Lest there be any doubt about the new “party of the rich,” there are now more Democratic millionaires in Congress than Republican ones. Washington D.C. has become like a philosopher’s stone, able to transform blunt force into billions of dollars for the well-connected. No wonder D.C. is the richest area in the country, and Obama’s approval is sky-high there like nowhere else.
While the rich do get expense of the poor in a socialistic economic, a free market economy (not a corporatist one) allows the rich and poor to better their standards of living together. This isn’t theoretical mumbo-jumbo: the president admitted that 95% of income gains under his presidency have gone to the 1%, while the lowest-wage workers have found their wages decimated in Obama’s “progressive” economy revolving around centralized government “action.”
This doesn’t even touch the price inflation for such things as gasoline, groceries, and electricity under Obama, which further increases the squeeze and the demand for public “welfare” – a safety net which can drag an economy down if jobs aren’t created to support it.
This is the concern with the national debt, an addition of $6.7 trillion under Obama’s presidency and on the way to $20 trillion total: it only buys time while the structural destruction continues eating away at the productive base of the economy. It is no surprise that economic growth under Democrat control has been paltry at best.
That hasn’t rained on Wall Street’s parade. No, while most of America is suffering, bankers are quite happy with their Democratic investment.
With 111 Billionaires in "Progressive" California, I've always suspected the above.
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum