Obama Budget Betrayal Q and A
DailyCensored, by Michael Collins - 072211
This president will never do a single
thing to oppose the agenda of the ruling financial elite unless,
of course, members of the ruling elite tell him to oppose
something meaningless just for the sake of appearances.
Question: Why did President Obama put Social Security and
Medicare on the table
in the budget negotiations when
80% of the people oppose cuts to these programs?
Answer: The president is not in office to represent those
people. He was selected, funded and carried over the finish line
by corporate America. Look at the appointment of Wall Streeter
Timothy Geithner, the bailouts, and the failure to prosecute any
of the crooks who caused the current recession. Heís serving the
people who put him in office. Those people donít need Social
Security and Medicare.
Q: Doesnít the president need to worry about reelection? Why
would he risk that by going against such a large majority?
A: President Obama has no personal or financial risk if he
loses his job.. He has a tidy lifetime pension and will, no
doubt, be on plenty of corporate boards, not to mention the
opportunities for huge
speaking fees. There is less political risk than you might
think. The only Republican presidential candidate who might be
other than certifiable is the largely unknown John
Huntsman, former governor of Utah and Obamaís ambassador to
China. The rest would do much more harm to seniors than Obama
concessions this time around (if they materialize) and people
Q: The national debt is at $14 trillion. Doesnít Obama
have to do something decisive now?
A: If you assume that reducing the national debt is the
primary challenge facing the nation, yes. But why do we have out
of control spending? Social Security pays for itself. If Obama
truly wanted to help Medicare, he would lift the ban on medicare
negotiating 40% to 60%
discounts on prescription drugs.
If the president wanted to cut the budget now,everything
would be on the table. He would cut
military spending and
end the wars. He would demand an end to outsourcing and the
multilevel scheme to give away the jobs of the citizens of the
United States. He wonít even consider and discuss these high
yield options. Without any doubt, the president would never have
allowed the Bush tax cuts to carry forward, if he wanted new
revenue from those who could pay. He is not serious about
lowering the national debt.
Q: Isnít Obama forced to negotiate some budget cuts due
to the Republican threat to vote against raising the national
A: Failing to raise the debt ceiling is pure insanity. The
good faith and credit of the United States would be
shattered. The AAA credit rating would drop, everything that the
government does would be more expensive, causing even more debt.
In addition, the
impact on the US
and world economy would be
catastrophic, like a global tsunami. This is well known.
Only the delusional believe otherwise.
Q: So why isnít the false drama between Republicans and
Democrats made clear?
A: The corporate media has no interest in debunking this
false drama. Their owners benefit greatly from this sort of
contrived crisis. The drama by no-drama Obama and the shrill
voices on the right in are in complete alignment with the very
big money interests. Those interests can force cuts in Social
Security and Medicare (already begun with cuts to the employee
payroll tax). They can protect the Bush administrationís tax
breaks, a major factor in the deficit. They can sneak in all
sorts of legislative and regulatory changes while the focus is
on this false drama. This is a time honored technique. For
example, the real threats from the 9/11 attacks were never
addressed. Instead, the turmoil after the attack became the
pretext for war against Iraq invasion and opened the door
for huge increases in military spending. They do this whenever
they have an opportunity.
Q: Arenít you saying that the president doesnít care
about the typical citizen struggling through this serious
recession and those who have lost their jobs, homes, and futures
A: Yes, that is exactly what Iím saying. The president might
call it ďshared sacrificeĒ or some other corny term. But, in
fact, he is willing to to see people thrown out of their homes
with few if any resources,
denied medical care, and stay jobless for months and years.
His first term in office has demonstrated that in the clearest
This president will never do a single thing to oppose the
agenda of the ruling financial elite unless, of course, members
of the ruling elite tell him to oppose something meaningless
just for the sake of appearances.
Q: So there is no hope?
A: There hasnít been much hope for a long time. There will
never be any change as long as just about everybody in elective
office and much of the judiciary remain in office. You canít get
there from here as long as they control the political scene for
their patrons, The Money