Clinton Foundation Acknowledges They Made Mistakes as Schweizer Calls for Investigation

Clinton Foundation acknowledges mistakes after hand caught in the cookie jar …

On Sunday, The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms. Imagine that, after all this time they have admitted mistakes after being caught. Peter Schweizer, the author of  “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared this Sunday on ABC’s This Week and on Fox’s Fox News Sunday to discuss the  claims in the book of the coincidental Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments, Bill Clinton’s increased speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and made favorable decisions in regards to those nations.

Looks like some one is admitting wrong-doing. It would appear that Hillary Clinton is trying to do damage control ahead of the release of the Clinton Cash book.

Hillary Clinton_Book Cash

The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, on Sunday admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.

In a statement, Pally wrote, “Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website.”

The statement comes as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has been delineating claims in his forthcoming book, which he says shows a pattern in which the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments before the U.S., under Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State, made favorable decisions in regards to those nations. Pally’s statement also acknowledged that those grants were not always properly reported.

“So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future,” the statement says. “We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.”

WAPO – Clinton Foundation acknowledges ‘mistakes,’ emphasizes transparency.

Transparency, really? If there was ever a word to never describe Bill and Hillary Clinton it would be transparency. Can you say she scrubbed her private server of all emails she illegally used as Secretary of State to do government business.

With scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threatening to create political problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, the organization on Sunday took the unusual step of acknowledging “mistakes,” but insisted that it is committed to transparency regarding its donors and operations around the world.

Nevertheless, the foundation explained for the first time publicly that one of its affiliates — a Canada-based charity that bears Bill Clinton’s name — would continue to keep its donors secret because of restrictions in Canadian law.

Sunday’s blog post also coincided with national television appearances by conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” charges that the State Department gave preferential treatment to foundation donors while Clinton was secretary of state and that the foundation violated its own promise to disclose all of its donors.

The Clinton campaign spent much of last week blasting the book as a partisan attack. Still, the Sunday statement was a sign that the growing focus on the $2 billion foundation and its relationship with donors may have begun to rattle Clinton’s team.

NY Times Journalist Caught the Clinton Foundation Red-Handed in a Lie About a Meeting Between former President Bill Clinton and Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstan State-Owned Nuclear Holding Company

LIARS: If you actually care about America, you will watch the video below that shows of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Lied and sold out our country to the Russians …

How big was the New York Times story on Bill and Hillary Clinton and the uranium deal, bigger than you think. If Hillary Clinton and the Clinton’s are allowed to get away with this then this country is lost forever. At some point Americans have to actually care that those in power and have the ultimate power like president of the United States actually have an ounce of decency, credibility and ethics. The individual who holds the highest office in the land can’t be a complete and total liar and hide behind a gender card saying what difference does it make. When is enough, enough?

When Hillary Clinton announced that she was going to run for president in 2016, she stated, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” Clinton went on to further say, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP … HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT PERSON AT THE TOP THAT THE DECK IS STACKED IN FAVOR OF!!! Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have sold America out so that they could become rich, breaking every law that the so-called people she wants to champion would have been arrested and thrown in jail. America, we are no longer talking about Bill lied about sex with an intern … THESE LIES ARE MUCH, MUCH INSIDIOUS.

Fox News: Millions To Clinton Foundation In Exchange For Russian Uranium Deal

The Blaze:

But, as New York Times reporter Jo Becker reported, such a deal would require review by the U.S. government. That’s where Frank Giustra, a Canadian business executive and founder of the company that would become Uranium One, entered the picture.

Giustra reportedly set up a meeting between Kazatomprom officials and Bill Clinton himself — at the former president’s home in Chappaqua, New York.

Giustra has close ties to Bill Clinton and is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. The two even flew to Kazakhstan together when Giustra’s company landed a lucrative deal to secure uranium mines there.

Here’s where the lie comes in.

Becker told Fox News’ Bret Baier that when she first asked a Clinton Foundation spokesman and Giustra about the meeting, they both said no such meeting ever took place. However, when she informed them that the then-head of Kazatomprom not only told her that the meeting had taken place, but also showed her a picture of himself with Clinton at the Chappaqua home proudly displayed in his office, they were forced to admit the meeting occurred.

In 2007, Toshiba “sold a 10 percent stake in U.S. nuclear power plant builder Westinghouse,” Reuters reported.

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the U.S. State Department, foreign governments and businesses donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paid millions in speaker fees to former President Clinton. Some of those same players then had business or policy issues later land on then-Secretary of State Clinton’s desk.

In addition to concerns about ethics of such practices, Clinton failed to disclose millions of dollars in big foreign donations to her husband’s foundation, which she had previously vowed to do. It was also reported that the Clinton Foundation is redoing five years worth of tax returns after a review by Reuters found several errors.

