OBAMA-CLINTONomics:
the never end war on the American middle-class. But we still get the tax bills
for the looting of their Wall Street cronies and their bailouts and billions
for Mexico’s welfare state in our borders.
While the wealth of
the rich is growing at a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth
within the super wealthy, skewed towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw
their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these
households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth.
According to the report, “This top segment is expected to be the fastest
growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.” They are expected
to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next five years.
In 2014 the
Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003 and 2013, the median household
net worth of those in the United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of
36 percent. While the rich also saw their wealth drop during the recession,
they are more than making that money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of
all the income gains in the US went to the top 1 percent. This is the most
distorted post-recession income gain on record.
OBAMA’S WATERGATES… IRS DEBACLE,
BENGHAZI TRAGEDY, SABOTAGE OF AMERICAN BORDERS TO ILLEGALS, PARTNERING WITH
LOOTING BANKSTERS
EITHER WAY HE IS THE MOST FAILED PRESIDENCY IN MODERN
AMERICAN HISTORY.
President Obama exercises a fluid grip on the levers
of power
By
Philip
Rucker and Peter
Wallsten, Published: May 18
President Obama’s
professed ignorance of the targeting of conservatives by one government agency
and his support of tracking journalists’ sources by another highlight one of
the great paradoxes of his presidency: Sometimes he uses his office as
aggressively as anyone who’s held it; other times he seems unacquainted with
the work of his own administration.
The controversies
over the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny
of tea party and other conservative groups and the Justice Department’s surveillance
of Associated Press journalists are only the latest examples of Obama’s a
la carte governing style.
Obama has been willing
to push the bounds of executive power when it comes to making life-and-death
decisions about drone strikes on suspected terrorists or instituting new
greenhouse gas emission standards for cars.
But at other times he
has been skittish. When immigration activists first urged him to halt
deportations of many illegal immigrants, for instance, Obama said he didn’t
have the authority to do so. He eventually gave in after months of public
protest and private pressure from immigrant and Hispanic advocates, granting
relief to certain people who had been brought to the United States as children.
And at key moments,
Obama has opted against power plays. In the 2011 debt-ceiling fight, Obama
ruled out unilaterally raising the country’s borrowing limit even though some
constitutional scholars, as well as many of his political allies, believed
doing so was well within his authority.
The president’s
inconsistency is so befuddling that not even his critics can get it straight.
They simultaneously charge that he is “leading from behind” and that he is
displaying, in the words of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), “the
arrogance of power.”
Some of his friends
are a bit confused, as well.
“He’s a smart guy, a
scholarly guy, but I can’t figure him out,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.),
who has been unsuccessfully pushing for Obama to use his pardoning powers more
aggressively to release nonviolent drug offenders from prison.
Obama’s current and
former advisers said the president’s approach is deliberate and coherent: On
national security, he exercises power to keep the country safe, whereas on
domestic issues, he acts strategically on a case-by-case basis.
Still, the advisers
acknowledge, Obama’s sometimes-yes, sometimes-no approach can give the
appearance that he’s all over the map. Four-and-a-half years in, they said, he
still is figuring out how to strike the right balance.
“He is deeply
concerned both that his office . . . never violate its primary duty to abide by
the Constitution’s checks and balances and that he nonetheless exercise those
powers to the limit as needed to protect the nation and its people,” said
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor who has been a mentor of Obama’s for
two decades and served briefly in Obama’s Justice Department.
Still, Tribe
expressed concern that Obama, himself a former law instructor, “is being a bit
too much the constitutional lawyer in some of these matters and not enough the
ordinary citizen, sharing the anger that ordinary citizens understandably feel
but flexing the muscles that no citizen other than Barack Obama possesses.”
Exerting power
Obama came into
office promising to rein in what he and other Democrats charged were frequent
overreaches of executive authority by George W. Bush’s administration. He vowed
to strive for non-ideological, bipartisan solutions to problems.
In practice, Obama
followed Bush’s lead when it came to executive power in fighting terrorism and
other areas. His administration invoked the state-secrets privilege to avoid
disclosing information when challenged in court, and Obama asserted executive
privilege to withhold information from Congress amid questions about the Fast
and Furious gun-tracking operation. He adopted a more aggressive stance on
domestic policy after Republicans won control of the House in 2010, directing
staff to look for ways to use administrative actions as end runs around a
polarized Congress.
Obama’s advisers said
the president thinks about executive power strategically and is willing to
exert it fully — such as on environmental regulation — if doing so helps him
move past obstacles on Capitol Hill and achieve specific objectives.
“The president is
always looking for ways to use his executive authority to advance his policy
agenda,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said.
For instance, Obama
has forced changes in state-level education policy in a way past presidents
have not. His Race to the Top program awarded billions of dollars in federal
grants to select states that agreed to seek reforms based on administration
standards for increasing school assessments, using data and improving teacher
quality. The administration gained additional leverage on education by laying
out specific requirements for states to receive waivers from penalties required
by the No Child Left Behind Act, giving Obama a say in how states designed new
programs to monitor and fix low-performing schools.
And Obama is likely
to exert his power again in the coming months, when he decides whether to add
new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Yet, the string of
recent controversies has also illustrated a downside to Obama’s philosophy —
that he is seen as inconsistent or weak, and that even his natural allies on
Capitol Hill can’t predict whether the president will stand firm or back down.
Frustrated liberals
Cohen’s frustrations
were on display last week, when he asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
during a House committee hearing why the administration chose to leave in place
a Bush appointee to lead Justice’s pardon division.
Cohen, who represents
a heavily African American district in the Memphis area, said he could not
understand why the president had so far not used his full powers to correct
what many see as racial inequities, given that black men would be a big
beneficiary.
“He could be the
Emancipator Part Two,” Cohen said. But, he added, “he’s cautious. I guess it’s
part of having been a professor.”
Some liberals were
frustrated with Obama’s unwillingness to use his power in 2011 at the height of
the showdown between the White House and GOP lawmakers over raising the debt
ceiling. House Republicans were threatening to block the borrowing limit
increase unless Obama agreed to major spending cuts to Medicare and Social
Security.
Many Democrats
believed Obama should have used his executive authority to lift the debt
ceiling — a move advocates argued was legal under the 14th Amendment. Former
president Bill Clinton said at the time he would have invoked that authority
and “force the courts to stop me.”
Even the threat of
invoking the 14th Amendment would have neutralized the GOP’s leverage, many
felt. And yet Obama, believing such a move to be unconstitutional, ruled out
the idea. White House aides said it was not only illegal, but also impractical
for the president to take such a drastic step.
William Howell, a
University of Chicago political scientist, cites the episode as a low point for
Obama in a new book titled, “Thinking
About the Presidency: The Primacy of Power.”
“He may have been
right on his concerns about constitutionality, but it was costly,” Howell said.
“There was a sense of executive impotence in a heightened moment of crisis.”
Robert Dallek, a
presidential historian whom Obama has hosted for dinner in the White House
several times, contrasted Obama — “not a compulsive-detail guy,” Dallek said —
with earlier presidents, such as Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter, who were
known to micromanage the bureaucracy.
“Presidents appoint
people to high office, and what goes with it is a vote of confidence that they
are going to perform sensibly and legally,” Dallek said. “But Johnson being
Johnson knew the ways of Washington and [knew] there were always some bad
apples there, so he sent out directives.”
Too well insulated?
The scandals of the
Nixon administration that followed resulted in the IRS becoming an independent
enforcement agency — a fact White House aides cite as a justification for
Obama’s not knowing what was going on there until the release of an independent
watchdog report. And in the post-Watergate era, presidents and their political
aides have steered clear of the agency’s day-to-day operations.
Obama, his allies
said, has adhered to that norm more rigorously than some of his predecessors.
Moreover, advisers say, Obama does not interfere with Justice Department
investigations, such as the leak probe that led to the surveillance of AP
reporters.
Aides say it was an
unfortunate coincidence that two controversies erupted simultaneously in areas
that do not necessarily fall under Obama’s direct power. Yet that reality also
may have effectively shielded Obama from learning about red flags that arise
beyond the bubble of the Oval Office.
“It’s one thing for
the president to make sure he doesn’t say or do anything that might undermine
the independence of agencies like the Justice Department or the IRS,” Tribe
said. “It’s quite another for the president to insulate himself to a degree
that creates the false public impression of disinterest or indifference.”
Scott Wilson
contributed to this report.
assault on America – THE OBAMA – JP
MORGAN LOOTING of a nation:
NEW
DOCUMENTARY ON THE THIRD-WORLD INVASION OF AMERICAN
THEYCOMETOAMERICA.com
OBAMA-STYLE CRONY CAPITALISM…
business as usual for Obama’s banksters!
OBAMA
AND HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS… THE LOOTING GOES ON, AND AS PER OBAMA’S
PROMISE…NONE HAVE GONE TO PRISON!
“The
changes to the rule, which will be announced on Thursday, could effectively
empower a few big banks to continue controlling the derivatives market, a main
culprit in the financial crisis.”
Big Banks Get Break in Rules to Limit Risks
I
CONNED A NATION AND CALLED IT CHANGE. I SQUANDERED BILLIONS PROTECTING THE
BORDERS OF MUSLIM DICTATORS WHILE SABOTAGING THE BORDERS OF AMERICA TO BUILD MY
LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS.
THE
ONLY TRUTH I EVER TOLD WAS THAT I WAS NOT HERE TO PUNISH BANKSTERS. THEIR
PROFITS AND CRIMES HAVE SOARED, AND MOST
JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS…. AND I’VE JUST BEGUN! Barack Obama
"There is a populist and conservative revolt against Wall Street and financial elites, Congress and government," Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg warned in an analysis this week. "Democrats and President Obama are seen as more interested in bailing out Wall Street than helping Main Street."
“Obama's rhetoric
covered the whole financial industry, but the key changes will affect only a
few high-profile players, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., while sparing
investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”
OBAMA’S
CON JOB ON REGULATION WILL NOT IMPACT HIS LARGEST BANKSTER DONORS! WHO’D OF THOUGHT???
“Obama's rhetoric
covered the whole financial industry, but the key changes will affect only a
few high-profile players, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., while sparing
investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”
WHAT DID THE BANKSTERS
KNOW ABOUT OUR ACTOR OBAMA THAT WE DIDN’T KNOW?
Records show that
four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry
giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).
OBAMA’S LEGACY WILL
ONLY BE ON OF STAGGERING CORRUPTION AND FOR BEING THE CONSUMMATE RED-CARPET
ADDICTED PERFORMER FOR WALL STREET INTERESTS.
The
president's actions and tactics haven't matched his lofty language, breeding a
cynicism that has doomed his cause.
Jonah
Goldberg
December
22, 2009
On
his own terms, President Obama is a failure.
During the presidential campaign, he fought hammer and tongs with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the best way to govern. Clinton, casting herself as a battle-scarred political veteran, argued that diligence, dedicated detail work and working the system were essential for success.
Obama, donning the mantle of a redeemer descending from divine heights, argued that his soaring rhetoric was more than "just words" but a way out of the poisonous, partisan gridlock of yesteryear. Early on in New Hampshire, he proclaimed that his "rival in this race is not other candidates. It's cynicism."
Occasionally the Obama-Clinton argument was explicit -- such as when they sparred over who was more important to the Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King Jr. or Lyndon Johnson -- but it was always there, implicit in everything from their body language and stagecraft to position papers and platforms.
The great irony of it all is that it seems they were both wrong.
Obama's rhetoric in fact looks to be the best way to achieve a Clintonian agenda. But a Clintonian agenda is the worst possible way to live up to Obama's rhetoric.
From his 2004 keynote speech onward, Obama rejected the partisan divide. He earned points by insisting that invidious descriptions of political opponents were deleterious to civic health and distracted us from the fact that "we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
In a June primary victory speech, Obama said he was "absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children . . . this was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation."
So, does anyone feel like Americans are coming together?
Obama the outsider hasn't changed the way Washington works; he's worked Washington in a way that only an outsider with no respect for the place would dare.
Consider his signature domestic priority: healthcare reform. After a year of working on it, his progressive base is either profoundly disappointed with him or seethingly angry. His Republican and conservative opponents are not only furious, they are emboldened. And independents -- who've been deserting the Democrats in polls and off-year elections -- are simply disgusted with the whole spectacle. Most important, an administration that once preened over its people-power roots, can't even claim that Americans like what he's doing.
The bill does have its supporters: inside-the-Beltway pundits and Capitol Hill deal-makers, the pharmaceutical industry and the supposedly rapacious insurance companies (don't take my word for it, just ask Howard Dean -- or your stockbroker).
Under the Clintonian paradigm of governance, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's parlaying of his pro-life objections to the Senate bill into a windfall for his state and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' leveraging of his socialist principles for billions in special deals would be dramatic twists in a conventional story of LBJ-style arm-twisting.
But Clintonian means cannot further Obamaian ends. For the last year Obama's party has made a mockery of everything Obama was supposed to represent. The tone has gotten worse as his communications staff spent the year demonizing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called opponents of their health proposals "un-American." Just over the weekend, Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse insisted that Senate opposition is being driven, in part, by "Aryan support groups."
Everywhere you look, the sizzle doesn't match the steak. He won the Nobel Peace Prize as he (rightly) sent even more men off to war. He promised the oceans would stop rising but delivered a nonbinding something-or-other in Copenhagen.
In his special healthcare address to Congress in September, he said, "I am not the first president to take up [the cause of healthcare reform], but I am determined to be the last." Those were just words, and everyone, including Obama, knew it. Indeed, the only grounds for supporting the bill, according to progressives, is that it is a "first step" or a "starter house" that they'll build on for years, even generations, to come. In other words, the healthcare debate is not only not going to end, it's going to get uglier for as far as the eye can see.
But here's the point: Obama's rhetorical audacity breeds cynicism, because utopianism always comes up short. Obama has many victories ahead of him, but his cause is already lost.
During the presidential campaign, he fought hammer and tongs with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the best way to govern. Clinton, casting herself as a battle-scarred political veteran, argued that diligence, dedicated detail work and working the system were essential for success.
Obama, donning the mantle of a redeemer descending from divine heights, argued that his soaring rhetoric was more than "just words" but a way out of the poisonous, partisan gridlock of yesteryear. Early on in New Hampshire, he proclaimed that his "rival in this race is not other candidates. It's cynicism."
Occasionally the Obama-Clinton argument was explicit -- such as when they sparred over who was more important to the Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King Jr. or Lyndon Johnson -- but it was always there, implicit in everything from their body language and stagecraft to position papers and platforms.
The great irony of it all is that it seems they were both wrong.
Obama's rhetoric in fact looks to be the best way to achieve a Clintonian agenda. But a Clintonian agenda is the worst possible way to live up to Obama's rhetoric.
From his 2004 keynote speech onward, Obama rejected the partisan divide. He earned points by insisting that invidious descriptions of political opponents were deleterious to civic health and distracted us from the fact that "we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
In a June primary victory speech, Obama said he was "absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children . . . this was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation."
So, does anyone feel like Americans are coming together?
Obama the outsider hasn't changed the way Washington works; he's worked Washington in a way that only an outsider with no respect for the place would dare.
Consider his signature domestic priority: healthcare reform. After a year of working on it, his progressive base is either profoundly disappointed with him or seethingly angry. His Republican and conservative opponents are not only furious, they are emboldened. And independents -- who've been deserting the Democrats in polls and off-year elections -- are simply disgusted with the whole spectacle. Most important, an administration that once preened over its people-power roots, can't even claim that Americans like what he's doing.
The bill does have its supporters: inside-the-Beltway pundits and Capitol Hill deal-makers, the pharmaceutical industry and the supposedly rapacious insurance companies (don't take my word for it, just ask Howard Dean -- or your stockbroker).
Under the Clintonian paradigm of governance, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's parlaying of his pro-life objections to the Senate bill into a windfall for his state and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' leveraging of his socialist principles for billions in special deals would be dramatic twists in a conventional story of LBJ-style arm-twisting.
