Obama is to blame for the economy? I think not!

I just can't stand the totally ignorant "Obama-bashing" over the economic situation in the USA (yeah, I used the term "ignorant" and I used it properly for once in this forum).

The totally rampant dislike of President Obama needs some form of perspective.
I don't call on every American man, woman and child to blindly embrace the "new" administraion. In fact, I want them to be awake and always observe their government with a healthy dose of critisism. Your country and its leaders are there to serve you and protect your liberties. Not the other way around (which it has been like many times over in history, not only in the USA).

But let's cut to the chase here; this thread is about the following:

Before you accuse and disrespect President Obama over the economics, take a look at the mess he has to clean up!
I am talking about the craziness during the 8 prior years to the current Presidents time in office.
There you will find why unemployment and tax increase are the only bitter reality!

Read. Think. Understand. Revaluate. Talk. Walk.

July 31st, 2008

"The current administration will leave the nation with its largest deficit in history"

Committee on the budget

This and other efforts of the “Bush Legacy Project” to rehabilitate the last administration’s job creation image and defend its tax cuts ignore the stark reality that the Bush administration’s tax policies fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades, and ignored alarming labor market trends in minority communities. This record of anemic job creation was accompanied by sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth that characterized the period after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went into effect.

Center for American Progress

This one is a little older, but still valid:

The Administration and congressional Republicans predicted that the President's tax cut plan would turn the economy around. Those predictions proved false - instead of a quick economic turnaround, the country still has fewer jobs than it did when the recession began three and a half years ago. This is the longest period of job losses since the Great Depression.

Democratic Policy Committee

So, the current President is to blame for this?
I think not!

[edit=fix thread title]


[edit on 12-11-2009 by Raud]

obama sucks.he may not have started this mess but he sure seems intent on making it worse. Take a look at Sal Alinsky's rules for radicals before you worship obama blindly it should give you a sense of what he is trying to achieve.

Want some cheese with that wine?

Im sorry, but you proved nothing to me that suggests that Obama
has not been a major factor in the chaos that we are seeing today.
I thought that he ran for office on "turning the economy around"?
I thought that he said that his first priority was the economy?
Its been 10 months... so...where are we at? Further down the rabbit hole.
With the whole healthcare sham going on right now, that puts us close to 2 trillion dollars deeper in debt, unemployment is still on the rise, people are losing their jobs like crazy, and the first thing that you can think of saying is "its bushes fault"? Grab a calculator and do the math yourself. The economy might not have been the greatest when Bush left, butObama surely has not contributed anything good to the situation, he has only made it worse. For running on change, hes not doing such a great job.
but lets just blame Bush, its much easier that way, we dont want our God Obama to have a bad image.

Originally posted by Raud

I don't call on every American man, woman and child to blindly embrace the "new" administraion. In fact, I want them to be awake and always observe their government with a healthy dose of critisism. Your country and its leaders are there to serve you and protect your liberties. Not the other way around (which it has been like many times over in history, not only in the USA).

...

Originally posted by genius/idoit
Take a look at Sal Alinsky's rules for radicals before you worship obama blindly it should give you a sense of what he is trying to achieve.

And the prophecy is fulfilled. A whole 1 post in.


Don't worry too much about it Raud. In America, when you try to look at things in an objective light, you are instantly accused of idol worship. This is argument #1 against anything even remotely supporting the current administration, so I imagine you will be accused of it fairly often in this thread. On behalf of my... less infantile countrymen, I apologize.

While I am certainly not one of the ones who thinks Obama is entirely to blame for the economic mess we are in, I do not believe he is doing all that he can to solve it. He has perpetuated the Keynesian economics that have been proven, thus far, to be insufficient.

If you ask me, the first part of our economy which needs to be changed in order to put us on the right track would be to gut the ridiculously bloated defense budget. Followed by fiscal economics, cutting back on spending programs, and encouraging employers to remain on US soil. Obama seems to be doing some of this, but not nearly enough, in my opinion.

However, it is still far too early to determine if Obama's actions are beneficial or detrimental. In my honest opinion, and the opinions of many analysts, the economy in the US might not make a sufficient recovery for as long as a decade, and Obama will likely not be in office when that recovery is made.


Edit to fix quotes


[edit on 12-11-2009 by drwizardphd]

Aw come on Raud. Didn't you get the memo? Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING. Globa Warming, the economic collapse, the deficit, the wars, H1N1, the balloon boy hoax, if it ever happened and it's not good it's Obama's fault. Get with the program or you could get kicked off the site.

reply to post by Raud


Is Obama to blame for this economic crisis? I would say that he didn't *start* this crisis, but he's been in office for nearly a year now. So far, all we have to show for his time in office is another $1.4 trillion of debt, several politically unpopular bailouts and takeovers of American industries, the continued decline of the dollar and a continued steep rise in unemployment. To this point, his only major economic initiative, the $787 billion bailout plan earlier this year, looks like a horridly expensive flop.

Again, we're almost a year into this presidency. Its a tough hand he's been dealt, but lets not forget that he applied for the job. The excuses and the 'Blame Bush' rhetoric is starting to wear awfully thin. Its time for results.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by Common Good
Want some cheese with that wine?

Right back at ya.

Im sorry, but you proved nothing to me that suggests that Obama
has not been a major factor in the chaos that we are seeing today.

Nothing? Nothing? The largest deficit in the nations history didn't prove anything? Gee...

I thought that he ran for office on "turning the economy around"?
I thought that he said that his first priority was the economy?
Its been 10 months... so...where are we at? Further down the rabbit hole.

10 months? You ask of the President to fix the largest deficit in the nations history in 10 months? Are you in kindergarden?

Grab a calculator and do the math yourself.

No, you do the math. Are you or have you been living in paradise city for the last 9 years? Money doesn't make themselves you know.

The economy might not have been the greatest when Bush left, but Obama surely has not contributed anything good to the situation, he has only made it worse.

Not the greatest? How about the worst ever.

But lets just blame Bush, its much easier that way, we dont want our God Obama to have a bad image.

Contraty to "lets just blame Obama"?
Bush had 8 years, out of which 4 weren't ever supposed to have happened. During that time, the economy hit rock bottom, fell through and went even deeper down the abyss.
Obama have had 10 months to clean up 8 years of disaster and you are not happy yet?

Man, you are just the type of person this thread is dedicated to.
Too bad your playground rethorics didn't put up with more of a fight than it did.

reply to post by Raud


The deficit you listed for Bush was the highest in history at the time, until Obama got in office and took it to a whole new level. I agree that things were not great when Obama took over, but he has only made it worse by creating an environment that is hostile to business.

The economy won't grow because people won't invest when their are huge looming tax hikes related to healthcare and crap and fade. Programs like those will only lead to more and more people loosing their jobs and at the same time see their utility bills sky rocket.

The buck stops with the President.

Bush no longer matters, who created the deficit no longer matters.

Obama wanted the job, Obama got the job, now it is up to him to get it fix.

How much has Obama added to the deficit in 10 months? How much will he add before his term is up?

Seems many people are still suffering from Busharithis and want to continue blaming him for the whole mess.

There's plenty of blame to go around. We are where we are and Obama was well aware of where we were when he ran.

Why make excuses for him?

Did he or did he not say that he had the best plan to recover the economy?

I think a lot of people are still waiting for that plan.

President Obama is not responsible for the economic downfall, it was set in place by several factors across party lines long before he came along. However it is shamefull how he and his party took the opertunity to pass the vast amount of porkbarrel projects when the American people were down and out. The stimulus bill did not need to be so large, but hey as Rahm said "can't let a good crisis go to waste"

-E-

I look at electing Obama like this. It is like when you pick up a hot girl at the bar and take her home that night and have great sex. It looked good. It felt great at the time, but then like a week later you realize you caught VD from her and it doesn't seem so great anymore when the doctor is shoving a q-tip.....

reply to post by vor78


I will truely try not to make this sound sarcastic:

Ever heard of the "downward spiral" aka Lacuna Coil?

Economic downfall due to wars/failed tax cuts/Bush W. being an class act idiot/whathaveyou- companies have to save - people lose their jobs - people need to live on welfare - less money in the market - economy falls again - (repeat cycle).

Let this go on for a couple of years, only add more expenses due to wars (wars for oil that don't even bring half the expenses back in any form of profit) and you will find yourself in quite the pickle.

I don't believe Obama can fix this, at least not in one term. The rot is in too deep.

If you ask the conspiracy freak in me, I'd say TPTB let Obama become President just because he is suitable to take the fall for 8 year of financial devestation.
I can imagine how the talk went behind the scenes;
"Sooo...the people want somebody to "save" them, huh? Hahaha, well, I have the perfect guy! This democrat, he will be the first black president too! How epic isn't that? And we'll just watch him fall... Then, we'll step back into the spotlight and say; see? You wanted "change" and what did you get? Let us run the show and we'll set things straight. Just back in the good ol' days..."

