Spintested: 12/22/11

If It Ain't Broke, Break It

Thursday, December 22, 2011

If $19 a week (that drains Social Security and Medicare) is the best you and the rest of the Democrats in Congress and the White House can do for the 99%, Mr. Ellison, it's time for you to pack up and go home.

If Republicans are going to turn down anything Obama and Democrats put forth, why then aren't Obama and Democrats fighting for the BEST plan out there? Everyone who has ever negotiated a contract knows this. Every lawyer knows this. You put everything on the table, and you don't take anything off unless and until you get something in return. In poker parlance, Obama folds on a straight flush.

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosures but there are 11 million more in the pipeline -- There must be principal write-downs.

Why aren't Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama's AND Republicans' plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressives' budget:

"balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security's solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."

But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it was, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.

Democratic politicians should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People's Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists' plans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

Obama is the gr!fter leading off the second half of the con game, which is to squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor and middle classes. It began with part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls), continues with more *AFTA treaties (outsourcing more Americans' jobs) and "payroll tax 'holidays'".

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosures but there are 11 million more in the pipeline -- There must be principal write-downs.

Democratic politicians should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People's Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists' plans.

Why aren't Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama's AND Republicans' plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressives' budget:

"balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security's solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."

But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it was, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Reflects On First Term In Interview With Barbara Walters

Obama On The Couch
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

undefined
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

And read this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

That's Obama's style, taking solutions that work for the People off the table and out of consideration when we're discussing how we want to proceed. That's what he did during the healthcare debate -- He took single payer off the table before negotiations ever began. Because if affordable, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer.

If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceutical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' healthcare and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.

If Republicans are going to turn down anything Obama and Democrats put forth, why then aren't Obama and Democrats fighting for the BEST plan out there? Everyone who has ever negotiated a contract knows this. Every lawyer knows this. You put everything on the table, and you don't take anything off unless and until you get something in return. In poker parlance, Obama folds on a straight flush.

If you haven't seen this, you might find it enlightening -- Laura Flanders, John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') and Russ Baker ('Family of Secrets') talk about Obama and corporations and the IMF.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

Obama is the grifter leading off the second half of the con game, which is to squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor and middle classes. It began with part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-priced junk health insurance that has no cost controls), continues with more *AFTA treaties (outsourcing more Americans' jobs) and "payroll tax 'holidays'".

There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosures but there are 11 million more in the pipeline -- There must be principal write-downs.

Democratic politicians should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People's Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists' plans.

Why aren't Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama's AND Republicans' plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressives' budget:

"balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security's solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."

But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it was, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

Obama has let Republicans define the issues again, adopting their language, their spin, by saying that extending the "holiday" on paying into the Social Security trust fund as "raising taxes".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

If you support payroll tax "holidays", you're also for the end of Social Security and Medicare.

What follows this is the privatization of Social Security.

There are other ways to get stimulus money to the poor and middle classes.

Where did you get your information on the above..It seems to me that all the statements made above have been made by Repubs. There plans won't work. The Repubs have got a problem now with not passing the tax holiday can you imagine what would happen if they tried to privatize SS and Medicare. I do believe they suggested these things before and ended up backing down.

==============================

There is nothing that Republicans have done without Democrats' help, without Democrats having signed on to.

Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts - There's no getting around that.

Obama and Democratic leadership have already indicated they're on board with Social Security cuts, privatizing, etc. Democratic House leader (DCCC), congressman Chris Van Hollen made an interesting parsing slip on CNN [searchword: "partial"] about that very point. We're being set up to accept that which they're saying is inevitable.

Obama packed his own Deficit Commission with Social Security looters. And here. And here.

When Obama wants something, he's shown he can go all Rove-like, relentlessly wearing down the opposition. The problem is that he and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party don't want what the Democratic voters put them into power to get.

Obama's in the Oval Office to mellow-talk us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentious, fire-in-the-belly Democratic leaders actually fighting on our behalf. Obama's in the White House to talk our rational minds into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world being perpetrated on us, and never even think about trying to get back the money that was ripped off from the middle and poor classes, and to ease our transition into a third world nation status.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

Read this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Speaks On Latest Payroll Tax Cut Developments

If you support payroll tax "holidays", you're also for the end of Social Security and Medicare.

What follows this is the privatization of Social Security.

There are other ways to get stimulus money to the poor and middle classes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Payroll Tax Cut Fight: Mitch McConnell Says House Should Pass Two-Month Extension (UPDATE)

A "holiday" from payroll tax cuts (where Social Security and Medicare benefits come from) isn't the only means by which the poor and middle classes can get relief.

What comes after this is privatizing Social Security.
About GOP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Payroll Tax Cut Fight: Mitch McConnell Says House Should Pass Two-Month Extension (UPDATE)

“The staunchest supporters of Social Security are those pushing the hardest to cut the program's chief financing stream—the payroll tax. Severing the link between payroll taxes and benefits means beneficiaries could no longer claim they ‘earned’ their Social Security benefits. This would erode future support for this vital program."

-Jason Fichtner
Former Social Security Administration Deputy Commissioner

And Charles Blahous, who currently serves as one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Programs, says:

“Social Security was not established to be a source of ‘temporary’ stimulus funds. The idea that its payroll tax rate should be moved up and down with economic events is highly dangerous to the program’s financial future.

"If Congress continues to cut the program’s funding source, one of two things must happen: 1) Social Security’s insolvency will be accelerated; or 2) Social Security will have to increasingly rely on general revenues (i.e., income taxes) to pay beneficiaries.”

Read Social Security Payroll Tax Cut -- A Temporary Stimulus With Permanent Damage by Charles Blahous.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops On Iraq: GOP Candidate Says 'We Would Not Have Gone In' If We Knew There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction (VIDEO)

The government also spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 … confirmed here and here), while saying “we don’t spy”.

And the government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said “we don’t torture”.

In other words, high-level officials in the administration were caught in repeated untruths, and so their statements about believing good faith that Iraq had WMDs is less believable.

What Really Happened?

But if the White House knew that Iraq didn’t have any WMDs, why did we go to war in Iraq?

Well, several very high-profile figures have said it was for the oil. See this, this. and this.

About Mitt Romney
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops On Iraq: GOP Candidate Says 'We Would Not Have Gone In' If We Knew There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction (VIDEO)

A British official said that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDs in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

Fool Me Once …

In addition, it is a well-understood principle that if someone has been caught in a lie, we are less likely to believe him. For example, a witness who is caught in a lie during trial is unlikely to be believed by the jury when he makes another statement.

Well, Cheney and other high-level White House officials repeatedly implied that Saddam and Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, when they knew that wasn’t true.

Indeed, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reports that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this.

KEEP READING
About Mitt Romney
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops On Iraq: GOP Candidate Says 'We Would Not Have Gone In' If We Knew There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction (VIDEO)

Indeed, a former high-level CIA analyst (who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials) says that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Dick Cheney, and that:

CIA Director George Tenet told his “coterie of malleable managers” at the CIA to create a National Intelligence Estimate “to the terms of reference of Dick Cheney’s speech of August 26, 2002, where Dick Cheney said for the first time Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon in a year, he’s got all kinds of chemical, he’s got all kinds of biological weapons.”

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind says:

Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The Washington Post reports that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team “transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003.” Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to repeat the myth over the next four months.

KEEP READING
About Mitt Romney
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops On Iraq: GOP Candidate Says 'We Would Not Have Gone In' If We Knew There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction (VIDEO)

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs

Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake. For example, Tony Blair – the British Prime Minister – knew that Saddam possessed no WMDs. If America’s closest ally Britain knew, then the White House knew as well.

And the number 2 Democrat in the Senate - who was on the Senate intelligence committee – admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush’s public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. If the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

But we don’t even have to use logic to be able to conclude that the White House knew.
Specifically, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe says that Bush, Cheney and Rice were personally informed that Iraq had no WMDs in Fall 2002 (and see this).

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil – who was a member of the National Security Council – said:

In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops On Iraq: GOP Candidate Says 'We Would Not Have Gone In' If We Knew There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction (VIDEO)

Remember Tuwaitha?

The most outrageous lies of the Bush Administration prior to the war were the nuclear lies. That they had the gall to threaten, to frighten, to terrorize the American people with the spectre of mushroom clouds is beyond belief, but that's exactly what they did.

Now the lies are coming back to bite them in the persons of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. The fact that BushCo chose to personally attack Wilson's family, rather than address Wilson's charge, tells us everything we need to know.

But there's more concrete evidence that the Bush gang did not believe their own nuclear lies for a second, and it's this: When U.S. forces took control of Iraq, did they rush to secure the known nuclear sites - specifically the main site at Tuwaitha? Did they safeguard the known radioactive materials, lockdown the site and begin searching for evidence of Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons?

No, they did not. They did, however, in those first days, secure the Oil Ministry.

Tuwaitha languished unsecured for weeks. The uranium stored there was looted. Some of it most likely wound up on the black market.

The Bush Administration, which claimed they had to invade Iraq to save us from the mushroom cloud, promptly forgot all about mushroom clouds and dirty bombs once they got some American boots onto Iraqi oil fields.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP