This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bush Was a Total Disaster ... Obama Is WORSE
More Redistribution of Wealth to the Richest
Sure, Bush made the rich richer.
But Obama has actually redistributed wealth from the middle class to the very richest more than Bush.
Specifically, income inequality has increased more under Obama than under Bush.
Indeed, inequality in America today is worse than it was in Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, twice as bad as in ancient Rome – which was built on slave labor – and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.
A new study shows that the richest Americans captured more than 100% of all recent income gains. As Huffington Post notes:
The top 1 percent of households by income captured 121 percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2011, during the first two years of the economic recovery, according to new research by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. (Saez is a renowned income inequality expertand winner of the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, an award that the American Economic Association gives every year to the top economist under age 40.)
How was the top 1 percent able to capture more than all of the recovery’s income gains? They became 11.2 percent richer while the bottom 99 percent got 0.4 percent poorer, when accounting for inflation, according to Saez.
Saez released the updated figures in late January after finding last year that the top 1 percent had captured 93 percent of all income gains in 2010, the first full year of the economic recovery.
Overall, between 1993 and 2011, the top 1 percent’s incomes surged 57.5 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent grew just 5.8 percent, according to Saez.
One of the reasons why the super-rich are becoming much richer and everyone else poorer is that Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father or Ronald Reagan.
And by pointing out that inequality is skyrocketing, we’re not calling for a redistribution of wealth downward. We’re calling for an end to policies which allow wealth to be concentrated in a few hands.
Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks (they’ve gotten much bigger under Obama), the Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets (most of the quantitative easing has occurred under Obama), and government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation (there’s now more moral hazard than ever before) … things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.
Indeed, crony capitalism has gotten even worse under Obama.
We noted in 2011:
All of the monetary and economic policy of the last 3 years has helped the wealthiest and penalized everyone else. See this, this and this.
***
Economist Steve Keen says:
“This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history”, as the giant banks have handed their toxic debts from fraudulent activities to the countries and their people.
Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz said in 2009 that Geithner’s toxic asset plan “amounts to robbery of the American people”.
And economist Dean Baker said in 2009 that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”.
More Trampling of Civil Liberties
The Hill reports:
A majority of voters believe President Obama has been no better than his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to balancing national security with the protection of civil liberties, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Thirty-seven percent of voters argue that Obama has been worse than Bush while 15 percent say he has been “about the same.”
***
The results cannot be fully explained as party line responses. More than one in five self-identified Democrats, 21 percent, assert that the Obama administration has not improved upon Bush’s record. So do 23 percent of liberals.
We’ve reported for years that Obama is even more brutal than Bush, and that he’s claimed some tyrannical powers that not only Bush – but even Hitler, Stalin and King George – never claimed.
The former head of the National Security Agency’s global digital data gathering program – William Binney – says that he pervasiveness of spying under Obama has only “gotten worse”.
Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than Bush and all other presidents combined.
Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drone assassinations, which are creating many more terrorists than they are killing. Nice job creating more terrorists … you morons. The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo says that Obama’s drone surge is as damaging to our country as Bush’s torture program. I think he’s actually underestimating damage from the program, as drones have become the number 1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda (especially since children are now being targeted for drone assassination … Oh, and torture is still happening on Obama’s watch; background).
Bush destroyed much of the separation of powers which made our country great. Under Obama, it's gotten worse. For example, the agency which decides who should be killed by drone is the same agency which spies on all Americans.
While some try to say that at least Obama didn’t start any disastrous wars, Obama has in fact launched wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and up to 35 African nations. And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See this, this, this, this and this.
Even mainstream Democrats who support Obama’s national security policies more or less admit that they are simply falling into a cult of personality.
So Bush was a disaster … but Obama is worse.
Postscript: Obama apologists say "at least Obama has created jobs". But some economists argue that unemployment has actually skyrocketed under Obama (and see this).
Given that government policy is ensuring high unemployment levels, that Obama - despite his words - actually doesn't mind high unemployment, that virtually all of the government largesse has gone to Wall Street instead of Main Street or the average American, and that a “jobless recovery” is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys, Obama's actions in the area of employment don't change our conclusion.
