Obama really WANTS to destroy Social Security?

Thursday, August 26th, 2010 · 18 Comments »

That’s the claim of Jill (Brilliant at Breakfast) in this post, aptly titled Barack Obama really, really, really, really WANTS to destroy Social Security :

I always knew that he wasn’t the raging leftist he was painted to be. I took a lot of flak from a lot of people during the primaries for not seeing Barack Obama as the progressive savior we’d been waiting for. That the guy I supported turned out to be a personal trainwreck doesn’t change the fact that we found out everything we needed to know about Barack Obama in 2004, when he sat on his hands when the late, great Stephanie Tubbs-Jones needed a Senator to co-sign her objection to certifying the highly suspect Ohio election results, and then selected the odious sellout Joe Lieberman as his mentor.

Oh, I had some hopes about him; not the “hopey-changey” stuff that Sarah Palin likes to mock, but some hope that perhaps he would feel the responsiblity that accompanied the work of the people who got him elected. When he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, that hope was enhanced somewhat. But by the end of his first year in office, it became clear that Barack Obama was always going to be more concerned with being conciliatory towards those who hated him and would never regard him as a legitimate president than with the concerns of those who got him elected.

But despite my doubts about Barack Obama, even I never dreamed that he’d be so bound and determined to be the guy who presided over the destruction of Social Security.

Credit where it’s due: lambert (Corrente) has been dreaming that exact nightmare about Obama for years now. “Only Nixon could go to China,” as he likes to say.

To tell you the truth, though, I’m still not convinced that Obama actually wants anything, at least not in a political sense. He seems to me an utter blank. He’s a self-propelling election device that exists solely to get itself elected. It continues to amaze me that so many people somehow thought this empty suit was a savior. Even his campaign message was just a recycled leftover from one of Axelrod’s earlier clients.

So what does he want? I don’t know. Perhaps he has obligations to his financial backers. Wall Street bankrolled his campaign, and those vampires have been slavering for a chunk of Social Security for years now. Maybe there was a deal. Who the fuck knows.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

18 Responses to “Obama really WANTS to destroy Social Security?”

  1. Unree says:

    He’s a self-propelling election device that exists solely to get itself elected.

    Perfection.

    Perhaps he has obligations to his financial backers. Wall Street bankrolled his campaign, and those vampires have been slavering for a chunk of Social Security for years now. Maybe there was a deal. Who the fuck knows.

    Possibly: but Obama wouldn’t need a deal to feel obliged and in thrall. One of the successes he hasn’t achieved in his career is making a huge pile of money. I think he deeply reveres these Wall Street dudes, thinks that at some level they are better than he, and desires to obey their bidding.

  2. OldCoastie says:

    I suspect Obama goes wherever the money leads… putting SS funds into the stock market should get him a lot when he leaves office.

  3. K.A. says:

    He’s a self-propelling election device that exists solely to get itself elected. It continues to amaze me that so many people somehow thought this empty suit was a savior.

    Word!

  4. Adrienne in CA says:

    I don’t think it matters what Obama himself wants. His Wall Street backers need our SS savings to sustain their gambling habit, and Obama either lacks the will or the wherewithal to say no. His personal philosophy may be a cipher — may even be liberal — but his history of preferring compromise over principled confrontation was obvious going in, and he hasn’t retreated from that pattern one bit.

    He’s just weak.

    *****A

  5. monchichipox says:

    He’s a self-propelling election device that exists solely to get itself elected. It continues to amaze me that so many people somehow thought this empty suit was a savior.

    All I can do is third that.

  6. anna says:

    No post for Women’s Equality Day?

    August 26, 2010: Ninety years to the day since American women won the vote.

  7. quixote says:

    (Anna, when women’s equality is a fact, that’s when I’ll celebrate. Getting the vote is starting to look like a shrinking step on that road.)

    Re Obama’s philosophy: going by deeds rather than words, it seems to be getting in with the Chateau Lafitte-sipping, kobe beef-eating, private jet-owning set … and becoming a different species from the little people. One of his law professors was surprised to hear that Obama was running as a Democrat. “I always thought he was a Republican,” he said.

  8. Sameol says:

    Didn’t he say during the campaign that Social Security was on the table? Was that one of those things we were supposed to believe he just didn’t mean as the great non-vagina-ed preternatural liberal champion?

  9. Violet Socks says:

    anna says:

    No post for Women’s Equality Day?

    Now how in the hell am I supposed to keep up my super-secret double life when people ask questions like that straight out?

  10. Ciccina says:

    Possibly: but Obama wouldn’t need a deal to feel obliged and in thrall. One of the successes he hasn’t achieved in his career is making a huge pile of money. I think he deeply reveres these Wall Street dudes, thinks that at some level they are better than he, and desires to obey their bidding.

    I agree. The “follow the money” impulse is wrong in Obama’s case; its not a matter of him doing the bidding of these people — he is these people. Or wants to be them – and I think he’s succeeded.

    I felt the same way about George W. and Cheney – I’d cringe when the enviros, etc., would say they were paid off by big oil, big polluters, and military contractors. It implied that their true selves wouldn’t have acted that way, but for the payoffs. In fact they *were* big oil, big polluters, and rainmakers for military contractors.

  11. Lori says:

    I think Obama is a guy who wanted to become fabulously wealthy, and saw winning the presidency as the easiest and quickest way to do it.

    I think he’s a sociopath completely lacking any functioning moral code. I don’t think Wall Street owns him so much as he serving the needs of corporate America as diligently as possible in order to be richly rewarded when he leaves office.

    I’m predicting he becomes our first billionaire ex-president.

  12. Jay Taber says:

    Wall Street owns Obama in the sense that was portrayed in the November 2006 Harper’s expose http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275 of Obama as rising Wall Street DNC star. The fact he follows Goldman’s game plan to the T is another indicator that he is merely a step and fetch it for Wall Street. His payoff is of little importance compared to what we stand to lose.

  13. DancingOpossum says:

    I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton is a billionaire, no? He certainly gets the highest fees going for speeches–still! And his book was a blockbuster best-seller (Hillary’s too).

    I agree with the total lack of a moral code. Obama has no discernible principles beyond his own self-promotion and personal ambition, and he’s perfectly happy to be the puppet of those who really run things in our country.

    And yes, he really does want to kill social security — he has broadcast it from day one of the primaries — not because he gives a damn about SS itself (or deficits or whatever else his handlers have instructed him to yak about), but because it’s what his masters want, period.

    The blogger John Smart was the first to say it, I think: Obama is an errand boy, sent by grocers to collect on a bill. I read that line and went, “YES! Ding!”

    Certainly, his anti-SS moves have ripped the veil from some–I emphasize some–pwoggy eyes. This may just be a bridge too far for even the most delusional. Among the non-blogging Obamanation, however, he remains “just a good guy trying to do his best. Oh, and he’s only been in office for two years!” I’m surrounded by these people and yes, that’s the general consensus. The question for Obama is whether there are enough of these poor deluded souls to give him a second term.

    Happily planning to throw away my vote by voting Green again!

  14. Violet Socks says:

    I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton is a billionaire, no?

    No.

  15. Michael Dawson says:

    I think Zerobama wants to please his disapproving and distant dad, but his dad’s dead. Social climber, pure and simple.

    Something obviously is way wrong with the guy.

  16. lazy-ignorant-old-and-unhealthy says:

    info request: Is there a link available to a statement where Obama has suggested privatizing social security? I thought his commission was just working out the details of how to gut the benefits for younger workers.

  17. sk says:

    Here is an interesting take on what can motivate driven politicos from a humble background:

    The opportunity to observe Lady Bird was formative for Nadine. From her example the future Mrs. Bob Eckhardt learned that ‘effective political wives are much like first-rate executives.’ Watching from the proximity of the Johnsons’ secretarial pool, Nadine noticed that ‘like her husband, Lady Bird worked constantly … she desired power just as much as he did. Theirs was a creative relationship that served to accomplish their goals for money and political power.’

    And sure enough, over the years Lady Bird ‘Johnson’s initial $41,000 investment turned into more than $150 million for the LBJ Holding Company.’

  18. Simon Kenton says:

    It makes no difference what he wants, says, or does, whether save or destroy. Social Security is dead.