I can see why many people are frustrated with the current President, but you must realize just how bad things really are. You need to take a crash-course in national economics.
Do you expect Obama to pay for all this out of his own pocket?

I am sorry, but you just have to keep faith.
What would "the President of your dreams" have done?
What was the "change" you were hoping for? Obama to just sprinkle the nation with magical "fix dust" and everything would be alright?
Believe me, he is doing what he can. But the situation is not even entirely in his hands. The state is still a slave under debt.

Gotta stop typing now, I sense myself starting to ramble uncontrolably soon....

Lets not forget that the Democrats controlled both the Senate and House during the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. Both congress (democrats)and Bush (republican) should be blamed. Bush couldnt make any policy decisions without congress 1st writing the legislation

Actually you should start the blame back in 1913 withe the Federal Reserve

Advance to 1942 with the formation of the Council on Economic development

Then the seventies with increase business regulations such as OSHA and EPA

Followed by the changes in banking laws leading to the Feeding Frenzy of the eighties

Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980's were hostile. The 1980's also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.'s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988... THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's.
Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 www.nytimes.com... New York Times

Obama just made it very much worse by Doubling the money supply in the first three month of this year. Other countries realized this means the real value of their dollar holdings was halved and reacted by killing the US dollar as the world reserve currency. For us here in the USA, once Fractional reserve banking takes effect the new value of the dollar will be worth a 2008 dime (or a pre-fed penny) bye the bye US Banks are now Operating Without Reserve Requirements

Fractional Reserve Banking

Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but simply can counterfeit it out of thin air. www.lewrockwell.com...

Here is the effect of obama's financial policies. It doesn’t take 1,000 words to explain who’s making the biggest mess. It only takes one picture:

I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support....The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury www.countercurrents.org...

TPTB wanted the US economy killed and several presidents and Congresses agreed.

Weathiest Members Of Congress
John Kerrey (D) $900 Million 
Herb Kohl (D) $315 Million 
Jay Rockefeller (D) $275 Million 
Nancey Pelosi (D) $268 Million

Moving fast......The Clintons amassed nearly $169 million in the past 10 years of "public service".

Working for the Clintons isn't bad either.....

But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa--tied for #48 on the Richest list--gets the lion's share of her wealth from her husband--Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, "DeLauro's primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however."

My bud the political warhorse snorted, "Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn't have a dime--I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!" Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, "That means they're making around $50 million! These people shouldn't be running Democratic campaigns!"

So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps--Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry's chief message-shaper Bob Shrum--are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel--proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape--is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, "a liberal is a power junkie without the power." 
www.mlive.com...

I wonder where those millions amassed "during public service" came from, don't you???  Perhaps from corporations interested in manipulating the public and instituting Corporate favorable law?

It is interesting to note that Monsanto is owned by "financial Institutions" and that Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto was Clinton's Foreign policy advisor during the ratification of the WTO.



Politicians are owned by the bankers and corporations, we are the sheep they are intent on shearing

When, at what point does it become his fault? I agree that the economy doesn't turn overnight. The economy works in cycles and the Bush bailout that he voted for along with his bailout after he took office should have kicked in by now.

Yep, president and congress are both to blame, repubs and dems.

It started on Bushes watch. Berry said he would fix it and everything he does, does not make any sense to any of the economists.

So I ask the all the Berry lovers, when, at what point does it become his fault, his economy and his failure to fix it. How long should we watch these insane policy's continue before we say stop! We are nearing the point of no return and a complete collapse of the economy.

HOW LONG?

Phil

reply to post by MysterE


Great post, starred it.

I see your point.
You suppose that the Democrats took the opportunity to promise "salvation" from the looming crisis with some magical remedy, just to get into office?
Plausible, after all, politics usually work that way.
I would still stick to my opinion though, the former administration did wreck the system as if there was no tomorrow (which it in fact wasn't, for their sake).

Yet, I would like to add to my "conspiracy theory" in my last reply (to vor78) that maybe the "bankers" (FED) allowed Obama to reach office on one condition: that he would promise them loads of cash so that their sham work for juuust a little longer...
Maybe it was even threats involved? Negotiations and agreements that Obama wasn't all too happy about....
Of course, I am only speculating here.

Come on now! Obama's deficit run-up in his first 10 months in office makes Bush's run-up look like babysitting money!

Here are a few objective facts - The jobs LOSS rate has INCREASED under Obama. Deficits have INCREASED under Obama - to record levels. The value of the dollar has tanked under Obama. None of the companies that he has bailed out are in any better shape despite the $787 Billion. He, and his administration, have done NOTHING to fix any of the problems. Glass-Stegall has STILL not been reenacted. ZERO controls have been placed upon Wall Street and the Major Banks to correct the problem - well, except wage controls - which will do nothing. He has taken massive ownership shares of large corporations, which is completely unprecedented, and it has only made their fiscal performance WORSE. And, finally, he has pissed away any political capital he had on more massive spending initiatives - like socialized medicine (Which a VAST MAJORITY of Americans DO NOT want!); cap and tax, er trade and the possibility of a second stimulus.

Now, its all well and good that you want to throw the term "Ignorant" around with respect to anyone who does not worship his Oneness and his fiscal policy. But the way the MAJORITY of us tax-paying Americans see it, his promises of "Change" have only resulted in pocket-change for the masses and billions of OUR money for his corporate cronies. So I ask, who is it that is "Ignorant"?

Let's look at a few numbers... Unemployment when Bush left office was 7.6%. That was up from an average of 5.1% when Bush was in office. A 2.5% increase during Bush's 2 terms. Obama started at 7.6% and has carried us to 10.2% - a 2.6% increase in 10 months! And THIS, despite the fact that the $767Billion stimuls was supposed to keep us from going past 8%!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, and economist OR a partisan hack to recognize that Obama has only made the conomy worse with the little bit of tinkering that he has even bothered to employ!

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Politicians are owned by the bankers and corporations, we are the sheep they are intent on shearing

In short, yes. That is more or less what I am trying to say.
Quoting your entire reply looks bad, but you should know I read it and I comply.
A thread with your post as OP might have done better.

Problem is, people are inpatient, and they should be.
This circus has been going on for far too long, it ain't funny no more.
But to only and blindly blame the current administration doesn't make sense. Hell, it might even make the situation even worse!

We've had one hell of a dinner and as the check lands heavy on the table, and the waiter is standing there, tapping his foot impatiently, we realize we have no money, not a single dime!
Either we put on the gloves and do a hundered years of washing up the dishes, or we try to make a run for it...only problem: there is no where to run to. The "restaurant" is the entire world.

Gee, don't you just love it?

reply to post by Raud

No, you do the math. Are you or have you been living in paradise city for the last 9 years? Money doesn't make themselves you know.

Are you for real?? WHERE have you been on ATS??


Money doesn't make themselves you know. - OF COURSE it does!



The Federal Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air loans it to the US government, businesses and people at interest. which is paid back with REAL wealth - that is our labor. According to one study 100% of our taxes goes directly to the banks as interest payment.


Please read this so you have some understanding of what is going on. If you want a "primary" source try A PRIMER ON MONEY: Congressional COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY

Griffin however is an easier read.

Let's take a look at it and see how they create money ... everything I'm going to tell you is absolutely 100% technically accurate. The other thing I want to warn you about is don't try and make sense out of this because it can't be done; this does not make sense and you'll blow a fuse trying to make it make sense. Just remember that it is a scam and if you keep that fact in mind then you'll have no trouble comprehending what's going on.

Here's how it works. It starts with the government side of the partnership, it starts in Congress which is spending money like crazy. It spends far more money than it takes in. It is spending way beyond its income. How can it do that? Basically this is what happens. Let's say Congress needs an extra billion dollars today so it goes to the treasury and says "we want a billion dollars" and the treasury official says "you guys have got to be kidding, we don't have any money here, you spent it all a long time ago, everything that we've taken in taxes you fellows have spent by March." Congress says "we thought that was true but we thought we'd stop by just in case somebody sent some more in." They get together and they go down the street and they get the idea that we'll borrow the money. So they stop at the printing office and they don't print money at the printing office, they print certificates and they're very fancy things with borders on the edge with an eagle across the top and a seal at the bottom and it says "US Government Bond" or "Note" or "Bill" depending on the length of the maturity of it. If you hold it up to the light it really says "IOU" because that's what it is. They print these things up and it looks very impressive and then they offer them to the private sector; they're hoping that people will come up and loan money to the federal government and a lot of people do and are anxious to lend money to their government. Why? Because they've been told by their investment advisors that that's the most sound investment that you can make. Why? We've all heard that these loans are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. They're not quite sure what that means but it sure sounds good. I'd like to explain for you who are in doubt what that means. The full faith and credit of the US government means that the government solemnly promises to pay back that loan plus interest if it has to take everything you and I have in the form of taxes in order to do it, it's going to do it. It will take everything we have if necessary to hold its pledge. People don't realize that they're putting themselves on the line, they're going to get their own money back minus a substantial handling fee.

