The Obama Socialist game is an old one. A game played time and again by Communists. Blame the rich for all problems and use the mobs (moochers) to revolt and disrupt, all the while claiming to be fighting for the middle class. Of course the "rich" doesn't include the "ruling elite". That would be people like George Soros, Algore, and cronies from companies like GE and Goldman Sachs. They readily join up with the Socialists in their quest for money, but mostly power.
The aim is to transfer absolute power to the ruling class while destroying the middle class by transferring their assets to the moochers.
Examples? Health care for one. The worst fears about Obamacare are now being realized in a decision on Monday by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MPAC) established by the law to supervise $500 billion in Medicare cuts (while Dems claim they will not touch Medicare). MPAC, whose decisions have the force of law, has voted to impose drastic pay cuts on all doctors under Medicare and, by extension, under Medicaid (which tends to follow suit). Obama's ruling board is passing down edicts that Specialists will have their Medicare (Obamacare) fees cut by 50% over the next ten years. General practitioners will take a 33% cut. Why? This is one way to pay for insurance for moochers (the poor uninsured). The largest cuts (25%) will come in the first three years. Obviously at least two things will happen, both bad. First, fewer bright people will become doctors. Secondly, the specialists (like oncologists and cardiologists) will quit treating Medicare (Obamacare) patients. The rich will continue to pay for their services, right? So who will be without specialized treatment? The middle class, of course. The moochers gain at the expense of the middle class.
What else? Education is being put through the same type drill. Mooching students who qualify by meeting government regulations are getting student loans up to $200,000 in many cases. Universities are dramatically raising their tuitions and fees because of these generous government loans. Students will be given up to 20 years to make token payments, and then all is forgiven. They are only required to make minimum payments during that period meaning the taxpayer will pay for most of the loans. So the Universities get paid in full in the first 4-5 years. The taxpayer (mostly middle class) pays the bill over the same period while receiving no financial assistance and having to pay the inflated college prices for their own children. The moocher spreads token payments over 20 years and then the balance is written off by the government. How large is the problem today? One trillion dollars is outstanding, one third of the nation’s total budget this year.
Remember the good old days when a middle class family's primary objective was to work hard, save money, and put their children through college. The Socialists are doing everything possible to convert broken families to moochers.
If health care and education are not personal enough, how about housing? Most experts agree the world's financial crisis is primarily the result of what they call a "housing bubble". We are told by Obama and his "occupiers", who are street mobs, that Wall Street greed was the problem. Many in the middle class have found that their home values have collapsed to the point that they owe more the current value of their homes. Why did this happen? Moochers were given "hot deals" to buy homes that they could not afford. Low interest rates with adjustable mortgages for the "sub-prime" buyer with plenty of homes to pick from since builders were enjoying low interest rates and readily available loans as well. The government assured bankers they were behind them with guarantees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (both of which went broke, were bailed out, and will never pay taxpayers back). Mobs would march on banks if they weren't responding to pressure from the government to make the loans. The banks unloaded the mortgages as best they could (who wouldn't?), and of course the bubble popped as they always do when you defy basic market principles. Obama's current solution is to spend another $35 Billion of taxpayer's money to FORCE banks (again) to refinance these bad loans to buy time and votes. Again the middle class (producers) suffer through an awful economy as moochers benefit with taxpayer funded bailouts.
If these schemes are too convoluted to follow let's take one that is a little more blatant. President Obama cheered Friday a federal judge who approved a $1.2 billion government settlement with black farmers who claim they were cheated out of loans and other assistance from the Agriculture Department over many years. Congress approved this payout one year ago. It comes on top of the initial payment of $1 billion paid to 16,000 black farmers. The second round was created to help those who missed the filing deadline on the first payment. Our leader made the following comment, "This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on." This scam comes right out of the pockets of the middle class who worked for their money and paid their taxes. All in the name of freedom and justice. Are you kidding me?
If these farmers were "cheated" who is going to be prosecuted and sent to jail? You know the answer. Not a soul because this is a scam that white, timid politically correct folks willl not challenge. Somehow taxpayers think this $2.2 Billion is not their money. They seem to think that it comes from someone else.
Who knows how many other scams will come from the Obama administration between now and 2012. Or imagine if the electorate gives him another four years after that. Here are four examples of Obama taking money from the hard working middle class taxpayer and giving it to the moocher who believes they have rights to free healthcare, free college educations, government assisted home ownership, and government handouts for being black. Every one of these programs was paid for with money that this government and nation does not have. It is a debt that our innocent children must pay.
While I truly believe the World War II vets were our best generation, I am equally convinced that the generation that followed and governs today is our WORST. I am sad to say that is my generation.
Think about it,
Jim
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Washington Post: Obama Was Given a Pass Because He Was Black
Even the Washington Post has said it now. I forward their recent column verbatim. It is simple, factual, and to the point. Shame on our electorate.
The Washington Post
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Think about November, 2012.
Jim
The Washington Post
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Think about November, 2012.
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
