Mar 3, 2013

7 Images & 11 Videos Illustrating The Budget Sequester & What's Missing

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

George Washington

At the CNN-Tea Party Amerigasm debate, seven ambitious Republicans give a jealousy-fueled beatdown to one other Republican and the crowd cheers death for the uninsured.

People cheer for the side they are on, no real debate(right wing): Indecision 1776 - Ye Cobblestone Road to the White House - Rick Perry & Crowd Response

People cheer for the side they are on, no real debate(left wing):

... at 2 minute and 40 seconds the crowd cheers when Stewart says 'raining hellfire from the skies with drones'. (Innocent people - including women and children - were being killed i.e.  The Death Planes or The Drone Wars)

Background for following articles is here.

"In fact, the entire $1.2 trillion dollars that the sequester is supposed to save could be realized by cutting one unneeded, wasteful boondoggle: the $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter program. The F-35, billed as the next generation all-purpose military fighter and bomber, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its performances in recent tests have been so bad that the Pentagon has been forced to dumb-down the criteria. It is overweight, overpriced, and unwieldy. It is also an anachronism: we no longer face the real prospect of air-to-air combat in this era of 4th generation warfare. The World War II mid-air dogfight era is long over"

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serv
ing four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.

Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.

About Scalia (rich white dude in Supreme Court):

With that remark, Scalia made clear (if he hadn’t already) that he’s more suited for the talk radio dial alongside Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity than he is for the Supreme Court bench.

The right-wing justice’s rant goes to the heart of long-held conservative ambivalence about democracy: that corrupt politicians will be able to buy off the rabble, with “spoils” or patronage or jobs; even outright gifts of cash. Only men of wealth, property and education could be trusted to rise above such rank bribery, which is why many states had property requirements and other limits on voting in the early days of our country; universal suffrage didn’t even reach all white men until 1830.

Still, Romney only railed against Obama providing “gifts” like healthcare to Latinos and contraceptives to women. Limbaugh called him “Santa Claus,” one of his nicer names for the president, for those popular new programs. A majority of Americans, O’Reilly opined during his election night self-pity party, “want stuff. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.”

But not even O’Reilly implied that the “stuff” Obama gave his voters included their constitutional right to vote.

Judge Scalia Said: Only men of wealth, property and education could be trusted to rise above such rank bribery, 

That means, these guys:

Recently, Jon Stewart  mocked Congress for their in your face hypocrisy...

The government investigates trading on non-public information -- unless members of Congress are doing it!

Congress, The Fed and The Banks have a sweet deal going on....

'Basically the banks were being lent money at no interest (by the government) and then the government was borrowing it back and giving interest!' Jon Stewart

Note: Bloomberg report referred to above is here.

Mitch McConnel Seems To Represent Congress...

Here is the plan McConnel came up with...

1. "I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the president the authority to REQUEST of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term" - "that [legislation] would be subject to disapproval. That resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the president, he could sign it or he could veto it." - McConnell - Theme: Passing legislation to 'disapprove it later.

2. "The reason default is no better idea today than when Newt Gengrich tried it in 1995, is it destroys your brand [i.e. America's credit rating] and would give the president the opportunity to blame Republicans for bad economy" - Defaulting was seriously tried by Newt in 1995.

3. "Look, he owns the economy. He's been in office almost 3 years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnel - The co-ownership is referring to the United states economy.

Important Republican Party Position: McConnel admits that making sure Obama is a one term President is his primary political goal. This means that the worse the economy is the better chances are that Obama will be a one term president. i.e. destorying the economy is a the political goal of the GOP. For people who forgot the elections (It's been over a week, I doubt anyone remembers anything from the election year)...

REMEMBER? The Romney campaign asks Rick Scott to downplay Florida's job gains since they only help Obama.
"Bad economic news is great news for Mitt Romney, so conservatives must drag everyone down in the dumps to get America back on track."  

i.e. Romney's test of truth telling = "If it ain't broke, insist that it is..."

Note: This one of of Mitt Romney's friends in the GOP...

Peter King supported the IRA's bombing of civilians (white people in England)... now he's in charge of Homeland Security... "Colbert Report: Peter King's links to terrorism"

Peter King: force behind Muslim hearings was an IRA supporter
Republican senator dismisses critics' attempts to draw a parallel with al-Qaida, arguing the IRA never attacked on US soil

The GOP won the House i.e. through a type of fraud...

CHART from Mother Jones: Americans didn’t intend to elect a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. But thanks to GOP-engineered redistricting, they did. 

Related: Tools To Understand Democracy & Despotism from Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reason this fraud hasn't been investigated properly, especially by the news media, is because 90% of the media and it's revenue sources are owned by the GOP.

"Republican's and thier revenue sources own 90% of media."  Senator Bernie Sanders

Now the GOP wants to extend it's fraud range to more of the Constitution. Haven't they destroyed enough of the Constitution already? i.e. Obama won a whopping Electoral College victory. Now Republicans want to change how electoral votes are awarded:

Related article:

Plato 2: Morality, Loyalty To The State & Democracy

Budget Sequestration

Both parties say its bad...

