This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama Redirects From A Broke US Government By Playing The Class Warfare Card, Focuses On "Millionaires And Billionaires"
In what appears to be an increasingly tenuous attempt to redirect focus from terminal federal government failure through the imposition of yet another round of class antagonism, Barack Obama, as part of his earlier address to the nation, stressed that more revenue "must be part of any deficit-reduction deal" and criticized Republicans for protecting tax breaks for "millionaires and billionaires" in the process even invoking users of corporate jets (despite that fact that he himself boasted using the $56,000/hour taxpayer funded Air Force one to travel the 110 mile distance between Washington DC and Williamsburg, VA). As the WSJ puts it: Obama "staked out his position in budget negotiations, which have reached a critical phase and increasingly appear to hinge on which side wins the public-relations battle." Well-aware of the dead end trap that Bernanke finds himself in namely that monetary policy alone is now (or ever) powerless to fix the economy (although it sure would do miracle for the Russell 2000... and hyperinflation), and that a fiscal stimulus is currently unpassable, Obama dragged out the strawman, suggesting "that some initiatives designed to stimulate the economy in the short term should be included in a final deal, singling out a yearlong extension of the payroll-tax break for employees, which expires in January." The bottom line is that as the $4 trillion budget cutting goal is completely unattainable (something the Republicans have claimed is a priority in allowing a debt ceiling hike, yet which is nothing but a PR bluff), Obama has instead once again resorted to what he does best: foment class antagonisms within America, by singling out the rich versus the poor. Ironically, as a WSJ commentator puts it so eloquently, "Obama clearly wants all Americans brought down to a shared level of misery --- except, of course, our federal overlords who will continue to demand their own personal jets, international family travel at taxpayer expense, lifetime health benefits while being excused from the ravages of ObamaCare, and of course their recurring exemptions from all other laws that they impose on us lowly serf taxpayers. Obama wants class warfare? Well he got it: Americans vs their elitist, corrupt, irresponsible, thieving government." One can hope that the final outcome of said warfare here will be more effective than any and everywhere else, where said "governments" continue to dangle the carrot of (insolvent) entitlement program elimination should the population dare to change the status quo.
The WSJ summarizes Obama's speech:
"You can't reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenues in the mix," Mr. Obama said at a news conference on Wednesday that spanned a wide range of topics from the economy to gay marriage and Afghanistan and Libya.
"Deficit reduction, debt reduction should be part of an overall package of job growth over the long term," Mr. Obama said. "I think that it makes sense, as we're looking at an overall package, to see: Are there some things that we can do to sustain the recovery, so long as the overall package achieves our goals?"
"Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituencies and we may not like, and we've shown a willingness to do that," he said. "So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax breaks for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we're not willing to come to the table and get a deal done."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reiterated Wednesday that a deficit-reduction package must contain big spending cuts and no tax increases or additional spending to stimulate the economy.
And while Obama was pumping up the rhetoric on the non-golf tour, and attempting to regain a shred of credibility with a general public that has long since lost all interest in both the hope and the change, Tim Geithner was waxing philosophically yet again and threathening with eternal damnation all those who dare oppose America's replacement of one tapped out credit card with another.
Below is Geithner's full response to a Jim DeMint letter from May 26 in which the republican made the all too clear observation that a US default is purely in the eyes of the tax evader.
Dear Senator DeMint:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 23, 2011, regarding the statutory debt limit. President Obama is strongly committed to restoring fiscal responsibility, and he has put forward a specific framework and set in motion a process to work with both parties to accomplish this critically important objective. Although agreement has not yet been reached, we have made progress toward that objective, and I welcome the statements by leaders of both parties making clear that the debt limit must be increased in order to protect America’s creditworthiness.
The debate over the debt limit can seem esoteric, but a failure to resolve it in the near term would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life. It would have a serious impact on members of the Armed Forces who depend on paychecks to feed and house their families. Social Security recipients who subsist on their monthly benefits, veterans who rely on the government for their retirement and health care needs, and small business owners or employees who provide goods and services to the country.
In your letter, you suggest that the debt limit should not be raised, and instead the federal debt be “capped” at the current limit. You further propose that after the government’s borrowing authority id exhausted in August, the United States should for some indefinite period pay only the interest on its debt, while stopping or delaying payment of a broad swath of other commitments the country has made under the law.
I have expressed my concerns about this idea before, but I will restate them to be clear: this “prioritization” proposal advocates a radical and deeply irresponsible departure from the commitments by Presidents of both parties, throughout American history, to honor all of the commitments our Nation has made.
The debt limit applies to past decisions of Congress. Increasing the debt limit is necessary to allow the United State to honor obligations previously authorized and appropriated by Congress. You explained this well in 2010 when you said:
You don’t have much choice if you charge something on your credit card. You have to pay it, and that’s effectively what this debt limit is … we’ve already spent the money. The question is now, do we shut down the government, or do we fund what we’ve already done.
Increasing the limit does not increase the obligations we have as a Nation; it simply permits the Treasury to fund those obligations Congress has already established. As James A. Baker III, Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, informed Congress in 1987:
I should stress that defaulting on already outstanding, validly incurred obligations has far graver effects than halting operations of the Government when spending authority is allowed to lapse, such as when there is a delay in action on appropriations. A failure to pay what is already due will cause certain and serious harm to our credit, financial markets and our citizens; it is not remotely similar to a lapse in authority to incur new obligations. (Emphasis in original.)
The statutory debt limit is not and never has been, as you argue, a “budget enforcement mechanism” that can be used to implement spending reductions by selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress. Our Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” When Congress determines that certain commitments in the law should be altered or terminated, those decisions must be effectuated through enactment of legislation, not by attempting to coerce the Treasury to renege on existing legal commitments.
Even if the idea of “prioritization” were not so unwise, it would not be a mere exercise in “belt tightening,” as you suggest. The United States in now required to borrow approximately 40 cents for every dollar of expenditures. Your proposal would require cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments. These deep cuts would be felt by all Americans, and they would risk throwing the economy back into recession.
You are also mistaken when you state that the Treasury has “prioritized” payments in the past. This is false. Never has the Treasury failed to meet any obligation as a result of a debt limit impasse, nor has Treasury ever “prioritized” payments. Congress has never failed to raise the debt limit when necessary. It is true that there have been failures at time to enact appropriations legislation, and this has caused temporary government shutdowns. Specifically, the 1995-1996 furloughs and suspensions of programs you refer to were caused by appropriations lapses, not a failure to raise the debt limit. But as Secretary Baker explained, there is no comparison in either cause or effect between a shutdown and a failure to increase the debt limit.
At its core, your letter is based on an untested and unacceptably risky assumption: that if the United State were to continue to pay interest on its debt — yet failed to pay legally required obligations to its citizens, servicemen and women, and businesses — there would be no adverse market reaction and no damage to the full faith and credit of the United States. Again, this idea is starkly at odds with the judgment of every previous Administration, regardless of party, that has faced debt limit impasses.
“Prioritization” also fails to account for how payments on principal would be made if investors were to lose confidence in U.S. creditworthiness. In August of this year, for example, more than $500 billion in U.S. Treasury debt will mature. Under normal circumstances, investors who hold Treasuries purchase new Treasury securities when the debt matures, permitting the United States to pay the principal on this maturing debt. Yet in the scenario you advocate, in which the United State would be defaulting on a broad range of its other obligations, there is no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities. In fact, some market participants have already indicated that they would be disinclined to do so. As one of the major ratings agencies concluded in a recent report, failure to pay non-debt obligations “would signal sever financial distress and potentially imminent debt default,” prompting the U.S. sovereign rating to be place on “Rating Watch Negative.”
If investors chose not to purchase a sufficient volume of new Treasury securities, the United States would be required to pay the principal on maturing debt, and not merely the interest, out of available cash. Yet the Treasury would be unable to make these principal payments without the continued confidence of market participants willing to buy new Treasury securities. Your proposal assumes markets would be unconcerned by our failure to pay other obligations. But if this assumption proved incorrect, then the United States would be forced to default on its debt.
I understand that you have a different view of what would happen if the United States were unable, for the first time in its history, to meet its legal obligations. Nevertheless, I hope we can all agree that we should not and must not gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States. The consequences of miscalculation are too grave. The full faith and credit of the United States is too precious an asset to risk. If you are wrong in your prediction, to quote then-Secretary Baker, “Future generations of Americans would have to pay dearly for this grave breach of a 200-year old trust.”
Ultimately, the notion of “prioritizing” payments is futile because the debt limit must be increased regardless of which spending path is adopted. There is no credible budget plan under which a debt limit increase can be avoided. In addition, a failure to enact a timely increase in the limit would have the perverse effect of increasing the government’s borrowing costs and worsening our fiscal challenges.
For all of these reasons, the idea of “prioritization” has been rejected by every President and Secretary of the Treasury who have considered it. It is unwise, unworkable, unacceptably risky, and unfair to the American people. There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit. As President Reagan wrote in 1983:
The country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequence of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass the legislation before the Congress adjourns.
I appreciate your attention to this important issue and I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress in the weeks ahead.
Sincerely, Timothy F. Geithner
(incidentally, the bolded text above is an admission by the Treasury Secretary that the US financial system is a ponzi).
Zero Hedge will shortly present a technical update from the perspective of US debt, on just what is so magical about the August 3 date that everyone keeps referencing.
»
- 20845 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fourth: Domestic Crowd Control
+1
Fifth: funneling channel of this decade's cut of US national wealth to MIC and the enablers of global banking infrastructure.
Ordnance has a finite shelf life and must be used up, you know. Budgets for designing, building and deploying new military technology don't just approve themselves. Omnipresent cost overruns in existing programs must be justified by the urgency of the situation on the ground, etc. ad infinitum.
killing people. this time you and me.
I think you have mistaken zerohedge for...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
lol +1!
america needs to start taxing its richest 1%? really? how about america needs to start cutting the fat that has made us sick, obese and lethargic? when youre severly overweight, you start eating less, not extend the belt by a notch or two.
Good idea. But who wants their socialist scam cut? Big-MIC (lots of old farts got rich off this scam), Big-Ag (better ask ADM first), Big-Road (developers), Big-Water (More developers), Big-Airport (airlines management), Big-Ed, Big-Health, Big-House, Big-Fin, Big-AntiDrug, Big-PoliceState.. who we gonna cut that wouldn't hurt the sociopaths.
Well, I guess we could cut the losers on Big-OldFart. Server 'em right for creating all this crony-capitalist government in the first place.
on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 19:31
#1413857
Good idea. But who wants their socialist scam cut? Big-MIC (lots of old farts got rich off this scam), Big-Ag (better ask ADM first), Big-Road (developers), Big-Water (More developers), Big-Airport (airlines management), Big-Ed, Big-Health, Big-House, Big-Fin, Big-AntiDrug, Big-PoliceState.. who we gonna cut that wouldn't hurt the sociopaths.
Well, I guess we could cut the losers on Big-OldFart. Server 'em right for creating all this crony-capitalist government in the first place.
************************************************************
I have a few favorites on this thread.. but I have read this several times and it just gets better each time.. fantastic! thanks for sharing and welcome to the family!
To Address Budget Deficit issue America must do only
1 single step: Cut f*cking OFF PENTAGON, STOP ALL WARS!!!
SEND ALL SOLDIERS HOME and stop poking long American nose
into other Countries local conflicts
STOP ALL WARS NOW.. IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, Libya,..
Half of current Debt comes from IRAQ WAR and capturing
FORMER American CIA Agent: Osama Bin Laden,
which was hired in 1970's
to fight Russians in Afghanistan.. OSAMA was on CIA Payroll.
Pentagon is largest
bloodsucker criminal organization!
I wouldn't not be surprised, if they actually
behind 9/11 attacks..
are u on crack or smt?
Yes moron, Osama B Laden CIA Agent since 1970's. That's the guy who was standing against Russians in Afghanistan. Where you was in 1978? Walking under coffee table?
They was taking out the wittness. Why you think they spend few billions of $ to
capture him? Well perhaps even that event is fiction too and
he's smoking Cubans somewere in Florida.
See? (2 junks) that's why Americans will never cut spending.. Pentagon blow away few trillions in IRAQ for absolutely NOTHING,
(WHERE IS THAT f*CKING IRAQIE OIL?????? SHOW it to me!
What they spend TRILLION DOLLARS ON????
What exactly they are doing in Afghanistan?? (SELLING DRUGS???),
other than firing up Billions of US taxpayers money? Keep supporting Military maniacs and you going to be hungry and naked very soon.. F* PENTAGON!!!!!
I believe that America is in Afghanistan because of its location between China and Iran.
China is the second largest oil consumer, and third largest oil importer. China transports Middle East oil via tankers through the highly defensible (by American carrier groups) Strait of Malacca. America wants to keep it that way.
This is the longest war in American history...for a reason. Can you come up with a better one?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a WINNER
http://image.lowridermagazine.com/f/18430057+w750+st0/lrms_0929_01_z+jackpot+title_image.jpg
Oil and gas pipelines. Similar reasons for intense interest and involvement in Pakistan as well.
The fringe benefits of the opiate production, keeping populace distracted/united against external enemy (bogeyman), projecting force to keep wannabe dissenters (Iran?) in line, keeping military spending's trench ever wider and deeper, etc. are nice too, but the strategic reason is to maintain supremacy over primary global energy source.
All so true and when you couple that factoid with the MIC pathology of sticking the big American Dick into every third world nation slit on the planet...well you begin to understand the impetus of American foreign policy.
China could, with all its sour crude production potential.. become an Oil Super Power when that Pipeline gets up and running. I am not even mentioning sweet lite.. Good God Man!
To keep the poppy trade in the hands of the Bonesmen.
Poppy Bush is lovin' it!
He is alive and is driving a taxi in Paris. Hey--here's one for Banzai!
any rasons you think he is on crack?
Because all I see here is a shitload of truths
"america needs to start taxing its richest 1%? really? how about america needs to start cutting the fat that has made us sick, obese and lethargic? when youre severly overweight, you start eating less, not extend the belt by a notch or two."
America is fat because of the corporations. The additives in the food are bad sh*t: MSG, transfats and HFCS are probably all contributing to make us hungrier and addicted. I gave them up a year ago for my daughters food allergies. I lost 18 pounds eating plenty of fat and sugar, but eating no fake foods. Her allergies were gone within a few months of getting the additives out probably because high levels of glutamate cause higher histamine release, so once the excessive glutamate is gone the food allergies were gone. We all felt so much better, that I kept home cooking everything. Once you know it's poison, it's tougher to eat it.
If you had any idea what you were talking about you would not make such an asinine statement. Perhaps the United States of America should start taxing those who pay NO taxes, yet suck up all of the transfer payments. Maybe you're just a fan of communism though.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3057
Hey, I know--let's start taxing transfer payments! Fuckin' a, it's time we got somethin' back from the useless eaters, eh?
Why pick on all the productive rich people? It was they who made America Great! And greater yet with each and every passing day! Am I right?
Hell yeah. Keep the money in the productive hands. That's how it's spozed to be.
Have you been sniffing your gas tank, Bob? You're starting to talk sense!
dup.
No. Read more instead spewing whatever shit you think you know "for a fact" ..
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong
Very interesting. Makes me wonder if it was all just a charade maintained by TPTB until it was no longer useful.
Back at'cha (copied the following across in case you missed it; I first posted it elsewhere here):
That article is pure NWO revisionism -- glorifying Gorbachev -- and comes right from the very bowels of the beast!!!
('Foreign Policy' magazine is an organ of the scheming marxists. It has been very closely related to certain 'Skull & Bones' families and Hegelian roots from its inception.)
In fact, the really 'real' plan for the Communist Bloc to take on a kindlier and more gentle face (or more "moral" face, as the article disingenuously calls it) was hatched back in 1958 by the head of the KGB. It (the 'Shelepin Plan') was debated and endorsed by 80 countries in 1960 and slowly put into practice over the following years.
Keep in mind the "opening up" of both China and Russia to Nixon in the early 1970's (with Henry Kissinger - a neocon Marxist and a CFR/Bilderberg top dog - doing all the manipulation of Nixon at the American end). Also keep in mind the massive financial and technological transfers to both China and Russia that has ensued since the 1970's.
Bearing all those things in mind, read all about the real story here from a Russian defector:
Anatolly Golitsyn - 'The Perestroika Deception' (1995)
(Working links are hard to find: I downloaded a pdf torrent some time ago to read it)
".....stop bombing the fuck out of people with a skin colour darker than a mochachino."
Classic line, Un-junk from me.
So you voted against it before you voted for it, Senator Kerry?
Fuck the junkers. "Mochachino" - spot on!
The Soviet Union went broke. America needs to start taxing its richest 1% or ...
Because the $2.2T per annum the Fed gov't already collects isn't enough? The more tax revenue the gov't has, the larger the annual deficit gets, and your answer is to try to raise taxes.
Ya can't fix stupid.
We could and should monetize the mercantilist surplus until they quit managing their currencies. It is virtually free money.
This is the idea people here need to spread on every single forum they have access to. Why pay taxes when Murder Inc. can print up whatever they need? Why should 30% of what one earns go to Washington needlessly? We can have our cake and eat it too! At least, that's the idea that needs to be promoted anyhow ;)
I appreciate the sentiment, but you should also consider that Murder, Inc. would then need to force you to participate with Slave, Inc.
The agreement has been that as long as you are a more productive debt slave who supports the murder of 'outsider' non debt slaves, you get to remain out of the less productive category 'physical real slave'.
Until the 2nd Amendment is gone we remain citizens as opposed to subjects, irregardless of the prevailing mentality of the masses. We have time to correct our ills, but the grains of sand are steadily falling down the hour glass.
Then we need to increase awareness and objection.
I've lurked here a long time, you all have done the above for me. It's time to broaden the reach of your skills.
Wow..100 posts in an hour, is this a record?
"Dear Senator DeMint:
I am writing in response to your letter of May 23, 2011, regarding the statutory debt limit. President Obama is strongly committed to restoring fiscal responsibility,..."
LOL!...gag...ack...cough...hack hacck!
Obama's budget proposal got zero votes in a senate (97-0) controlled by his own party!...why Timmah?http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget
I'm still trying to figure out whether "Obama is committed to restoring fiscal responsibility" or just the "restoring fiscal responsibility" is the real laugh line.
Tyler,
Or alternately, why not just let it all sink to the bottom and see how it settles?
I, for one, am curious as to what nothing will look like with the passing of time.
After all, we are talking about the virtual reality-----none of these dudes knows what's going on in the real world.
all of you fucking hippies better be praying to your pot leaf god that it stays online and never comes out of this electronic stupid box.
How dare anyone junk Tyler!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJdfWdIBfE8
Btw, thank you to ZH for fully endorsing the 1st amendment and free speech! I love that any and everything is allowed to be posted. That is why ZH continues to gain popularity and respect.
I have learned a lot here. ZH is my home page on my webbrowser and I have introudced many to this excellent website. mad props
donate.
already have, u?
3 times so far.
Almost everything. There were several posts deleted that had what might be construed as offensive material. Not disappeared from reaching the junk limit, but outright censored. First time I've seen it here(aside from the blatant calls for violence against the government a while back). Not really disagreeing with the decision, simply pointing out that it happened, and that the free-for-all is now gone, even here at ZH.
What's up with that Tyler?
Can you run a site with this traffic with zarro boogz? I think you conspiracy-prone types may be mistaking glitches for gremlins.
A flat tax of 0%.
I like the way you think.
Right, taxes to help maintain the ignorance of Jos Sixpack to keep him and his footing the bills. "Paradrop $ to Joe Sixpack" is the oxymoron of the fiat fractional reserve system.
But Tyler, why even pretend it's the US Govt that's doing it?
There's a very real disconnect (i.e. think air-gap) between the US Govt, and who/what makes 'US' Fiscal and Monetary policy and the alleged 'budgetz'.
The Fed 'printz' it, and TBTF algos stir it in as QE ... the NYSE rises.
And that's the empty-shell of the US 'investment' mechanism.
Who needs a Govt to play a role to do that?
Well, as it turns out, you do, to get a food ration distributed to your family, as this abortion disappears up its own confetti-shitting a-hole.
Print all you want;
No investment = No economy
Aaaaaand one lefty-righty divide and conquer junk for Mr. Tool.
Here's a clue. Puppets do not have policies, they have strings. But go ahead, be a dumbass and pretend that puppets are real actors, and see where that gets you (other than fucked (and junked)).
Just a quiet thank you for proper punctuation.
It is the physical action the puppet passing legislation and spending into law that has actual consequences for the citizenry. The desires of the puppeteer are irrelevant if the string connecting the puppet is cut. Without a majority of 535 puppets authorizing a budget deficit, and a rubber stamp from the Urkel impersonating fascist, then the US doesn't spend money it doesn't have.
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy equate to ~$380 Billion over 10 yrs....$38 Billion a year....$3.2 Billion a month.....or less than half a day worth of deficit spending per month. In other words un-brainwash yourself. Get worked up over the fact that members of congress are the only people allowed to legally insider trade and you will find the answer as to why things are so fucked.
