1. 1a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowablebroadlyone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a godObviously the first definition which most assume is the meaning of the word doesn't fit. The second one looks to be a definition someone would use for a politician if their favorite vote is to vote 'PRESENT' which describes this President. Anything controversial in the IL Senate, he voted 'PRESENT.' In the US Senate he wouldn't show up for the vote. Now that Obama is President he still cannot make up his mind.
2. 2a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something - political
What was that he declared during the campaign over and over? No new taxes on any one making under $250,000 a year? Guess that has flown out the window with the rest of the campaign promises rhetoric. It has become perfectly clear in the last year what he reads from his teleprompter in a lot of instances is breaking his campaign promises. After Obama reads, then Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, tries to weasel word that Obama really isn't breaking the promises. It would be Comedy Central if it wasn't so serious.
If Obama was a Republican, the mainstream press would have already be attacking him for not being able to make a decision and for considering going back on his 'no new tax pledge.' Remember how the media went after Bush 41 for breaking his 'Read My Lips' no new tax pledge. They were relentless in carrying the Democrats water against Bush 41.
How many of the commentators and writers that cover for Obama attend his weekly parties in the White House? BTW, the one this week was moved to Tuesday so not to interfer with the snow storm. Will someone in the media explain to us why the taxpayers are paying for these weekly parties? We are also still waiting for the explanation from Pelosi about all the money spent illegally for her to have her children/grandchildren flown around by the Air Force plus all the money spent on liquor and food.
Instead of tax hikes, this Administration should be talking about how they can cut back their lavish life style they are living on the taxpayer's nickle and clipping off Pelosi's wings. That would be a start in getting the White House budget under control. With so many people out of work and no where to turn, it would be a symbolic start in the right direction but not this group. They will party to the end taking trips at a moment's notice.
President Obama Now Says He's 'Agnostic' On Possible Tax Hikes For Households Below $250K a Year
New York Daily News
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Kenneth R. Bazinet
President Obama says he is now "agnostic" about raising taxes on households making under $250,000 a year to help cut budget deficits, signaling a possible retreat from a campaign pledge.
In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek on newsstands Friday, Obama said a presidential budget commission needs to look at all options for deficit reduction - including tax increases and cuts in spending on such programs as Social Security and Medicare.
"The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table," Obama said. "So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions."
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 campaign to spare households earning less than $250,000 a year from tax increases.
Excerpt: Read more at nydailynews.com
We admit that we never thought we would see Obama say anything close that he and his administration are 'fiece free market advocates.' Just like the 'no next taxes' his words mean ZERO! Nothing about this administration has led anyone to believe they support the 'free market' economy. Zero, zip, nada!
Have to admit the chutzpah of his comments on the 'free market' take the cake. Nationalizing car companies and choosing which dealers stay or close is not 'free market' no matter how much he spins.
Bloomberg -- Obama Says He’s ‘Fierce’ Free-Market Advocate, Rejects Critics
All politicians tailor their remarks to different audiences, but this is ridiculous.
In an interview with Bloomberg News President Obama said he and his administration were “fierce advocates” of the free market.
It should be a caution to the president that his statement now sounds like a bad punch line. While voters once gave credence to his claims of being an unwilling implementer of a centrally-planned economy, say when he was nationalizing two failed carmakers or forcing banks to take bailouts they tried to refuse, a year later no one is buying.
The president told writers Mike Dorning and Julianna Goldman that the complaints from the Left that he was “being in the pockets of big business” and complaints from the Right that he was “anti-business” as proof of his equanimity and balanced approach. But both things can actually be true.
Obama went to pains in the interview to defend the fat bonuses of his friend and adviser Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and political bankroller Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, comparing their compensation to that of champion athletes. Obama’s embrace of some big bonuses comes after weeks of Lonesome Rhodes-style rhetoric about the “fat cats” and after Wall Street donors sent their warning shot that they would be just as happy funding Republicans.
The complaint, and it’s hardly just on the Left, isn’t that Obama is in “the pockets of big business” but that he is helpful to some and hurtful to others – that he wants to pick winners and losers.
What makes this, and the full article that will follow in BusinessWeek absolute must reading is to see how disconnected Obama really has become. While you could once say that Obama was just bluffing about these assertions, it’s pretty clear now that his much-vaunted Socratic model of management has produced a new kind of groupthink bubble. It just takes longer to be affirming.
“‘We are pro-growth,’ Obama said. ‘We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.’”
Source: Washington Examiner Morning Must Reads
Raw Story 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment