“We have to make sacrifices together,” says Obama just before I mute the broadcast noise. Broadcast noise includes Barack Obama’s incessant speech-foot-stomping gimme-demands in that spoiled-child tone of his.
The tone, then the petulant stare at the teleprompter while faking a look at a human audience, his lower lip area expanded — by what, his tongue stuffed downward in front of his teeth — to push himself farther out into other people’s faces, an ugly gesture certainly, but not as ugly as the overall performance. Under semblance of “helping our economy,” Barack Obama demands more of your money to fund what he never defines with any specificity, other than someone — just not him — “owes it” to wherever he has in mind to redirect it.
Remember the Stimulus I billions? Remember the (so-called) “Health Care Plan”? The temper-tantrum demands those be “passed now” despite them not being written at the time of demands (or even soon afterward, having passed despite not being written or read, solely due to “demands” by Obama and the Democrats). So those deals are now being exposed to have been fraught with fraud, ripoffs, to have been Obama’s “gimme” schemes that wrecked our economy and ruined most of our futures: no helps, no “savings” involved, just more debt, more liabilities, more of that “free gimme stuff” handed out, “redirected” as Obama “spread the wealth around” if not simply took it away along with future opportunities for millions of Americans, groceries and goods today that cost over twice what they did two and three years ago…
“We will not have a one-sided event that hurts the most vulnerable people,” says Obama. “We”? And when were “the most vulnerable people” at odds of being “hurt” by our nation? Vastly increased expenditures in food stamps, education, housing, unemployment payments, “free cars” or nearly free by way of tax credits to seller and buyer, cash by the truckloads sent off to “green industries” and other associates of Obama’s…
Meanwhile, “the most vulnerable people” per Obama’s phrase — who he says he won’t allow to be “hurt” — who, exactly, are they? And note carefully how it is that Obama never defines just who they are, he instead continues to use a general abandoned-kittens-and-puppies reference (“the most vulnerable people”) and appears to intentionally avoid, continually, routinely, to never define just who “they” are. Since our nation has gone into a great deal of debt to compensate for the poor and needy among us, just who are “the (more) vulnerable” than those?
Obama’s already supported cuts to Medicare (and lied about while campaigning for the Presidency), so “the most vulnerable people” have to be “other-than-Medicare-recipients” (or, whoever it is who isn’t eligible for that program). That means, these “most vulnerable” are not the elderly and disabled, as to those among the elderly and disabled who are enrolled in Medicare. And Medicare has already been vastly impacted badly by the dreadful “Obamacare” mess that’s in place, also unexplained for the most part and greatly threatening every elderly and disabled futures as to medical care and, thus, their lives.
Are Obama’s Democrat-lobbyist “associates” “the most vulnerable people”? They appear to have been just that as to Obama’s earlier demands to fork-over billions to fund unwritten Plans that existed only within his and the Democratic Party’s political schemes. are unions “the most vulnerable people”? The list of Democratic-Party-associates goes on and on and somehow, whenever Obama or most the rest of the Democrats refer to “helping the most vulnerable people” or say they want to avoid “hurting the most vulnerable people,” it always boils down to — later, once the money is gone and the facts become known as to where it went and for what — it boils down to political operatives and political paybacks and payoffs and players-in-general have been the recipients of a lot of other people’s money and the American economy (that means, the taxpayers) are left with the liabilities: no gain, a lot of pain, less money available for more and more expensive goods and services with a well-padded bunch of Democrats cheering other people’s loss.
Just who are “the most vulnerable of people” per Obama? And why the class-warfare of using “people” to threaten other “people” to fork-over their money? It’s certainly not charity — non-political response for moral, ethical and/or religious reasons that are moral and ethical — that Obama uses as threat to some and enticement to others. So it’s political threat that Obama engages in: “people” in Obamabonics means whichever political grouping he knows he carries weight with who he demands be carried financially by someone else “because” they’re favored to his political goals. He uses “people” as a general catch-all term for a dubious reason to wage class-warfare while his other behaviors reveal that he most certainly is a prejudiced individual with a lot of animosity and resentment toward a lot of other people, usually all of “types” who question him, don’t “love” him, if his own pleas can even be believed (“if you love me, [you’ll pass my plan],” said Obama the Fist).
Obama also denies that what he’s engaged in is class-warfare (all this I heard or read onscreen before or after the mute button was engaged moments ago in this latest of Barack Obama’s temper-tantrums from the White House where he puts his feet on the furniture, drinks beer on the job and escapes from on many a recurring vacation — another one of which is coming up at this very time — when he isn’t having parties indoors and out (who knew the Presidency was the inland equivalent of a private cruise on a luxury liner with luxury-island-stops every few weeks while the motor was left running anchored in the bay).
I recall reading a bit about Obama’s childhood details from among the spartan bits We The People have been “allowed” to access. Something about Boy-Barack’s dreadful temper tantrums such that his mother sent him off to live with her parents, Boy-Barack’s grandparents, in Hawaii. The tale goes on that Boy-Barack would throw temper tantrums so severe that his mother would put him in a closet (very bad behavior by that woman, but I digress) after Boy-Barack would kick at her, hold his breath, yell…a generally awful tantrum behavior he’d taken to using to “get his way” as to whatever he wanted.
I agree that he sounds as if he was a behaviorally and emotionally disturbed child, but he also displays a continuation of those characteristics and behaviors as an adult. Obviously, a refusal and/or inability by a parent (Obama’s mother) to address his disturbed behavior, which has resulted in that child-now-become-adult still afflicted by the same abnormalities.
And today, it is not his mother but We The People who are the target of his temper-tantrums from the podium during near-weekly threatening speeches which all generally boil down to: “gimme what I want nowwww ::kickingkickingkicking:: nowwww, do it nowwww, gimme, I hate you, you don’t love me, give it to me nowwww ::kickingkickingkicking::…”
I certainly do not advocate putting any child in a closet followed by sending the child “off” to places wherever to find peace from the threats, taunts, tantrums, but, I also certainly don’t advocate giving anyone — child or adult in years — what they demand when those demands are unspecific, delivered with threats, taunts, even lies as all in Obama’s case toward the American taxpayers.
When, under guise of leadership, one is threatened with harms if not destruction (“to save our economy, we must all share in sacrifice,” a paraphrasing of what Obama has said many times over now and what he has threatened): the economy won’t be “saved” unless “we” (a lie, he’s not referring to “we” in any shared, mutual sense among citizens, he’s speaking about a particular political-class of persons he’s targeting for purposes of seizing goods and resources, so there’s nothing approaching “shared sacrifice” in what he’s threatening), and, if those threatened don’t comply with his threats, the economy will “fail”, which avoids Obama admitting to and reconciling with We The People how his irresponsibility in Office has vastly placed our economy in failure.
So, all in all, this is ongoing class-warfare threatening by a person engaged in ongoing tantrum against…against…his mother, his absent father? Hey, you, gimme, you, gimme, ::kickingkickingkicking:: or else I’ll… If not against his parents, certainly against We The People who Barack Obama perceives as being in the way of him getting-his-gimme. These are the headlines today:
Obama announces debt plan built on taxes on rich
– by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, September 19, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. “We can’t just cut our way out of this hole,” the president said.
The president’s proposal would predominantly hit upper income taxpayers but would also reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama’s recommendation to a joint congressional committee served as a sharp counterpoint to Republican lawmakers, who have insisted that tax increases should play no part in taming the nation’s escalating national debt. Obama’s plan would end Bush-era tax cuts for top earners and would limit their deductions.
“It’s only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share,” Obama said from the Rose Garden at the White House.
Responding to a complaint from Republicans about his proposed tax on the wealthy, Obama added: “This is not class warfare. It’s math.”
Obama vowed to veto any deficit reduction package that cuts benefits to Medicare recipients but does not contain revenue increases.
The Republican reaction was swift and derisive.
“Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth-or even meaningful deficit reduction,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement issued minutes after the president’s announcement. “The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.” ( — Continued ).