Ah...perspective. Thx for cutting through the utopiods' rhetoric.
Stop your partisan wining about "Bush tax cuts" the problems and loopholes are much bigger than the across the board reduction in nominal rates. The actual "wealthy" in the US only marginally benefited from those tax cuts because they were already paying a minuscule effective rate before the cuts were implemented.
Bad read, UR. He wasn't whining about the tax cuts. He's pointing out that they pale in comparison to the level of deficit spending going on. In other words, it ain't the problem.
Sorry about that I did misread it.
However, I stand my contention that the Bush tax cuts are irrelevant to fixing the problem. Step 1 is live within your means. Step 2 is get a second job to pay down the credit card debt. Without Step 1, Step 2 is meaningless.
Ignoring unfunded liabilities and interest rates, IT WOULD TAKE 30 YEARS TO PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT IF A BUDGET SURPLUS OF $500 BILLION PER YEAR WAS CREATED. That would be 1/3 of current tax collections. The government needs to shrink spending and taxes need to increase, but increasing taxes first simply allows the Congress to dig a deeper grave, and ignoring the longstanding gaps in the code, which do not further job creation and capital investment does nothing but shift the repayment burden to those who can not afford it. It is a complex problem an "Bush tax cuts" is sound bite that allows TPTB to laugh at the masses as they re-enact a Three Stooges routine.
It's all part of the cunning plan.
1. Get the sheeple in debt.
2. Let the bubble pop
3. Bail out the big boys.
4. Change government's
5. Play the Class warfare card.
6. Keep punishing the sheeple until they revolt.
7.Put a populist in place who will "Level the playing field" and "Take money from the rich to give to the poor"
8. Implement any rules you like that support the "New System"
9. Sit back and enjoy the new EUtopia, while milking the newly installed pyramid system for all it's worth.
10. Keep all the sheeple equally poor through the magic of "progressive taxation" and harness their production by "grinding them between taxation and inflation".
11. Everyone Eliteone's live happily ever after in the new workers paradise of the USA.
Cmon people show some love to your masters, they really care about you....
Hey, it did wonders for Liberia!
Ship those PAMPERS to nato! +1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ael9T4ELq2w
People raise your voices, don't get caught in that mess
Like a fly in a spider's web, is it true more is less
Herded like a happy flock to the big T.V. slaughter
"Why don't you break that leash," said the heifer to the sheep
It's a new generation
It's a hallucination
It's a mystic vibration
It's distinct intimidation
It's the will of the people
It's the church with the steeple
It's the sacred devotion
To an unhealthy notion
People raise your voices,
don't go into that trap
If your friends and your neighbors push
Why don't you push them back
Don't you think the time has come
To stand up and be heard
Ain't no use to try and wait
For the magic word
It's a new generation
It's an infatuation
It's a beautiful body
Both erotic and deadly
It's the fear of the future
It's just surgeons and sutures
It's a spandex obsession
It's a lasting impression
Do you feel the power
Do you feel the power
Baptized in electronic water
Prodigal sons and beautiful daughters
With smiles and bows and rosy cheeks
And the righteous path
Death to the freaks
Do you feel the power?
Do you feel the power?
From the man whose voice sounds reassuring
Completely firm and so alluring,
Like's he's lived a thousand times before
And seen the world from shore to shore
With the calmness and tranquility
that oozes credibility
With the wisdom and the confidence
that seem to scream out common sense
And it makes you feel just like a babe
Daddy holding you tight and safe
Hush babe everything's all right,
Daddy's gonna stay with you tonight
Now he's got you by the balls,
he can sell you anything at all
From morality to diamond rings
to genocide to magazines
From religion to cosmology
to the end of a democracy
.
Seems like every billionaire is a huge Obama supporter and contributor. I think the only Repub contributor billionaire is Koch.
You mean tax them more. They are taxed now.
Don't believe the BS - the crackheads need to keep up their spending addiction and need to rob from the doers.
This time they are in really deep and need a wad of cash to get their fix - so they're going after the most successful.
the windbags are re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, with posturing, finger pointing and a bucket load of PR spin
...yes that'll all help paper over the breached hull and stop the icy water gushing in, the 'genius' of the political class!
We shouldn't condemn Obama for engaging in class warfare. We should condemn him for having a poor grasp on which classes are at war.
just a bunch of typical millionaires
You speak as if you know...
...but you don't, do you?