Yet they allow this to happen in addition to the insider trading followed by tax sheltering. They have no credibility.

[At 3 min] Democrats face cuts in many programs that they hold dear and Republicans face cuts in only one program, the military cause that's all they hold dear... and deficit reduction. The Tea Party ran on it

It goes back to 1985. The tax cuts of Ronald's Reagan early years, combined with his aggressive defense buildup, produced a growing budget deficit that eventually prompted passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. GRH set out a series of ambitious deficit reduction targets, and to put teeth into them it specified that if the targets weren't met, money would automatically be "sequestered," or held back, by the Treasury Department from the agencies to which it was originally appropriated. The act was declared unconstitutional in 1986, and a new version was passed in 1987. Sequestration never really worked, though, and it was repealed in 1990 and replaced by a new budget deal. After that, it disappeared down the Washington, DC, memory hole for the next 20 years.

RANT: [1:30] Why is Texas constantly cutting child services? The US is already the top child abuser in the western world according to BBC ! Why even put child care in the sequester? Why cut child health in the State with the highest child abuse? i.e. "Compared to Other States, Texas Has a Higher Rate of Child Deaths from Abuse and Neglect" I mean think about it. Each party put stuff in the sequester that's supposed to hurt them, but cutting child services is the main trend in Texas anyways, i.e. , so how is putting cuts to child health services for Texas a motivation factor? The government there probably welcomed these cuts. 

Perry Repeatedly Cut Child Abuse Prevention Funding As Texas Battled Rising Levels Of Abuse Doing the same thing over and over again and not getting the result you want but still doing it is insanity or a sign of intention. Lets see which...

Oh! There is a cut the GOP doesn't like! Prisons...

Republicans are fine with kicking kids out of school and slashing the meal budgets for poor seniors... but releasing noncriminal immigrants from prison? OUTRAGE!

Here is a cut the GOP likes...

Maybe Texans just hate kids? Ayn Rand did say the weak don't deserve love (bottom of this post)... maybe they over did it? Unintentionally on a mass level and intentionally on an official level as George Carlin explains...


GOP VS Ron Paul: A Return To The Suppressed Republican Primaries

In all this drama, this is going on in the background...

Global Warming Sens. Sanders and Barbara Boxer introduced legislation that would impose a $20 per ton fee on carbon emissions that would be mostly rebated to households. “The important issue to understand right now is that according to the scientific community, we stand the danger of seeing the planet Earth temperature rise by 8°F by the end of this century. If that happens … what they are telling us is this will cause catastrophic - underline catastrophic - damage to the planet,” Sanders told “Living on Earth” host Steve Curwood in a report broadcast on WHYY-FM in Philadelphia and other public radio stations. LINK, AUDIO

8 Degrees Fahrenheit.

Extract from a transcript of a PBS documentary on a possible extiction around 10,000 BC due to a comet strike (which explains allot)

The ice cores proved that the Earth's climate can change extremely rapidly. Sophisticated molecular analysis of the ice can reveal the temperature at the time it formed. The ice from this time, when the animals went extinct, shows a very unusual change: temperatures plummeted.

PAUL MAYEWSKI: It happened so fast. When you think about it, it's unbelievable. It's a complete change in the state of the climate system. It would be the equivalent of going from maybe two or three months of winter in northern New England, let's say, to 11 or 12 months of winter throughout the year.

NARRATOR: In possibly less than two years, the annual temperatures in North America dropped up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit, which may not sound like a lot, but the last time it got that cold in what is present-day Chicago, it was buried under a mile of ice.

Throughout much of the world, climates changed. Some places got colder others dried out, causing more fires. Was this sudden climate change, not the Clovis hunters, what killed off the great land mammals?

ALLEN WEST: There's periods in geologic history where things really go haywire and this was one of those times. We were going through a major climate change. Well, some animals just don't make that change.

(Note: Ice cores are explained here.)

In other words about half of this but water in one century, a quarter in 50 years...

...And politicians are working with models and experts from the 19th Century (Descartes clock model theory from his meditations which began with "I think therefore I am"... while he was hyped up on caffeine!). This is what's it's like at the end of the book "A Hundred Years of Solitude".

It's not jobs vs. climate. It's about a disaster economy vs. an adaptive one.
In other words: It's only the terminally Savvy who patronizingly assume Americans can't see any farther than their gas gauge. And that group, sadly, may include the president, who on the campaign trail offered only a meek assurance that "climate change is not a hoax."

That's nice. But stating the painfully obvious hardly earns points for bravery. No one outside the data-denying precincts of the hardcore right truly believes that climate change doesn't exist; the debate is over what to do about it. And on that front, the president has offered a big lump of meh. At his first postelection news conference, he ventured that "the American people have been so focused on our economy and jobs and growth that if the message is somehow, 'We're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change,' I don't think anybody's going to go for that."

It was tough to tell whether the president was mouthing Church of the Savvy precepts, or just showing the strain of Solyndra smears. Either way, jobs vs. climate action is a straw man—a false and outdated dichotomy propagated by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

No comments:

Post a Comment