What Did The White House Know About the PhRMA Deal?

As usual, he sets things in motion then denies knowing anything about it.
He really did learn well from his predecessor(s). Backroom deals, lies, distortions, repressing opposition, doing what he wants with impunity. Well, actually I think he was born with the talents. Bush the Bad had nothin’ on him.
Okay, let’s hear from the peanut (supporter) gallery…

“core”, as in apple core, the part you throw out. LOL
It should read corps or maybe corpse would be more accurate.

So … it’s an 80-billion-dollar bribe to Obama, to keep fleecing the people in general? That sounds about right.

“There is a certain chicken with their heads cut off quality about what is going on now with the administration’s various spokesmen and negotiators. This can’t be good. Obama doesn’t have a lot of leeway to get out of this, either.”
If the chicken’s head’s cut off, how come He’s STILL talking?
How long will it take for Obama to make a statement that they’re ALL mistaken?

“Is this man for real?”
Obviously NOT. The Democrats had better impeach Him — for lying to Congress and turning over the Treasury to the corporations — while they still have the shell of a political party.
It’ll be embarrassing for the Dems, but not as embarrassing as a revolution.

Obama fights for the little people like lawyers, lobbyist, CEO’s, Wall Street, Hollywood stars.
He’s so wholesome and refreshing…

Gibbs:
Um Um Uh
I think what I really meant to say….

Nancy Pelosi suggests protestors are Nazis. The DNC says we’re an angry mob. Rep. Russ Carnahan of MO says we’re trying to thwart the democratic process.
***
Nancy Pelosi suggested that protesters were carrying swastikas. And guess what? Photos from a town hall in Colorado shows she was right. The DNC description of the “angry” mob is also spot on in some instances. And guess what? In some cases, demonstrators are trying to thwart the democratic process. (“Rattle them, do not engage in intelligent debate– and don’t let anyone else either” said the emailed instructions.)
I’m not 100% behind how the issue is being handled, but to deny the actions of some of the more extreme protesters is disingenuous.

I just have to laugh and shake my head when I hear about stuff like this. They can’t make up their mind about whether they agreed to a deal or not, but I remember it being touted that way by the White House and the pharmaceutical companies in June. When you are running the country and try and make promises to everyone like you do in a campaign, it just doesn’t work. Everyone expects politicians to lie in a campaign promise, but everyone expects the president to keep his word when he makes a deal as president, otherwise his credibility is gone.

Mixed messages from the White House? Now there’s a shocker.

Exactly how has Obama improved America’s image since he took office.
GITMO will not close, troops will stay in Iraq, a surge in Afghanistan, he is in bed with big corporations
protesters are called Nazis for standing up to big government, the elderly called mobsters because they want freedom of choice….
This is an improved image?

Okay, so now, I’m hearing that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)has asked David Axelrod, Jim Messina and Max Baucus if the administration has cut a deal with PhRMA that would prevent Congress from using the government’s clout to negotiate for lower drug prices and they all say there’s no deal like that.
I’m confused?!

jack: “This is an improved image?” – All of those things were going on before, to an even worse degree. But just the pledge to stop torture and close Gitmo is important to our image, even if it is mostly symbolic. Symbolism IS important, and so is the way you talk to people, and at least pretend that you are interested in what they have to say.

Actually Jack, it’s the “protesters” that are calling Pres. Obama that. Please don’t rewrite facts.
Posted by: Try the truth | Aug 8, 2009 3:37:31 PM
***Exactly. I looked up the photos, and the imagery is loaded, and it’s pretty clear who started it, although Croatian was right that there are very faint lines through the swastikas.

“Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”” — Kirkpatrick, NYT
So … how’s NBC going to get Obama out of THis one?

Did they extort 80B or did they accept an 80B payoff. The Chicago Way!

more from Kirkpatrick/NYT, “Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal”:
“WASHINGTON — Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration on Friday backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said this week was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare.”

President Obama studied for years under the principles of Saul Alinsky. Obama also spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. From 1985-1988 Obama worked for the group Developing Communities Project (an Alinskyite group). Then he worked for ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote–both created by the Alinsky network.
President Obama is a devout Alinskyite–through the core of his body.
Now here are two excerpts from Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” in the first chapter, “The Purpose,” on page 10 is:
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”
On pages 10-11 is:
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations…”
IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK…

Obama might not be a communist in the pure sense. There are many types of communism and “ways to get there”. He is more communist in the cult-of-personality bent. In other words a strong leader with almost total power is necessary for the “revolution”. Likewise his adherent while never allowed to eclipse his power are granted special status in the regime. Same with businesses who support him- at least until the revolution is finalized.

