Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Maybe Pres'ent Obama is less than forthright 18

Inequality in the U.S. today is near its historical highs, largely because the Federal Reserve's policies have succeeded in achieving their aim: namely, higher asset prices (especially the prices of stocks, bonds and high-end real estate), which are generally owned by taxpayers in the upper-income brackets. The Fed is doing all the work, because the President's policies are growth-suppressive. In the absence of the Fed's moneyprinting and ZIRP, the economy would either be softer or actually in a new recession.
The greatest irony is that the President is railing against inequality as one of the most important problems of the day, despite the fact that his policies are squeezing the middle class and causing the Fed--with the President's encouragement--to engage in the radical monetary policy, which is exacerbating inequality. This simple truth cannot be repeated often enough.

Once one grasps that #OccupyResoluteDesk is, was, and shall remained totally phoned-in, these seemingly counter-intuitive results become obvious.
Not that the GOP effort to don anything different will rise above shag-all.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maybe Pres'ent Obama is less than forthright

Comments Filter:
  • Again, he is conserving the wealth distribution that was so proudly established under Reagan and two presidents named Bush. Funny how that happens, when all the bills that he signs in to law are written to extend the policies of the same.
    • I think you're completely under-crediting Pres'ent Obama's Venusian heritage.
      • Tell me, oh wise one, what part of socialist philosophy embraces such lopsided distribution of wealth?
        • Was Boris Yeltsin ever waiting in line for 4 hours to buy toilet paper like the average Russian was?
          • Boris Yeltsin was not a socialist. I'd say "nice try" but that really wasn't.
            • Boris Yeltsin was the President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and was a member of the Communist Party.

              Please explain by whatever twisted "logic" you can muster how Yeltsin wasn't a Socialist.
              • I happen to evaluate people by what they actually do rather than the labels that they - or others - apply to themselves. If you evaluate the actions of Yeltsin and the soviets you can only reach the conclusion that they abandoned anything resembling socialist ideals well before the rise to power of Stalin.
                • I knew you'd be completely wrong -- humorously so -- and you didn't disappoint.
                  • So you want to claim that the last president of the USSR - who was the one to implement the final policy changes towards the market based economy that they have now - was somehow a closet socialist?

                    If you were a real conservative you would have at least picked a soviet leader who one could make even a marginal claim to be an actual socialist. Instead you picked the soviet leader whose economic policies were the least socialist of all. Of course, we both know you aren't a real conservative, rather here
                    • Boris Yeltsin did not implement free market policies, he implemented the other side of the totalitarian coin -- fascism.

                      Under Yeltsin, the "free" market ended up being entirely owned by a Russian oligarchy -- conveniently loyal to Yeltsin and "the Party" just like the Italian economy under Benito Mussolini.

                      Plus, once he had switched the government to essentially a fascist one -- still a totalitarian one -- he resigned and gave the reins to another avowed communist and former KGB member -- Vladimir Puti
              • Kim Il-sung is the president of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea... I betcha he doesn't wait for toilet paper either...

                • Are you saying there's any real, discernible difference between fascists, democrats, and socialists these days?
                  • You tell me. You seem to know everything.. And why do you single them out? You're all a bunch of fascists. You all want the power, just like your gods, to be in your image. You, d_r, and Smith are precisely the same animal, dancing around the same fire. If anything is indistinguishable, it is you all.

                    • Wrong. With a few notable exceptions, there is very, very little I am willing to use government force to do. Technically I am a conservative, but I have a libertarian streak 10 miles wide. (And no, I am not a supported of Ron Paul.).

                      The left / right scale for politics should be relabeled as "Statist" (Left) vs. "Individualist" (Right). I am an Ayn Rand style individualist.
                    • Please man, stop being such a goof with all this stupid shit. It's like the whole weed thing. I would hope you all would outgrow it by the time you finish high school. Money is money, and might makes right. That's life on planet earth. That's where we are. Me, I actually unpack my bags while I'm in the hotel.

                    • You take bags of weed to hotels?
        • You may take your no true Scotsman [] hooey and deposit it where it benefits you most.
          • You may take your no true Scotsman hooey and deposit it where it benefits you most.

            No True Scotsman does not apply here, period.

            No True Scotsman is along the lines of "a person of group X does not partake in specific non-group-defining activity Y". If we were saying that Obama was not an American because of his beliefs on wealth distribution, that would be a No True Scotsman argument. However you are trying to pigeonhole Obama as a socialist, which is a category that is defined by beliefs and actions. A socialist hence can be defined based on actions, and Obama has not partaken in t

Loose bits sink chips.