This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Media Can't Save Barack From Obama Economy

Value Expectations's picture




 

by John Tamny,  Toreador Research and Trading (Guest Contributor)

With the Obama economy limping along thanks in part to the Administration’s policies in favor of extreme dollar weakness, there’s growing speculation as to his re-election chances in 2012. Will a difficult economic situation that includes high levels of unemployment make Obama a one-term president? History says no given the power of incumbency.

Added to that, another popular narrative of late points to an Obama victory owing to the supposed economic illiteracy of the electorate, along with a media that will provide our weakened president with positive media coverage no matter the state of the economy. Of course the problem with this bit of theorizing is that Americans aren’t stupid, and after that, past elections suggest that those same Americans tend to tune out the media.

Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office tell the tale here. As USA Today media reporter Peter Johnson has put it, “Over the course of his campaigns and eight years in office, Ronald Reagan’s press peaked and fell but was always negative. … In his re-election bid in 1984, 91 percent of his coverage was negative.”

The above is important. Despite a rising economy and millions of new jobs, the media invariably stuck to a number of gloomy themes during the Reagan years, including the rising homeless population, twin deficits, and a generalized assumption that the supposed economic gains of the 1980s were only being enjoyed by the wealthy few. Amidst this constant negativity, Reagan was returned to office in 1984 with one of largest landslide victories in electoral history.

To gain access to our best stock picks and most extensive buy/sell lists, click here to sign up for our free weekly newsletter Investment Advisor Ideas.

Back then, stocks confirmed what voters already knew — that the economy was doing very well. Despite a major recession brought on by Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve’s needless flirtation with quantity money targets in the early 1980s, the Dow Jones Industrial Average still returned 134 percent during Reagan’s presidency. Markets and the Electoral College told the truth about an economy and presidency that the media regularly tried to cast in a negative light.

To put it simply, voters aren’t dim and they know when the economy is performing well. Conversely, when the economy is acting badly, voters are well aware once again.
For evidence supporting the above, we must first journey back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. As William Greider put it in Secrets of the Temple, “Despite the aggravations of inflation, President Carter had presided over one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in postwar history, four years of recovery starting in 1976.”

So while GDP, the frequently faulty measure of economic health, was rising during Carter’s presidency, neither the stock markets nor the electorate were fooled. The recession during the Carter years was the falling dollar, as evidenced by spikes in gold and oil. A falling dollar is always recessionary for limited capital flowing into hard, commoditized assets, and away from innovative ideas that fund our economic advancement.

Though the media certainly preferred Carter over Reagan heading into the 1980 elections, the electorate felt differently and handed Reagan a 44-state landslide. The economy was weak, voters knew it, and the Reagan Revolution began.

Moving to George W. Bush’s presidency, GOP partisans continue to talk about “52 months of uninterrupted economic growth”, along with mostly low unemployment that prevailed during his presidency. But thanks to a falling dollar that once again drove gold and oil skyward, voters expressed their displeasure.

Luckily for Bush, the dollar’s most substantial decline began after the 2004 elections, thus saving him from certain defeat. But by 2005-06 the dollar was in freefall, real estate was the hot asset much as it was during the Carter years, and as capital flowed into the proverbial ground as an inflation hedge, voters knew something was amiss on the way to voting out happy talking modern Republicans who wouldn’t know a supply-side principle if it smacked them in the head.

Of all people, the usually brilliant economist Thomas Sowell opined about the Bush economy in 2006 that the “liberal media and intelligentsia are strenuously trying to preserve the vision of poverty and economic distress”, but in truth, the voters didn’t need a media that disliked Bush to tell them something was wrong. They knew things weren’t right, the symptoms (rising gold, oil and all other commodities) of a weak dollar were the telltale sign of a weakening economy, and the Republicans rightly experienced major losses in 2006, followed by the White House in 2008.

Moving to the present, no doubt most in the media worship President Obama, and because they do they’ll strive mightily to create the impression that all is well, or at the very least that the economic malaise isn’t Obama’s fault.  They would have a point, though for reasons none could articulate.  Simply stated, the Bush bailouts remain a big weight on economic growth for failure always authoring capitalism’s advancement, not to mention that the Bushies handed Obama a dollar that was already severely debased.

Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback, and then once in office, Obama’s economic team poured gasoline on the fire; most notably with policies meant to mimic the Bush economic disaster in the form of nosebleed spending and an even weaker dollar. The economy is weak, its weakness by definition has Washington and the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it, and no matter how the media spin that which isn’t working, Obama is in serious trouble.

What’s unknown is if there’s a Republican who truly knows why the Obama economy sags, and who can talk about anything other than tax cuts which, at this point, are not the point. Specifically, is there a Republican who can explain to voters that $100 trips to the gas station are the direct result of the Administration’s currency policies, not to mention that a weak dollar decreases the very investment that drives company formation and job creation.

If such a Republican exists Obama will be a one-term president. If not, the Republicans don’t deserve to retake the White House.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:50 | 1403115 oldmanagain
oldmanagain's picture

The author was in favor of "economic cleansing", now that it is happening, he is against it.

Typical right wing buffoon.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:17 | 1401367 Lmo Mutton
Lmo Mutton's picture

So if someone hands you a dirty rotten stinking trashbag leaking a nasty ooze all over your shoes;
Do you just stand there because "YOU" didnt make the mess, or do you take the dang thing to the curb and clean up afterwards?

Come on.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 12:39 | 1401078 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

Elmer's got this one right. Look for another crushing defeat for Democrats next year and OBama's name to go down in history as another Jimmy Carter. Just another ***clown with a good TV persona and no F***king clue what's up. Very helpful to banking interests when they can have someone running the show who has zero understanding of how economics works. The voters will then begin to turn on the Republicans in 2014 since most of them are equally clueless or can be bought off with donations. Repeat process for 10 years or so until complete economic collapse.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 12:03 | 1400928 Elmer Fudd
Elmer Fudd's picture

ZH - "It's oligarchs who use banking vs. the population"

Idiot (or Troll) one - "Damm Democrats"

Idiot (or Troll) two - "Damm Republicans"

Idiots/Trolls 1, the people, 0

It's a sad reflection on the IQ of the U.S. culture.   In case you have not noticed those @ssholes aren't above switching parties or going "independent" just to stay in power.  

 

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 09:28 | 1400873 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

A vote for 1 head of the two headed hydra still gets the hydra in office

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 08:35 | 1400834 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Typical New Yawk crappola.  Out of touch with reality as usual.  Negrodamus couldn't get elected as dog catcher and he won't even run again.  He isn't acting like a candidate or someone who cares.  Oh yes, there is that completely fraudulent "birth certificate" thingy.   Traders, of all people, should be aware of poison pills.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 09:22 | 1400833 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

Too many "red team vs. blue team" cunts have infested this site, which I suppose was inevitable. As evidenced by the comment section, the lower orders in this country are hopeless. There's no fixing mass psychosis. Those hoping that a collapse will somehow bring these barking monkeys to their senses are going to be sorely disappointed.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 07:24 | 1400794 JohnsonSmith
JohnsonSmith's picture

These changes havent taken place overnight these are the result of whatver have been done bye the Ex-Presidents which is now being visible to the people hope the situation get better after some time thanks for the post and this update.  Payday Loans

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 03:32 | 1400733 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

 

Fuck the politicians, they don't matter (either side).

When Reagan took office we had manufacuturing and had just survived Disco and 16% rates.

At this point we have sold out everything and are at 0% after 4%.

To argue the past here is foolish.

We have never been here before.

 

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 23:14 | 1400476 Nuke66
Nuke66's picture

two words...thought it will never happen...Ron Paul

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 23:10 | 1400470 carlsbadip
carlsbadip's picture

The dream world of partisans fighting about Clinton and Bush, as Rome burns seems absurd.  Just as Reagan owned his economy in 1983, Obama owns this one.  Bush's spending was appalling and only out done by Obama's spending.

There is no reason to invest in new businesses in America, except those supported and subsidized with Government dollars having less and less value each day.  Patent Reform is one more nail in the coffin.  Patent Reform was just approved by Congress and it will institutionalize the Market Power of large companies that really do not innovate.  Innovation creates jobs and opportunities.  I forgot, Obama said ATMs and Check-in Kiosk cause job loss and we need to go back to the old days and the old ways.  Just like the Chinese and Koreans are doing – right?    The new patent system will let large companies crush the innovation of inventors and start-ups.  With that brilliant new reform, investment in technology will now go completely off-shore because it is far cheaper and the US no longer provides any offset to its high cost base.  We are losing our engineering and scientific capabilities, as we continue to suffer the impact of "Financial Engineering" and Government Help.

The Obama Jobs council is a Joke.  Immelt and Chenault have no clue on creating Jobs.  They out-source, spinout, acquire with the goal of synergistic headcount reduction, and follow the simple rule of lay-offs in down turns.  Our Government hates entrepreneurship, as Secretary Geithner wants to raise taxes on small businesses and at the same time burden them with more and more regulations. 

So keep on arguing about how Great Clinton was and how Great Bush was.  Remember that Clinton could not figure out had to take custody of bin Laden after the 1993 WTC attack and well before the embassies, the barracks, the Cole, and 9/11.  Bush failed to act in any meaningful way from 2004 through 2006 in Iraq to avoid the disaster caused by Rumsfeld and his idiocy in Iraq, while at the same time Bush relied on feckless Allies and no plan in Afghanistan.   Bush, prior to leaving gave us his lasting gift when he decided no one should fail, except Hank Paulson’s nemesis, Lehman Brothers.  The Governments in the West have now created a culture where investors in certain industries and investors in Western sovereign debt are not allowed to lose money or take a haircut.  It is called at best Crony Capitalism, and at worst like the economic structures created by Mussolini and Stalin in the 1920s and Putin Russia ove rthe past 10 years.

It all sounds very European as we argue the past, as the present collapses and the future looks darker than anytime in my lifetime of 54 years.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 23:47 | 1402188 anony
anony's picture

If you're living Carlsbad, Ca. how do you like it?

I'm visiting San Diego for a week and enjoying the fine weather, considering a move from the East sometime soon or a second home out here.

Would you recommend with all the b.s. we hear about California being ruined?

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 22:18 | 1400388 spekulatn
spekulatn's picture

The right v.s. left meme plays right into the hands of the elites.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 


Power Elite

The term "power elite" traces to the writings of C. Wright Mills, including his 1956 book, The Power Elite. The concept posits wealthy and/or well connected families and individuals who seek to expand their wealth by applying and promoting dominant social themes. Such themes may eventually develop into widely held archetypes or memes.

Often such themes seem to originate with the United NationsWorld Bank, World Trade Organization, World Health Organizationor other international bodies that are receptive to influence by the power elite. The themes then are picked up and rebroadcast by the mainstream media. Thus, what may seem to be the work of an independent institutional staff may actually be the brainchild of the power elite.

Concepts such as bird flu, Islamofascism and peak oil are so extensively promoted that much of the public unquestioningly accepts their fearful premises and demand action. Those with the wherewithal to provide solutions – products, services and corporate offerings via public markets – may earn vast profits as a consequence.

There is little contemporary scholarly analysis of the concept of the power elite, but it corresponds roughly to what once was called "the money power."

There are a variety of theories as to the composition and character of the power elite. It sometimes is referred to ominously as the "Illuminati," the "black church" or the "black nobility." It is not necessary to confirm such characterizations to recognize that the action and influence of modern money power are pervasive.

In most conceptions, the core of the power elite coalesces around the European and American banking dynasties and some elite, titled families, or it may be characterized as a "sub-church" within the Roman Catholic, Jewish or other religion. Chief among these dynasties are likely the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

In some conceptions, the power elite includes members who claim to trace their ancestry to ancient times, even to Babylon and beyond. This accords with the notion that members believe their pedigrees differentiate them from the "common herd."

Signifiers of power elite activity include a disdain of free-markets and the persistent and uncritical promotion of a theme or meme to the exclusion of contrary evidence or argument.

 

 


Anglo-American Axis

The Anglo-American axis, within the context of the power, elite, is the unacknowledged cultural cradle of the latest effort to consolidate countries and governments into a global order. One needs to see the axis from a historical perspective to understand its evolution and the strength that it derives from successive waves of immigration.

From Wikipedia we learn that "Anglo-Saxons" – the Germanic tribes that entered England after the fall of Rome – drove the indigenous people out of most of the region and into Wales. There were at least three tribes. First, the Angles from Angeln, the whole nation of which apparently entered Britain, "leaving their former land empty." (The etymology, then, would be Anglo-Saxon 'Engla land' or 'Ængla land'.) Second, were the Saxons from Lower Saxony and, third, apparently, the Jutes from Denmark.

The Anglo-Saxons in England were in turn invaded by the Viking Normans. According to Wikipedia, "The name 'Normans' derives from 'Northmen' or 'Norsemen', after the Vikings from Scandinavia who founded (French) Normandy. ... In 1066, Duke William II of Normandy conquered England killing King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. The invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England ... Eventually, the Normans merged with the natives, combining languages and traditions. In the course of the Hundred Years war, the Norman aristocracy often identified themselves as English. The Anglo-Norman language became distinct from the French language."

There was yet, perhaps, one more cultural overlay, a most controversial one and part of what may be termed "secret history." This, according to certain historians was a migration of various Venetian banking families to England during a period of perhaps 200 years (1500-1700). These wealthy and powerful families, some apparently with Jewish antecedents, are said to have established themselves within the independent enclave of the "City of London" a financial district and the epicenter of world-spanning Anglo-American financial power. Eventually, these families, inter-marrying with Anglo-Saxons, are said to have become part of the royalty of Britain with familial branches through Europe and especially in Germany, France and Italy.

The "Anglo" power elite that emerged from the above waves of conquest, if such "secret history" is deemed to be true, was highly militant and manipulative – perhaps the most ruthless and vibrant power-culture on the planet. It utilized fiat money and central banking as tools to impose its will throughout Europe. Set back by the communication explosion of the Gutenberg press and resultant Reformation, it nonetheless persevered and created, eventually, a "democratic" facade of governance behind which it could continue to exercise leadership and further consolidate hidden authority.

The American exception, especially as enunciated by the American libertarian philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson, was a conscious attempt to break away from the mercantile authoritarianism of Europe and the Anglo power elite. These "united States of America" were successful in pursuing a republican, agrarian legislative order until the "War Between the States" – partially funded by New York banks controlled by the Anglo elite – put an end to the Republic and ushered in a new order, the Anglo-American axis.

It is this Anglo-American axis (a "special relationship") that has dominated the Western world for the past 150 years. It is a secretive and closely guarded group of families and individuals with enormous wealth derived from the implementation ofmercantilist central banking. In recent years, America has provided the military power and to a large extent the corporate vehicles that have projected the "one world" vision of the Anglo-American elite throughout the West, and even to Africa and Asia.

The ruthless progress of the Anglo-American axis – or Empire – depended in large part on secrecy and on the implementation of fear-based dominant social themes that were used to control the expanding populace and to further consolidate wealth and power. These themes were promoted through an intricate array of think tanks, universities and government organizations that first presented the concepts and then provided authoritarian solutions. The introduction of the Internet, like the Gutenberg press before it, has exposed the machinations of the Anglo-American power elite and made visible the secret mechanisms of control via dominant social themes.

The Anglo-American power axis is currently in retreat, its authoritarian promotions giving way to increasingly failed attempts at manipulation via outright force and the implementation of legislation that has not been properly promoted. Since it is impossible for a few thousand to harry the world's billions into submission via brute authoritarianism, one would assume at some point that the latest efforts at global governance would be abandoned and the Anglo-American power elite would take a step back to come up with new control methodologies as they have before.

 

 


City of London

The City of London the historic central core of London is an independent entity about a mile square. Britain's financial services industry and central bank (Bank of England) are located in the City of London. There is a London Corporation that runs the City; it is not run by greater London. It has its own police force and is headed a Lord Mayor. About 10,000 people call the City "home" but nearly 350,000 work in the City of London including many lawyers and litigators. Historically, the City harkens back to Roman London, founded around 50AD and known as Londinium.

The City waxed and waned for centuries but by the 16th century was taking on its modern profile as a banking and commercial center. A stock exchange was eventually founded and many international merchants made their headquarters in the City. But the 18th century, Britain's Industrial Revolution was beginning and the Empire itself was expanding. London spread out far beyond the City of London, but the City of London itself gained enormous power as the British conquered one-fourth of the world, colony by colony.

The City of London has its own motto: "Domine dirige nos" – "Lord, direct (guide) us." It has its own coat of arms and flag. It maintains its unique status as perhaps the world's oldest incorporated city, with 25 wards that also serve as political districts. Each ward has an Alderman and Beadles, as well as a Ward Club – something like a residents' association. The City of London supports performing arts centers and administers the Bridge House Trust, which in turn supervises the famous bridges of central, including London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge.

All this is somewhat beside the point, however. What the City of London actually is in reality, is the epicenter of an Anglo-Americanpower elite that has dominated world finance for 500 years or more. The elite's modern genealogy is said to include Venetian bankers who arrived in Britain and intermarried with English royalty. Today, the world's most powerful families make the City of London either their home or base of operations. Even the Queen of England bows before she enters the City of London and when she walks in ceremonial parades, her place is a few steps behind the Lord Mayor.

Today, the City of London is the epicenter of central banking worldwide. It is the place from which world wars have emanated and plans for global conquest are apparently hatched there even today. The fear-based dominant social themes that the power elite uses to extract wealth and power from Western middle classes have their home in the City of London. The UN and League of Nations were given birth there.

The EU was likely conceived there. Every centralizing influence in the world today of any note has its roots in the City of London or its sister-municipalities – Washington DC and the Vatican. These three "independent" city-states function as a trilogy of money power, the building blocks of the New World Order, the epicenter of an effort that apparently seeks to organize the world into one large medieval plantation.

The City of London may seem like a quaint, historical backwater but it likely lies at the heart of the world's current turmoil. The Rothschilds themselves do business out of the City of London and the vastness of resources located in and around the City of London must number in the tens or even hundreds of trillions. Money power is centralized in the City of London and has never been dispersed, despite ever-present talk about how the "City" is losing its clout as a major financial player. It is not.

 

 

http://www.thedailybell.com/

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 19:25 | 1400084 automato
automato's picture

"Of course the problem with this bit of theorizing is that Americans aren’t stupid, "

You have got to be out of your mind. People have ALWAYS been stupid. Every study in history,

psychology, sociology, etc.. has shown this to be true. It is the sole reason that religion and 

politics even exists. The "one-eyed men" have always led the "blind" and will continue to do

so. The danger lies in the motives of the "King" and whether the mobs are steered toward

progress or destruction!


Fri, 06/24/2011 - 20:31 | 1400206 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

All I care about is which party is most likely to raise my taxes.

I think there is enough of a difference between the parties to know the answer.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 20:39 | 1400227 Iriestx
Iriestx's picture

If you can't see past your tax liability, you're blind as fuck.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 08:30 | 1400828 anony
anony's picture

No sir. But it's the mantra of left to redistribute the bounty of life where it occurs. Taxes are a graphic symbol of much more than simply a liablility.

And open-ended ability to raise taxes is a scourge on the producers of any entity be it borough, town, city, county, state, or country.

The problem is not taxes as such, it is that the wealthiest have 'purchased' their tax liability rate from CONgress. If a person of considerable wealth is able to get away with a lower tax rate than the poorest among us, then it is vicious betrayal by the members of CONgress of the people who elected them.

When progressive taxation is thwarted by deductions, special contribution deductions like the one where gifts to one country, Israel, are permitted, and oil depletion allowances, perpetrated by lobbyists and paid for by their anonymous employers like insurance companies, banks, investment hedge funds----those need to be discarded. The fact that they are not gotten rid of but generally made more geneous, is but one more example of the need for both political parties to be purged of all incumbents. And if the newbies do not overturn the tax imbalances, they need to be deposed and we need to keep on doing it until they get the message that they don't even get to finish one term unless they make this their first obligation on the job.

 

 

 

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 21:53 | 1400350 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Money is the fuel of big government.

The republicans probably wont raise taxes.
The tea party may be able to prevent large deficits.
Government would shrink in such circumstances.

I knew you had to be left of center if you want more of my money to go to the government

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 00:23 | 1400589 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Your shrinking gov't will yield higher unemployment rates, both Fed and State.

So, this can be blamed on a previous or future administration, of course.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 08:37 | 1400841 anony
anony's picture

You're right but what does that demonstrate?

That the opportunities for genuine employment (and only the most obtuse would argue that half of government employees can't be gotten rid of and the only thing that would happen is that government would run more efficiently than ever) are getting worse and worse.

We have to face the fact that between immigration, reproduction among the poorest of us, and increasingly longer lived peeps, our ability as a global entity to provide gainful employment with livable wage compensation is declining in exponential terms every day.

The invention of entire industries to put a billion people to work is failing dramatically.

Our choice at the point of null growth in jobs is only one: to provide a transfer payment from producers to non-producers to at least allow people without a job to survive.  I think our smartest people in government already know this for decades. They realize what you say is true that laying off employees, whether they actually do anything or not, will only result in more people frustrated by the inability to get a decent job, even they train themselves in som specialty only to find that there are already too many who are dong the same thing.

Our defense budget is a graphic example of keeping millions of people occupied, lest they become homeless, destitute, and ultimately revolt.

Kurt Vonnegut foresaw this circumstance in the long ago. "Player Piano", pretty much sums it up.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:31 | 1400969 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You're right but what does that demonstrate?

It highlights your very comment.   We are screwed... royally.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 19:32 | 1400049 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

"...there’s growing speculation as to his re-election chances in 2012."

No kidding?!!

You mean the Messiah billed as the 2nd Coming of Christ who enjoyed both the greatest and most biased media build-up ever (The Parasite Clubs biggest all-out blitzkreig propaganda campaign) and the greatest Campaign spending in history (only to beat the wooden wonder John McCain by a cats whisker 2%) and who turned out to be Ronald McDonald, and a bwankers rent-boy to boot all rolled into one giant socialist spending orgy that sure dug a deeper debt hole but with absolutely zippo-diddly-squat to show for it has been a tad 'disappointing' to US voters?

I'm stunned how unappreciative the insane moronic zombies that actually vote (the sane 50% don't) and think it makes any difference should drop this smooth-lying prop-me-up-with-a-teleprompter parasites sock puppet of a President !!! 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 00:17 | 1400586 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Regurgitation of Rush's daily routine isn't original thinking.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 08:50 | 1400844 anony
anony's picture

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I can easily see what an empty suit theBamster is. That you cannot, is just more evidence that you can fool some of the peopel all of the time.

That you don't know how theBamster is permitting his cabinet members and bureaucrats to screw you personally every which way from Sunday is testament to the uttet ignorance of at least 40% of our population.

And before you go off on some other rant about being a stupid republican or conservative know up front that I don't think much of ANY one who runs for the office. 

I come from a place that Limbaugh never would: This country cannot be governed.

When you see that a small country, like Iceland, cannot be governed with even a smidgen of wisdom and fairness, or Italy, Spain, Greece fer Krissakes, Portugal, England, Zimbabwe---when the best governed country is essentially a small asian nation run by a dictator, what hope does any republic the size of the U.S. have?  None, absolutely none.  It will only be run to service its owners as it is now. The Banks and Hedge Funds and it doesn't matter which party is in power, it has always been so.  

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:32 | 1400964 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

... empty suit theBamster is. That you cannot,...

Show me where I said that.   I was addressing the jargon in the comment, not what I thought of Obama.  Japan has had 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years to no avail.   We could have had 10 Presidents since 9/11 and we'd still be where we are now.   Those who can change the trajectory of the U. S. have a vested interest in seeing that it not happen.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 23:50 | 1402202 anony
anony's picture

Mea culpa.  I misunderstood your post.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 11:06 | 1400940 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Rocky  -  for the record i'm in Europe and an original thinker, shockjock Rush is in the US i believe and probably has help with his script. So any co-incidence of script is random though we both like to get things off our chest, he aiming left while i target both sides of the same problem, Govt (a monopoly institution)

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 18:01 | 1399904 swissaustrian
swissaustrian's picture

The media also can´t "save" Americans from voting for Ron Paul.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 17:27 | 1399815 aerial view
aerial view's picture

Anyone seriously trust either party?

It's simply good crook vs bad crook.

Both lie, cheat and steal you blind.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 16:50 | 1399717 j0nx
j0nx's picture

Not only will Obama not win the election next year but he won't even win the dem nomination. Hillary will. For various and numerous reasons. You heard it here first.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 17:23 | 1399790 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Expect to get junked by the Hussein voters who voted for Hope & Change in 2008.  They can post all their shit here about banksters, war, or whatever but they are still lefty Dems to the core defending their boy.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 19:39 | 1400087 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Hilary? ...didn't Nixon lose to Kennedy because he looked old, baggy-eyed and tired under studio lights? ...you seen Hilary lately? She'll need the lights of a football stadium under her chin to vitalise her baggy eyes to appear fresh and vital and not the withered old prune of a woman (and slightly bitter and twisted) she's become!!!

...think there's been enough women in The Oval Office already during Kennedy and Bills tennures

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 15:29 | 1399477 dcb
dcb's picture

the policies are from the bernank, who is a registered republican. No republican except paul has any grasp of the economy (in fact both parties spin from the same play book). The repubicans aren't going there.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 15:29 | 1399474 anony
anony's picture

If AIPAC wants theBamster, he is your next POTUS, no ifs, ands or butts.

Look no further than which candidate they get behind.

And also look for major jobs program timed for his re-election.  It's already begun with the puny ass withdrawal of some troops from Berzerkistan.  If you want to stand on the tarmacs at the various airports and seaports and count them as they disembark you might get a more accurate count.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 17:21 | 1399798 Freddie
Freddie's picture

+1

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 15:11 | 1399432 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

"The people will believe what the media tells them to believe"

George Orwell

"The press must grow day in and day out — it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon."

Joseph Stalin

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 14:46 | 1399331 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

It must be very difficult to put this kind of thing in so few words.  We have had presidents that have proven they acted on their own against the insterests of those that directed the nation.  ie; Johnson, tells the bigots to bite it. Kennedy, knew he was going to die for what he did.  Carter, Navy Captain, perhaps our most brilliant,  Eisenhower, warned the nation of the powers that directed his actions.  These were people that knew how to lead, and acted. Nixon was perhaps the most mentally disturbed president that was able to act on his own, but every act was for his benefit.

 Bush 1 is a smart guy, but he profited for his actions. The rest,  puppets. 

 

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 15:22 | 1399467 anony
anony's picture

Carter led????

 

Jeeeesus, man. 

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 17:21 | 1399796 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Meaning that he was willing to take some actions against the interests of the oligarchs.

By that definition.....yes.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 14:40 | 1399319 Rastamann
Rastamann's picture

hahahaa......if you think the media's "mind" is changing now.....just wait. when the DOW is hovering sub 8k these compliant corporatist propaganda idiots will be hanging Obama out to dry.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 14:25 | 1399247 Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson's picture

Another game being played:

When an elected official gets caught with his dinky where it ought not to be, and the news write-ups do not list the offending official's party affiliation, you know it's a Democrat.

Similarly, when all we get from certain posters is, "Waaall, they're all corrupt 'n all the same..." guess what party they vote for when they get in the voting booth?

No offense to those who truly believe it AND THEN DON'T VOTE, but for many, it's just a charade - like all of the "Anti War" protests during Bush II.  Where are they now?  Where are the "Feminists" (sic)?  Nowhere to be found.  Because it was never about Boob II or Odumbo.  It's about Leftist Ideology.

"Read _Sideshow_ by William Shawcross!!!  Just read it!!!"

What about the followup, _The Quality of Mercy_?  "Umm, I'm not readin' much these days. But I am going to the Anti-War protest tomorrow.  Ya' comin'?"

 

It's as sad as reading the Anti-Jewish screeds on this site.  If you only knew the History...

 

CW

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 17:25 | 1399808 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

When you hear people say left versus right is a meaningless dichotomy you know the person saying that is a leftist ( Democrat).

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 19:37 | 1400122 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Indeed, that's why they changed their name from "liberal" to "progressive", while of course, true liberalism, focussing on individual liberty and freedom is something to be quite proud of.  The centralists, fascist, federalist nature of the demoncratic party started with Hamilton, continued and expanded with Wilson and Roosevelt.  Ooops, I notice I misspelled democratic but I'll leave it as is.  Contrast with the founder of the Rep party, Jefferson and his greatest current advocate, Ron Paul.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 18:08 | 1399930 Iriestx
Iriestx's picture

Yeah, I'm totally a pink-o.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 20:14 | 1400171 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Would you raise taxes to close the budget gap in the usa?

If your answer is yes then you are left leaning.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 20:35 | 1400217 Iriestx
Iriestx's picture

I'd take the IRS out back and put two bullets in its brain pan.  Does that make me a socialist?

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 22:04 | 1400364 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

That makes you a human.

The rest - livestock.

Enjoy your tax farm, dichotomous tools.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 16:43 | 1399692 Iriestx
Iriestx's picture

Am I the only one that couldn't give two shits about what/whose hole you like to stick/have it stuck in?  Every Republican is a repressed, closet homosexual.  Every Democrat is a two-timing, Godless philanderer.  It's all part of the soap opera.  It's all bullshit.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 15:30 | 1399489 anony
anony's picture

Greenspan, Summers, theBernank, Geithner, Madoff, Steinberg, Fink, Gensler, Rubin, Strauss, Orszag, Fuld, Cayne, and a hundred more.

Now.  Substitute for those names: Corleone, Rocco, Testa, DiNapoli, Lucchesi, Siciliano, Gotti, Bonano, Capone, Luciano.....and tell us again how sad it is.

Ignore it if you want and keep your head in the sand.

But the truth is right in front of you.  

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 14:37 | 1399289 Collapsed
Collapsed's picture

"If you only knew the History..."   Did he really just say that?? How ironic of a statement that is...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!