- advertisements -


ok in the ketchup brand competition one is "tovarich"; how would you qualify the other : Schwein-heinz?
Well I suppose most of us here at ZH knew it would get worse before it would get better. Question is how bad does it have to get before joe sixpac wakes up to what is going on and who's doing it. Sure I still have some hope for the average Joe, but most of the Joes and Janes are so indoctrinated and confused and dumbed down, I would not place any money on any bets that this will get any better for them anytime soon, if ever.
Joe will hunt us down, rape our wifes, take our food and shot us.
It's not ever going to get better, humanity is now on a downward spiral it will never pull out of, in my opinion anyway. Hey, we're just another species on the planet, and millions of species go extinct all the time.
SheepDog-One,
Have some perspective my friend. Things will not improve in our lifetime or the lifetime of many generations to come. Lots of people have to die. Things have to be reset. I dont think humans will go extinct, but our numbers will be profoundly reduced. My goals it to make sure my genetic material is one of the few that make it. Odds are against me, but at least I understand the game Im playing which gives me an advantage.
In a million years, things might be better than they now. So there is hope.
I'll shoot this version of the screenplay
I somewhat agree with you, but I've always found the genetic material reasoning to be really strange. If you plan to have kids, don't do it for some ego-driven reason, do it so that you can make the world a better place; don't send them to government education facilities, for example - Teach them yourself.
I personally don't plan to have kids unless the situation on this planet improves. Why bring another being into this world just to suffer?
Dude,
Your ancestors struggled, suffered, fought and sacrificed to survive so that you could eventually be here. The genetic material courseing through your body has been alive for millions of years. It dies if you dont reproduce. The struggle of your family will have all been in vane; a waste. Their suffering will have been for nothing.
Should you choose not to reproduce it just make my chances better though, so there is thate. Good luck with whatever.
You don't really understand how DNA works. After one generation of random mating, all ancestry is basically erased and irretrievable. The only DNA that's really immune to this process, which is precisely the reasons it's used for lineage studies, are the non-coding regions on the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. These never undergo crossover.
Because they never undergo crossover, mutations cause offspring that are not viable. If you have a mutation on something important on the Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA, chances are you're not viable and aren't going to make it to 9 months in the first place.
What you get is Y-chromosomes and mitochindrial DNA that are highly conserved in all areas of the 3% of DNA that actually codes for proteins (the other 97% is noise), which means they are almost identical in a functional way between people.
Yeah? Well, those little oval headed big eyed people in the "space ships" (time ships) are my relatives! I'd recognise that vacant stare anywhere, anytime! So I know that MY bunch made it. Don't know about yours!
will have all been in vane --
or vain ...
but, as Lou Reed said, when I put that spike into my vein,
well, things aren't quite the same.
Lou Reed's parents gave shock treatment and sadly used lower voltages. He was married three times including Laurie Anderson in 2008? Who knew?
The most overated Velvet Underground member and known hipster-tard.
Your in trouble now. You better watch your back.lol
Baffle em with bullshit- B Obama
What the fuck does change, hope and yes we can mean, anyway?
"Hope and change" and "Yes we can" are meaningless positive-sounding phrases to hook libtards.
Though apparently, "change" means installing socialism, "hope" is how they drag everyone along, and "yes we can" is them saying they'll do whatever they want with no accountability.
If there had never been a Bush, there never would have been an Obama.
But Obama isnt the real problem. He is only a symptom of the problem. In a sane, responsible country that wanted freedom over slavery, virtue over vice, there is just no fucking way either of those pricks would have been elected.
But we are a cunty full of poorly educated, obese, lazy, low information, uninquisitive people that just do what they are told by the Tee Vee.
Yep, TV is King !!
+1: But we are a cunty full -
I'm getting to like your spellings more now.
I resemble that!
The take over by the international banksters of the government of the USA has been going on for over a Century. The fundamental structure of the financial system is simply working itself through automatically. It does not matter who becomes President. Unless there was a profound revolution, whose theory the vast majority of people cannot even understand, much less agree with, then the next President must necessarily be worse than Obama!
