If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

By Dark Politricks

Last week was the GOP conference in which they inaugurated Mitt Romney as their choice for Republican presidential candidate. This was the man that during primaries no Republican commentator really wanted and in the end he was the least bad choice out of a very bad lot.

As soon as he was anointed though they all changed their tune pretty fast as all they care about is getting President Obama out of office and handing over the country to corporations and banksters.

Despite Ron Paul sticking it out to the end of the GOP debates he has been overlooked and out of the nominees he was the only one who offered some real choice for the public if nominated.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything Ron Paul stands for but personally I think America needs some form of "America United" ticket that would bring the massively obvious culture war to an end and hopefully restore civil liberties, end the wars, end the FED, end the unauthorised spying and now authorised detention without charge or even execution on Presidential demand.

A ticket of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would have brought Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals and independents together to vote for a return to an America which wasn't constantly at war and didn't go around the world invading countries because it thought it was "exceptional".

Hopefully he will stand as an independent or if possible on the libertarian ticket although I think it's too late for that. Apart from that you have Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan on the Peace and Freedom Party ballot which won't be on enough ballot papers to even make a dent in the billions of dollars thrown behind Mitt Romney and his attempt to hand the USA over to the Corporations. It looks like the American public are going to get more of the same - just under a different name.

Therefore apart from little differences there is not much choice between Romney and Obama as both are globalists, beholden to the banksters, warmongers and debt drivers and voting Republican really won't make much difference to your life apart from if your poor as you will probably find yourself in a Middle Eastern desert somewhere fighting another war the country doesn't want or even need.

From the seemingly non-educated, racist, totally dumb and sometimes loony ideas or comments mentioned by some of the other delegates during the debates and interviews it was clear that Romney was going to be the least worst option from the selection of Republican nominees.

It is also clear to me as an atheist that American Christians will forgive even the most despicable actions as long as the person involved "repents" or pretends to. I know Christians are supposed to forgive so how about forgiving some of the thousands of locked up victims of the war on drugs and ending capital punishment? That would be true forgiveness.

Now I am no Obama fan, I was glad he was voted in purely for the fact that it showed that America could and would now vote for a black President but on the policy side of things I think he has let the country down badly by breaking all the promises he made on the campaign trail.

Some of these promises he could have just enacted when he had control of the Congress and Senate but he chose instead to form bi-partisan support and was rebuffed on many of them. Then after the landslide victory that saw his control of the house fall away to dimwits like Michele Bachmann and co he has had to fight twice as hard to get any policy through. Maybe that was the plan.

It was clear from day one that many Republicans didn't want to even give Obama a chance despite their passing over to him the worst economy since the great depression and a huge amount of debt as well as two wars, a rendition and torture program that has blackened the USA's name around the world and a massive TARP balout scheme that enraged many from Tea Partiers to Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Seemingly Clint Eastwood and many other Americans forget that it wasn't Obama but George Bush that started the longest war in America's history in Afghanistan, a war that is now plagued by constant attacks by Afghan troops on NATO soldiers.

They also seem to forget that it was George W Bush that turned Clinton's legacy into a huge mountain of debt due to his tax cuts to the rich, TARP and his war on terror. It's truly amazing that only 34% of Americans realise that it was Bush not Obama that passed TARP!



If you read up on the history of US national debt you will find that it is Republicans that usually ramp up the debt to fight wars.

World War II saw the US entering new debt territory never seen before starting at 4% of GDP in 1941 it increased to as much as 122% of GDP in 1946 at the end of the war. The next 35 years saw successive governments try to bring down the debt, but then came the Republican God President Reagan. He increased the federal debt by over 50%of GDP to win the Cold War - a money war of attrition the USSR just couldn't win.

President George W Bush was the next Republican to increase the debt to fight his war on terror, give tax cuts to the rich and bail out the banks.

President Obama was then handed a bad hand that no incumbent would chose to take on willingly and his increasing of the the debt has mainly to be fund economy revival plans after the crash of 2008 - plus the funding and expansion of Bush's wars.

Whilst it is true Obama has increased the debt ceiling to amounts not seen since the World War he was passed a huge burden from the previous administration and with low growth, a credit crunch and a stalled economy he attempted Keynesian economic policies of borrowing to grow GDP to get out of the hole he was in. Some say Keynes is wrong, others like Paul Krugman say that President Obama just didn't spend enough on the stimulus in the first place. Whatever the answer the debt mountain may have increased under him but it was definitely not created by Obama.

However President Obama has failed on a number of promises he gave when he was campaigning for his first election and the "change" we expected didn't turn out as we hoped it would.

He has failed to bring Wall St into line after they recked the economy and instead passed ineffective and bloated laws like the Dodd-Frank act. Many believe he should have re-enacted the Glass Steagall Act and split the banks back up into gambling banks and banks for us "little people" who want to save, borrow and be safe in the knowledge our money won't be gambled away by an automated front running high frequency trading bots using our money as bets on that biggest of gambling dens known as the US Stock Exchange.

