That would be Three years from now.
None of this shouldn't come to any surprise to readers of A&G. People are not only unable to find work in any meaningful way but jobs are still being slashed left and right. The snobby economists only care about corporations' outlook when doing forecasts so they saw productivity based on corporate skeleton work crews comprised of a disproportionate amount of temps and figured the days of mass layoffs was over.
They forgot individual states don't have the luxury of extending its debt ceiling every time it overextends itself. Rather, states are constitutionally mandated to balance their budgets so they must slash and burn to get to a fiscal point where they can declare its balanced-- that means mass layoffs. That means state and local employees- the teachers, fire fighters, the police, etc..
Many people in positions of power want to blame everyone and everything for the continued economic malaise-- the unions, the pension system, Social Security and Medicate (funny how its called "entitlements" which is a very negative word to imply those who need it are spoiled in some way. They really should be called "essentials")
You know the game- when the wealthy's finances are ruffled, government comes to the rescue to dump cash into their pockets. Then the same entities look to the middle and lower classes to pay more and give up more hard fought social gains.
You still see this game played on Wall St. and its really no different than children at a playground-- the plump, ugly little bully who runs around and pushes n' shoves others so he can show he's better than everyone. Then when he trips on his pudginess & skins his kneecap, its "Mommy Mommy.. owww" and cries extremely loud. Mommy runs over and fixes the boo-boo, scolds others not to play so rough, then walks away as the plump, ugly little bully continues shoving others around as he wishes.
Many have opinions and theories on why there's no genuine recovery or even tangible signs of it for the bottom 98% of the nation. So here's A&G's belief-- President Obama was elected as a liberal Democrat back in 2008 and none of his economic policies represent that of a true liberal or Democrat. When it comes to economics (and military policy), America has gotten a third term of George W. Bush.
All the rhetoric that Obama is a "socialist" and "the most liberal President in US history" is a big lie concocted by Republican politicians and media pundits desperate to show distinctions between Obama and themselves when on economy policy, there's little. Those who don't take time to follow politics buy into the soundbites and believe them true. Of course there's really No difference economically.
Think about it logically and objectively- What president does Obama publicly admire? -- Reagan. What did Reagan believe in economically? -- "Trickle down" economics where the wealth is given to the Top and they spread it out of the kindness of their black hearts down to the masses. Who received all the bailout/stimulus money under the Obama Administration? -- The top 1%. What was the goal? -- To 'spread' that money down to the masses via job creation and bank loans.
Let's continue with the Q&A-- What Presidents is Obama most adverse to? -- FDR and Carter. Has Obama created any social program or job-creation legislation that would even come close to what FDR did to create employment in the 1930's? -- No. Has Obama declared even once a belief like FDR stated that if businesses can not or refuse to hire, then to step aside and he will create them? -- No. And why is Obama adverse to Carter? -- Because Carter publicly admitted the nation was going through economic malaise and the Dem party felt this honesty cost Carter votes in 1980 election.
So are we saying Obama is intentionally misrepresenting the severity of how bad things are so people do not panic and have it negatively affect his chance at re-election? -- Oh, you betcha...
Look, those who supported Obama in 2008 did not put a collective $1 billion into his election war chest so that the only "change" would be skin color or articulation. In 2008, Bush's approval rating was around 29%. People of both parties were Sick and Tired of him. They wanted leadership and a change in a different policy direction especially on economics and the needless wars our troops were bogged down in. The American people did Not desire a third Bush term.
There's still a chance for Obama to take the reins and be a real leader. All this sudden negative media coverage of the economy, while obviously agenda driven, maybe will scare the administration into enacting policies that directly help the middle and lower classes while completely Avoiding Wall St.
The betting person's safe bet though is on 'business as usual'. Obama's #1 campaign contributer in 2008 was Goldman Sachs and he needs that Wall St donation money badly for 2012. Also Obama still has a very loyal core of supporters who know they're being F***ed over but because they believe he's better than the alternative, as many supporters have told me, there's really no motivation for Obama to change his policies.
So as long as Nero is playing his fiddle while Rome is burning and the people yell out "Encore! Encore! - We Love You!", you're going to see a lot of really bad days ahead for this nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment