Either Obama was wildly productive during his first two years of office which would have required a complaint democratically controlled Congress or the Congress was blue dogged enough that it frustrated Obama’s efforts to ensure the rebound of the People’s Economy.

So, if I’m to believe that Obama was wildly productive during his first two years of office then I have to conclude that he was simultaneously woefully negligent in ensuring the recovery of the People’s Economy. After all, Congress didn’t stand in his way and the economy has made no material rebound under Obama’s policies. Bush and Clinton delivered their damage and since then with Obama the People have been pretty much stuck wading through the aftermath with more wonder than certainty.

No matter how you look at it the apologies for Obama’s lack of true service to the American People during his first two years of office simply do not paint a flattering picture of Obama’s presidency. But sadly the failed excuses for Obama’s lame performance of a people’s president don’t stop here.

Some might say Obama’s stimulus was too small, or that Governor’s diluted the potency of the stimulus at the State level. Both reasons aren’t flattering to Obama. At the time, Obama was sneaking out secret 0% rate loans to Wall Street from the Federal Reserve. At the time, the total of these loans were approaching their total of $16 Trillion (paid for by inflationary pressure on Main Street). Let’s be clear on this - the taxpayer’s were giving $16 Trillion to one industry to compensate that industries’ losses it had incurred in providing a major component of household finance to Main Street. Effectively the $16 Trillion dollar loss by Wall Street trickled up from the failing Main Street’s of these States - most notably homeowners that collectively suffered a similar sized loss first.

So I ask you - what in god’s name made Obama think that helping each State buy it’s Main Street a choo-choo train would be enough to fix the problem? Again, the $16 Trillion dollar loss by Wall Street trickled up from the Main Street’s of these States. What made Obama think that helping each State with a couple of billion at most would be enough to solve the problem?! If anything, it was probably the fact that it looked like Main Street’s loss was in the vicinity of only $11 Trillion (which entitled Wall Street to $16 Trillion!).

Obama knew the Stimulus was insufficient but yet he did not undertake the truly horrifying and extra-fantastic measures of getting the votes he needed to make it bigger like he did with his Health Insurer Care Reform package.

And why did he give the stimulus money to the State governments knowing that some of these State governments were hot beds of republican opposition? Answer: Obama routed Stimulus money to the State governments instead of giving it the SBA for political reasons. Either that or he was just stupid. Assuming that he wasn’t stupid then he must of known that he would be making an illustration of the difference in how the governor’s from the two different parties responded to the stimulus at the State level. Republicans who refused or frittered away the assistance would be seen as enemies of the people and Democrats who built choo-choos that were paltry relative to the scale of the problem would be seen as a winning party. Obama put party before the people by not routing the stimulus money through the SBA so that it could be disbursed to Main Street based on the quality of the borrower’s idea – regardless of the State’s political leanings.

Obama also chose not to provide stimulus to the people’s economy when he could have. Remember, the secret loans from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street did not go through the usual Congressional approval process. What is more, the democratically controlled Congress did not block these disbursements – if they even knew about them. Of the Trillions of dollars in secret Federal Reserve loans disbursed to Wall Street under the Obama Administration all Obama had to do was stipulate that the money go to local municipalities for job creation. For example, the Trillions in secret loans from the Federal Reserve that Obama gave to Wall Street under his administration could have come with the stipulation that Wall Street was getting the loan at effectively 0% (zero) percent interest so that they could in turn loan the money out to municipalities (according to some total amount per State) at 1.00%. That way Wall Street could have gotten a free profit off the 1.00% mark up and, say, the City of Detroit, Michigan (OR SOME OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA as certain of the shriller harpies would assert this argument is wrong as Detriot didn't need the help as it benefited from the Auto Bailout- jez!) could have gotten a super low rate loan to help them ….oh, I don’t know…maybe buy school books? retrofit its buildings with energy saving technology? or perhaps provide seed capital to a solar energy manufacturer?

Nobody but Obama stopped Obama from getting the Peoples Economy the full amount of help it needed.

Obama may not have started the nation’s economic problem but he most certainly is responsible for dealing with it. And what do we see? Well, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

As an aside, please stop listening to what obama says and instead judge him on his actions and results. Then if you still decide to vote for him – fine. But do it because you know you are settling for way less than America deserves or you have a particular issue that is the only thing you care about. But don’t do it thinking Barac Obama is some kind of champion of the people because he’s not. Even health care reform was a “direct cash transaction” with the health insurance industry in order to get their backing in Obama’s 2012 re-election bid (ref. “Griftopia” written by Matt Taibbi). That fact that some American People might benefit from ObamaCare is incidental to what Obama really would like to see out of it. He just saw an opportunity to morph an issue important to voters into a fund raising scheme. The collective din of his conduct – and books written -frustrate any other conclusion. The guy is a schmuck and we are beginning to see how he got so far as young as he did. The problem being those are not values the country needs.

“Compromise” or “bipartisanship” with a party whose representation is deeply warped and profoundly at odds with their alleged constituents’ best interests – in the long run or short run - is wrong. Our society is full of laws and principles designed to protect people from harming themselves and negotiating in the halls of Washington DC should be no different. Again, if someone just wants to damage the economy for the sake of damage – you do NOT compromise with them, especially given the precarious state of the American Economy. Likewise if someone just wants to increase the wealth of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the general economy’s aggregate demand just for the sake of the rich being richer you don’t compromise – especially given the concentration of wealth in this country. A similar statement could be made about the environment now that the planet’s habitability is degrading. Some lines in the sand do need to be drawn and vehemently protected for the American People.

Finally, Obama pledged not to compromise Social Security in order to get elected only to turn around and do exactly that.

Comments

Vlperez's picture
Vlperez 3 years 13 weeks ago
#1

Wait a minute. Where's Bush at so we can hm for the last 2 years? LOL

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker 3 years 13 weeks ago
#2

If you honestly believe that all of the financial problems in the US can be attributed to the last 2 years of politics then there is nothing that can be said to open your eyes.

Lena's picture
Lena 3 years 13 weeks ago
#3

Great post.

There is no true progressive voice left.

On "progressive radio" everyone is yaking endlessly about Perry and Bachman and how scary they are. That helps keep the myth of Obama, being a president who did a good job considering what and who he was up against, alive.

Now he, Obama, is protecting the bankers by going after N.Y.'s A.G. I am afraid you will not hear that on Thom's show.

doh1304's picture
doh1304 3 years 13 weeks ago
#4

Try a simpler explanation: define "corrupt" as anything that acts against the public good regardless of whether it is done out of greed or fear (bribery or extortion). Therefore both the congressional Democrats and President Obama are corrupt, and the extent of that corruption is directly proportionate to the extent that their corruption benefits the oligarchs. The formula is simple - what a polititian does is what he believes vs what will get him votes vs what his corporate masters will allow him to do/want him to do. Different polititians weigh those factors differently, but that is the formula.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.