Doublespeak on DemCare
What the GOP fails to realize is that President Obama is fighting so hard on health care reform because the issue, for him, is finishing the work of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement.
Obama is disingenuous when he says he seeks GOP input, as Republicans have twice introduced their version of health reform (here) and reintroduced it in late January 2010. He continuously says the GOP has not offered any ideas or a plan for health care reform, but he changes his story when he's face-to-face with the GOP. The GOP must grasp that when Obama states that "[h]ope and change have been the causes of my life," he is not lying. He will not change course or come to the realization that his policies are destroying the private sector and bankrupting the country, as some pundits predict.
When you look at health care reform, each political party is looking through different glasses; their visions and the goals of reform are polar opposites. The Democrats want a Medicare-for-all type of reform, with the federal government controlling the entire U.S. health care system and using mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth; while the Republicans simply base their reform on free-market principles, tort reform, and interstate competition.
Additionally, Obama and the Democrats have been very consistent on their goal of a single-payer health care system and the elimination of the private insurance industry.
Obama's policies reflect who he is; they are the vehicles that masquerade as hope and change, which are the mechanisms for social justice and economic justice -- "meaningful legislation" through wealth redistribution. And now, through health care "reform," Obama will attempt to finish the job of applying positive liberties (what the government can do for you), ultimately attempting to forsake the Constitution, which is a charter of negative liberties (what the government cannot do to you), to apply the final judgment of the Civil Rights movement. (link)
Doublespeak on the Economy
During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.
Today Barack Obama rewrote history. Barack Obama for the first time blamed George Bush for leaving him with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, or nearly all of his $1.4 trillion 2009 budget deficit. This is an awful lie and Barack Obama knows it.
In contrast, Obama has tripled the deficit in just one year. Remember:
But wait, there's even more, and it gets far more unconscionable:
This is shockingly disingenuous, even for a pathological liar like The One.
Doublespeak on Tax Increases
[Barack Obama] broke his no-middle-class-tax-hike pledge more than a year ago with the passage of the massive S-CHIP expansion funded with regressive skyrocketing tobacco tax increases. But never mind the pesky little details. President Obama now wants you to know he’s “agnostic” on breaking that pledge (again). This time, he’ll just blame it on the sham deficit commission he wants to set up as fall guys.
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.
Read Obama’s lips: Don’t believe anything that passes his lips. (link)
Doublespeak on Republican 'Obstructionism'
Barack Obama met with Democrats in Congress, following his televised meeting with House Republicans. After singing the sweet song of bipartisanship with the GOP, Obama proceeded to pander to the bruised feelings of Senate Democrats, assuring that it was the mean Republicans who had managed to bottle up his grand plans for reform:Hot Air gives us the ironic reality:
Today President Obama told Senate Democrats that they had faced “enormous procedural obstacles that are unprecedented..”
“You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and 1960s combined. That’s 20 years of obstruction jammed into just one.”
Not exactly. A filibuster is the successful blocking of legislation in the Senate by forcing a failed cloture vote. How many failed cloture votes occurred in 2009? Hugh had to get his abacus to count them all up:
This is astonishing. A filibuster is the successful use of 41 or more votes to prevent the closing of debate. There wasn’t a single filibuster in 2009. Not one.
The president will say anything to advance a narrative that makes him a victim of obstruction. It is clear that 2010 will be spent pivoting from his 2009 mantra of Bush’s fault to his campaign year blasts at the “do nothing Republicans.” (link)
Even if there had been a cascade of crashed cloture calls in 2009, let’s not forget that the Republicans only had 40 votes in 2009. By definition, any actual filibuster would have had to include at least one Democratic vote. And the one that did take place in 2010 was on NLRB nominee Craig Becker’s confirmation … that had at least two Democrats voting to support the Republican filibuster.
Heck, technically that represents … bipartisanship!
Actually, calling it doublespeak is being a little disingenuous on my part. I think it's more along the lines of a clinical disorder. Barack Obama is a pathological liar, and simply cannot be believed on anything he says. Period. No matter the topic, no matter the statement, no matter the setting. We have a wealth of demonstrable evidence that proves he will say anything about anything to anyone. We used to have a media in this country that would call out politicians on this sort of thing and prevent them from getting away with it. No longer. The media has voluntarily become essentially nothing more than a mouthpiece for Obama propaganda, so the only people pointing out these examples of dishonesty are the Right in the new media, and many normal, every day citizens at the grass roots level. It is that movement -- from person to person to person -- that is going to throw off the Democrat leadership this November in a big way. I look forward to seeing it happen.
There's my two cents.