But Clintonian means cannot further Obamaian ends. For the last year Obama's party has made a mockery of everything Obama was supposed to represent. The tone has gotten worse as his communications staff spent the year demonizing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called opponents of their health proposals "un-American." Just over the weekend, Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse insisted that Senate opposition is being driven, in part, by "Aryan support groups."
Everywhere you look, the sizzle doesn't match the steak. He won the Nobel Peace Prize as he (rightly) sent even more men off to war. He promised the oceans would stop rising but delivered a nonbinding something-or-other in Copenhagen.
In his special healthcare address to Congress in September, he said, "I am not the first president to take up [the cause of healthcare reform], but I am determined to be the last." Those were just words, and everyone, including Obama, knew it. Indeed, the only grounds for supporting the bill, according to progressives, is that it is a "first step" or a "starter house" that they'll build on for years, even generations, to come. In other words, the healthcare debate is not only not going to end, it's going to get uglier for as far as the eye can see.
But here's the point: Obama's rhetorical audacity breeds cynicism, because utopianism always comes up short. Obama has many victories ahead of him, but his cause is already lost.
*
August 9,
2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Is Obama Punking Us?
By FRANK RICH
“AUGUST is a challenging time to
be president,” said Andrew Card, the former Bush White House chief of staff, as
he offered unsolicited advice to his successors in
a television interview last week. “I think you
have to expect the unexpected.”
He
should know. Thursday was the eighth anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined to
Strike in U.S.,” the President’s Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on
vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane
Katrina’s strike on the Louisiana coast, which his boss also ignored while on
vacation in Crawford.
So do
have a blast in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama.
Even as
we wait for some unexpected disaster to strike, Beltway omens for the current
White House are grim. Obama’s poll numbers are
approaching free fall, we are told. If he fails
on health care, he’s toast. Indeed, many of the bloviators who spot a fatal
swoon in the Obama presidency are the same doomsayers who in August 2008 were
predicting his Election Day defeat because he couldn’t “close the deal” and
clear the 50 percent mark in matchups with John McCain.
Here
are two not very daring predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care
reform done come fall. His poll numbers will not crater any time soon.
Yet
there is real reason for longer-term worry in the form of a persistent,
anecdotal drift toward disillusionment among some of the president’s
supporters. And not merely those on the left. This concern was perhaps best
articulated by an Obama voter, a real estate agent in Virginia, featured on the front
page of The Washington Post last week. “Nothing’s
changed for the common guy,” she said. “I feel like I’ve been punked.” She
cited in particular the billions of dollars in bailouts given to banks that
still “act like they’re broke.”
But
this mood isn’t just about the banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great
Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during
the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged —
that, as the president
typically put it a month after his inauguration,
the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest
few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.
No
president can do that alone, let alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more
quixotic, the ailment that he diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often
beyond politics’ domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions
is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or
manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as
trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive
as the news media.
As
Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings
convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in
spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives, but proxies for
corporate lobbyists. One group facilitating the
screamers is FreedomWorks, which is run by the
former Congressman Dick Armey, now a
lobbyist at the DLA Piper law firm. Medicines
Company, a global pharmaceutical business, has paid DLA Piper more
than $6 million in lobbying fees in the five years Armey has worked there.
But the
Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the
moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet
and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the
first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties
supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.
Then
there are the 52 conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who have balked at the public
option for health insurance. Their cash intake from insurers and drug companies
outpaces their Democratic peers by an average of 25 percent, according to The
Post. And let’s not forget the Democratic Senate
Campaign Committee, which has raked
in nearly $500,000 from a single doctor-owned hospital in McAllen, Tex. — the very one that Obama has cited as a
symbol of runaway medical costs ever since it was profiled in The New Yorker this spring.
In this
maze of powerful moneyed interests, it’s not clear who any American in either
party should or could root for. The bipartisan nature of the beast can be
encapsulated by the remarkable progress of Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana
congressman. Tauzin was a founding member of the Blue Dog Democrats in 1994. A year later, he bolted
to the Republicans. Now he is chief of PhRMA, the biggest pharmaceutical trade
group. In the 2008 campaign, Obama ran a television ad pillorying Tauzin for
his role in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices. Last
week The Los Angeles Times reported — and The New York Times confirmed — that Tauzin, an active player in White House health care
negotiations, had secured a behind-closed-doors flip-flop, enlisting the
administration to push for continued protection of drug prices. Now we know why
the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast such negotiations on
C-Span.
The
making of legislative sausage is never pretty. The White House has to give to
get. But the cynicism being whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike
Hillary Clinton, whose chief presidential campaign strategist unapologetically
did double duty as a high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we
could actually believe in.
His
first questionable post-victory step was to assemble an old boys’ club of
Robert Rubin protégés and Goldman-Citi alumni as the White House economic team,
including a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who failed in his watchdog
role at the New York Fed as Wall Street’s latest bubble first inflated and then
burst. The questions
about Geithner’s role in adjudicating the subsequent bailouts aren’t going away, and neither is the angry public sense that the fix is
still in. We just learned that nine of those bailed-out banks — which in total
received $175 billion of taxpayers’ money, but as yet have repaid only $50
billion — are awarding a
total of $32.6 billion in bonuses for 2009.
It’s in
this context that Obama can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass
in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result
will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned
against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least
reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform
package Obama pushes through, or doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on
his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform.
The
best political news for the president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure
of how out of touch G.O.P. leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are
that they keep trying to scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have
it backward. The
larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters
much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy. If anything, the most
unexpected — and challenging — event that could rock the White House this
August would be if the opposition actually woke up.
The
Mexican occupation of 38 million illegals depress wages $200 - $300 billion per
year for Americans. These same Americans are forced to pay the staggering
welfare costs of the occupation as well. Welfare paid to illegals in Mexican
occupied Los Angeles, is nearly $40 MILLION PER MONTH. In Los Angeles, 47% of
those employed are ILLEGALS.
Octoer
17, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Impatiently Waiting
By
CHARLES M. BLOW
When, Mr. President? When will
your deeds catch up to your words? The people who worked tirelessly to get you
elected are getting tired of waiting. According to a Gallup poll released
on Wednesday, Americans’ satisfaction with the
way things are going in the country has hit a six-month low, and those
decreases were led, in both percentage and percentage-point decreases, by
Democrats and independents, not by Republicans.
The
fierce urgency of now has melted into the maddening wait for whenever.
Take
health care reform. Because of the president’s quixotic quest for
bipartisanship, he refused to take a firm stand in favor of the public option.
In that wake, Democrats gutted the Baucus bill to win the graces of Olympia
Snowe — a Republican senator from a state with half the population of Brooklyn,
a senator who is defying the will of her own constituents. A poll conducted earlier this month found that 57 percent of Maine residents support the
public option and only 37 percent oppose it.
She is
certainly living up to the state’s motto: Dirigo. That’s Latin for “I lead.”
And the Democrats have followed. For shame.
When
will the president take the risk of standing up for his convictions on health
care instead of sacrificing good policies for good politics? (Or maybe not even
good politics since a one-sided compromise is the same as a surrender.)
And
health care is only one example.
On the
same weekend that gay rights protesters marched past the White House, the president again said that his
administration was “moving
ahead on don’t ask don’t tell.” But when? This
month? This year? This term?
As we
prepare to draw down troops from the disaster that was the war in Iraq, we may commit more troops to the quagmire that is the war in Afghanistan and the
government may miss its deadline for closing the blight that is the prison at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama
pledged to stem the tide of job losses and foreclosures and to reform the
culture of the financial sector. Well, the Dow just hit 10,000 again while the national unemployment
rate is about to hit 10 percent. And the firms we
propped up are set to dole out record bonuses while home foreclosures have hit
record highs. Main Street is still drowning in
crisis while Wall Street is awash in Champagne. When will this imbalance be
corrected?
Candidate
Obama pledged to make the
rebuilding of New Orleans a priority, but
President Obama whisked into the city on Thursday for a visit so brief that one Louisiana congressman
dubbed it a “drive-through daiquiri summit.” The
president spent more time on the failed Olympic bid in Copenhagen than he did
in the Crescent City.
