Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

A Risk To Whom?

by The Reverend on August 1, 2008

in Uncategorized

The John McCain campaign, the Republican Party and the main media lackeys who serve them both, sensing the tremors of a possible Barack Obama avalanche win in November, have begun playing the political game of "risk". Obama, to hear his critics, is simply too risky to be elected president.

The Reverend wants to go on the record today in total agreement with this conservative scare tactic.

If American voters put Barack Obama in the White House, some Americans will be placed at risk.

The question then becomes: Who will be placed at risk with an Obama presidency and why?

Let's start with mainstream Knee Pad Media. Already I hear the complaining and the whining from those establishment loving servicers of power. They're complaining about access to Obama. Those in media who have been hand fed all those little lies and deceptions by the Bush regime, which they obediently and stenographically passed on to all of us as truth, will be at risk with an Obama presidency.

With an Obama presidency, these same Knee Pad Agents will actually have to come up with their own reporting instead of just repeating the White House's deception-filled storyline. That situation would, indeed, be risky for many Knee Pad Media members. Many of these Padders have never done any journalistic work in their lives, others think eating jelly donuts in the back of McCain's Crooked Talk Express IS journalism…..so it will be risky for these birds who have become so dependent on the establishment hand that feeds them daily.

Not to mention the cocktail parties where Knee Padders have been used to performing, like circus bears, as backup dancers for unindicted White House co-conspirators.

A second reason why Knee Pad Media Agents for the Status Quo(KPMASQ) will be placed at risk with an Obama presidency is the "show me the money" reason. Many of the media stars we see on our teevee, hear on our radios and read in our newspapers and magazines are millionaires. Barack Obama has promised to eliminate Bush tax cuts on those Americans making more than $200K per year. A PHD in mathematics is not required in order to compute the riskiness of an Obama presidency to these overpaid hacks masquerading as "journalists". Those in media making a million or more will have to pay an additional $91K in taxes per year if Obama has his way in the White House. That's a risk that millionaire Knee Padders simply can't take. Buffy or Biffy Padder would have to forego their annual new Mercedes purchase. Talk about risk.

No institution or group in America will be more at risk with a Barack Obama presidency than the "complex". This complex used to be called the military-industrial complex back in the day…..however, today, it's more appropriate to just call it the "complex". This "complex" is made up of all those corporations who have benefitted so greatly with the Bush-Cheney Salvation Army for Already Flush Corporations (SAAFC). Some in this group are the same folks who bribe congressional representatives to get what they want.

This "complex" now consists of telcos(home of the Knee Padders), oil, defense contractors, pharmaceuticals, Wall Street paper shufflers, and others. Obama's stated policies would be a big risk for these behemoths of greed. Ending illegal wars of choice, closing the Enron loophole, ending Bush and The Dick's tax cuts for the wealthiest, regulating the paper shufflers and the schemers…..would all be a huge risk for complex members.

Two quick examples of how the complex has benefitted from the George and Dick administration, and why Obama would be a risk to that same complex.

1) Medicare Plan D.

While I must admit, some non-complex Americans have benfitted from the donut-hole filled scam called Medicare Plan D, at the same time, the biggest beneficiary of Plan D was the pharmaceutical industry. Recently it was announced (quietly, naturally) that the phamaceutical complex "earned" $15 billion MORE from Plan D than they would have made under the previous system. The largesse was created, purposely, by moving discounted drug recipients on Medicaid to the new, non-discounted Medicare plan. Under an Obama presidency, Plan D pharmaceutical companies will be subject to government-negotiated bulk-purchasing. Barack Obama in the White House would place those undeserved gains by drug makers at risk.

2) Capital Gains Tax Rates.

A prime example of how the "complex" greatly benefitted from the non-risky Bush presidency is The Dick's capital gains tax cuts. The Dick told Paul O'Neil, former Bush Treasury head, that it was the Republicans "due" to cut capital gains tax rates. The Dick's "due" reduced already deep pocketed complex members rates of taxation below what most middle class Americans pay, while at the same time increasing the national debt. The complex didn't see any of this as risky. However, a Barack Obama presidency will be extremely risky for those .1% filthy rich Dicks who have grown accustomed to getting richer while the bulk of America's workers become poorer. Obama has promised to return the capital gains tax rates to what they were during our last period of NATIONAL prosperity, Bill Clinton's presidency.

So yes, a Barack Obama presidency would be risky. No doubt. An Obama presidency would not be risky for most Americans. But for that tiny minority in America who pull the strings of power, an Obama presidency, indeed, will be risky business.

Finally, here's Obama's shorter version of the risk factor…..

