If you’ve been wondering why President Obama’s “fixes” for solving healthcare, unemployment, the housing foreclosure crisis and now the debt ceiling “crisis’ have only managed to continue the downward spiral for the American people?
If, since 2009, you’ve wondered why President Obama has been such an inept negotiator for the American people?
Why his administration keeps bailing out Wall Street and feeding the military industrial complex or any industry — health care, insurance, auto, mortgage — that comes along with a need or a demand for the taxpayer’s dime, but somehow never manages to bail out the average taxpayer? Why a President who is a legally trained scholar would continue and even further so many of the Bush policies that undermined and subjugated the civil liberties and personal property rights of the American people?
If, since 2008, you’ve wondered — why Obama?
Why an inexperienced “present” voter was made president during a time of financial crisis? Why Obama’s records were never vetted? Why the Democratic party broke their own rules to mow down Hillary Clinton, the best qualified presidential candidate for our country and the times?
Then, I’d like to introduce you to Professor Michael Hudson, a financial economist, historian and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He may have an explanation for not only why Obama was elected, but why Obama is working so hard to make the economy worse for the American people.
According to Professor Hudson the why of Obama is really quite simple. Wall Street and global financiers have a plan they want to implement. And that plan needs a depression.
And Obama just happens to be the poser/puppet that will make that planned depression happen.
“The economy is seeking because investors realize that his [Obama’s] deflationary attempt to cut public spending looks like a done deal. Trying to run a budget surplus will push the economy deeper into depression. When Clinton ran a budget surplus, the banks provided the increase in credit to keep the economy going. But now they have pulled back, as there is little surplus that has not already been pledged to pay the banks. So Mr. Obama’s advisors have convinced him to do what European political front men also are doing. A depression is deemed necessary to cut living standards and labor by about 30 percent. Mr. Obama’s aim is to lower American wage levels.
To do this, he needs an excuse, a cover story. The reality is that a depression will make the budget deficit even larger. Just as the plans to invade Iraq were written up before 9/11 provided a crisis atmosphere that became the opportunity to introduce them, so the response to the federal budget deficit is already outlined: Social Security and other “entitlements” will be cut back, as well as revenue sharing with the states and cities. So governments at the local level will have to sell of land, roads and whatever is in the public domain. The American government will look just like Greece and Ireland – so you may want to look at them as dress rehearsals.
Cutbacks in federal spending mean that the states can’t cover their own budgets – and their constitutions prevent many from running deficits. It looks like there will be little federal revenue to share with Minnesota or Wisconsin or the city of Chicago. They’re going to have to sell their roads and streets, sell their infrastructure and their public utilities, sell off whatever business enterprises they have that can bring in credit. These assets themselves will be sold on credit, to buyers who then will “expense” their profits as tax-deductible interest. So governments will not get the potential user fees that result from putting up parking meters on their sidewalks, tollbooths on their roads and other rent extraction facilities on their other assets. The financial sector will take all this.
It looks like he [Obama] will go down in history as a Herbert Hoover, being blamed for the depression that was not necessary and that the Republicans could not have gotten away with intensifying. Only a Democrat posing as a left-winger could support the anti-labor, anti-wage, pro-Wall Street policies that his advisors have been putting into his hands. This is what came out in the New York Times interview with Sheila Bair.”
It might be tempting to write off Professor Hudson’s interview as the wild rantings of one man, if it wasn’t for the fact that 25 million Americans are unemployed or can’t find full time work, real compensation is at a 50 year low, and U.S. homeownership rate fell to the lowest level since 1998.
Or, if state and federal governments hadn’t been selling off assets for years. A Cato Institute paper advocates Privatization by selling off post offices, toll roads, and utilities. And here are links to reports of recent lease/sales of the Indiana Toll Road, Chicago parking meters and Arizona state capital building to name just a few. Reading through the details of these deals, it is hard to believe these sales are really in the public’s long-term interest, and yet the pace is quickening and now local governments are joining the sell-off party too. Of course the government asset fire sales aren’t limited to the US or even Greece and Ireland. The UK tried to sell Sherwood Forest until citizens stopped it by taking to the streets.
Maybe Professor Hudson’s analysis seems like a belated attempt by the progressive left to join the “birthers” with an anti-Obama conspiracy theory of their own. Especially, when the likes of Mat Taibbi in his recent Rolling Stone article Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive is calling democratic politicians “…a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state…”
He then goes on to explain:
“The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.
…Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country’s smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by “surrendering” at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?”
And Dylan Ratigan in The Real Debt Deal makes the plea that:
American homeowners shouldn’t be under siege by creditor predator banks, and millions of us shouldn’t be unemployed as debt-holders forced into a Survivor-like fight with each other over scraps. We cannot allow giant creditors to turn fights over debt into currency wars, and then into real wars.
But a new world order takeover is not just a theory of the progressive left. Back in the fall of 2009, Alex Jones released a documentary film called the Fall of the Republic, The Presidency of Barack Obama. It makes many of the same points as Professor Hudson through extensive talks with criminologists, economists, political analysts and the like, but Jones’ movie is considered to be right-winged by many.
At the very least, the idea that anyone would actually plan an economic depression seems too crazy to even imagine. Main Street America is too busy running the rat race to spend its leisure planning for global events 10, 20, even 30 years in advance. But then not everyone is busy running with us. Ever hear of the Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission?
Whether it is truth or just a conspiracy theory that President Obama was the poser/puppet needed to bring about a planned economic depression and a new world order, only time will tell. But if we do get a new economic world order out of a planned depression — I can’t help wondering which of us will be left and who will we be serving and how?
If what Franklin D. Roosevelt said was true that “Presidents are selected, not elected,” then wouldn’t it make sense that the presidential selection would be influenced by both parties? And if there was a conspiracy to put a particular president in office, why would we ever assume the conspiracy ends at one party’s edge?
Share your thoughts!