Plenty of money is loaned to the government but never enough. Congress needs more money than that. They say not to worry. They go further down the street to the Federal Reserve building. The Fed has been waiting for them, that's one of the reasons it was created. By the time they get inside the Federal Reserve building the officer of the Fed is opening his desk drawer. He knows they're going to be there and he's ready and he pulls out his checkbook and he writes a check to the US Treasury for one billion dollars or whatever the amount is that they need. He signs the check and gives it to the treasury official.

We need to stop here for a minute and ask a question. Where did they get a billion dollars to give to the treasury? who put that money into the account at the Federal Reserve System? The amazing answer is there is no money in the account at the Federal Reserve System. In fact, technically, there isn't even an account, there is only a checkbook. That's all. That billion dollars springs into being at precisely the instant the officer signs that check and that is called "monetizing the debt," that's the phrase they throw at you. That means they just wrote a check, a big rubber check. If you and I were to do that we would go to jail but they can do it because Congress wants them to do it. In fact, this is the payoff, this is the benefit to the government side of this partnership, this is how the government gets its instant access to any amount of money at any time without having to go to the taxpayer directly and justify it or ask for it. Otherwise, they would have to come to the taxpayer and say we're going to raise your taxes another $3,000 this year and of course if they did that, they would be voted out of office real fast. They like the Mandrake Mechanism because it's a no questions asked source of money. You may have noticed that it's been many years since Congress has even discussed what anything costs, it's not an issue. It doesn't make any difference what the cost is because regardless of the overrun they know they can go down the street to the Federal Reserve and by law the officer has to write that big check and give it to them and they're off and running.

There in a nutshell is the reason the government likes the Mandrake Mechanism--easy instant access to any amount of money of any kind without the taxpayer being involved directly in the loop. But what about the banking side? This is where it really gets interesting. Let's go back to that billion dollar check. The treasury official deposits the check into the government's checking account and all of a sudden the computers start to click and it shows that the government has a billion dollar deposit meaning that it can now write a billion dollars in checks against that deposit which it starts to do real fast. For the sake of our analysis, let's just follow $100 out of that billion in a check that for some reason they write to the fellow that delivers the mail to our door. The postal worker gets a check for $100 and he looks at this thing and he can't imagine in his wildest dreams that that money didn't exist two days ago anywhere in the universe. It's spendable so he wouldn't even care if you told him. He deposits it now into his personal checking account. Now we're finally out of the Federal Reserve and out of the government's check and we're into the private banking system. We're in finally to that part of the partnership which is involved in the cartel. A $100 deposit has now been made in the local bank and the banker sees that and runs over to the loan window and opens it up and says "attention, everybody, we have money to loan, someone just deposited $100." Everyone is overjoyed at that because that's one of the reasons they come to the bank, they come to borrow money. That's a sign of national health if you're in debt so they're anxious to know that the bank has money to loan, they line up for these loans. They heard the banker and they say $100 that's not very much and he says not to worry we can loan up to $900 based on that $100 deposit. How can that be done? It gets complicated the way they do it and I'll tell you in very simple terms. The Federal Reserve System requires that the banks hold no less than 10% of their deposits in reserve. The bank holds 10% of that $100 in reserve, $10, and it loans this first fellow in line $90. What does he do with it? He wants to spend it so he puts it into his checking account. In fact it probably goes directly into his checking account. Let's assume that they gave it to him and he puts it back, when he puts it back it's a deposit isn't it?

Only a $100 deposit but $900 in loans and that deposit is still there. Where did the $900 come from and the answer is the same--there was no money. This springs into existence precisely at the point at which the loan is made. ... www.bigeye.com...

This is why Congress can spend money like a drunken sailor, unfortunately we get stuck paying it back with interest to the banks who created the money out of thin air.



MOMMY I want to be the Federal Reserve when I grow up

reply to post by crimvelvet


Great read, reply starred
Reminds me alot of "Zeitgeist: Addendum" where it was presented with excellence.

And where have I been?
BTS MUTTER is the answer!

Still, it doesn't prove Obama is the reason for all this.
But your point is totally taken.