Obama Vs. Obama...He Was Against It Before He Was For It Or Vice Versa

If we could see Obama debating Obama, we would see flip flops like we've never witnessed before. I have compiled a list of the things he has "changed" his stance on since becoming p(resident). The fact is, he hasn't "changed" his view on anything. His view has always been the same from the very beginning. He only comes out of the closet so to speak when it suits him to do so. And now, he is bolder than ever before because he considers himself untouchable. He has nothing to lose anymore so why not? But he is too full of pride. Just as Satan was. It was pride that brought Satan down and it will be that same pride that will topple this administration. They think they are in complete control...but that house is built on sand and the tide is about to come in. And it's going to come in fast.

Here are the stances Obama has taken. Then and Now:

Obama 2007:

 

“(The Bush) administration also puts forth a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war.

No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.

The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whim of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary.

(The Bush) administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no shortcuts to protecting America.”

Obama 2013:

 

“You know, when I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more than any commitment I make: number one, to keep the American people safe; and number two, uh, to uphold the Constitution. And that includes what I consider to be a constitutional right to privacy and, uh, an observance of civil liberties.

Now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press, uh, are secret in the sense that they’re classified, but they’re not secret in the sense that, uh, when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program.

Uh, with respect to all these programs, uh, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad, bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. And, so I think at the outset, it’s important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.

Now, let — let me take the, the two issues separately. When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, uh, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks, uh — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I – I want to be very clear. Some of the, uh, hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls.

This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they’re — it’s being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law.

And so not only does that court authorize the initial gathering of data, but I want to repeat, if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data and wanted to, for example, listen to Jackie Calmes’s phone call, they’d have to go back to a federal judge and,uh — and — and indicate why, in fact, uh, they were doing, uh, further — further probing.

Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the United States. And again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully apprised of it, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it.

So in summary, what you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. And we’re also setting up — we’ve also set up an audit process, uh, when I came into office to make sure that we’re, after the fact, uh, making absolutely certain that all the safeguards are being properly observed.

Um. Now, having said all that, you’ll remember when I made that speech, uh, a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of, um, a perpetual war mindset. I specifically said that one of the things that we’re going to have to discuss and debate is how were we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy, because there are some trade-offs involved.

And I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity, because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate. And I think it’s interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren’t very, uh, worried about it when it was a Republican president. I think that’s good that we’re having this discussion.

But I think it’s important for everybody to understand, and I think the American people understand, that there are some trade-offs involved, you know. I came in with a health skepticism about these programs. My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest, uh, encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content — uh, that on, you know, net, it was worth us doing.”

That’s — some other folks may have a different assessment of that. But I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. Um, you … you know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.

And all I can say is, is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our ability to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they’re under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents, absent further action by a federal court, that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation.

I think, on balance, um, we — you know, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about. But again, this — these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then, um, they should speak up.

And we’re happy to have that debate.” 

Hmmm...sounds contradictory to me.

In 2005, Then-Sen. Obama Attacked President Bush for Not Tackling Medicare And Called It “The Real Crisis” That “Is Breaking Down Rapidly.” OBAMA: “The only thing I’d add, and then I’ll turn it over to Dick is to talk, is to mention that despite the President staking his domestic policy agenda in his second term on Social Security reform, the real crisis in terms of funding is not Social Security, it’s Medicare. Which is breaking down rapidly and this most recent legislation exacerbates that fiscal crisis. And that’s something for some reason the president seems entirely unwilling to tackle.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At An Illinois Weekly Policy Update, Washington, D.C., 2/10/05)

2008: Then-Sen. Obama Says During The Presidential Debates That Entitlement Reform Is Something That He Would Like To Do In His First Term. BROKAW: “Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that’s a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.” OBAMA: “Well, Tom, we’re going to have to take on entitlements and I think we’ve got to do it quickly. We’re going to have a lot of work to do, so I can’t guarantee that we’re going to do it in the next two years, but I’d like to do in the my first term as president.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Presidential Debate, Nashville, TN, 10/7/08)
2009: Obama Said We Are Going To Have To Craft A “Grand Bargain” On Entitlements Because We Have “Kicked This Can Down The Road, We’re Now At The End Of The Road, And We Are Not In A Position To Kick It Any Further.” OBAMA: “The real problem with our long-term deficit actually has to do with our entitlement obligations and the fact that historically if our revenues range between 18 and 20 percent of GDP, they’re now at 16, it’s just not sustainable. So, we’re going to have to craft, what George Stephanopoulos called a ‘grand bargain,’ and I try not to use the word ‘grand’ in anything I say, but we’re going to have to shape a bargain. This by the way is where there is going to be some very difficult choices, and issues of sacrifice and responsibility and duty are gonna come in because what we have done is kicked this can down the road, we’re now at the end of the road, and we are not in a position to kick it any further.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks Before The Washington Post Editorial Board, Washington D.C., 1/15/09)
2010: Obama Said “We’ve Got To Refresh And Renew Medicare, To Make Sure That It’s Going To Be There For The Next Generation As Well.” OBAMA: “But in the same way that Social Security has to be tweaked, because the population is getting older, we’ve got to refresh and renew Medicare, to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation as well. And the key problems are not just that more people as they retire are going to be part of Medicare.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At A Discussion With Ohio Families On The Economy, Columbus, OH, 8/18/10)
2011: Obama Admitted That The Democrats’ Do-Nothing Plan On Medicare Will Result In Medicare’s Bankruptcy. OBAMA: “What I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great, that we look after our seniors and look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At A Press Conference, Washington, D.C., 7/11/11)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Admitted The Administration Doesn’t Have “A Definitive Solution” To The Long-Term Problems Posed By Our Entitlement Programs. REP. PAUL RYAN: “Because we got 10,000 people retiring every day, and healthcare costs going up…” TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY GEITHNER: “That’s right. We have millions of Americans retiring every day, and that will drive substantially the rate of growth of healthcare costs. You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours.” (Testimony Before The House Committee On The Budget , U.S. House Of Representatives, 2/16/12)Obama Doesn’t Have A Plan To Control The Nation’s Entitlement Programs In The Long-Term. “However, he isn’t proposing the structural changes that experts say are needed to control spending in these programs over the long term. For instance, Mr. Obama won’t suggest raising the Medicare eligibility age, as he was willing to do over the summer during bipartisan budget negotiations that failed to produce a deal. He also doesn’t plan to propose changes to Social Security.” (Laura Meckler, “Budget Plan Has Familiar Ring,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/7/12)

