Obama will try to distract Americans from his real intentions again today.
We won’t get distracted. Other websites will get distracted or not fully understand the Obama threat. Some websites which should know better will even make excuses for Obama. We won’t get distracted.
We believe Obama aims to loot Social Security just like George W. Bush wanted to loot Social Security. Evidence for our proposition came yesterday when Obama appointed as Secretary of Commerce a known Social Security privatizer.
George W. Bush appointed men and women to Departments and Agencies who in many instances had worked to destroy those respective Departments and Agencies (for instance Senator Spencer Abraham to the Energy Department). Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama has appointed an enemy of the Commerce Department to “run” the Commerce Department.
President Obama’s new candidate to run the Commerce Department voted in favor of abolishing the agency as a member of the Budget Committee and on the Senate floor in 1995.
Sen. Judd Gregg , R-N.H., whose nomination was expected to be announced Tuesday, also worked in the Senate to trim the department’s budget as head of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee.
Judd Gregg’s hostility to basic functions of the Commerce Department has alarmed many into opposition.
Congressional Black Caucus chairperson Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is questioning Judd Gregg’s appointment as Commerce Secretary, citing his opposition to census funding, a key issue for African-American members, Politico has learned.
Why Gregg at the Commerce Department instead of a Dimocrat or Democrat? Social Security.
Judd Gregg introduced a pernicious bill to “carve out” contributions to Social Security – this proposal eventually would have destroyed Social Security. Corrente asks the right question but does not provide a full answer – we will.
Some websites, like DailyHowler, have worked hard to expose those that want the destruction of Social Security. DailyHowler exposed Judd Gregg and his schemes to destroy Social Security a long time ago.
While some work hard to preserve Social Security, it is sad to see people who should know better, out of ignorance or misunderstanding, acquiece to schemes -such as means testing – that will destroy Social Security. It is even sadder to see them bemoan the scuttling of the S.S. Daschle.
Obama once again declined to say how he plans to eliminate the growing budget gap, which is projected to narrow somewhat as the economy improves but explode again as the retiring baby boom generation sends the cost of the entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — skyrocketing. Obama said he will offer “very specific outlines” for addressing short- and long-term deficits when he submits his first budget proposal to Congress next month.
“We are beginning consultations with members of Congress around how we expect to approach the deficit,” Obama said. “We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans.”
It is important that those who would so quickly acquiece on means testing for Social Security understand how this would destroy the system before they publish their opinions. DailyHowler explains, via (gasp!) conservative George Will:
WILL: Exactly. So what you’re doing is you’re making Social Security less and less relevant to a majority of the American people [under the provisions of Bush’s plan]. You’re stigmatizing it, if you will, by means-testing. That’s what this is. They’re now means-testing Social Security so it becomes a poverty program.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You have cracked the code. I mean, there is no question about that. The reason the Democrats are so crazed about this is they believe this is dismantling Social Security over the long haul and, you know, you might even see them start to say it. They’re saying it’s turning Social Security into welfare.
WILL: Precisely, because what Democrats have always understood is if you want to help the poor, you attach the poor to a middle class program. You don’t say, “Here’s a program for the poor,” because there’s not gonna be majority support for it.
President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs. [snip]
Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
At most Social Security needs only minor tweaking. Obama wants to loot Social Security – just like George W. Bush – because that is where the money is.
* * *
Now for a little distraction:
Yesterday was a very bad day for Barack Obama. It was so bad Obama imitated George W. Bush and read
My Pet Goat to schoolchildren.
We are sure someone will blame us for Obama’s bad day.
Poor Big Pink. We’re sure to be blamed for the Daschle disaster too.
We get blamed by the Hopium addled for just about everything that goes wrong with their clod. The Hopium addled were angry with us when Uncle Ted’s Caroline nomination drove off the bridge. The Hopium addled call us “Hillary Central” as if that is an insult. We take the epithet “Hillary Central” as a badge of courage and intelligence.
We ended 2008 with an article called Obama’s Year End Circus Big Top. That article was a very brief summary of many articles in which we specifically warned about the Obama Chicago Circus of Crime. Yesterday, DrudgeReport headlined “It’s A Circus: Daschle Out”.
Yesterday’s circus was the Obama and Daschle Drama along with the dying flim-flam “stimulus” scam and the ensuing talk of lobbyists and tax cheats employed by Obama.
We got very confused yesterday when people who should know better wanted to “give Barack credit”. Why? Why give “Barack” credit? Why not give “Barack” grief?
Why does Obama deserve any credit? “Tom made the decision” Obama said. Obama said he himself takes responsibility but then why did Tom, make the decision to quit? Obama did not tell Tom Daschle to quit. Obama supported and backed Tom Daschle to the very end. The only excuse missing from Obama’s repetoire of excuses was “This is not the Tom Daschle I knew.”
Obama knew about Tom Daschle’s tax problems but continued to “absolutely” back Tom Daschle. Remember when Obama knew about Jeremiah Wright saying “God Damn America”? Obama then said he could not cut off Wright in the same way he could not cut off his arm. When Jeremiah Wright insulted Obama, not America, only then did Obama cut Wright off.
“Tom made the decision” Obama said. Is the idea that Obama pushed Daschle out privately while expressing support for him publicly and therefore Obama deserves credit? No, Obama does not deserve credit.
“I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we’re not screwing up again,” Obama said. “Ultimately I have to take responsibility for a process that resulted in us not having a (health and human services) secretary at a time when people need relief on their health care costs.
“So this is a mistake — probably not the first one I’m going to be making in this office, but what I’m absolutely committed to doing is fixing it,” he said. [snip]
Obama denied influencing Daschle’s decision to withdraw, which caught a number of senators by surprise Tuesday. Though Daschle caught flak for revelations that he had failed to pay more than $130,000 in taxes, the former Senate majority leader has strong personal ties on Capitol Hill, and several Democrats said they thought he still could have won confirmation.
Obama said the decision was Daschle’s.
“We can’t send a message to the American people that we’ve got two sets of rules — one for prominent people and one for ordinary people,” Obama said, defending his administration’s standards.
Obama clearly said it was a mistake of process and a mistake not to have a secretary of Health and Human Services. But Obama was upset that now the message Americans are hearing is “we’ve got two sets of rules — one for prominent people and one for ordinary people”. Obama regrets people finding out the truth. People like Obama get Rezko to finance their homes, people like Dodd get Countrywide discounts. People like Obama’s friends don’t have to pay taxes and people like Michelle Obama get raises and job promotions when her husband funnels government money to her employers.
Credit? Credit? Obama deserves more questions, not credit. Will Obama remove the lobbyists and tax cheats he has already working for him? It is clear that the only person vetted for high office was and is Hillary Clinton. No one else has been properly vetted. Obama himself can’t answer the questions on the employment form he is audacious in demanding others fill out.
Credit? Credit? More questions and contempt are what Obama deserves:
The contradictions appeared in concentrated form Tuesday, in the space of just a few hours.
On Capitol Hill, senators still processing the news that Daschle hadn’t paid nearly $140,000 in taxes learned that Obama’s pick for chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer, was withdrawing her name because she failed to pay less than $1,000 taxes for household help.
At the Justice Department, Eric Holder, who was plucked to serve from one of the city’s influential lobbying and law offices, was being sworn in as attorney general.
And at the White House, Obama stood in the grand foyer to announce his nomination of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) to become commerce secretary, a vacancy created after his first pick, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew amid a scandal investigation.
The president opened the Gregg event by talking about the need to get the economy going again. He ended it by ignoring a shouted question from a reporter about the tax troubles of his cabinet nominees.
No credit from us. No credit from other astute people.
* * *
While not giving credit to crime lords, those naughty people at Hillbuzz ask a good rhetorical question What happens to people who backstab Hillary Clinton? They answer:
Watching Tom Daschle self-destruct and embarass himself today, fresh on the heels of HRH Princess Caroline of Kennedy self-destructing and embarrassing herself just weeks ago, and Bill Richardson doing the same thing himself (with curly fries and barbeque sauce all over his face), it’s just interesting to note what’s happened to some of the people who backstabbed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
It’s almost as if some powerful cosmic force evens things out with these sorts of people in the end (almost as if there’s really a “List”, and agenda-driven operatives are working their way through the destruction of all of them).
Hillbuzz then lists a recap of Hillary backstabbers and Karma backwash. Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Tim Russert, Chiris Matthews, Keith Olberman, “HRH Princess Caroline of Kennedy”, Ted Kennedy, John “Are you my daddy?” Edwards, Bill Richardson, John Kerry and Tom Daschle are on the list. Hillbuzz should know that yes, they do speak for everyone in Hillary World-Wide on the defeat of Claire McCaskill.
Meanwhile, also not giving credit to crimelords, the positively wicked people at The Confluence have uncovered these astonishing videos:
Two sets of rules. The liars and hypocrites and crimelords are in charge.
Obama will try to distract today. We won’t get distracted.
Obama can’t be trusted. He simply can’t be trusted.