How long did the Obama Administration hold the Keystone XL Pipeline project hostage in bureaucratic Limbo before they dropped it so gas prices could stay high and Buffet and other rich fat cats in bed with this government could make a killing carrying some of that oil by train? What fraction of that time was spent allowing the Treausry Department review of that deal? Well in the case of Solyndra, they got just one day. Nothing strange there right? When government gets to pick who wins and who loses, we the people all lose.
Tag: Obama administration
Where’s the anger from the perpetually mad leftists these days? Man, did the left howl about the Patriot Act when that was passed. Evil Boosh-Hitler and his fascist government tactics violating the rights of terrorists! Never mind that fascism is a disease of the left, and Bush while a big government lover, never rose to the level of the left and their desire to have government control all aspects of the rube’s lives, or that terrorists really are dangerous and deadly. Team Obama decides to ratchet up the scary government in what seriously amounts to a near fascist move, and we get nothing….
WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines.
Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.
Giving the NCTC expanded record-retention authority had been called for by members of Congress who said the intelligence community did not connect strands of intelligence held by multiple agencies leading up to the failed bombing attempt on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009.
“Following the failed terrorist attack in December 2009, representatives of the counterterrorism community concluded it is vital for NCTC to be provided with a variety of datasets from various agencies that contain terrorism information,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement late Thursday. “The ability to search against these datasets for up to five years on a continuing basis as these updated guidelines permit will enable NCTC to accomplish its mission more practically and effectively.”
The new rules replace guidelines issued in 2008 and have privacy advocates concerned about the potential for data-mining information on innocent Americans.
Look, while not comfortable with it, I think some aspects of the Patriot Act where necessary because the terrorists need to be dealt with, but my support was always predicated on the premise that someone was really paying attention and the first time government abused these powers, there would be hell to pay. After all, it was obvious that the LSM so desperately wanted to help their partners in crime in the democrat party nail Bush, that even the appearance of impropriety would result in massive coverage implying the most negative possible scenario, and that would keep these powers somewhat in check.
Fast forward a few years, and not only is the Patriot Act still around, but now the LSM doesn’t quite care that much about improprieties. And when the left decides to do some seriously scary things like this, and there is no way you make the case that collecting information on citizens using the weak argument that a database you can mine might help you catch a terrorist, it results in nary a peep. Oh, privacy advocates are worried. Shit, this is the time to scream about fascist moves by government people.
“It is a vast expansion of the government’s surveillance authority,” Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said of the five-year retention period.
The government put in strong safeguards at the NCTC for the data that would be collected on U.S. citizens for intelligence purposes, Rotenberg said. These new guidelines undercut the Federal Privacy Act, he said.
“The fact that this data can be retained for five years on U.S. citizens for whom there’s no evidence of criminal conduct is very disturbing,” Rotenberg said.
“Total Information Awareness appears to be reconstructing itself,” Rotenberg said, referring to the Defense Department’s post-9/11 data-mining research program that was killed in 2003 because of privacy concerns.
The Washington Post first reported the new rules Thursday.
Tracking suspected or know terrorists and keeping data on them is one thing. If carefully scrutinized to prevent abuse, and abuse is punished, I can live with that. It’s an unfortunate consequence of the horrible times we live in and our inability or lack of desire to really do what would break the terrorist’s will to keep doing these sort of things. But collecting information on people – and we are unclear if the intent is to collect information on everyone or just certain people, but I am inclined to assume that once they can do a few, they will just do all people – is a whole other sort of game. It is frightening. Even if it is just for 5 years.
Tyrannical government starts with 2 things: the first is the attempt to disarm the populous, and the second is the collection of information about the people so you know who will give you grief and needs to be dealt with. Fast & Furious anyone? And now this. And yet, no anger from the LSM or the left. After all, Obama will just use it to sick Media Matters on conservatives or to see whom to hit up for donations in these idiot’s minds, and all that stuff is awesome.
Look, I am not saying that the right doesn’t do dumb things, but shit, and yeah, this is a hypothetical where I reverse the order of the political party holding the WH when things happen, if I was insanely angry at Obama for Passing the Patriot Act, and he was followed by Bush whom did something like this that takes it to a whole new level of scary, I would be howling at Bush too. My guy or not. Not gonna happen on the left though, because the anger was never over any fear of government abuse of power, but simply because the guy in the WH had the wrong letter next to his name.
The Obama administration said the new rules come with strong safeguards for privacy and civil liberties as well. Before the NCTC may obtain data held by another government agency, there is a high-level review to assure that the data “is likely to contain significant terrorism information,” Alexander Joel, the civil liberties protection officer at national intelligence directorate, said in a news release Thursday.
Yeah, sure. Because there isn’t any history at all of government, once it has access to a gimmick to bypass the proper process, has never abused it. The argument that we should collect data on everyone and that they will only look at it when they suspect something suddenly, with all kinds of precautions to prevent abuse, might appease some, but if you didn’t like the previous ability to collect information on suspects and actual terrorists, this expansion of power should leave you even more scared and angry. And I am not getting any of that from the usual suspects, when to me now the power and the ability to abuse definitely have crossed a threshold of tolerability.
Sandra Fluke was not just a liberal political activist the LSM tried hard to portray as a disadvantaged college waif unable to make ends meet without the help of big daddy government, but in fact a connected insider linking straight to those trying to make political hay out of contraceptives.
As we reported last night, “The Factor” believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill. That might very well be unconstitutional.
Anyway, we’re having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It’s very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on “The Factor.” She didn’t call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.
A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can’t even get his last name. And Mike doesn’t provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?
Yeah, just like it was pure chance that Stephanopoulos asked republicans, during a republican debate of all things, about contraceptives, a few weeks before the WH goes live with their government mandated contraceptive proposal that conveniently morphs into a political controversy which then just happens to divert attention from their horrible mishandling of our economy. It’s not a coincidence or laziness that has the LSM just carrying water and trying to keep the whole “conservatives hate women” meme in the public spot light, when the argument really is about government’s abuse of power. At least the Maher angle is coming back to bite these idiots in the ass.
Late last Friday in a dump they hoped everyone would miss, the DOJ released a series of documents related to operation “Fast & Furious” that all but make it a given Eric Holder lied to congress when he first told them the whopper that he had not heard about the operation until a few weeks before he showed up to testify. He then compounded that lie by claiming it might be weeks instead of months. The document dump shows Holder knew about “Fast & Furious” from the very damned start, and as people now doing the work the LSM is avoiding are finding out, might even have been behind the whole thing from the start.
As I pointed out when the story broke out, only to be chastised because I could not meet some standard of evidence even a court doesn’t expect from it’s participants, or because the LSM was avoiding the story, and when forced to cover it, they where spinning everything favorably for the Obama Administration, this was going to be a whopper. Our DOJ ran an operation, on foreign soil, that cost people their lives, all so they could then affect public perception and support for disarming people. This is the kind of high stakes tyrannical bullshit I expect from gun hating collectivists, and I pointed out the order very likely came straight from the Oval office, only to be excoriated for daring to point out what I clearly see as a plan to push for Obama’s new America.
The DOJ is now de facto been identified as a player. Holder now is about to be grilled again in front of Congress, and while I am sure the left will rally around him to protect him, this display of “support” is going to only help get people to see how cynical and vile the left is in their pursuit of power: and have no doubt that disarming law abiding citizens is a prerequisite to tyrannical control of the populous. We also already know that there are many links to the WH. And sooner than later we will also find out Holder took his order from the very top. Mark my words. Those that want to defend the indefensible can start flinging pooh now, and pray it distracts the people long enough for the crooks to steal another election and really get busy.