"'He's risky' — that's the argument… It's like, 'Well, we don't have very much to offer but he's risky.' And let me just say, it's true that change, change is hard. Change isn't easy. And the question you have to ask yourself is, 'What's more risky?’”

He added, "We are in a time right now where it is too risky not to change. It is risky to keep on doing what we are doing, to accept the tired status quo." Link

  • larry d.

    Stop with the coded junk, Reverend. It's obvious you're trying to smear McCain because he doesn't look like the Indian woman on that commemorative dollar coin that was released a few years back.

    The fear tactics aren't just ugly, they're racist, ageist and misogynist.

  • jimmy james

    Isn't McCain the one who called his wife the C-word. Now THAT's some real misogyny!

  • frank

    Rev,
    I wish I could share your enthusiam. Whatever lofty plans Obama has, he will have to get it through Congress. Unfortunately, even with a Democratic majority, it would be difficult. Remember what happened to Jimmy Carter.

  • The Reverend

    frank: Quite correct, you are. The best I can hope for is a cessation of the bloodletting. Both militaristically and economically.

    larry: Watched a BBC piece. Reporter said any mention of McCain's age was discriminatory. The 35-to-be-president rule should then be decribed as discriminatory youthism. No?

    jimmy: See, calling your wife a c**t can't be considered misogyny…..because it's his wife. Not too long ago a husband could kill his wife and get away with it if she was cheating on him. A wife is supposed to be submissive to her husband in all things. Part of those great American moral values.

  • http://politics.ohio.com/ Ben Keeler

    I think based on how the Democrats have reacted to recent ads, they are the one with the tremors.

  • Da King

    Yes, what possible risk could there be in electing an inexperienced candidate who has flip-flopped on nearly every issue ?

  • The Reverend

    A 72 year old cancer victim or a 47 year old fit man?

    The risk is with the 72 year old.

    A militarist who promises more wars or a sensible thinker who wants to minimize war?

    The risk is with the militarist.

    A hot headed alleged maverick who has sold out his integrity to run for prez or a very smart young senator who attracts voters and defeated the Clinton's?

    The risk is with the hot-head.

  • larry d.

    How is bombing and invading Pakistan minimizing war, Reverend?

    I've been wondering why you support a candidate who'd like to ramp up another Middle East war, who now supports offshore drilling and who is also now an active accomplice of that criminal George Bush and his telecommunications cronies?

    Shouldn't they be hauling Obama off in handcuffs?

  • The Reverend

    Not quite yet, larry. I'm sure Mitch McConnell and the fellas will get to that soon enough.

    McCain is too risky.

  • Da King

    "A 72 year old cancer victim or a 47 year old fit man?"

    That's why McCain should pick Mitt Romney as his VP. Romney is someone who, unlike Obama, has successful business and government management experience. Someone who, unlike Obama, doesn't simply pull it out of his arse as he goes along. I can barely believe they ever had the gall to call Romney a flip-flopper now. Compared to Obama the Human Jellyfish, Romney is a rock.

    "A militarist who promises more wars or a sensible thinker who wants to minimize war?"

    I hate to break it to you, Rev, but as Larry already pointed out, Obama is the militarist who wants to start more wars. He just wanted to lose the Iraq war first.

    "A hot headed alleged maverick who has sold out his integrity to run for prez or a very smart young senator who attracts voters and defeated the Clinton's?"

    Obama is the one who has sold out by changing his position on nearly every possible issue, so the choice there is McCain.
    And I guess you forgot, Hillary got more primary votes than Obama did.

  • The Reverend

    I can see now that the changing of the presidency won't affect, in the slightest, the wingnut narrative of faith.

    Obama is no flip-flopper. Is compromising, flip-flopping?

    Yeah, yeah, Obama is the militarist. That's why in 2002 he was against the Iraq invasion. Anyone who wants to actually go after the enemies of 9-11 is a militarist, while those who invade and occupy a non-threatening country are "winning".

    There is no war in Iraq at the present time.

    Hillary did not get more primary votes than Obama.

    And about Willard, the Mittster…..the radical far right has forced McCain to swallow quite a bit of pride already…..picking Willard would be like forcing him to eat his own waste. But then we're talking about the GOP.

  • frank

    Mr. King,
    Willard Romney? You've got to be kidding! Much of his business success resulted from throwing employees under the bus. His changes in positions on such things as gay marriage, abortion, etc. weren't just a matter of tweaking positions to make them more politically palatable, they were 180 degree changes on his core values. McCain would lose all of his support from the Obama is a Muslim crowd because of Romney's religion.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).