Saturday, November 03, 2012

How Can Obama Be Bad For Business If Corporate Profits Are at All-Time High?


It's a sign of our nation's bizarre, surreal political discourse these days that most of the most persistent GOP attacks on Obama are not only misleading, they have zero connection to the real world.

One of the GOP's most common attacks on Obama is that he's a "socialist." We also often hear that he's somehow bad for business or hostile to capitalism and free markets.

Here in the Real World, such charges are absurd. The fact is, any candidate for president who was even in the slightest bit "socialist" would never in a million years get anywhere near the White House.

What's equally bizarre is that the Democrats' responses to these GOP attacks are usually pretty feeble. Again and again, the Democrats let the GOP paint them and Obama as "socialist" and the Dems rarely have any kind of forceful response to counter this charge.

There is one major, compelling statistic that completely demolishes the argument that Obama is "socialist" (or even bad for business in the slightest bit).

Consider this: under Obama, corporate profits are at an all time high. Not just merely good. But an all-time high. Oh, and that statistic takes into account the effects of inflation. Corporate profits today comprise the highest share of the national economy that they've ever been (just as workers' wages are the lowest they've ever been, in terms of GDP share).

It's an astonishing statistic. And it just goes to show that, under Obama, nothing has really changed in terms of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The latter has been the most profound and significant aspect of American society for the past three decades. And yet, incredibly, most Americans are blissfully unaware of this momentous change in our nation.

Of course, all of this is (as usual) a lose-lose proposition for us progressives. Not only do we look on as the nation becomes increasingly economically polarized. But we also watch, perplexed, as the GOP hammers Obama as a "socialist." And the Dems, armed with an incredibly strong argument to demolish this claim, sit around and refuse to fight fire with fire. I don't think I've seen a Democratic politician yet who stood up and threw the "Obama is a socialist" argument back in the GOP's face.

Of course, I'm not raising this issue as any kind of endorsement of Romney. The fact is, it's clear that under President Gordon Gekko, the economic polarization would continue (and even intensify).

It's understandable that Democrats wouldn't be eager to remind Americans of how, under Obama, corporate profits are at an all-time high, while wages are at an all-time low. But still, this is an important statistic that the Dems need to dust off from time to time to forcefully counter the GOP's absurd argument that Obama is somehow a "socialist."


Grung_e_Gene said...

Because Marxism...

Jack Jodell said...

Those plutocrats who control the biggest corporations know damn well that he has been good for their businesses, but I believe they hate him as a MAN, because he is a successful and model African-American, and because they don't trust him due to where he came from and isn't one of THEM. These same fools hated Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons. They are a frightened, narrow-minded, intolerant, thoroughly self-centered, and despicable group of little tyrants, and they will PAY for being this way!

Marc McDonald said...

Hi Jack, thanks for your comment, as always.
>>they hate him as a MAN, because
>>he is a successful and model

Yes, I know a number of these people. They are all extreme racists and despise African-Americans. However, they all strongly deny that they're racist in any way. In fact, they believe the only racism that exists in America is against white people (who they believe are horribly oppressed).
Yes, I know this all sounds bizarre. But that's what listening to Limbaugh does to your brain.
You know, in many ways, the civil rights battles were easier in the 1960s. Back then, it was easier to go after real, concrete targets (like fighting for the right to vote for African-Americans).
Today, the battles are tougher. Let's say you have a white business owner who privately is a racist and who would never hire an African-American. How do you fight back against that? After all, there is no law against privately hating African-Americans. I personally know a number of business owners who are racist (although they'd never publicly admit this).

Frankly Curious said...

For the record: this is the way it always is. In fact, Democrats are better for the rich than Republicans. But there's a hitch. Democrats are also better for the poor. Wealth is relative. People only feel rich if everyone they know is poorer. Sadly, I think this is the calculus that the rich use when supporting Republicans.

I just read Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State. The most surprising finding (to me and probably most progressives) is that the poor do vote for the Democrats and they do this even more markedly in red states. The Republicans are the party of the rich--and not just the filthy rich.

More on how the rich see politics:

What's the Point of Being President if You Can't Enrich Your Friends?

Marc McDonald said...

Hi Frankly Curious, thanks for your comment.
>>the poor do vote for the

Yes, that is a surprise to me. Here in Texas, I know plenty of low-income white people who are racist and blame minorities for all of America's problems. Needless to say, these Rush-listening idiots vote GOP.