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. He's serving the people who put him in office. Those people don't need Social Security and Medicare. 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 Obama's ambassador to China. The rest would do much more harm to seniors than Obama concessions this time around (if they materialize) and people know that. Q: The national debt is at $14 trillion. Doesn't 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 won't 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: Isn't Obama forced to negotiate some budget cuts due to the Republican threat to vote against raising the national debt ceiling? 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 isn't 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 rax). They can protect the Bush administration's 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: Aren't you saying that the president doesn't 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 I'm saying. The president might call it "shared sacrifice" 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 terms. This president will never do a single thing to oppose the 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 hasn't 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 can't get there from here as long as they control the political scene for their patrons, The Money Party..
Q: Doesn't the president need to worry about reelection? Why would he risk that by going against such a large majority?