At the town hall in
New Orleans, Obama appealed for patience. He
said, “Change is hard, and big change is harder.” Is that the excuse? Now where
have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. From George Bush.
GET THIS
BOOK!
Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
BY TIMOTHY P
CARNEY
Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making
You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same
“special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are
profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers,
small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter
Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White
House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering
corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate
America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman
Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack
Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from
Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and
consumers.
Investigative
reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and
the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is
delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling
corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s
Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The
Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell
corporate profits and more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
Obama now looting the American
student while he hands billions in DEM DREAM ACTS of WELFARE to illegals… his
bankster cronies at JPMorgan cleaning up on students also!
“But as the Federal Reserve attempts to lower borrowing costs for everyone from households and small businesses to large corporations and Wall Street banks, student borrowers have not been able to benefit.”
President Barack Obama and Mexico Partner to Expand the LA RAZA
MEXICAN WELFARE STATE in America through "amnesty"
ANOTHER OBAMA HANDOUT TO ILLEGALS?
Moreover, the
Inspector General released a report last year showing that illegal aliens
received an astounding $4.2 billion in taxpayer dollars by claiming the ACTC in
2010.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a
report last week indicating that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) managers
discouraged their employees from detecting illegal alien tax fraud. (Fox News, Aug. 9, 2012)
THE OBAMA
and LA RAZA CONSPIRACY to Build the Democrat party with illegals, keep wages
depressed with more illegals, and destroy the GOP with even hordes of illegals!
While
DeMint says the Heritage Foundation is supportive of the concept of immigration
reform, he characterizes the current compromise as “blanket amnesty.”
PROBABLY
THE ONLY TRUTH OBAMA EVER TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WAS THAT HE WAS “NOT HERE TO
PUNISH BANKS!”… NOPE, AND HE NEVER HAS. THEIR CRIMES, LOOTING AND PROFITS HAVE
SOARED UNDER OBAMA.
YOU WOULD
NOT HAVE FOUND OBAMA’S DOJ GOING AFTER OBAMA’S PALS AT JP MORGAN. HOLDER IS TOO
BUSY HISPANDERING FOR LA RAZA, SUING AMERICAN STATES AND SABOTAGING OUR LAWS
AND BORDERS SO THE OBAMANATION CAN BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS.
“Records show
that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial
industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase
($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”
OBAMA’S OLD PALS J.P.MORGAN STILL FUCKING OVER CONSUMERS… IT’S LIKE OLD
TIMES FOR THE BANKSTERS!
Headline:
California lawsuit alleges illegal collection practices by JPMorgan Chase
OBAMA’S CRONY
CAPITALISM – HOW HE LOOTED AMERICAN ON BEHALF OF HIS LOOTING WALL STREET
CONTRIBUTORS
OBAMA and his culture of
BANKSTER LOOTING of America.
Is Penny Pritzker
Obama’s newest BANKSTER?
Obama warns against
“cynicism” at Ohio State commencement address
do a google of Obama’s BIG BANKSTER
DONORS and you will find a list of the banks that have looted this nation, yet
found a place in the corrupt Obama administration!
*
OBAMA’S BILLIONAIRE NOMINEE FOR COMMERCE, PENNY PRITZKER…
BILLION$$$$ MADE OFF HIRING CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR??? show me even one dem billionaire
that does not push for obama’s agenda of OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY and NO
ENFORCEMENT of LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT of ILLEGALS…even one!
Based
in Chicago, Pritzker operates an international empire based on low-wage service
work in Hyatt-operated hotels and nursing homes, along with several investment
firms.
Barack
Obama… the man that conned an entire nation and still called it “CHANGE”… but
was only Bush’s 3rd & 4th terms.
THE YEAR WAS 2009…
At the town hall in New Orleans, Obama appealed for patience. He said, “Change is hard, and big
change is harder.” Is that the excuse? Now where have I heard that before? Oh,
yeah. From George Bush.
OBAMA’S
WAR ON AMERICANS (LEGALS) AND OUR HOMELAND SECURITY
However,
today, with President Obama so ill-intentioned toward the United States and its
future, negotiations between him and with those of us who oppose him are
pointless.
No comments:
Post a Comment