That’s the gist of the bombshell reports, based on Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Clinton Cash,” that emerged on Thursday.

Mitt Romney Says on Hugh Hewitt Show Regarding Clinton Foundation Uranium Payments … “It Looks Like Bribery”

Mitt Romney says, “It Looks Like Bribery.”

Yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Mitt Romney was asked what his reaction was  of the New York Times article report documenting cash flowing from the Russians amid a uranium deal to the Clinton Foundation. Romney, the former 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said that he was stunned and “it looked like bribery”. Romney went on to say that it looks like bribery and a cover up on behalf of Hillary Clinton and had she not wiped out thousands of emails, we might know more.

“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery.”

“I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails.  And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”

“But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”

It is too bad that Mitt Romney did not go after Barack Obama like he is now Hillary during the 2012 presidential election. Had he done so and kept his foot on Obama’s neck following the 1st Presidential debate instead of coating and playing a prevent defense, he probably would have won.

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton & the Real Russian Reset … Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

CAN YOU SAY OBSCENE CONFLICT OF INTEREST …

UNBELIEVABLE, From the New York Times comes the following connect the dots story that looks way to fishy and convenient of an incestuous relationship between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and the Russians. How in the hell can Hillary Clinton be trusted to be President of the United States? Forget email and server-gate and Benghazi-gate while she was Secretary of State and all the previous scandals that she was a part  of, we need to only look at what she did as Secretary of State and the relationships that can be best be described as suspect.  As Red State opines, Bill Clinton sold us to the ChiComs; Hillary sold us to the Russians. And this individual wants to be president. America, wake the hell up.

Hillary Clinton_What Difference Does it make

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Please read the entire article at the NY Times as there is too much incredible stuff in it to do in any justice with block quotes. It is time for America and especially Democrats to say enough is enough. Obviously Democrats are not going to vote for a Republican for president, but if you actually pull the lever for Hillary, you would have sold your soul, as there has never been a more corrupt person running for president that had no business doing so. If these kind of stories of scandals, corruption, influence and conspiracy were about any one else, they would have been politically destroyed. Sorry, but so should Hillary.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Not Categorically Denying Clinton Foundation Donors Received Special Treatment From Sec. of State Hillary Clinton

HMM … OBAMA WHITE HOUSE NOT CATEGORICALLY DENYING CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR AND FORMER SEC. OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON QUID PRO DOUGH SPECIAL TREATMENT …

Why would it be difficult for Barack Obama’s White House press secretary Josh Earnest to say categorically that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not provide special treatment for those who were donors of the Clinton Foundation? One would think that would be a straight forward response of, absolutely not. However, not with the most transparent presidency in history. The Obama White House does not seem to have an answer to the accusations made from the recent book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” otherwise known as Quid Pro Dough.

Hillary Clinton_Quid Pro Dough

New York Post

The Blaze:

The new book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, lays out the case that contributions to the foundation influenced State Department policy from 2009 to 2013, during Clinton’s tenure.

ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl asked Earnest Monday, “Can you say categorically that no donors to the Clinton Foundation – nobody paying any honoraria to former President Clinton – received any favorable treatment from this administration or from the State Department?”

Earnest talked at length about the memorandum of understanding Clinton signed when she joined the Obama administration, saying that it went above and beyond ethical guidelines, given her unique circumstances.

“I know there have been a lot of accusations made about this but not a lot of evidence,” Earnest said. “So, the president continues to be extraordinarily proud of the work Secretary Clinton did as secretary of state. For the details of some of those accusations, I’d refer you to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.”

Karl pressed, “Can you assure us absolutely no favorable treatment given to donors of the Clinton Foundation?”

Earnest repeated, “There are lots of accusations. There is no one who is marshaling the evidence for this. I don’t want to be in a position.”

Barack Obama’s DOJ Says There are No contempt Charges for Former IRS Official Lois Lerner

WHAT A JOKE, NO CONTEMPT CHARGES FOR LOIS LERNER  … MORE FROM THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION EVER.

This should come as a shock to no one …  President Barack Obama said he was going to have the most transparent and trustworthy administration ever. Of course this is much like a 300 pound man wearing a bowling shirt with the nickname “Slim” on it. And now for the latest in the IRS scandal that saw the IRS purposely and intentionally go after Conservatives and Conservative non-profit groups like the Tea Party ahead of the 2012 elections. Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will not seek criminal charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner over her refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. IMAGINE THAT! The DOJ claims that she did not waive her 5th Amendment privileges when she made a statement of her innocence prior to pleading the 5th because get this … “she made only a general claims of innocence.” SERIOUSLY?

The fix has been in from the outset. We not only have a corrupt government where the fox is guarding the hen house, we have one where the fox also is behind the scandal and in charge of prosecuting any such crimes at the hen house. This country has so lost its way I really am beginning to wonder for the first time in my life whether we will ever be able to get it back.

The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.

Machen said the Oversight Committee “followed proper procedures” in telling Lerner that it had “rejected her claim of privilege and gave her an adequate opportunity to answer the Committee’s questions.”
IRS watchdog probing ‘potential criminal activity’ in Lerner email mess.

However, Machen said Justice Department lawyers determined that Lerner “did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by making an opening statement on May 22, 2013, because she made only a general claims of innocence.”

Machen added: “Given that assessment, we have further concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attorney to present the matter to the grand jury for action where, as here, the Constitution prevents the witness from being prosecuted for contempt.”

Gallup Poll: Americans Continue to Name Government as the Biggest Problem Facing the United States

AMERICANS NAME GOVERNMENT THE #1 PROBLEM FACING THE UNITED STATES …

Americans are fed up with the increasing and oppressive government. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans named the government as the biggest problem facing the United States. For the past 4 months, the government has been named the biggest problem facing “We the People”. They are correct.  Even with such issues as terrorism, healthcare, race relations and immigration are extremely important problems facing Americans, the government, the economy and unemployment have been at the top of the list for the past year. In the end, it is our lawless government that refuses to follow the US Constitution,  our government that fails to adequately deal with border security, our government that makes the Middle East worse, our government that continually regulates us in a way that our Founding Fathers never intended and our government that spies on us and treats law-abiding, legal US citizens as a greater threat than terrorists.

Americans have grown weary of a government that could care less about the people and only about their power. Every day we are witness to a Democrat president who shreds the Constitution and a gutless Republican Congress who is too cowardice to defend it.

Gallup Poll_Government biggest problem

The Politico:

The government is America’s most important problem, according to a new poll.

In a Gallup poll released Thursday, 18 percent of Americans named government as the biggest problem facing the U.S.

The economy trailed closely behind as an important problem with 11 percent, followed by “unemployment/jobs” at 10 percent.

The poll shows a slight increase in those who are dissatisfied with government. In February, 17 percent answered that the government is the most important problem. Americans also seem to be optimistic about the economy. Last month, 16 percent of Americans said that the economy was the most important problem — nearly tying with government. That figure is now down 5 percentage points.

Major survey finds record low confidence in government.

Americans’ confidence in all three branches of government is at or near record lows, according to a major survey that has measured attitudes on the subject for 40 years.

The 2014 General Social Survey finds only 23 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court, 11 percent in the executive branch and 5 percent in Congress. By contrast, half have a great deal of confidence in the military.

As Ronald Reagen profoundly stated so many years ago, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

Ronald Reagan also said so many years ago, “We are a nation that has a government. Our government has no power except for that granted by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama’s New Ambassadors to Argentina and Hungary (Colleen Bell) … Then Shreds WH Spox Josh Earnest’s Lame Comments

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has been on a roll lately ripping the Obama administration. Then again, he has had so much material. What is sad, all he is doing is repeating what happened.  Two new ambassadors, hand picked by Barack Obama,have been approved by the Senate. Their credentials you ask? None. America’s new ambassador to Argentina doesn’t even speak Spanish and the new ambassador to Hungary is a former soap opera producer, who has admitted not knowing what the US interests are in that region of the world. Because she did so well during the confirmation hearing.  But they certainly bundled campaign cash for Obama.

Yesterday, we showed you Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s lackluster response to being grilled on the matter by ABC’s Jon Karl. But just how confounding was that response? On Wednesday’s “Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, the host stopped everything to scream out his disapproval.

To recap, when Karl pushed on the pair’s credentials and how it seems their greatest skill is their ability to raise funds for Obama, Earnest responded, “Frankly, I was not part of this decision-making process.”

Stewart was dumbfounded.

“What?! You can’t do that!” he yelled. “That is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen the president’s press secretary do. His entire job — his only job — is built around trying not to go, ‘Hey, look, I just fu***ng work here.’ But that’s what he did! ‘Take it up with my supervisor! Earnest, out.’”

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) Asks HSS Jeh Johnson, “Did the President Change the Law?” and What Happened to the Deportation of the Terrorists” Who Entered the US Illegally

An amazing exchange yesterday between Rep. Jason  Chaffetz (R-UT) and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson discussing whether President Barack Obama had the Constitutional authority to change immigration law and what happened to the four terrorists who snuck into the United States illegally. Were they deported? The responses from Johnson were startling, but not unexpected from this corrupt, lawless and lying administration. Jeh Johnson actually had the audacity to call the exert from Obama’s speech suspicious. REALLY SIR? The Obama administration might want to look in the mirror. And you wonder why no one can work with Obama or his administration, their word means nothing.

Hypocrisy Meter

Transcript from RCP:

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R-Utah): What do you say to someone who believes the president took action to change the law?
JEH JOHNSON, DHS SECRETARY: We do not change the law, we act within the law.
CHAFFETZ: Can you play the clip? This is from Nov. 25. This is the president in Nevada talking about this (VIDEO).
BARACK OBAMA audio clip: But what you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.
CHAFFETZ: So you say you didn’t change the law, but the president said he changed the law.
JOHNSON: We acted within existing law. We acted within our existing legal authority. Listen, I’ve been a lawyer 30 years, somebody plays me an eight word excerpt from a larger speech, I know to be suspicious. That was very nice.
CHAFFETZ: I’m going to read it back: “Now you’re absolutely right that there have been a significant number of deportations that’s true, but what you’re not paying attention to is the fact I just took action to change the law, so that’s point number one. Point number two: The way the change in the law works…” and he goes on. He’s pretty clear and he is the president of the United States. This is why we have a hard time believing that Homeland Security is doing the right thing.

The Blaze:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) grilled Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson over his department’s failure to deport four members of a terrorist organization who were captured crossing illegally into the U.S.

During a Tuesday hearing, Chaffetz recalled that Johnson had previously promised four men nabbed crossing the Southern border in early September would be deported. The individuals were thought to have ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an organization designated as a terrorist group by the State Department.

“Did you deport them?” the Utah representative asked Johnson.

“Uh, no. Not at this point,” Johnson answered.

“What is the disposition of those four people,” Chaffetz pressed.

“Two are detained, the two others were released by the judge — uh, not my preference — they were released by the judge and they fled to Canada and they are seeking asylum in Canada,” the homeland secretary responded, before placing blame on an immigration judge for releasing two of the four men.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Says Dems Screwed Up Passing Obamacare … “Democrats Blew the Opportunity the American People Gave Them” in 2008 and “Put All of Our Focus on the Wrong Problem”

 ISN’T THIS INTERESTING, DEMOCRAT CHUCKY SCHUMER SAYS THAT DEMOCRATS SCREWED UP PASSING OBAMACARE …

Speaking Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer had an epiphany and stated that “Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them” after the 2008 election. Schumer went on to say that, “We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem, health care reform.” Gee, ya think? Sen. Schumer was one of the 60 Democrat senators who passed Obamacare, with not one GOP vote, and forced the unpopular law down the throats of Americans. Now suddenly because as we predicted back then, it would be their undoing, Schumer has misgivings that Democrats focused on it first and did not focus on what Americans were dealing with on a day to day basis, a poor economy and unemployment. Schumer told those in attendance “that considering 85% of all Americans got their health care from either the government, Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer … we would still only be talking about only 5% of the electorate.” Wasn’t that the same argument that those opposed to Obamacare were making in 2009? Why blow up the healthcare system in the United States for only 5% of the people? This is a kin to demolishing a house because the back porch needs repair. Not only did Democrats not listen to the people, the law they forced upon them was nothing more than a lie.

Democrats made a strategic mistake by passing the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, said Tuesday.

Schumer says Democrats “blew the opportunity the American people gave them” in the 2008 elections, a Democratic landslide, by focusing on healthcare reform instead of legislation to boost the middle class.

But why is Sen. Schumer talking about the Democrats disastrous decision to pass Obamacare now, is it because they have buyer’s remorse and care about the American people? Not at all, it is because they have taken a political shellacking in 2010 and 2014 and now find themselves in the minority in the House and the Senate. It all has to do with power, not the people. Honestly, who in their right mind thought that an unpopular bill that adversely affected so many people to only benefit a few would not have ramifications? If Democrats could not see that, then they deserve what they got.

Obamacare_Schumer_RCP

click HERE or on PIC to WATCH VIDEO from RCP

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform. Now the plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed, but it was not the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care.

This makes sense, considering 85% of all Americans got their health care from either the government, Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them. The Affordable Care Act was aimed at the 36 million Americans who were not covered. It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. In 2010 only about 40% of those registered voting. So even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely did not, we would still only be talking about only 5% of the electorate.

To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me. Again, our health care system was riddled with unfairness and inefficiency. It was a problem desperately in need of fixing. The changes that were made are and will continue to be positive changes, but we would have been better able to address it if Democrats had first proposed and passed bold programs aimed at a broader swath of the middle class.

Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s healthcare crisis.

Healthcare, it wasn’t at the top of the agenda for middle class people …

“We should have done it, we just should not have done it first”. People were hurting and said, what about me, I am losing my job. It’s not health care that is bothering me.”

EXIT QUESTION: So why is Sen. Charles Schumer making these comments about Obamacare? Maybe because Schumer does not want to be the next on the list of 29 Democrat Senators who are no longer in the US Senate who voted for Obamacare.

Next Page →

Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

 
 
  • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
  • Red (comments)
  • Dugga (technical issues)
  • Dana (radio show comments)
  • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Close
E-mail It