ISSN 2330-717X

President Obama And ‘Occupy Wall Street’ – OpEd

By

I don’t get it. Here is an article saying that President Obama is “riding the populist wave” of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, giving him ” his best chance to reconnect with the American people.”  These Occupy Wall Street people claim to represent the 99% against the elite 1% who are getting rich by taking advantage of the other 99%.

Here’s what I don’t get.  President Obama’s administration has bailed out big corporations (like GM and Chrysler), subsidized high rollers who have gambled away the tax dollars paid by the 99% (like Solyndra), and even directly supported the 1% on Wall Street by bailing out the banks.  The Treasury and Federal Reserve continue to cooperate to pursue policies that produce profits for banks at the expense of the 99%.  Meanwhile, the poverty rate stands at 15.1% under President Obama’s watch, up from 13.2% in 2008.

If there is anything to the protests of the “Occupy Wall Street” people (which is a whole separate subject), it appears that they should be protesting against the current administration’s policies.  How can the “Occupy Wall Street” people possibly see President Obama as an ally?

Randall G. Holcombe

Randall G. Holcombe

Randall G. Holcombe is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at Florida State University, past President of the Public Choice Society, and past President of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech, and has taught at Texas A&M University and Auburn University. Dr. Holcombe is also Senior Fellow at the James Madison Institute and was a member of the Florida Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors.

One thought on “President Obama And ‘Occupy Wall Street’ – OpEd

  • Avatar
    December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm
    Permalink

    Any support that Hypocrite Obama receives from 99% occupy types will just be a lukewarm choice of the lesser of evils.

    Of all the evils availible I for one would choose Mitt Romney.

    Why? Because if he makes it past the crazy wing of the GOP he will revert to being the pragmatic politician that was Governor of Massachsetts. He will need to win undecideds?

    Like his father George who was Governor of Michigan, Mitt will not give more than the 99% can force him to but what he does concede will be overt and lived up to; I.e.”what you sees is what you gets!” Also the Romneys have always advocated balanced budgets.

    The fact is that those who oppose “deficit” financing of day to day public spending are less of a friend to the banksters than are the hypocrite “liberals” who run up debts for common folk to pay in due course.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.