I was terribly surprised to find out that one of the world’s richest guys whom offered lip service to Obama’s “tax the rich” class warfare nonsense back when his insurance companies stood to make huge financial gains if the Feds jacked up taxes, and especially estate taxes, on the rich, ended up having another one of his companies making out like a damn bandit after the WH killed the Keystone XL pipeline. One of Warren Buffets companies, Burlington Northern, a railroad company in true Monopoly – the game for you illiterates – fashion, which makes oodles of money hailing oil from Canada stands tomake even more money after Obama’s cancelation of the XL pipeline.
Bleh, nothing to see here. It’s not like this WH has a history of such crony capitalism writ large. I mean the billions we sank into so many dubious green companies & technologies, only to see massive failures and no serious positive return of any value to speak of, for example, was actually just another series of “accidental misinvestements”. Yeah, sure. The US administration that has done the most during its tenure to abrogate itself the ability to use the law as a cudgel and allow it to pick which companies and ideas are winners and losers, and which despite all the facts to the contrary has decided they will spurn fossil fuels in favor of unicorn farts – green technology – even if it causes massive pain to the average American they so pretend to care about, just happens to make another decision that hurts the average citizen, but benefits the very people they pretend to so hate for being wealthy.
I see why Buffet loves this guy and feels it is a great idea to back his class warfare shenanigans. There is some huge money to be made here, and all it takes is the kissing of these champions of the little people’s asses. Of course, I remind you all that the only evil entities are these rich oil companies. And then only the “rich oil companies” that don’t end up being the largest contributors to the political campaigns of democrats like BP was for Obama. There is a pattern here, isn’t there? I am sure all the three letter DNC propaganda outlets will be stumbling over each other to report this tidbit or anything like it too. In the mean time, the leftists will tell us that when a rich guy like Buffet tells us we should be happy to get taxed harder, by collectivists that will then piss that money away buying votes with all kinds of stupid schemes, that we should take his advice. That he is actually making even more money because of these schemes, and is also likely to get himself an exclusion from these class warriors for a nice donation to their campaign funds, should not dissuade us people trying to keep government from fleecing us from bending over and liking what follows.
As I said on Twitter, the Obama’s administration’s ridiculous fight against the ministerial exemption — a fight they lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court — suddenly make sense:
The Obama administration announced today it will wait for a year (coincidentally until after the elections) before requiring religious organizations to comply with an Obamacare mandate that they provide coverage for contraception — including controversial drugs that can abort an early pregnancy.
This started with a decision by the Obama administration last summer listing the “preventive” services that must be covered by health plans under Obamacare without charge to patients, and the list included contraception.
Look, I’m pro-birth-control. I believe in comprehensive sex education and subsidies for poor people (although birth control is not really that expensive). I believe colleges and universities should make birth control available for their students. I’m so pro-birth control, I wear a condom when I blog.
But there is some daylight between that position and thinking government should force religious institutions to cover birth control (which basically means providing it). In the first paradigm, you are increasing people’s choices and freedom. In the second, you are decreasing it, forcing people to spend money for things that they may morally object to.
Although I think National Review has a point on this being on attack on religious freedom, I don’t think this is “war on religion”, per se, despite Newt’s ranting on the subject. It’s more of a war for religion — the secular religion of statism; the belief that government knows best. It started about a decade ago, when Bush’s faith-based initiatives forced religious charities to put more money into drug treatment than they wanted to. It has continued with the fight over gay adoption, in which Catholic charities have ended adoption services rather than let gays adopt children. This is simply the next step: forcing religious institutions to provide birth control.
As I said when this issue first cropped up, the issue is simple: this is giving too much power to government. Making birth control available is sensible. But forcing employers to pay for it — for people who are insured and can likely afford it on their own — is simply a bridge too far.
Think of the precedent. If a Democratic President can force institutions to pay for services with which they have a moral qualm, where does it end? Can they force them to pay for stomach stapling? Can they force them cover stem cell treatments? What about sterilizing people who we decide shouldn’t reproduce — an idea that surface every few decades?
Think of what this means for the insurance paradigm: If a Democratic President can decree that all insurance will cover birth control why can’t a future Republican President decree that none will cover abortion? Once you inject government into these decisions, you have opened a can of worms.
Now this is supposed to save us money. But first of all, who died and made government God? (Answer: the Constitution). Even assuming birth control would decrease healthcare costs — and let’s put a pin in that — who is government to tell me I have to take the cheaper option? For some of these religious institutions, they would rather take on the higher insurance cost. Who are you to tell them how they may or may not spend their money? Birth control is a great idea; it’s not a fundamental right. This isn’t free speech were talking about.
Now, about saving money. Preventative care may save lives but it does not save money. Birth control may save parents money but it does not necessarily save their employers money. And to be told how to save money by … stop that laughing back there! … the government is asburd. Just take a look at this:
In the past two decades, Medicare’s administrators have conducted demonstrations to test two broad approaches to enhancing the quality of health care and improving the efficiency of health care delivery in Medicare’s fee-for-service program. Disease management and care coordination demonstrations have sought to improve the quality of care of beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and those whose health care is expected to be particularly costly. Value-based payment demonstrations have given health care providers financial incentives to improve the quality and efficiency of care rather than payments based strictly on the volume and intensity of services delivered.
In an issue brief released today, CBO reviewed the outcomes of 10 major demonstrations—6 in the first category and 4 in the second—that have been evaluated by independent researchers. CBO finds that most programs tested in those demonstrations have not reduced federal spending on Medicare.
That’s ten failures. You would expect one of those programs to have worked just by accident. But none have. And these are the guys we are going to listen to about controlling healthcare costs? These are the guys we want telling religious institutions what they shall and shall not pay for?
In typical fashion the Obama administration has again chosen to do something that costs jobs and hurts the economy of America, and then laid the blame on others for the impact of their decisions. The geniuses that brought us such successes as Solyndra and numerous other questionable renewable energy investments which benefit them and their friends, but not the consumers, whom they have been very clear they believe should have to pay far more for energy of the kind they approve of, have decided that the Canadian oil pipeline is not good. And they blame congressional republicans for codifying law that prevented Obama from killing the project by delaying the approval for so long that the Canadians would choose to go elsewhere.
In a decision sure to re-ignite a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration was announcing on Wednesday its rejection of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through critical wetlands in the Midwest.
Deputy Secretary of State William Burns was to make the announcement on the project that would carry oil from Canada’s carbon-heavy tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast and would indicate that TransCanada, the company seeking to build the $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline, will be able to reapply with a new route avoiding an ecologically sensitive area of Nebraska, sources told National Journal.
Put more simply, the Obama administration is hitting Republicans back by saying no because of their forcing him to decide on the project in just 60 days. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail promptly painted the decision as a rejection of thousands of American jobs purely for political reasons.
So instead of blaming the Canadians for not wanting to wait forever for the “environmental impact studies” – that is code for I am going to drag this out until you give up or the cost forces you to go elsewhere – that Team Obama wanted to use to kill the project, now they blame republicans for trying to prevent them from playing that card. Don’t be fooled. Team Obama never, ever, intended to let this project go through. Now the Canadians whom despite their embrace of socialism are not insane will sell this valuable resource to the Chinese, and we will not only get to pay more for our energy, but lose out on the benefit of getting a valuable resource from our neighbor to the North and further breaking any possible dependency on countries that are hostile to us.
Yeah, sure. Bush was worse than this moron and his circus, and it is his fault this went bad too. And Obama really meant to improve the economy from the start, but he got handed a shit sandwich. It’s not the policies and other decisions, like this one, that are hammering our economy hard. In the mean time we can all cheer up at the fact that our gas & heating oil prices will now go up as this valuable source of energy goes to power China and the Chinese economy. Evil market speculators will all profit from the rise in prices too. We should dump them all these watermelons without any technology in a tropical jungle, preferably one with the highest number of natural predators, and let them fend for themselves. That might give us a little bit of justice for the disservice this movement is doing people. Especially those poor people they pretend to so care about.
And it looks like the social engineers do not plan to disappoint. Remember when I pointed out that the same politicians that created the environment that caused the housing collapse demanding to be the ones to fix the evil lenders was certainly not fixing anything and likely to make it worse? Well, I hate to be right on this, but I am:
Just days before Christmas, the Obama administration gave Bank of America a big lump of coal, levying a hefty $335 million dollar fine on the company for discriminating against minorities in its lending practices.
Supposedly Countrywide, a mortgage company bought by Bank of America in 2008, had not given out enough low interest rate loans to minorities from 2004 to 2008.
Look, I have no skin in the game if B of A gets hammered, and I certainly dislike Country Wide with a passion because Mozilo and Dodd are butt buddies, but the problem that caused the economic disaster the left blamed on everyone but their social engineering policies, and which have been prolonged, because of 3 years of idiotic Keynesian policies that have done nothing but funnel trillions of tax payer dollars to democrats and their friends, are still there.
What the large fine reveals is that President Obama hasn’t learned anything from the recent financial crisis.
What the president sees as discrimination in awarding a mortgage, lenders saw as wise business decisions.
If a borrower can’t afford a down payment, Obama appears to view charging a higher interest rate as discrimination. Lenders also think that they shouldn’t treat borrowers whose sole source of income is welfare or unemployment insurance, the same as those applicants who have a job. But Obama, again, appears to view this as discrimination.
There is obviously a problem with no down payments: if the price of the house falls so that it is worth less than the loan, people will default and walk away. Similarly, when unemployment insurance or welfare runs out, borrowers might find they can’t keep paying their mortgage.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act the Obama administration used to impose this fine was exactly what helped cause the mortgage crisis by forcing lenders to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make.
Does that Equal Credit Opportunity Act sound familiar? I mentioned in my long discussion with the people that told me government was the solution, not the problem, while ignoring that government forced lenders to throw pearls to swine despite the obvious problems. I guess the people that told me I was wrong now have some crow to eat. And so soon! Exhibit A, people. There will be more because the social engineers will be damned if they give up trying to breed Unicorns.
B of A just got hammered for Country Wide wanting to charge high risk lenders more or not seeing welfare as reasonable source of income on applications. What do you think the impact of the government bitchslapping a lender into giving high risk lenders money to buy a house will do to the market yet again? And that 2000 page monster Dodd & Frank put together will do nothing but make it more costly and the impact deeper. Think the LSM will tell anyone this was a bad move? Or do you think they will make it look like Team Blue is again helping the little guy out? Heck, will they even report it? Yeah, I thought so.
Damn, I hate to be right. What’s the definition of insanity again? To do the same dumb thing over and over, fail, and still expect that the next time will make it work? And no, there is no appology needed from the usual suspects that told me the problem was the evil banks, and not the stupid social engineering assholes in government and their insane policies….
If you still doubt that the people currently in charge are putting PC bullshit ahead of our security then this story might clear the air somewhat:
Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.
During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.
Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.
Seriously? The WH has classified a terror attack that killed 13 American military personnel as workplace violence? WTF? Ex-military, conservatives, and Tea Partiers are all dangerous quasi-terrorists (or outright terrorists according to some on the left), but actual terrorists, commit work place violence?
I am debating whether to re-read the Qur’an and beef up on how to kiss Allah’s ass or buy more ammo, because we are doomed. Looks like it is ammo.
WaPo points out that data gathered shows that Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — have earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. Why is this happening?
Behind this turnaround, in significant measure, are government policies that helped the financial sector avert collapse and then gave financial firms huge benefits on the path to recovery. For example, the federal government invested hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in banks — low-cost money that the firms used for high-yielding investments on which they made big profits.
Stabilizing the financial system was considered necessary to prevent an even deeper economic recession. But some critics say the Bush administration, which first moved to bail out Wall Street, and the Obama administration, which ultimately stabilized it, took a far less aggressive approach to helping the American people.
That bolded section is pretty-speak, a bullshit attempt to soften the real problem because it doesn’t favor the leftists big-nanny-staters, for the Frank-Dodd bill was written in such a way that those kissing the right people in government’s asses and paying them off with enough lucre in the form of campaign contributions then could not just get oodles of tax payer money, but also make a veritable killing. And the fools keep blaming the banks and capitalism. In the mean time the crony capitalists are raking in money while those that claim to be the 99 percent rail at the wrong people.
“There’s a very popular conception out there that the bailout was done with a tremendous amount of firepower and focus on saving the largest Wall Street institutions but with very little regard for Main Street,” said Neil Barofsky, the former federal watchdog for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion fund used to bail out banks. “That’s actually a very accurate description of what happened.”
Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration, for instance, compelled banks to increase lending to consumers, known as “prime borrowers.” Such a step might have spurred spending and growth, although generating demand for loans may have proved difficult in the downturn.
Right, because as we saw before, “compelling” banks to do things, like lending money to people that were so high risk that a default was a “when” not an “if”, never ends badly. These fuckwads miss the point: both TARP and the Dodd-Frank bill were about increasing the power of the political class. And tax payers paid for it.
A recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks did not significantly increase lending after being bailed out. Rather, they used taxpayer money, in part, to invest in risky securities that profited from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their investment returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.
Guess which bill gave them permission to do this kind of investments? And which bill required banks to keep an inordinately large amount of cash on hand rather than do anything with it too, leading to less lending amongst things. Which one added a massive layer of bureaucracy & costs, while cutting their profits? And which one is now going to cause more trouble. Don’t:
Some of Wall Street’s success has moderated in recent months, with bank stock prices down and layoffs on the rise. This mostly has reflected the renewed slowdown in the U.S. economy this year and the European debt crisis buffeting global markets.
Representatives of the financial industry say regulations in last year’s Dodd-Frank legislation, which Obama pushed for and signed, also have crimped bank profits. But many analysts think the law will make the financial system more stable. The legislation, for instance, requires banks to maintain a greater capital cushion to withstand losses during bad economic times. The measure also created a regulator whose sole purpose is to police lending to ordinary Americans.
Stable indeed. Less loans, and loans are risky in a collapsing economy, are sure to make the lending industry more stable. Less profits means the consumer pays more for services that before might even have been labeled “free”. And there are far more regulations yet to come which all will have onerous effects and create special needs to go beg politicians for exclusions/exceptions. For the right price, of course. But don’t lose focus. The point is these guys are making a killing right now under Team Obama’s rules.
Compensation at these firms also has bounced back. Financial firms paid about $20.8 billion in bonuses for work done in 2010, according to research by the New York state comptroller. In New York City, the average Wall Street salary last year grew 16.1 percent, to $361,330, which is more than five times the average salary of a private-sector worker in the city.
By contrast, millions of Americans continue to face economic difficulties. That is fueling broad public anger at Wall Street and has given rise to the “Occupy” protest movements nationwide.
And yet, it is these very crooks that are helping Wall Street rake in the money, for a nice cushy fee, that now pretend they are standing firm against Wall Street raking in all that money. And the morons are all falling for it. Helps to have outlets like WaPo fluff up the facts – Wall Street has made more money thanks to Obama in 2 ½ years than they did the previous 8 under evil BoosChimpyMcHitler – like they did in this bullshit piece. The data doesn’t lie though: the rich fat cats are making out better under Obama than they did under Bush, and they are doing it in a down economy. And the rest of us are hurting worse and being told to pony up more money. No amount of smoke can hide that.