Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

A friend asked me, “Why doesn’t President Obama give #Occupy Wall Street a great big, public hug and kiss?”

Good question. After all, they are the antithesis of the Tea Party, which essentially has ruined the first three years of Obama’s presidency, and which was embraced by the Republicans. Tea/Republicans are an elitist organization (though many of its members don’t seem to understand that). The Teas want to cut taxes on the wealthy while reducing benefits to the poor. They hate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, most of which benefits go to the lower classes.

It’s no wonder that the Tea/Republicans have come out so strongly against #OWS, as witness this from Paul Krugman’s 10/9/11 column in the New York Times:

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

So where is Obama? Since the vast majority of our voters empathize with #OWS’s mood, if not its proposals (so far, it has none. See: Nine Steps to Prosperity), you would think a vote-hungry politician like Obama would be camping out on Wall Street, in “Tent 1.” Yes that’s what you would think, if you believed he supports the regular folk. But he doesn’t.

Sorry to tell you this, liberal voters. You elected him, but doesn’t love you. He is an elitist who graduated from Columbia and Harvard law school, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. He taught at the University of Chicago. This is all elitist stuff. He bought a house for somewhere between $300K and $950K less than it was worth (depending on how you count acreage), thanks to a huge favor from his pal Tony Rezko, convicted swindler. Regular folk don’t get deals from Tony Rezko.

The Obama administration is loaded with bankers and bank-related cronies, and as you may have noticed, while the banks caused all the fraud problems, their friend, Barack Obama bailed them out — and not one banker has been arrested, much less tried and convicted of the most massive fraud, not just in U.S. history, but in world history (Try to name one bigger).

To pull the wool over voters’ eyes, he instituted the HAMP program, which punished suffering people even more, by seeming to be a solution to mortgage problems, but was a fraudulent waste of time. Just what these poor people needed: A waste of time.

Obama’s solution to the Social Security “problem” is to raise the regular folks’ qualifying age, and he goes along with the Tea/Republicans on the need to cut federal spending, most of which benefits the less fortunate. So this man has been far, far from a supporter of regular folk. He’s acted more like a charter member of the “Screw You, I’ve Got Mine” clan.

Yes, he’s a bit better than the Tea/Republicans, who at least are honest in that they make no secret of their disdain for the underclass. But really, from where does Obama get his political contributions? And what happens to those contributions if he supports #OWS? Think about it.

So, eventually, Obama may may be dragged, kicking and screaming, into support for #OWS. He can count votes. But his reluctance is telling.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings