Bush Was a Total Disaster … Obama Is WORSE

Preface: I voted for Obama in 2008.  But I was so disgusted with Obama that I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012.

More Redistribution of Wealth to the Richest

Sure, Bush made the rich richer.

But Obama has actually redistributed wealth from the middle class to the very richest more than Bush.

Specifically, income inequality has increased more under Obama than under Bush.

Indeed, inequality in America today is worse than it was in Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, twice as bad as in ancient Rome  – which was built on slave labor – and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.

A new study shows that the richest Americans captured more than 100% of all recent income gains.  As Huffington Post notes:

the top 1 percent of households by income captured 121 percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2011, during the first two years of the economic recovery, according to new research by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. (Saez is a renowned income inequality expertand winner of the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, an award that the American Economic Association gives every year to the top economist under age 40.)

How was the top 1 percent able to capture more than all of the recovery’s income gains? They became 11.2 percent richer while the bottom 99 percent got 0.4 percent poorer, when accounting for inflation, according to Saez.

Saez released the updated figures in late January after finding last year that the top 1 percent had captured 93 percent of all income gains in 2010, the first full year of the economic recovery.

Overall, between 1993 and 2011, the top 1 percent’s incomes surged 57.5 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent grew just 5.8 percent, according to Saez.

One of the reasons why the super-rich are becoming much richer and everyone else poorer is that Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father or Ronald Reagan.

And by pointing out that inequality is skyrocketing, we’re not calling for a redistribution of wealth downward.  We’re calling for an end to policies which allow wealth to be concentrated in a few hands.

Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks (they’ve gotten much bigger under Obama), the Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets (most of the quantitative easing has occurred under Obama), and government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation (there’s now more moral hazard than ever before) … things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

Indeed, crony capitalism has gotten even worse under Obama.

We noted in 2011:

All of the monetary and economic policy of the last 3 years has helped the wealthiest and penalized everyone else. See this, this and this.


Economist Steve Keen says:

“This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history”, as the giant banks have handed their toxic debts from fraudulent activities to the countries and their people.

Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz said in 2009 that Geithner’s toxic asset plan “amounts to robbery of the American people”.

And economist Dean Baker said in 2009 that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”.

More Trampling of Civil Liberties

The Hill reports:

A majority of voters believe President Obama has been no better than his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to balancing national security with the protection of civil liberties, according to a new poll for The Hill.

Thirty-seven percent of voters argue that Obama has been worse than Bush while 15 percent say he has been “about the same.”


The results cannot be fully explained as party line responses. More than one in five self-identified Democrats, 21 percent, assert that the Obama administration has not improved upon Bush’s record. So do 23 percent of liberals.

We’ve reported for years that Obama is even more brutal than Bush, and that he’s claimed some tyrannical powers that not only Bush – but even Hitler, Stalin and King George – never claimed.

The former head of the National Security Agency’s global digital data gathering program – William Binney – says that he pervasiveness of spying under Obama has only “gotten worse”.

Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than Bush and all other presidents combined.

Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drone assassinations, which are creating many more terrorists than they are killing.  Nice job creating more terroristsyou morons. The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo says that Obama’s drone surge is as damaging to our country as Bush’s torture program.  I think he’s actually underestimating damage from the program, as drones have become the number 1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda (especially since children are now being targeted for drone assassination …  Oh, and torture is still happening on Obama’s watch; background).

Bush destroyed much of the separation of powers which made our country great.  Under Obama, it’s gotten worse.  For example, the agency which decides who should be killed by drone is the same agency which spies on all Americans.

While some try to say that at least Obama didn’t start any disastrous wars, Obama has in fact launched wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and up to 35 African nations.

Deaths of Americans in Afghanistan have soared under Obama.

And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See this, this, this, this and this.

Even mainstream Democrats who support Obama’s national security policies more or less admit that they are simply falling into a cult of personality.

So Bush was a disaster … but Obama is worse.

Postscript:   Obama apologists say “at least Obama has created jobs”.  But some economists argue that unemployment has actually skyrocketed under Obama (and see this).

Given that government policy is ensuring high unemployment levels, that Obama – despite his words – actually doesn’t mind high unemployment, that virtually all of the government largesse has  gone to Wall Street instead of Main Street or the average American, and that a “jobless recovery” is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys, Obama’s actions in the area of employment don’t change our conclusion.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • wunsacon

    Around 50 cents of every dollar the Fed spends to buy fraudulent paper promises goes to the 1% that hold 50% of all financial assets.

    With low progressive tax rates — nay, regressive rates that tax labor much, much higher than capital gains — this is the outcome: a transfer of tax burdens from rich to poor and a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

    No other outcome was possible.

    • pathman25

      Yep. A feature, not a bug.

  • Gentlemutt

    saying that Obama has claimed powers that even Hitler and Stalin did not exercise is just plain dumb. why ruin your entire piece by so doing?

    • Terrorists in the Whitehouse

      ad hominem, ad hominem, oh how I love thee, ad hominem.

    • Terrorists in the Whitehouse

      ad hominem, ad hominem, oh how I love thee, ad hominem.

    • Terrorists in the Whitehouse

      ad hominem, ad hominem, oh how I love thee, ad hominem.

  • Bobo Brazil

    He’s most especially worse than Bush Jr. because American democracy generally works by slow Hegelian pendulum movements. After all of the abuses by the Republicans and the Clinton/Grover Cleveland years, the nation really needed a serious FDR-like shift back to the left. Instead, Obama accepted Reaganism as the new synthesis.

  • Urbane_Gorilla

    I echo Gentlemutt’s thoughts. Dump the juvenile Stalin/Lenin/Mao/Hitler references…It just makes your piece appear to be the thoughts of a raver.

    I do want to pose a couple of questions though..

    It’s clear that the Bush Jr Tax cuts were intended to benefit the wealthy more than anyone, as did his environmental reforms (sic), but the fact that bailing out the banks begun under Bush Jr and followed through under Obama did benefit the wealthy doesn’t prove that was his intention. Does it?

    Are you seriously saying that the drone wars (and no I don;t like them) are more expensive than Iran and Afghanistan? And are you saying that the Bush Jr administration’s providing Iraq with WMDs is the same as Obama’s ‘supporting of terrorism’?

    Just curious.

    • wunsacon

      >> Dump the juvenile Stalin/Lenin/Mao/Hitler references

      If Godwin didn’t exist, man would have to invent him!

  • Obama worse than Bush? sure, whatever … the ignorance and media brainwashing behind this article is so status-quo these days … the author obviously is incapable of reading between the headlines and thinking for him or herself

    • Terrorists in the Whitehouse

      Oh? Is the author thus? Please elaborate, free thinker Beenz.

    • Terrorists in the Whitehouse

      Oh? Is the author thus? Please elaborate, free thinker Beenz.

  • deep_dish

    All policy is designed to transfer wealth from the public sector to the private. Nothing else matters. This is the sole aim. It is not just a wealth transfer, it is also a power grab. This is a slow motion, economically driven coup and it is global in nature.