To quote from an article featured on Zero Hedge yesterday:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-13/real-reason-economy-broken-and-will-stay-way
The Real Reason the Economy Is Broken (and Will Stay That Way)
"... here we are, doubling down – we're all in and I guess there's no turning back now."
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any mere "monetary reforms" to resolve the problems that the next President would have to continue doubling the total debts, or else the established money-as-debt systems would collapse. There could be NOTHING less than "monetary revolution" which would be sufficient. However, the overwhelming vast majority of Americans do not want to understand that, and therefore, can not understand that. They are too clueless to have any clues about what they would need to do, to adequately change.
The current condition of the "citizens" as degenerate consumers of bullshit is due to the prolonged triumph of the methods of organized crime taking control of the political processes, FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY! Any President that was NOT a political puppet would be practically guaranteed to be assassinated, IF by some series of political miracles he or she could win despite the entrenched triumphs of a trillion dollar mass media industry continuing to scientifically brainwash people.
Furthermore, the REALL problems can not be resolved nor improved by any return to the original false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, which the controlled opposition is currently promoting.
There is no doubt that Obama is ONLY a symptom of the problem. However, what the real problems ARE go far, far, far beyond what practically any Americans currently recognize! The basic ways that they think are too totally tangled up and backwards. The real relationship between "organized crime" and "government" needs to be completely reconsidered, with the result being a profoundly different political science emerging from that.
Otherwise, there will be no doubt that, OF COURSE, Obama was worse than Bush II, while the next President must become even worse than Obama already is!
Preach It !!!
you could have just said leverage
the word "cunty" says it all. that word just hits home. t
+1 for 'cunty'
Much better than pudendic.
You forgot Clinton.
I think since Poppy bush it has been the same CIA cartel. The 2 Bushes, Clinton and Obummer work for the same people.
Reagan did not because they tried to whack him. Same loner programmed robot that was able to waltz up and shoot him.
I'd certainly support 'Andrew Jackson 2.0' even though he was a merciless, Injun hatin' sonofabitch.
"I killed the bank." -- Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson.
The Man.
Enough said.
His face (jackson) is on the 20 dollar bill because his enemies(the central bankers), wanted to mock him
Yeah, but President Andrew Jackson had to almost miraculously survive the attempts of the banksters to assassinate him in order to survive to then "kill the bank." I totally agree that Jackson was the last President to do what needed to be done, to revive America. I also totally agree that, in theory, Andrew Jackson 2.0 would be what would be necessary to restore America.
However, back in Andrew Jackson's time, there was still a relatively diverse and independent press. Today, that is GONE. Therefore, there is no practical way to imagine the political miracles necessary to get any Andrew Jackson 2.0 elected in the first place. Furthermore, it would then be an even bigger miracle for Andrew Jackson 2.0 to survive the attempts that the banksters would make to assassinate him or her.
More deeply, as another reply from me stated, as below, the American people would have to radically change their basic concepts about politics, in order to understand how and WHY organized crime was able to take control of "their" government, so that we ended up with the current runaway system of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. That understanding can NOT be achieved as long as we continue to cleave to the old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, and their associated impossible ideals.
Radical, you are right. There were pro- and anti-Jackson papers.
Jackson, in duels, stood ready to take the first shot! He knew he could kill the opponent even if mortally wounded.
We need an Old Hickory 2.0 and we need him NOW!
ron paul was the last chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so plan acordingly-find a state where succession has a chance...
my only last hope, or leave b/4 border controls.
last stand will involve violence.
and it will be a minority
one if by no option
two becasue i would rather br dead than live with the outcome...
AMEN !!!
people really need to wake up to the reality that our 'democracy' is fraud... just one example, most presidents are distant relatives.... bush and obama? yup...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_KJXdKMwZqBgHPdXXdGWnEP
and all trace back to the Windsors? a coincindence? sure thing man... they think they own you... and they have... where it goes from here, is up to you.
Saying Bush was a disaster but Obama is worse is like saying forced sex with Hillary would be bad but forced sex with Napolitano might be really bad.