Stronger voice on Libya: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The United States is in a very tough spot when it comes to Libya, and President Obama has taken some heat for not being more vocal on the crisis.
The White House has said repeatedly it's weighing its options, and that nothing is off the table. But the president has said little more. And we've been "weighing" for a while now.
The president is walking a tightrope: If the U.S. acts unilaterally - no matter how noble the cause of helping those in Libya fighting for their freedom - we will be seen as interfering in yet another Muslim nation's business. That perception is what got us 9/11.
So, President Obama isn't saying much publicly. He's had strong words for Gadhafi, demanding he step down; but he's stopped short of calling for any other specifics. Gadhafi's still there.
In the meantime, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has emerged as the mouthpiece for the administration. She traveled to Geneva last week to meet with top diplomats and discuss military and humanitarian options.
Clinton told Sky News yesterday that the U.S. wants to see the international community support a no-fly zone. She also said it was important that the United Nations decide what to do about the conflict in Libya, not the United States.
Some of the president's top aides were scheduled to meet today to discuss the situation in Libya, including Secretary of State Clinton, Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. But the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, was not scheduled to attend.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Libya, who has the stronger voice: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What does it mean if social welfare benefits make up 1/3 of wages, salaries in U.S.?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Americans have become alarmingly dependent on handouts from Uncle Sam, according to a new report.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/09/art.food.stamps.jpg caption=""]
Government social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance made up 35% of all public and private wages and salaries last year. That's more than one-third of all the money Americans earned.
These findings are contained in a study of government data done by TrimTabs Investment Research. In 2000, 21% of all wages and salaries in the United States came from social welfare programs. In 1960, it was just 10%.
One of the economists at TrimTabs says we're in for some difficult times ahead unless this country can get back to at least the 26% ratio it had before the recession started. And she says there are only two ways to do that: Either increase private sector wages and salaries by 35% or cut social welfare benefits by nearly a quarter. Neither of those things is likely to happen.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the so-called entitlement programs, make up more than 60% of federal spending each year. As the baby boomers get older, retire and need more medical care, the costs for those programs will only go up.
While the squabbling over budget cuts continues on Capitol Hill, you can be sure no one is touching these programs. The $60 billion measure passed by the House last month didn't touch one dime of those three programs.
As the evidence continues to mount that our country is hurtling toward an economic disaster, our government refuses to respond in any meaningful way.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if social welfare benefits make up more than 1/3 of all wages and salaries paid in the U.S.?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments