills, specifically, the one repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which, for 69 years, had prevented banks from engaging in the investment business.
Yes, Clinton could have vetoed the bill; but he signed it, thereby unleashing the nation's big banks to go after big money by speculating, even with options, futures, swaps, and other dangerous "derivatives," in stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, and (how can we forget?) humongous bundles of poisonous junk euphemistically written and sold as "sub-prime" mortgages.
Second, while he merely relishes the opportunity to present himself as an unshakably pure saint with respect to both of the economic sins mentioned, he absolutely loves the thrill of having an embattled Barack Obama, a man whose qualifications and policies he has trashed with some seriously nasty language, come begging at his feet.
With those truths in the open, we can examine the quality of the former president's endorsement with this question:
What has "change agent" Barack Obama done regarding perilously huge banks that to this day don't earn their money the "old-fashioned way" but rake in mountains of cash from casino operations that employ relatively few people?
To which the answer is this:
Since he took office four years ago, the president who now urges us to reelect him with the appeal, "Let's finish what we started," hasn't made a single serious start in rectifying even one fundamental error of the madly flawed deregulation bill to which Clinton affixed his signature.
What Obama has done, however, is energetically support Ben Bernanke in an attempt to stimulate the economy and create jobs not just by madly printing money but piling it obscenely high at an all-you-can-eat, virtually interest free buffet offered exclusively to the nation's modern, multi-trillion dollar financial Robber Barons whose computerized trading programs exempt them from the needless stress of thinking as well as the back-breaking exertion of shuffling paper.
If we think about it for just a few seconds, the Obama/Bernanke policy represents an instance of "trickle-down" economics so effete, unproductive, and harmful to the nation that by comparison it makes economic angels of the 19th century's muscular, materials heaving, earth moving, goods producing industrial Robber Barons.
With John Q. and Jane Public in mind, here are facts to support that conclusion.
To begin, Barack Obama promised that by now, the trickle-down effect of his bank buffet would have knocked the unemployment rate down to a satisfying 5.7%.
In reality, however, last month his administration reported a rate of 8.1% but only because his labor department has cut millions from the labor force to hide the fact that actual unemployment is 10-11%.
Moreover, underemployment is at a shocking 16%, explaining why with respect to the subject, Obama keeps as silent as a Chicago Machine Politician taking the Fifth.
However, the country's problem is not just about jobs; it's also about the quality of jobs being created.
So, what about the nature of the few jobs that have trickled down to the American people as the burgeoning financial industry sucks up more and more of GDP?
Obama conveniently doesn't publicize the statistics; but millions of thoroughly disillusioned college, technical school, and trade school graduates can testify to the reality that the lion's share of them are in the low-paying clerical and restaurant sectors.
High, nagging unemployment and underemployment, however, are not the only result of the Obama economic plan; for while the big banks as well as their top executives and traders have seen their bottom lines rise dramatically, Americans in every age group under 65 have experienced an income decline since the beginning of the "Obama Recovery."
In fact, using up-to-date census data, Sentier Research (sentierresearch.com) has found that median annual household income is now a painful 5.7% below its level in June, 2009.
But that statistic alone doesn't tell the entire sordid income story, for the fearsome inflation threat looming as a result of Obama's printing press economics has already begun to bite hard on John and Jane's everyday spending.
For instance, the weak dollar resulting from Obama's funny money policies and the supply stresses caused by his pie-in-the-sky energy dreams have contributed mightily to a 100% increase in gasoline prices over the past four years($1.90/gallon to $3.80).
How much is that incredible 20% annual inflation rate costing a nation that consumes 367 million gallons of gas every day?
A simple calculation reveals that in 2012, the American people will cough up at least 254 billion dollars more for gasoline than they did four years ago.
However, we won't hear that truth from the man who promised the most honest, most transparent administration in the nation's history; for while he makes time for a lot of little things, he can't find time to do a little arithmetic about frightfully big, crucially important numbers.
But we can, regarding trillions of printed Fed dollars that have boosted only the bottom lines of banks and other powerful speculators, a trillion more over four years just to pay for the increase in the price of gasoline, hundreds of billions lost to savers (especially seniors) because of artificially low interest rates, and the unthinkable number of dollars that may well be stolen by the devastatingly ugly inflation monster, who, as we have seen, has already begun to shove his obscene hand deep into John and Jane's pockets.
When we finish our addition and consider the sum and its consequences, we find that Barack Obama, who constantly rails against harmful deregulation and trickle-down economics, is an outrageously ginormous hypocrite.
© A.J. DiCintio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
