BLASPHEMY!!! PRESIDENT OBAMA DID NOT CAVE!!
BLASPHEMY!!! PRESIDENT OBAMA DID NOT CAVE!!
How can President Obama be accused of having caved when it appears there is a possibility that he may have been a co-conspirator in a packaged “deal”?
It appears that the failed legislation, which would have extended unemployment benefits beyond the 99-week period, is a get-out-of-jail-free card for President Obama.
Had the extension of unemployment benefits been agreed to, what rationale would he have offered for signing off on the continuation of the Bush tax errors?
If it were determined that he was involved in a “deal”, he should be brought up on charges of conspiracy of defrauding the taxpayers.
In essence, this “deal” causes the United States to borrow from China or whomever, giving the funds to the top 2% of taxpayers, with all taxpayers and their posterity assuming the liability.
We, the People, should and must be outraged.
All should call, e-mail, write, fax and communicate in any other way to their Senators and Congresspersons defining this outrage and demanding the Impeachment of any and all who supported this legislation.
Had he stood up and not participated in this skullduggery, he could have shown the resolve and strength that should exemplify his responsibilities of his Office as the President of the United States, thereby winning the admiration, respect, and appreciation of our Nation and the rest of the world.
Apparently and sadly, we do not have a functional Democracy.
It may be that our only salvation will be the formation of a new political party, assimilating those who did not and will not participate in this insidious charade.
Following this, I have included my original article, dated November 12, 2010.
mz
December 6, 2010
PRES. OBAMA: A FRAUD, CONFUSED, OR NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT?
Senator Obama, when he was running to represent the Democratic Party in its quest to win the 2008 Presidency, was very aggressive in his call for the elimination of the “so-called” Bush tax cuts for those with taxable incomes (T.I.’s) in excess of $250,000.
Subsequent to becoming President, Mr. Obama said that he would let the “so-called” Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s in excess of $250,000 expire at the end of 2010, according to the “sunset” provisions. The “popular” rationale was that it might damage the fragile economy if that portion of the Bush tax cuts were eliminated.
Prior to the 2010 national elections, Congress did not address the continuation of the “so-called” Bush tax cuts. It seems to me that it would have been great politics for the Democrats to pass an extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s under $250,000 prior to the 2010 elections. That was not done. Why?
What was the reason that this was not done, given that this was the stated desire of the Democrats and President Obama? It would have been the correct action to take and great politics preceding the 2010 elections.
The most rational and logical answer is that there never was any intention to allow those “tax errors” to expire.
Please note that I have re-characterized “so-called Bush tax cuts” as “tax errors”.
Alan Greenspan, on January 25, 2001, testified before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, regarding the “outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy”.
His testimony reflected that his biggest concern was the disposition of federal receipts once the national debt was paid off due to the “burgeoning federal surpluses”, which had been projected. His full testimony can be read @ federalreserve.gov
Thus, it appears that Mr. Greenspan lobbed a softball to Mr. Bush for the major tax “cut” of 2001. It was passed in an effort to mitigate the potential damages, as outlined by Mr. Greenspan, due to the projected “burgeoning federal surpluses”.
How many of our Senators and Representatives suggested that much, if not most, of these “projected” excess collections could be used to fill the shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Further, with some of those funds, we might have thought about repairing our bridges and roads, rather than to include such expenditures in a “stimulus” program.
The Fourth Estate should be posing the question to all who voted for this legislation: “Had you known then what you know, now, would you have voted in favor of that legislation?”
Thus, my conclusion that “tax cuts” be re-characterized as “tax errors”.
NOTES:
1. Our Senators and Representatives have “constituents” and “clients”.
2. Could it be that President Obama is a pawn?
3. Could President Obama be an example of the Peter Principle?
4. Is Nancy Pelosi’s protesting of the extension of the Bush tax “errors” a façade, since she did not bring this up for a vote, prior to the 2010 elections?
5. There is, absolutely, no rationale for the Democrats not to take the appropriate action without any Republican votes.
6. Errors, problems, pain, etc., are facts of life, but once these are recognized, efforts
should be put forth to eliminate or mitigate.
CONCLUSION: Anyone who votes to extend the Bush tax errors regarding T.I.’s in excess of $250,000, whether temporarily or permanently, should be Impeached and ousted.
As always, comments will be appreciated.
mz
November 12, 2010