That Was a Yes or No Question, Mr. President.
This is part II of a multipart series to demonstrate how everyone in Washington—and one-term President Barack Obama in particular—are telegraphing the fact that they will be gearing up for a major campaign to steal money from Senior Citizens by making drastic changes to “fix” the Social Security program. Part I can be read here. Part II can be read here. (Image)
Today at the top of Atrios’ (Duncan Black’s) website, he writes the question he asked about at a recent blogger conference with one-term President Barak Obama:
Q: Mine is an easy question. Will you rule out raising the retirement age to 70?
Of course hilarity ensues, as the Plutocrat’s President deftly passes this tepid potato to the other “revolving villains”—firstly the Catfood commission, which will conveniently give their recommendations to an unaccountable lame duck congress. Funny that one-term President Barak Obama created this villain himself with executive order 13531 when the Senate voted against doing his dirty work for him.
The President’s recent campaigning on the idea that the Chamber of Commerce is buying this election with uncontrolled campaign funding is just too rich, if you naturally gag on hypocrisy as I do, when you consider that he set up the Catfood Commission with private money from anti-Social Security ideologues after Congress refused his request to fund it.
He also mentions that Congress will consider the Catfood Commission’s recommendations so you know, he’s really third in line for the hostility and anger Americans will unleash when Harry Reid’s Senate slashes Social Security on a unanimous consent secret voice vote, Nancy Pelosi will have no choice but to put the bill to a vote since she already committed to do this. The Republicans and the Blue Dogs will constitute a voting bloc that will make this happen, but if it doesn’t pass the first time, look for bond market hijinks to get the point through, just as when the stock market took a hit when Congress refused to pass TARP.
He also says that he doesn’t want to impose hardships on beneficiaries that are counting on it:
But I think you can look at the statements that I’ve made in the past, including when I was campaigning for the presidency, that Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it.
Translation: If you’re not currently a beneficiary, or will be one soon, you can’t count on Social Securty being there for you. Fcuk you, anyone under 40 years!
The rest of this post is a linkfest. All the cool kids know what’s going to happen and they’re discussing it. The writing is on the wall.
Digby of Hullabaloo and Watertiger, two liberal bloggers who frequently have discussions with congressional staffers discussing at Liberally Speaking on BlogTalk Radio that the “Career Progressives” in Versailles-on-the Potomac saying (and I paraphrase) “wouldn’t it be great if we solved this Social Security thing by, you know tinkering with it, because people are living for decades on life support to the age of 109 so we could probably raise the retirement age to 75 . . . .” As I recall it’s about 30 minutes in. Their conclusion: as soon as the vote is taken and he signs the bill, one-term President Barack Obama earns a primary challenger, and maybe a third party ticket comes along. Not possible without support from the African American community? Do you think that activists in the African American community aren’t on to Obama? Think again. They’re in open revolt. As Glen Ford at the Black Agenda Report writes, Obama Prepares to Triangulate Himself.
And more grist for the mill, as Ben Bernanke, whose Federal Reserve bank has as its job only three specifically stipulated (and darkly hilarious) mandates—maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates, recently broke his promise not to talk about US Government fiscal matters by opening up the entitlements line of BS.
First posted at The Agonist
Reprinted with the author’s permission