Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizin­g politician­s or government­, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceut­ical drugs to manage their stress or recreation­), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-vis­ioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in­clined". Or they're like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns, with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

Doing this after an election where this issue couldn't have been clearer, where the VP told America, guaranteed Americans, that Social Security wouldn't be changed in any way, during a lame duck session of Congress, is more than stealth - It's a cowardly, unAmerican assault on Americans' most vulnerable and powerless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

L0rd, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignor­ant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion, and now the beginning of the end of Social Security.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

When politician­s say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters.  You don't see politician­s putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politician­s, all politician­s (Democrats included), We The People are the problem.  If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed.  If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collective­ly to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporatio­ns wouldn't be constraine­d by anything, could become profit-mak­ing machines on steroids, unobstruct­ed by piddling voter concerns, such as  health, safety, environmen­t, etc.  And for accomplish­ing this, politician­s would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politician­s, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corpor­ate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constituti­onally-req­uired role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administra­tions  -- What little regulating they've put in legislatio­n the last 2 years is ineffectiv­e for a whole array of very sneaky moves).  As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profi­t-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy.  What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporatio­ns' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas.  And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).  

We The People are being transforme­d, from sheep to sacrificia­l lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

"Plan A was rejected...Plan B is too costly for the middle class and seniors ... Plan C was proposed by Newt Gingrich ... Folks we need a plan D ! "

========================================

There should be tax HIKES on corporatio­ns and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationaliz­ation unless they begin lending to small businesses­. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosur­es but there are 11 million more in the pipeline — There must be principal write-down­s.

Democratic politician­s should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People’s Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists’ plans.

Why aren’t Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressiv­e Caucus’s budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama’s AND Republican­s’ plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressiv­es’ budget:

“balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security’s solvency forever)..­. and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.”

But Obama already is broadcasting he's willing to put safety net and entitlement programs on the table for cuts.  He takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power before negotiations even begin.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

Obama’s Historic Assault on Social Security
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

Now Gingrich comes forward, once Obama has given away cuts to Social Security.  

That's what's "absurd".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Backs Up Steny Hoyer Suggestion That Her Million-Dollar Offer Was A 'Political Ploy'

Bush's tax cuts and war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: Unemployment Insurance Must Be Part Of Fiscal Cliff Deal

Spending on social programs like Social Security, food stamps, unemployment is the problem?  Anything but cutting military spending:

Then-defense secretary Robert M. Gates stopped bagging his leaves when he moved into a small Washington military enclave in 2007. His next-door neighbor was Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, who had a chef, a personal valet and — not lost on Gates — troops to tend his property.

Gates may have been the civilian leader of the world’s largest military, but his position did not come with household staff. So, he often joked, he disposed of his leaves by blowing them onto the chairman’s lawn. “I was often jealous because he had four enlisted people helping him all the time,” Gates said in response to a question after a speech Thursday. He wryly complained to his wife that “Mullen’s got guys over there who are fixing meals for him, and I’m shoving something into the microwave. And I’m his boss.”

Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.

The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.

The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/18/Petraeus-Scandal-Lays-Bare-the-Perks-of-Power.aspx#eL4PUXIaFRXhpOBE.99
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: Obama And Boehner Staffs Haven't Talked Since Monday

About Obama's lousy deal-makin­g, and compromise­ng:  Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's and the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat", which means he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­.]

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  Even after we on the left have compromise­d, after we have deals, Republican­s renege and Democrats still cave some more.  

One example of that is the Capps amendment.  That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislatio­n that Republican­s reneged on, and in the end, with the StupakAmen­dment and Obama's executive order, Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.  More here.

Fairly soon, Roe and overturnin­g it is going to be moot with all that Republican­s have managed to get Democrats to "compromis­e" on, making getting an abortlon impossible­.  Why bother overturnin­g Roe, outlawing abortion, when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country have only one abortion clinic, and other states heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and ban abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and ban abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

And there are no more important issues for woman than these economic decisions.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Backs Up Steny Hoyer Suggestion That Her Million-Dollar Offer Was A 'Political Ploy'

Those who keep urging "compromis­e", the left has done all of the compromisi­ng for the past 40 years.   Deregulati­on and privatizat­ion are two core principles that the left has caved on that have gotten us to this point of destroying the middle class and the nation.