He has failed to repeal the Emergency laws Americans are still living under since 9.11, dictatorial powers that allow him to assassinate Americans abroad without a trial and seemingly label protesters as terrorists just so they that cannot protest against him as we just saw with the arrest of James Tyson 0n his way to protest outside the Democratic National Convention.

Drones now fly the skies of America and the TRAPWIRE system has every American under surveillance at all times.

America is not the place it was before Obama OR George Bush took over the Presidency.

So I don't think Obama is a good President and I have wrote such in many articles including (but not limited to) who is worse Obama or Bush, The very non liberal Democratic party, Amerika a modern day East Germany, Does the American public want more of the same, or more of the same under a different name, and Is President Obama really a Communist or is he more of a dictator?

So please don't call me an Obama fan because I'm not!

However when it comes to a choice (a non choice really) between Obama and Mitt Romney you should ask yourself the following when casting your vote in the US Presidential Election 2012.

1. Who is more likely to get your country into a war with Iran in the next 4 years Obama or Romney? The British Royal family send their sons into war zones to fight, Prince Harry into Afghanistan and Prince Andrew in the Falklands. However I cannot seem to recall an active US President who  ever had their children in the military and active war zones during their Presidency. If you can think of one please let me know.

2. If the market was let free to run as it (and the Koch brothers) want it to, and a company like Bain capital came along to the place you worked and sacked you because they were going to offshore your job to India or China - who would you trust more to look after your jobs and keep them in America. Would you just put your hands in the air and go "well that's the free market for you" or would you protest the off-shoring of US jobs that Bain Capital has been so good at during the years and is still doing.

3. Are you worse or better off now than 4 years ago? Are you worse off or better off than you were before Ronald Reagen took office? Before he started his supply side economic experiment and his economic war of attrition with the USSR which saw the countries debt rise, the country turn from an exporting nation to an importer, a country in debt to China and now one mired in constant war.

4. What is more important? Letting already very rich people (billionaires and millionaires) have more money through tax cuts or asking them to pay a little more to help get the country out of the mess it is in. The tax rates during Republican Presidencies in the past were in the 70-90%. Why should they be so low now. Just look at the following graph to see how low the top rate of tax is compared to historical rates during both Republican and Democratic presidencies.


A history of the top rate of US income tax over the years.

5 Should the boss of a company be able to pay less tax than his secretary? Only the rich can afford fancy lawyers and accountants to ensure they can use offshore accounts and only pay capital gains tax instead of the normal rates of income tax everyone else has to pay.

6. If you were born a poor child to a single mother in a poor part of town with no money logic dictates that you wouldn't have the same life chances as a rich child born into privilege. Life just isn't fair as people say. The poorer child is more likely to end up in prison, die young from poor health, get a worse education and have less opportunity to meet the "right people" and succeed in life.

If you believe in a meritocracy where everyone has the same chance to succeed in life with hard work and a fair even playing field where law breakers (e.g banksters) go to jail and companies don't get the law retrospectively changed once it's been found out they have broken it then how does this happen without some kind of intervention by government. Do you think that the governments job is just to let these people live in squalor and probably commit crimes against you just to survive? Or should they try and even out the playing field a little and give everyone the opportunity to succeed in life whether they were born rich or poor?

7. If you think Obama has told lies - what about Romney. He basically invented Obamacare which his state is happily using but rails against it on a national platform. He has flip flopped on more issues than people can count. Could you trust a man,  a "multiple choice" President, who's answer on a question changes depending on the time of day, his age and the questioner?

8. Do you think a super rich business man who has paid hardly any tax to the country he hopes to run. A man who aims to be the front man for the Koch brothers and give even more money to the top 1% is a man who can be trusted to keep your job safe? Do you think you are more or less likely to have your job off-shored to China or India under Obama or an expert in off-shoring jobs - Romney?

9. Were you born into money or had to earn every penny you own? Have you ever had nothing, I mean zilch. Slept on park benches and friends floors because you had no-one to help you.

What if you lost your job, then your house and family due to your job being off-shored or your company going under. Who do you think is more likely to help you out a Democratic or Republican government. Or do you think the government should not give a flying fxxk about you and just leave you to rot away until you commit a crime that hurts another American citizen and puts you in prison at the expense of the tax paying population?

10. Do you really think life will change a lot if Romney is elected. What things will actually change in your day to day life. Do you trust him to keep any of the few promises he has made so far on policy such as abolishing Obamacare whilst keeping it in his own state?

Let me know the answers in the comment section to the question: If Obama is a bad President then how bad will Mitt Romney be?

Would we have had the financial crisis if women ran banks?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans "The Big Picture" on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech - abbreviated here:

"I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it coultn't be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring - as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy - the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom's main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940's, to 70% during the 1970's and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn't seem to work too well it seems.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

The 1950's were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what - the richest few percent (those job creators) didn't up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.

Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari's and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism - a hunger for power.

Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren't.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to "buy" the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.

These ultra rich are not "wealth generators" or "altruistic job creators" for if they were they would say to themselves:

"Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spolit entitled brats who probably won't do a day's work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian Philantrophists and I don't mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country."

"Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans."

No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes "ultimate power" you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the "This Week" programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the "alpha male" culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought...