Obama got a huge win this week from Justice Roberts….and yet he’s flying around in Air Force One begging for campaign money. Literally.
Was this story intentionally leaked by Barry’s people? Or just leaked? I’m going with intentionally leaked. Barry’s description of Mittens here is silly (McCain was sane relative to what we face this time!!!!) and meant for the pliable ears of small Dem donors across the land.
Related articles
- In Anxious Conference Call, Obama Asks Donors To Send More Money (huffingtonpost.com)
http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/mo-money/
Of course it was intentionally leaked.
They’re desperate for money. Not because smart creative people couldn’t run an effective campaign for Obama against Romney with the huge money they have and are taking in, not to mention the campaign financial scams a President’s team uses from our coffers and the White House. No, it’s because they’re greedy and lazy and want dumpsters full of cash for their extravagant spending.
I’ve received five emails this weekend begging for money, from Barack and Howard (Dean) and Donna (Brazile) and Michele and my Democratic Congressman and of course Debbie. They’re all my friends now donchaknow, first name buddies even though I loathe every single one of them. They’re just disgusting deceitful gluttonous shameless whores reeking of plague. And yes I reply emailed that line to each of them.
So yesterday I received the most pathetic plea I’ve seen yet (from “Debbie”).
The pitch was, essentially, “Send us 3 bucks, and we won’t email you anymore today.”
That sounds pretty close to extortion to me – especially since I’ve “unsubscribed” from their emails 26 timee.
The pitch was, essentially, “Send us 3 bucks, and we won’t email you anymore today.”
***
What the fuck??? That’s so distasteful I don’t want to abbreviate my disgust.
It was the first line of her email that annoyed me the most.
Ima Puma got 4 emails in one day asking for $3 — from Debbie Downer, Dean, the generic DNC, and teh Messiah Himself.
In answer to John’s question: yes, if you give him enough money he will roll over and fetch. He’ll roll over on everything and fetch you anything you want, while Michelle gets you a cold one from the fridge and Sasha and Malia rub your feet. Don’t believe me? Just ask the big banks and the health insurance companies (or Solyndra, for that matter).
Just thought I’d let you know that when I clicked on your link (apparently to The Daily Beast article), I got a malware warning. Following the link to see what was up, I got this:
Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for http://www.thedailybeast.com
What is the current listing status for http://www.thedailybeast.com?
This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 1797 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-07-01, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-07-01.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including online-open.com/.
1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including progressivethink.com/. (bold mine)
This site was hosted on 2 network(s) including AS14618 (AMAZON), AS16509 (AMAZON).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, http://www.thedailybeast.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
Next steps:
Return to the previous page.
If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google’s Webmaster Help Center.
Wow. Thanks Anthony. I switched out that link with crayfisher
I’m thinking the Obot trolls flagged them to prevent the further distribution of this rather humiliating article. They’ve certainly done it before.
Interesting article about Roberts’ process on this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
making it an option for the individual states could very well impact governors’ races.
Maybe Obama could get John Travolta’s masseurs to donate all proceeds to his campaign. It’s an angle.
LOL! Perfect opportunity to share a Joan Rivers tweet, so thank you.
Proving once again that Joan doesn’t ‘go there’, she lives there.
Wow on Joan Rivers! I’m soooo going to follow her on Twitter.
I don’t think Obama got a huge win from Roberts. Whether or not you believe the spin that Roberts had some ulterior long-term plan in ruling the way he did (I’m not convinced either way), the fact is I think Barry was HOPING that SCOTUS would strike Obamacare down. It would have made the perfect issue for him to run on (“See, we gave you FREE health care and those evil mean Bush appointees took it away from you! BUSH’S FAULT!) and energize the base with. What’s more, I think a lot of Dems, perhaps some in Obama’s circle, realize that Obamacare is vastly unpopular, with many on the left as well as the right, albeit for different reasons. Having it struck down would’ve been a way to get rid of the bad baggage without admitting they made OneBigAssMistakeAmerica. Now, they are stuck with it; they have a big crap sandwich in their pocket and they have to try to convice America that smell is succulent roast beef “aging.” That’s a hard sell, even for a bunch of gifted professional liars.
Obfu…At least it’s a distraction from the economy,. He can sell his HC to the same folks who are still waiting for him to pay their mortgage and put gas in their cars, and they will eat it up, because they think its’ Free.
Think of the scam possibilities the HC law presents. More working under the table, more getting paid in cash, anything to stay under that magic number where someone has to start paying for their own insurance.
Sophie and readers, are those (few?) of us who have worker-provided insurance–as we watch deductibles increase and coverage decrease each “renewal period”–any better or worse off with O-care? What’s the bottom line? My feeling is most of us get screwed over no matter what. Insurers jack up fees for us to cover the uninsured whom hospitals must take in; whether as policy holders or tax payers, lots of us sense we’re going to pay more for those who have less, but I wonder how this will have an impact on our work-provided policies, rates, and options. Moral obligation I understand, but financially, anyone have an estimate on how “average” folks in the workforce will lose or gain?
I also wonder: as we face an increasingly obese, overweight, poorly-nourished society, how costs will escalate from now on. How much will covering pre-existing conditions add? I am not debating the morality, but asking for data. This is suspected as classist or racist to raise, among those who venerate our incumbent and his cronies, but/so I ask it here.
Also, if the healthcare plan had been sold to us originally as a “tax,” would it have ever gotten the support of Congress and the Dems? Or is this a bait and switch? This might be how it can be played against the re-election hopes, which I sense will rise and not fall.
“Insurers jack up fees for us to cover the uninsured whom hospitals must take in”
I don’t believe this is even a small part of the whole story.
A third house for the doctors and the executives at the insurance and drug companies adds to the expansion of prices as substantially.
Thanks, Sophie, JWS below, and as to Jay here: as a fellow Angeleno, see this column in a series Steve Lopez did for the LAT last spring. It states that hospitals charge far more for procedures insurance pays for than if costs came out of pocket, and also that our local hospitals charge more to cover those who do not pay their share. Lopez figures that the O-care will improve on the situation, but I have my doubts. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/31/local/la-me-lopez-erfollowup-20120401
I’m aware of that drumbeat, Fio. My point is that it’s convenient to blame the uninsured’s use of emergency rooms for the sham that is health insurance. I stand by my assertion that executive compensation at all levels of the current system is a larger problem.
^ Me.
Fio, I wish I could answer that, but my deep and hard earned cynicism on healthcare would wreck any answer I could give.. I guess we will have to wait and see..As I see it, this is another redistribution scheme, to buy votes. Medicaid is already is filled with waste and corruption, this will make it worse.
In a sensible world, Congress would have and should have , required major employers to carry some form of medical insurance for their employees. The heirs to the Walmart empire hold as much wealth, as the bottom 30% of the population, yet they limit most employees to less than 40 hours a week, to avoid giving them insurance. And it’s not just Walmart, many others follow suit. So instead of endangering political contributions, Congress steps in and offers to have the populace pay the bill for them. Congress is like a rich uncle to so many of these companies, it is disgraceful. If there is a bright side, it is that the economy is so horrible, the States are broke, so this whole scheme will likely collapse of it’s own weight.
Fio,
I’m no expert but so far evidence I’ve read suggests that smaller companies will just drop coverage and deal with fines. Many small companies won’t even have fines. Larger employers will get the best deal they can – which means employees will pay more. See comment above re: Walmart. And here’s the real deal with the mandate – it’s wrong on principle as far as I’m concerned. However, the TAX is nominal – many will still go without and deal with the tax. The mandate has no teeth. The “stay on your parents policy until you’re 26″ is the smartest thing in the law. It moves the ball back for many young people who would not bother to get coverage on their own. Of course, the parent’s coverage will now get worse in many cases.
And given the state of the states “exchanges” aren’t likely to appeal to many except the very poor which are often the least healthy. This has to be paid for somehow.
My hunch is that premiums will go up up up. Though this may not happen until after november as Big Insurance won this week and won’t want to jump the gun. As for state/city employees – that wreckage has already commenced. Wisconsin was not the last stop, it was the first. Stockton, CA a sizable city just declared bankruptcy – which means going forward many cities will play hard ball with benefits. This is not Obamacare’s fault but it goes to the era we are entering which is one of downsizing and gutting public unions.
I suspect if this plays out unchanged – which is largely dependent on the election – the decoupling of people from their good insurance to worse policies will commence in ernest in 2013. Of course, poor and working class people will bear the brunt of this. One has to wonder who will take “exchange” insurance. The middle class is also in for a shock.
The only group who won’t be hurt are the first wave boomers – which goes to my theory that they intend to wreck the entire house then drive off and die…eventually.
This says it all:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/06/friday-afternoon-roundup-steal-their.html
If Obama sounded “anxious” in his conference call, it is because his script called for him to sound anxious. Playing his minions like fiddles again.
There is nothing genuine about him- nothing.
John, I hope you are referring to some other boomers, rather than the group I came of age with.
I have never known my contemporaries to expect Anything from the gov’t. Most of us worked hard all our lives, and taking handouts was considered shameful, unless one was disabled or a veteran.
I know there is a group of older seniors who seem to think Medicare and Soc Sec. is a ‘right’, and it is, as they paid into it all their lives. Even so, I think both programs should be means tested, in order to survive. Soc Sec should not be used to pay greens fees or make Mercedes payments, so from that point of view, I agree with you. All taxpayers ‘pay into’ programs they will never use or need, it’s just part of life in a civilized country. Unfortunately, the number of seniors who can use SocSec for mad money is decreasing rapidly..as are the numbers of younger workers who pay into it. We are headed for Catch-22 world at a pretty fast clip..
My peers and I came up at a time when wages were often related to effort and results, and special exceptions were rare. A bad attitude or rudeness would have resulted in a quick trip to the exit door. Not so much today. Most of us never used the word ‘entitled’ in our lives. I don’t know who those selfish Boomers are who wrecked everything, but I never knew any of them. I don’t doubt that they exist, I just haven’t met any.
“The only group who won’t be hurt are the first wave boomers – which goes to my theory that they intend to wreck the entire house then drive off and die…eventually. ”
Well, excuse me all to hell. God knows we did nothing to improve this country. We joyfully sent off our male classmates to war (except the ones who got medical exemptions because they got their heads smashed in in police riots), stayed home and made perfect little housewives (except for those who wound up on a slab due to botched illegal abortions), worshiped at the altar of wasp corporatism, gave not one whit about civil rights, and generally had a jolly good time.
Then when told it’s time for us to move aside, we still supported the war-mongering corporate whore (according to Joseph Cannon) Hillary, and the rest is history.
FU.
I have to leave my comment about Boomers, too, because John and I are in the same cohort, and I used to have quite a lot of baggage about boomer bigotry (not saying that John shares that, ftr) before I had a few revelations. It’s natural for people in our cohorts to feel anger towards the boomers, because ours is the smallest modern generation (1969 or 1970, IIRC, had the lowest birthrate on record) and we have constantly been smothered under the weight of the boomers.
But boomers are not to blame for their weight. They did not ask to be born, nor did they ask to be born in such numbers. You have to really look at a demographic map of elementary school aged children in the mid-50s to really understand what a juggernaut the boom was. It was going to roll over whatever came after, and continue to for the rest of its natural life. It is just huge.
That said, there is the perception that boomers were the hippie class of the 1960s, but that’s not entirely true. There’s an early boom and a late boom and the two groups are decidedly different in make up. The early wave was much more conservative, much more accepting of their parental attitudes. My mother is one of these. Her group genuinely wanted progress, but would only go so far rocking the boat.
My uncle, who came much later, is of the later boom wave. His group is the one that stood in their fathers’ faces and told them whatfor every chance they got, then went out and found out life is hard, and made worse choices because of their arrogance, leading to the generation that comes just after mine, the millenials. The dysfunction of late boomers is writ large all over this group. Their failed marriages and lifestyles engendered a much greater resentment of any kind of authority than early boomers ever wrought. We’re seeing the fruits of their labor run the streets as anarchist for OWS and as the thoughtless class of Odiots that elected this president.
But John is right, the first wave of boomers will be the least affected by these changes, and that is fair. They have paid into the system all their working lives and to change the rules on them as soon as they get to retirement is unfair. Of course people born later will bear the brunt of this. I don’t think this is what they planned or wanted, though. I don’t think it was their intention to burn and leave; I think that was very much the plan of the second half of the boomer wave, the ones that to this day can’t keep a regular job, have had multiple marriages, and benefited enormously from the irony of things like government funded addiction recovery. They irrevocably changed the structure of the our culture and the family forever. Remember that the violence & hostility of the boomers didn’t start until these folks aged into the system, starting in the LATE sixties. There has always been a much greater sense of futility among this group than the earlier group, much more of a destructive bend.
That said, returning hostility for hostility will not change the game. Yes, it’s laughable that a certain class of boomer complained so bitterly about the failings of their family life growing up, then grew up to offer us Gen Xers even less, but hating them is not the answer. Blaming them is not the answer. The millenials are coming up now, and they are every bit as bad, every bit as subject to group think thanks to the dynamic of their numbers. If we pursue a hostile approach, we, the Gen Xers, will finds ourselves squeezed between the two biggest generations ever to be born in our country, and we will get nothing, not even the power we are banking on in our golden years, to which every generation that came before us has been entitled. I don’t know what the answer is or what our role will be, but I know we will have to choose it very carefully or we will have a lifetime of nothing but getting rolled.
HMMM not sure where to go with all this Boomer resentment. My oldest sib died last year- just into his 68th year. So he did not collect much of what he had paid into all his life. Oldest Sis? She worked til 66- had planned on working til 70- but is now taking care of Mom and working part time- after a life spent raising Lord knows how many foster children, working at the airport and living through the hell changes after 9/11, did I mention she adopted two of the foster kids? She had no intention of destroying anything. She did/does her best to leave her part of the world just a little better. She dragged herself back up after her prick of a hsband left her, saved and saved, and her 401k took the same hit as the rest of us- but she has not the time to recover. The next older Sis and her husband have worked all their lives, actively volunteer in their church and community and she is still teaching the 4 -5 yr old again not trying to destroy anything- but trying to leave some good behind. Both of them drove school buses for years and she worked her ass off the get her degree. Their savings- and they are both very frugal- took the same hit as the rest of us. She can NOT retire- and he is into his 70′s and still working part time.
As most know, I am on disability- and actively looking, desperately seeking an employer willing to hire me- as disability is not enough to live on and can’t touch the little that is left in the IRA and 401k. I was a mid 1950′s baby- and no I had no intention of sucking up the planet before I die. My younger Sis gave 17 yrs to the United States Air Force. The next younger brother has had his ups and downs- but he too cares about his community and his family. The youngest brother works his ass off- the poor boys- 1960 and 1966 babies- tell me again what age they can retire under the new and improved system that upped the age for all of us?
The government raids Social Security for a whole host of programs, social and otherwise. And for those of us who had the rules change mid-stream it sucks. We paid and paid and paid- and tried to save. Reduced, reused and recycled.The older Boomers worked for Civil Rights, for the ERA, we spoke out against the VietNam War, against the Bush Wars. We did more with less.
And will be living out what should have been our retirement years working and scrambling- and praying we die before we have to go on the dole or eat out of dumpsters.
But yeah- we boomers
Jeebus! What boomers are those? The Kennedys?
Oops. Hit a nerve. Sorry. I’m not talking about any one individual of course. I am saying that the life post war boomers had will not be happening for anyone under 40. Nor will the retirements. The blow can be softened but that’s about it. Even that isn’t being seriously discussed. Have at me, I’m fine with that. The generational/demographic divide is real though. That party is over no matter who wins this time or next. I’m pointing out that fact.
And people under forty are paying into a system that won’t work for them – and most know it on some level. That’s just demographics. I may have been to harsh in my comment but the reality on the ground will be the same. A huge population bubble is moving thru and when it’s gone the seething resentment will be very real. The debt won’t go away. In so much as the GOP needs to come up with a viable HC plan the Dems needs to seriously address the debt/entitlement issue.
I do agree about the reality that will be left, and the resentment will ratchet up, which boomers will not have to face. It’s not their fault they were born, but the damage done in their name will ripple through decades, if not centuries.
Sorry, this is one of my favorite topics to discuss. I’m always looking for the angle that will diffuse the ticking bomb. Because our generation is smallest, and I’m the smallest of the smallest of the smallest (in stature), thus destined to face those harsh conditions more severely.
I wish I could find the table again that started changed my thinking. At a certain point in America (at the height of the boom) people under five years old outnumbered every single other demographic in America. It’s hard to work up anger at 5 year olds.
*toddlers, not 5 year olds
also *age-specific demographic
Blame the beer. I do.
I find this topic under discussed as well. Younger people are being hosed – kinda to their faces too. This is not to blame anyone – but while money can be conjured in the short term (see the Fed since 2008) debt becomes real eventually. What we are seeing in Spain is not that far afield from our situation.
I think taxes should be higher on the rich however I’m not foolish enough to think that will solve anything. It won’t. And it won’t happen anyway. The rich run the show on all fronts now. Drawing down the ridiculous size of the military will also help though I hold out no hope of sanity on this issue. Again, too many fingers in that pie.
so what I see happening is a large pool of people gobbling up resources – as a group – and they may well need and have a right to those resources – but when it’s over the result will be the same: a lot of younger people will be left holding the bag. It’s already started. Look around. We’re going 3rd world already.
Or Iran circa 1978, for that matter. People forget how many middle aged and older people died during that uprising, and the huge hole it left for young people to fill. Now they’ve got an entirely imbalanced population. Waaaaay too many young people, and another time bomb set to go off. Protests are one thing, riots and revolution are entirely another.
A big help in resolving these issues would be a healthy economy….right now, even a lukewarm one would help.
Yes but it’s not going to happen. No chance of it at all now. The last chance of a turn around into a healthy economy was lost by the direction our nation chose in 2008. The Millenial/GenX bullying and Boomer go-along –for Obama, but really it’s bigger than that– sealed this.
This is one of my favorite topics as well, and Lola I think your long detailed post above is spot-on.