The story starts off giving far too much credit to the President:
Despite his best efforts, the president who vowed to conquer Wall Street and revive opportunity for everyday Americans on Main Street has this to show for his first five years in office: U.S. stock markets are in record territory, posting 30 percent gains just last year, and Wall Street is home once again to the biggest concentration of billionaires on earth, while wages for the middle class have barely kept up with inflation.
No it did not happen on Obama’s watch, “despite his best efforts”! That’s a myth. It happened because Obama followed Bush in keeping people in control of our finances who would speed up the production of new money that would go into the coffers of those associated with Big Government and Big Business. Bush’s pick for Greenspan’s successor, Ben Bernanke stayed on. And Timothy Geithner, a man enmeshed in the Federal Reserve during the Bush years, was made Secretary of Treasury.
Hank Paulson, the previous Secretary of the Treasury under Bush who gave us the Wall Street bailout was singing Obama’s praises during the President’s first term because Obama always was and still is the Wall Street President. Hillary Clinton will be no better if she gets the presidency.
The results of the Federal Reserve’s policy is completely predictable:
During the crisis, the collective incomes of the wealthy took a rare but brief dip caused by the collapse of the stock market. But since that period, the top 1 percent of earners have made more money than ever, reaping 90 percent of the income gains from the recovery of the economy and stock markets since 2009, according to a study last month by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley.
This is exactly what George Will pointed out a month ago:
Obama’s speech denounced “trickle-down ideology” and deplored growth that “has flowed to a fortunate few.” But the monetary policy he favors — very low interest rates, driving money into equities in search of higher yields — is a powerful engine of inequality. Since the Dow closed at 7,949 on Inauguration Day 2009, it has doubled, benefiting the 10 percent who hold 80 percent of directly owned stocks. The hope is that some of this wealth will trickle down.
That’s why people like Warren Buffet are so supportive of the President (and in return get awards from the President). They make incredible amounts of money every day thanks to Federal Reserve policy. No wonder he wants to raise taxes on “the wealthy.” He still comes out ahead by millions every day thanks to the government-banking industry’s daily work degrading the dollar. Additionally, by increasing taxes other, mostly less wealthy people are forced to fund bribes for the middle- and lower-classes so that we stay complacent and leave Obama, Yellen, and Buffet alone to run their scam.
So we get the Washington Times (!) telling us how hard Obama is working to try to fix problems as if his solutions would not do more damage and as if he is not the one responsible for the problems in the first place:
Mr. Obama recently called this growing inequality the “defining challenge of our time” and vowed to remedy it through a raft of measures such as raising the minimum wage, increasing worker training, and fostering good-paying middle-class jobs in infrastructure and manufacturing. He gained a partial victory in his battle to make the rich sacrifice more with the end of some of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts a year ago.
But most of the president’s remedies face daunting opposition from Republicans in Congress. Even if Mr. Obama secures approval, economists say, his proposals would do little to overcome powerful market forces that enable the affluent to reap most of the gains from financial markets and from the mechanization and globalization of the economy that have shifted millions of middle-class jobs from the U.S. to the developing world.
“Worker training,” along with “fostering good-paying middle-class jobs” are just stimulus programs that will do nothing to really heal the economy. Minimum wage is a way to drive up unemployment among the least skilled. These solutions, even if they worked, are trickle-down gimmicks that couldn’t come close to closing the income gap that Obama is increasing. Thus, the “economists” are right that “his proposals would do little to overcome” the income gap. But that gap has nothing to do with “powerful market forces.” It comes from the machinations of an unconstitutional central bank that engages in massive new money creation.