Obama also promised to preserve Social Security, but caucused with Senate Republicans to change Social Security from an independent, self-funded program with a $2.6 trillion surplus — which has never contributed one penny any budget deficit — into just another government expenditure from the general fund of the Treasury (thereby contributing to the deficit). After January 1 Obama will caucus with his Republican allies (like Rep. Paul Ryan) to cut Social Security benefits (the retirement benefits which we’ve all pre-paid with every paycheck we’ve earned throughout our lifetimes) and call it deficit reduction. Yet, Obama will exempt his escalating military spending from any deficit-reducing cuts, thereby taking our retirement benefits to fund his wars.

Obama is a liar, but Dissident Voice’s attempt to blame Bill Clinton for Obama’s lies is absurd. Obama is not “playing from the Bill Clinton handbook.” Bill Clinton was elected with just a 43% plurality, while Obama had a 53% landslide victory and a clear public mandate for change. Bill Clinton had 57 Democrat-controlled seats in the Senate, while Obama had 60. Yet Clinton managed to raise the highest marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6% and slash military spending, thereby transforming budget deficits into surpluses, creating 3 times as many new jobs/year as his predecessor and reducing unemployment to a 60-year low 3.8%

From his relatively weaker position, Bill Clinton came away from the negotiating table with some wins and some losses. By comparison, what has Obama won? Nothing. As Elliot Spitzer recently said (CNN’s “Parker -Spitzer, 12-15-2010): “I’d never seen anybody as effective at lobbying for George Bush’s economic policies as President Obama.”

Dissident Voice asks why didn’t “we” (meaning the Left) support Hillary in the Democratic primaries? It answers itself with a sexist smear: “because we knew what to expect from another round of the Clinton administration.” In other words, because wives are nothing more than appendages of their husbands. Don’t you know that, Lefties? Hillary always agrees with Bill because she has no mind or her own, right? Sickening.

Dissident Voice follows it’s misogyny with a bald-faced lie: “Hillary … showed no inclination to govern differently than her husband.” No evidence is offered for that claim because all the evidence is to the contrary: namely her record as a U.S. Senator, a record significantly to the left of Bill’s.

Dissident Voice next blames Bill Clinton for the collapse of the global economy. No mention of Reagan cutting billionaire taxes from 70% to 28%, and his massive deficit military spending, transforming the U.S. from a lender to a borrower nation. No mention of Reagan’s “starve the beast,” democracy-destroying agenda. No mention of Reagan’s de-regulation “revolution,” and George H.W. Bush’s NAFTA Treaty, and twelve years of Republicans’ success in popularizing the notion that “government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem,” and Reagan’s near-deity status — all of which confronted Bill Clinton when he took office. No mention that Republicans attacked Clinton with smears and show trials, shut down the government, and hypocritically (because George H.W. Bush and many Republicans in Congress were doing the same thing) impeached him for dallying with a girlfriend.

Dissident Voice’s conclusion: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Obama are all equally bad. That’s a lie. It’s a lie that’s infused into a larger presentation of standard leftist dogma — which is how people are induced to swallow it, like giving a dog medicine stuffed inside a favorite food.

Who hates Bill Clinton, fears Hillary Clinton (who came within an eyelash of the presidency), and has both the motive and capacity for creating disinformation? The military-intelligence-security complex and the parasite industries and oligarchs who profit from it. That’s why I consider this site a disinformation operation.

One word is all one needs to describe this: wank.

“Had the Obama administration been able to lower the filibuster threshold to 55 votes or required senators to hold the floor as they once did or limited its duration to 27 calendar days, the incoming president would have been empowered to usher in an era of progressive change, the very change for which the electorate thought it was voting. He surely could have passed Medicare-for-all with a ten or twenty-year phase in. He could have restructured the tax code and fully financed an emerging green economy. He could have rebuilt the nation’s infrastructure and established an interstate mass transit system, achieving something very close to full employment.”

Obama could have done a whole mess of positive things, had he wanted to. There was nothing stopping him giving a press conference and laying out the facts. He’s never done that. All one gets from this “tel avivian candidate” is regurgitated ziofascist pr marketing crap. Bush sr. did this, and even bucked the aipac crowd over an issue, so obama could have done the same, had he wanted to.

Saying the man never wanted to do anything progressive, and that progressives just projected their hopes on to him really doesn’t address what went down. For one thing, obama encouraged that support (well, why wouldn’t he to get elected), and for another, and more profound reason, the zionists embedded among progressives promoted him and wrote/said all sorts of bs intended to make people think an obama regime would actually be different than the plugs that preceded it. The article left out that aspect entirely, as most of these irrelevant dem vs rep partisan pieces do. The major no no is criticising the zionist massa, as usual.

Another example:

“While few of us would argue that he is worse than George W. Bush or John McCain, that’s a little like saying a plunge in freezing water is better than a dip in raw sewage.”

Actually obama is worse. One of the things I speculated about when obama was running was that he would be. The reason why is like with clinton in the 90′s, all the opposition to the ziofascist/fascist policies of the obvious nazis (bushes) would fade away when a ziofascist/fascist dem took office (clinton/obama), giving ziofascism, inc. essentially a free ride in the usa. This is exactly what has happened. All the opposition to repulsive and criminal bush policies became support for the very same disgusting crap now that obama is promoting these crimes, just like what happened with clinton in the 90′s. All this dem-rep rivalry is is a “good cop/bad cop” scam to keep the same ziofascist/fascist oligarchs in power. At least with mccain, there would be some goddamn opposition to the ziofascism/fascism, instead of zionist limp noodle suck-ups promoting it because the dems are doing.

BTW, the analogy at the end of the quote is idiotic, both are raw sewage. Also, jumping into ice cold water can rather invigorating and refreshing. The author should try it sometime. There is nothing about the zionist obama regime and its supporters that is envigorating or refreshing. It’s, and they, are the same foul, disgusting excrement that reps, dems, capitalist oligarchy and zionism have always been.

One, an early communist/zionist puppet dictator, the other, a measured thinker; progressive on issues that warranted change, conservative when traditions were sound.

But sure, you just go ahead and stuff those two together into one sentence. History has already been polluted past the point of redemption. What’s the harm in one more lie. Well, I suppose it isn’t really a lie, more like a myth.

Who was it that warned us about myths? Oh yeah, Kennedy.

Now, if you would like to correct this egregious misrepresentation may I suggest that in the correction you detail the true differences between Obama and Roosevelt. Roosevelt was successful in his propaganda campaign, Obama has not been. Why? Because Roosevelt had the benifit of one way radio broadcasts to disseminate his communist/zionist propaganda, Obama has to compete with websites like this, and jerks like me.

As far as was he “fooled” by the Republicans? No. He and his staff (and it was reported regularly) were planning for the transition in the House well before the Nov. election. He was always a Clintonite. The only reason why he provided the other image during the primary was because he needed to differentiate himself from the real deal (Hillary). It was apparent as he “debated” McCain about who had the biggest balls for more war; and then once in took Medicare for All and the Public Option off the table. That’s with a full throttle majority in both houses. Yes, if he was what you wished he was, he would have been someone else. He would have dealt a blow to the filibuster. But that’s not what the duopoly does. It figures…who knows we may want to use it some day; rather than fighting for what is needed – i.e., convictions, not some phony political pragmaticism which is all about getting elected again!!

He was never more nor less than what he presented. He is a thorough DLCer…he was groomed for it. It’s in his DNA. He is what he is…and now my question to all those who fell for it is What are you going to do about it?