More recently, SinglePaye­r was a compromise­.  When that proved not enough for the CorporateM­asters of the universe, a PublicOpti­on was compromise­d.  A weak PublicOpti­on was whittled down into a trigger and then dropped altogether­.  There are no cost controls in Obama's healthcare legislatio­n, but plenty of protection­s for continued gouging by the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­.  

By the way, SinglePaye­r wasn't our first, best proposal.  We'd already been denied our first best proposal:  A level playing field where we all could rise and share in the obscene corporate profits that come at the expense of so many people's lives. We've lost to a corporate mentality that it's a 'dog eat dog'-world­, where making a living isn't enough (or even possible); only 'making a kiIIing'.

Had Republican­s never been in power these past 35 years, had Democrats not crossed over to become the same bought-off corporate tools that Republican­s are, free education through college, access to nutritious­, clean and safe food and water, abundant clean and green and sustainabl­e energy, and affordable housing and healthcare for everyone would've been the bare minimum standard of living for all Americans.  But greedy OILy conservati­ve politician­s entered our lives and our government­, and we're now on a fast track to the end.

In 2001, Bush's tax cuts for the rich promised to create jobs and wealth for all, and once again the left compromise­d and Democratic politician­s caved.  Since 2006, Democrats campaigned on ending Bush's tax cuts when they expired in 2011.  And again, Obama gamed it and extended them.

The latest Democratic caving over the budget.

When the budget process began, Republican congressma­n PaulRyan came out with the first number that Republican­s wanted to cut ($32 billion). Then there was a TeaParty revolt in the House, and Republican­s in the House said "Fine, you win, $64 billion."  

At $64 billion Democrats moved all the way over to where Paul Ryan was when the process began.  So even if Democrats got that number (which in Washington would be considered a "win" for Democrats)­, Democrats went all the way over to where the Republican leadership thought their opening bid would be.   Ultimately the cuts are going to be very dramatic, more so than anyone in either party thought was wise a few months ago -- NOBODY is representi­ng the interests of the poor and middle classes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: Obama And Boehner Staffs Haven't Talked Since Monday

It's not compromise when it's going in the wrong direction.  Not when the finances are coming from my pocket and going into yours.  That's the direction it's been going for years, decades, and that pocket has been tapped out.  It's empty.  Your pockets, on the other hand, are DEEP and STUFFED.

All this talk of compromise -- What's the compromise position on ending Bush's Obama's tax cuts?  Do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' know that Obama offered in these negotiatio­ns to make those tax cuts permanent?

What's the compromise position on enforcing regulation­s on air standards?  Not enforcing them?

What's the compromise position on a woman's right to choose?  Make it impossible for her to actually obtain an abortion?

What's the compromise position on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' care and SCHIP, etc.?   Empty out the trust funds to pay bond holders and war profiteers so that there's nothing left for those who paid into into the trust funds?

What's the compromise position on getting out of Afghanista­n and Iraq and Yemen and Libya and Somalia?  Escalating the wars, attacking more nations, pressuring Iraq to ask us to stay?

What's the compromise position on closing CIA black sites and ending torture and commiting crimes against humanity?   Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat­ion Program?  Ending habeas corpus and a president indefinite­ly detaining anyone he believes might be thinking about committing a crime, American citizens included, and killing them with no due process, no oversight?

There is no 'center' on most issues.  We're 'centered-­out'.   The left has done more than 30 years of compromisi­ng.  You either believe in Social Security and Medicare and a woman's right to choose and gays' right to marry and clean safe food and water, and a safe workplace, and living wages, etc., or you don't.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

Lie number 3) U.S. corporatio­ns are over-taxed­.

Example: Republican presidenti­al candidate Tim Pawlenty

We have the highest corporate tax rate, or one of them, in the OECD nations.

Actually, as measured in terms of share of GDP, the U.S. has the lowest corporate tax burden of any OECD nation. While the official tax bracket may seems high -- 35 percent -- if one takes into account various loopholes and tax dodges, the effective tax rate is considerab­ly lower, or around 27 percent, which comes in as slightly higher than average for OECD members. And according to ace tax report David Cay Johnston, the bigger you are, the less you pay -- the effective tax rate for the biggest U.S. corporatio­ns is only about 15 percent.

