Below is my response to an email from a family member. The bulk of his email was a reprint of an article about Obama in the final issue of Newsweek. [Apparently the magazine is ceasing publication.] The article lambasted Obama with a variety of assertions.
_____________________________
I agree with most of this, but take issue with the following.
1. Obama's first job after college was not as a "community organizer", but instead was with Business International, a mega business consulting firm and a known CIA front.
2. His Marxism was "warmed over" because it was an act. He's a Corporatist, not a Marxist. He became a multi-millionaire while in office. He failed to prosecute fraudulent Mega Bankers, even when the fraud was admitted... and the evidence supporting that admission was clear. He received more campaign $ from Big Biz than did McCain. In his first term, he kept all the Wall St. Bush economic people in his Admin. Anyone who believes Obama was on the so-called "Left" is the victim of unmitigated Propaganda... & that Propaganda worked.
3. He did have a record in the Senate: he supported the Afghan & Iraq wars, the Death Penalty, voted for the PATRIOT Act, voted against Universal Health Care, and supported anything that favored the highest 1% on the economic ladder. [None of that record is in the slightest a "Marxist" record.]
Obama certainly was/is unqualified, but he's definitely NOT any kind of Socialist. The Newsweek author simply is reinforcing the Propaganda that most Americans bought into.
.......................
Let's see if Trump, who is facing an imploding economy, blames Obama for economic woes the way O blamed Bush. I'd say there's a very good chance that he will. Funny thing is, they both have a good case... that's because the Cabinet members & other economic advisors aren't really "Conservative" OR "Liberal"... instead, they're Corporatists who promote Boom & Bust cycles that benefit the Super-Rich. They bamboozle ANY President into thinking they're on the right track with that policy (of course, they don't use Boom-Bust terminology). As I look at Trump's Cabinet & Advisors on economic policy, it's easy to predict that's exactly what will happen to the President-Elect. Just watch.
Happy Trails
p.s. Thanks for the piece. It reinforces my belief that the Corporate Media (including Newsweek) are way beyond those old, worn-out labels of "Conservative" and "Liberal". Every one of them is Corporatist... and their main objective is to benefit the 1%.
_________________________
On a similar note---
Don't know how I missed this piece, but just a bit ago I finished watching a documentary (on Netflix) narrated by Matt Damon, titled Inside Job. It's from the year 2010, and is an analysis of the 2008 Crash. Although I was familiar with most of the facts explained, the film blew me away.
Long story short, the piece showed how the Administrations of Reagan, Poppy Bush, Clinton, Dubya Bush, & Obama, plus Oligarchs in the Financial Sector, plus Presidential advisors from academic economics---all essentially more or less in collusion--- were responsible for the last Crash. The devastating role of bizarre financial derivatives was laid bare, as well as the utter failure of governmental regulation, and how millionaire economic advisors shape Executive policy.
Bottom line--- American Presidents (with very few exceptions) have been molded economically by BIG Business reps and academic millionaire economists to the point where the Presidents are mere puppets...at least, when it comes to issues such as finance, the economy, jobs, & the like. Those issues are the most important ones to almost all of us. If you can't make a decent living, all the other issues don't matter. The only possible exception to that statement is the issue of Freedom.
Finally, as pointed out in the film, those "academic" economic advisors became millionaires by giving speeches to mega corporations at $100,000 or more a pop. After advising the President, many/most of these economists then move on to high corporate positions at an annual salary of $300,000 or so. A question should arise as to conflict of interest, eh?
Don't miss Inside Job.
Not only my opinion. Be Well
No comments:
Post a Comment