• Obama’s Budget “Serves As A Political Document” Rather Than A Plan. “None of Mr. Obama’s major proposals are expected to become law before November’s elections, given both partisan divides in Congress over priorities as well as election-year politics. Still, the budget proposal serves as a political document in which Mr. Obama will set out his vision for how he would manage government taxes and spending should he win a second term.” (Laura Meckler, “Budget Plan Has Familiar Ring,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/7/12)

“Obama Has Long Resisted The ‘Entitlement Reform’ Movement .” Obama has long resisted the ‘entitlement reform’ movement, which is currently focused on establishing a blue-ribbon commission that would present Congress with a finished proposal — presumably calling for steep cuts in the nation’s bedrock social safety programs — for an up-or-down vote. (Dan Froomkin, “Obama’s Sense Of Entitlements,” The Washington Post , 2/20/09)

• USA Today Called Obama’s Failure To Tackle Entitlement Programs Is “Irresponsible.” “That’s mostly because Obama failed to take on the entitlement programs, by far the biggest drivers of future spending. Thanks to a weak economy, Baby Boomer retirees and payroll tax cuts, Social Security is already running in the red. Congressional Budget Office projections show it will add a half trillion dollars to the debt over the next decade, making Obama’s refusal to tackle it now irresponsible.” (Editorial, “Editorial: Politics Takes Priority In Obama’s Deficit Plan,” USA Today, 9/19/11)

While Obama Dithers, Judgment Day For Medicare Gets Closer

The Trustees Of Social Security And Medicare Predict That Medicare’s Trust Fund Will Be Exhausted In 2024. “The estimated exhaustion date for the HI trust fund remains at 2024, the same year shown in last year’s report. As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years.” (“2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds,” The Boards Of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds , 4/23/12)

• If Cuts From ObamaCare Do Not Materialize Than The Trust Fund Is Expected To Be Exhausted Sooner. “Without legislation to correct the financial imbalance, the fund would continue decreasing and use up all its remaining assets in 2024, and would thus become exhausted under the intermediate assumptions. If the reductions in Medicare price updates under the Affordable Care Act do not continue throughout this period, then asset depletion would occur slightly earlier in 2024, based on the illustrative alternative projections.” (“2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds,” The Boards Of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds , 4/23/12)

Spending On Medicare Is Expected To Total $7.7 Trillion Through 2022, Growing From $550 Billion In 2012 To $1.1 Trillion In 2022. (“An Update To The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 To 2022,”Congressional Budget Office, 8/22/12)

• CBO Projects That The Rising Price Of Goods And Services In The Obama Economy Will Boost Medicare Spending By $136 Billion From 2013 To 2022. “CBO’s current projections of productivity are lower than they were in its previous forecast, and its projected prices for goods and services (including the cost of both labor and non-labor inputs) are now higher. Consequently, CBO now anticipates higher payment rates for Medicare than it forecast in March, a change that raises projected outlays by $136 billion (or about 2 percent) over the 2013-2022 period. In the Medicaid program, higher projected prices for medical services and the cost of labor are also expected to boost spending, by $27 billion, between 2013 and 2022.” (“An Update To The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 To 2022,”Congressional Budget Office, 8/22/12)

• Medicare Spending Will Grow From 3.7 Percent Of GDP To 4.3 Percent Of GDP In 2022. “Outlays for Medicare (excluding receipts from premiums and other sources) will total 3.7 percent of GDP in 2013 but will reach 4.3 percent of GDP in 2022, CBO estimates, as enrollment increases.” (“An Update To The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 To 2022,”Congressional Budget Office, 8/22/12)