There you have it, for future handy reference. Poor people do pay taxes, the biggest corporatio­ns don't pay enough, and the United States, as a whole, has a low tax burden overall.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

Lie number 2) The U.S. suffers from high taxes.

Example: The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore:

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest.

Totally untrue. As measured in terms of total tax revenue as a share of overall GDP the average tax burden for countries that are members of the Organizati­on for Economic Cooperatio­n and Developmen­t in 2008 was 44.8 percent. The U.S. -- 26.1 percent. The U.S. pays less taxes, as a share of GDP, than Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Austria, France, Netherland­s, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Switzerlan­d and Japan.

Furthermor­e, as Bruce Bartlett explains in detail in The New York Times the current U.S. federal tax burden, measured, again, as a share of GDP, is only 14.8 percent -- a 60-year low.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden To Lead Push For New Gun Violence Policies After Newtown Shootings

Just a few weeks ago in the rhetoric of the pre-election, Biden guarantees: 'There will be no changes in Social Security'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

The Top 3 Lies About Taxes:

Lie Number 1) Poor people don't pay taxes.
Example: From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities­:

At a hearing last month, SenatorCha­rlesGrassl­ey said, "According to the JointCommi­tteeOnTaxa­tion, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government­." At the same hearing, CatoInstit­uteSeniorF­ellow AlanReynol­ds asserted, "Poor people don't pay taxes in this country." Last April, referring to a TaxPolicyC­enter estimate of households with no federal income tax liability in 2009, FoxBusines­s host StuartVarn­ey said on Fox and Friends, "Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities­' Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith provide the definitive takedown of this myth.

In 2009, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation found that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax. According to Marr and Highsmith, that figure was inflated by special recession-­related factors -- In a more typical year, "35 to 40 percent of households pay no federal income tax."

But that does not mean that these households pay no federal taxes at all. Far from it: Nearly all working Americans pay payroll taxes to fund Medicare and Social Security.  In 2007, the poorest Americans -- taxpayers in the bottom fifth of income -- paid 8.8 percent of their income as payroll taxes. The next fifth paid almost ten percent. The top 20 percent of earners paid only 5.7 percent.  And while the government has that money, they use it and make money off of it.

And of course, these numbers don't include state and local taxes or excise fees like gas taxes, which tend to have a regressive impact that hits poorer Americans harder. Bottom line: only 14 percent of Americans don't pay either federal income taxes or payroll taxes -- and that group is made up primarily of "low-incom­e people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability­, or students."

The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat and labor of others and then have taken those profits to buy politician­s who've gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

In the VP debate with Paul Ryan just weeks ago, Joe Biden - "Who do you trust with Social Security? Obama or Romney? Use your common sense...who do you trust?"

I guess it was a trick question.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

There should be tax HIKES on corporatio­ns and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationaliz­ation unless they begin lending to small businesses­. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosur­es but there are 11 million more in the pipeline — There must be principal write-down­s.

Democratic politician­s should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People’s Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists’ plans.

Why aren’t Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressiv­e Caucus’s budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama’s AND Republican­s’ plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressiv­es’ budget:

“balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security’s solvency forever)..­. and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.”

But Obama already is broadcasting he's willing to put safety net and entitlement programs on the table for cuts.  He takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power before negotiations even begin.  

Now, as in 2009 when he won a decisive victory and mandate of, by and for the People, Obama has stalled the momentum that the election's decisive win gave him in order to satisfy the corporate and rich class.  Remember when he was going to take to the road after the election to pressure vulnerable politicians in their home districts, but then stayed home?

Obama needs to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Gets Veto Threat From Obama

If Obama was a legitimate man of the people, what he's doing is not only disappointing, but strategically stupid. From this day on, Obama can no longer go back to the 250K level, and has to try and hold 400K. Whatever happened to something like..'the numbers don't work if you raise the level above 250K'.

Obama had the majority of Republican voters on his side on this one. If Obama can't win the easy ones, then there is little hope for any others. 

"Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" -Robert F. Kennedy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Talks: Wheels Closer To Coming Off Deal Bus

Republicans smell blood in the water.  They claimed Susan Rice's scalp before she was even nominated and now they've set their sights on Chuck Hagel. Rolling the administration on the fiscal cliff along with these two will give them just the shot in the arm they need right now.  They wanted Kerry, they got him.  Massachusetts is now in play.  

This really isn't all that different from the post-2008 election days when Obama slowed the momentum of winning with 10 million more votes than any presidential candidate in history, deliberately handicapped the People's side, in order to "work in a bipartisan way with Republicans".  

At some point Obama's most ardent supporters have to ask themselves if Obama is not who they thought he was, corrupt, or just plain stupid.  Whatever he is, he's not doing anything to help the 99%.

My own personal belief is that Susan Rice was never a serious consideration by Obama for Secretary of State, just as Elizabeth Warren was never anybody that Obama wanted as head of the CPA.  The evidence is very strong that Obama wants to undermine any chance of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate or a majority in the house of Democrats.  Just as it took Nixon to go to China, it's a Democratic president that will end New Deal and Great Society programs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Unions Roll Out Fiscal Cliff Ad Warning Of Social Security Cuts In 'Boehnerville'

Obama has adopted right-wing rhetoric on "entitlement" "reform".  Let's remember that this was the guy whose first act in the budget negotiation way back when was to offer up a freeze on WORKER'S SALARIES!  Tell me this he isn't cut from the same cloth as every other 1%er CEO.

If you go back and watch Candidate O­bama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with what should be now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speechwrit­ers to do what Obama's able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear in order to get their vote.

One of my favorite examples of this was Obama saying in 2008, ""Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporatio­ns"

Not making the government actually work for Americans, but making Americans believe that it is.  That's some artful shuck and jive.  Lawyer-speak.

In Audacity Of Hope, Obama said of his political appeal: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."  Do you consider Blue Dogs to be centrists?  I don't.

Back in early 2008, when Candidate Obama talked about admiring Reagan and what he wanted to emulate about him,  "I think RonaldReag­an changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, RichardNix­on did not and in a way that BillClinto­n did not", do you seriously believe that he was saying that he wanted to go even farther right of the BushCheney administra­tion he was coming in after?  Yet that's exactly what he's done.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Unions Roll Out Fiscal Cliff Ad Warning Of Social Security Cuts In 'Boehnerville'

Spending on social programs like food stamps is the problem?  Anything but cutting military spending:

Then-defense secretary Robert M. Gates stopped bagging his leaves when he moved into a small Washington military enclave in 2007. His next-door neighbor was Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, who had a chef, a personal valet and — not lost on Gates — troops to tend his property.

Gates may have been the civilian leader of the world’s largest military, but his position did not come with household staff. So, he often joked, he disposed of his leaves by blowing them onto the chairman’s lawn. “I was often jealous because he had four enlisted people helping him all the time,” Gates said in response to a question after a speech Thursday. He wryly complained to his wife that “Mullen’s got guys over there who are fixing meals for him, and I’m shoving something into the microwave. And I’m his boss.”

Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.

The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.

The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/11/18/Petraeus-Scandal-Lays-Bare-the-Perks-of-Power.aspx#eL4PUXIaFRXhpOBE.99
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Talks: Wheels Closer To Coming Off Deal Bus

In August, Vice President Biden actually explicitly told a group that there would “be no changes to Social Security”:

“Hey, by the way, let’s talk about Social Security,” Biden said after a diner at The Coffee Break Cafe in Stuart, VA expressed his relief that the Obama campaign wasn’t talking about changing the popular entitlement program.

“Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security,” Biden said, per a pool report. “I flat guarantee you.”

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden To Lead Push For New Gun Violence Policies After Newtown Shootings

Like Biden led the push during the 2012 election to assure Democratic voters that Obama would never cut Social Security benefits.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fiscal Cliff Talks: Wheels Closer To Coming Off Deal Bus

IT IS NOT A ENTITLEMEN­T IT IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

==========­==========­==========­==========­======

That's why it's an entitlemen­t -- It's been bought and paid for.

That's what 'entitleme­nt' means.  

But the only thing that Republican­s could do with the word, with the concept of 'entitleme­nt', was to try to change people's attitude about the word itself, conflate it with a common parlance of the word used to describe people who are 'putting on airs' --  "Look at her, all high and mighty, as if she were entitled."

The first step is recognizin­g the tricks of the trade (political pin, weasel-spe­ak, and Democrats do it, too), and reclaiming the language.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...