How is it that nobody seems to care about the “deal” he made with Immelt?
The SEC fines GE $50 million but at the same time Oblahblah has immelt on his board of economic advisors and also gives GE $139 million??? …how do you spell corruption?… how much did ACORN, Fannie & Freddie, etc.etc. get???

Badboy wrote: “…how much did ACORN, Fannie & Freddie, etc.etc. get???”
Did you notice that Fannie Mae is seeking another $10.7 billion after posting a 2nd quarter loss of $15.2 billion?

James, redistributing the wealth has always been a capitalist objective. You could say that is what capitalism is all about.
Aside from capitalism being essentially a system of theft that benefits one class over another, it is also necessarily to mitigate its worst effects. Pure capitalism doesn’t work because it inevitably leads to poverty so severe as to be unsustainable.
Sometimes it is necessary to take back some of the wealth taken from the workers in order to save the system itself. This generally happens in periods of severe crisis, such as during depressions and wars.

There was a report in the NYT that Tapper mentions and there was a paragraph in there that says the White House believes that the dems can go after Pharma in a seperate bill. This guy and administration is just such a two-faced manipulative bunch of thugs! Promise the world and deliver it completely broken!

A quick correction– a couple of those photos were from tea parties.

Oh and don’t forget, President Obama still hasn’t formed his 1.2 million strong national civilian thug-army with its $500 billion budget!

Are these the same people who complain about the absence of due process for terrorist. It is okay for congress and the president to use the heavy hand of government to force submission to their will. This is inheriently unethical corrupt to teh core, by these Chicago Thugs. If you do not agree to their ever evolving terms they will have their congressional Thugs impose a special tax and send their ACORN and union thugs to harrass and humiliate United States Citizens at their home.

President Obama has already admitted that he wants to redistribute the wealth. That is not the actions of a capitalist.
Posted by: James Danley | Aug 8, 2009 8:29:40 PM
James, redistributing the wealth has always been a capitalist objective. You could say that is what capitalism is all about.
Aside from capitalism being essentially a system of theft that benefits one class over another, it is also necessarily to mitigate its worst effects. Pure capitalism doesn’t work because it inevitably leads to poverty so severe as to be unsustainable.
Sometimes it is necessary to take back some of the wealth taken from the workers in order to save the system itself. This generally happens in periods of severe crisis, such as during depressions and wars.
Posted by: Flash Override | Aug 8, 2009 8:41:11 PM
***
Awesome. I’ve been thinking about what drives me bonkers about the way some (I wrote “some”) conservatives and Republicans view Capitalism, and it really is that it’s overly simplistic. They love throwing around words like “socialist” or “Marxist” because from what I gather, to them, any attempt to address the inherent issues with capitalism and the market centralizes power in the hands of government and creates inefficiencies. Is this crazy? No. Attempts at Communism have led to dictatorships, inequality and so on. We get it. However, the over-the-top rhetoric used at times by some repeat and relentless offenders seems to complete miss the reality that when government doesn’t redistribute the wealth and regulate business, power and wealth slowly collect in the hands of bigwigs at corporations. Ideally, those bigwigs and those corporations would be the ones who utilized their resources best and that does initially occur, BUT the more that wealth and the power that goes with it concentrates in a few hands– wealth and power always seems to concentrate– the more it corrupts and the less likely it is that new players with new, possibly brilliant, ideas get a chance to start businesses or develop products or innovate. The wealthy get wealthier and lobby for laws to ensure it stays that way, the poor get poorer and the middle class shrinks– and as the wealthy get wealthier and the pool gets smaller as power concentrates more and more, the more likely you are that those folks will be incompetent and out of touch, and even more interested in protecting the status quo than doing what they once did best. So, governments do need to redistribute wealth more equitably, rather than simply upwards, and regulate the markets to some degree, for the market to work best. Governments also should provide a safety net for those who cannot afford food, shelter, and IMO, health care as well as a public education system, infrastructure, and police, military and emergency services. That is democratic capitalism which is what has made our country so great, no?
I’m really sick of the socialist, anti-capitalist stuff.

the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
Hmm, Section 102 of H.R. 3200 -is- rather vague.

“At some point, should the taxes on the wealthy continue to rise further, they may cut back on their charitable contributions … ‘
“Charitable”?? The non-profit swamp — laundering money for the rich while removing every public function from public control, and putting policy and practice under the control of interlocking “boards” — makes a mockery of charity.
Note that Oblabla is biiiig on non-profits. It figures.

We may need health care reform because Democrats make me sick.

egomaniacal books

Alyson,
arren Buffett makes it seem a lot simpler than it really is.
First of all, looking only at the payroll (FICA) tax for 2007. Warren Buffett’s secretary’s income of $60,000 would require her to pay 6.2% on all of her income (since she earned less than the cap of $97,500) for Social Security. That would be $3,720. She would also pay an additional 1.45% on all of her income for Medicare. That would be another $870. That’s a total of $4,590 FICA for the year.
NOW THEN Warren Buffett, as his secretary’s employer he would have to MATCH that amount. So he would have to pay another $4,590 in FICA tax for his secretary.
NOTE: Warren Buffett would pay the matching FICA tax for EVERY employee. I don’t know how many employees he has. Nor do I know if any of his employees earned more than the Social Security cap. But just for convenience sake, let’s say none do exceed the cap. That would mean that Warren Buffett would have to pay 7.65% of the total payroll for his share of his employees’ FICA tax. For simplicity sake, let’s say that he has 100 employees with their average income of $50,000. That would mean that Warren Buffett would have to pay 7.65% of $5,000,000 or $382,500 for the FICA for all of his employees.
Now as for Warren Buffett, himself, I don’t know for certain but it is my understanding that there is no cap on the Medicare portion of FICA. If that is the case, then Warren Buffett would have paid both shares of his Social Security tax–12.4%–up to the cap of $97,500, for a total of $12,090. He would then pay both shares of his Medicare tax–2.9%–for all of his income, $46,000,000, for a total of $1,334,000 for Medicare. His own total FICA tax would be $1,346,090.
So just considering the FICA tax: The secretary paid $4,590 on $60,000. (7.65%)
Warren Buffett paid $1,346,090 for his own FICA tax, but also $382,500 for his share of his employees’ FICA tax, that is a grand total of $1,728,590 on his $46,000,000 (3.76%)
So while he technically is paying 3.76% of his total income to FICA, he is paying an equal amount that each of his employee’s pay, plus his own.
Now when you include federal income tax, state income tax (where applicable), city income tax (where applicable), sales tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, excise taxes, various gasoline taxes (oh does he smoke or drink?), Warren Buffett’s total tax percentage is not as low as he portrays it to be. Obviously the $46 million that he made in that year is not all taxable, for had it been then his federal income tax liability would have been $16,079,074 or 34.9%.

As a follow up. In 2007, the top 1% of the nation’s wage earners (those making over $410,096) paid an average federal income tax rate of 22.45%. The bottom 50% of the nation’s wage earners (those making less than $32,879) paid an average federal income tax rate of 2.99%.

James and Tsar Nicky,
I’m on my way out of town soon, so this will be briefer than my usual ramblings. On some things, maybe many things, we have to often just agree to disagree. My main point to James was that I find percentage of income a more persuasive figure, a more equitable figure, to use in these kind of discussions than a dollars to dollars comparison of income tax paid. I have read Warren Buffett’s books for years and find him to be a more honest and interesting source than others.
So here’s another quote:
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Have a good week,
Alyson

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Think Alyson, that is what I said. Obama and Congress continues to protect the truly wealthy while the strivers and small business owners are the ones getting hit the hardest.
The “war” being fought is between the truly wealthy (Gates, Soros, Buffett, Kerry, Kennedy, Bush and the like) and those on the way up, small and medium business owners, middle management and even farmers. Those making between $100,000 and a $1,000,000 on paper.
Sounds like a lot? It’s chump change to Warren and the boys.

All the WH has to deal is release the video of the negotiations with PhRMA so that way the American people can see the terms of the deal. Obama said that all dealmaking would be televised on C-SPAN, so merely getting the recorded video of Obama’s dealmaking isn’t asking too much. Instead of the WH going back and forth on denials and non-denials, just clear everything up by showing the video!