I turned that speech off today when Bacrack OBummer was speaking, his tone is now one that makes one want to vomit. He is a disgrace to the position he is in and quite frankly is just a failure and deserves no attention on here!
He gets our attention because he's the President of the United fucking States of America, and thus we can't avoid him. I truly despise the man. I can't stand to see his image or hear his voice. He represents everything that is wrong with our political system. And don't think it's a racist thing with me, he could be white, green, purple, it wouldn't matter. The man is a lying, self-serving, corrupt puppet and a traitor to We the People. But he is the Prez, therefore he gets our attention whether we like it or not.
lets get a republican in the white house so that we can get some forced austerity going for the poor and more tax breaks for the rich..
until it is dumbed down for "We the People" by making them hunger pains.. there will be no change!
my motto is put in the worst of the worst.. although we all know there is no difference between the two! LULZ!! @ Obama did this verse who would have done different?
A LOBBY WHORE IS A LOBBY WHORE IS A LOBBY WHORE! there is no difference between them.. none. Obama is a Republican!
You should know - you voted for him.
Actually, he probably voted for no one. According to your posts, you however certainly voted republican, which is why you feel the need to bash him.
P.S.: As for me.... i haven't ever voted.
Rynak, TG. Don't start now.
on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 18:56
#1413741
You should know - you voted for him.
***********************************************************
you are blind.. you need to see.
how can I help you see?
what would it take to wake you?
how can I help you understand the facts?
You are an embarrassment to FL. Please move to CA.
Is your last name Wasserman?
Lighten up on Debbie. She's the first tranny to reach the top of the DNC.
Not true. The 1st tranny to post here is cunthair. You're the abortion that lived.
Even a a fetus, I was impossible to kill.
The Gods love me.
Rodent!
That was bumper sticker worthy!
"Even as a fetus, I was impossible to kill."
"Even as a fetus, I was impossible to kill."
Just like Corporate Amerika. Nicely done.
Steve Buscemi narrating The Story of Goldman Sachs.
on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 19:34
#1413864
You are an embarrassment to FL. Please move to CA.
Is your last name Wasserman?
***********************************************************
You are a fucking coward.. I could go on but why?
Palin / Bachmann
FULL RETARD 2012!
Palin / Bachmann with Hillary and that twit who got shot in the head..
A mixxed ticket! Republican and a Dem! something for everyone! that would bring about certain fucking grid lock!
More like Kermit & Beaker!
I like how anyone making an annual $250k gross is now a private jet owner and surely must rub shoulders with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates at the local country club.
This kind of divisive shit is precisely the problem, oldest play in the damn book.
Barack Strawbama...
250,000 per year is nothing.
Oligopolistic oppression starts at nancy pelosi's level of ten million per year.
I wouldnt begrudge her that except congress has exempted themselves from insider trading laws and know what projects will be funded in advance of the rest of us
Top, Isn't $250,000 about the average family owes for the last twenty years of waging war? I wouldn't call it nothing, but I'd rather have just given it away: you know, have had it go into the economy to maintain infrastructure, blah, blah-----that would have turned it into a credit as an asset to partially offset the debt. Instead, we just blew it all up----I've never understood the thinking on this.
Agree.
I would not count on the ravening hoards making much of a distinction between the really rich and the merely comfortable. If you live in a mcmansion in a gated community I would consider downsizing considerably and hiding my light under a basket.
I know, its crazy, right?
Why get focused on 250k when we just need 14 trillionaires to take it from? Or just one quadrillinaire?
Hey, Jeetner! Why the hell do you suppose there IS a debt limit?
The debt limit applies to past decisions of Congress. Increasing the debt limit is necessary to allow the United State to honor obligations previously authorized and appropriated by Congress. You explained this well in 2010 when you said:
You don’t have much choice if you charge something on your credit card. You have to pay it, and that’s effectively what this debt limit is … we’ve already spent the money. The question is now, do we shut down the government, or do we fund what we’ve already done.
So mister tax evader, it is for money we have already spent. So on hte date you reached the limit, and technically, if you go to Sam's and try to charge another purchase, credit is denied. So, you didn't halt all non-essential expenditures to the money coming in and living wihtin your means. Just because your good buddies in banking might have to only get $0.90 on the dollar till 1 Oct 11. Also, you and the demorats want more money to spend so that you can borrow more and make sure your buddies that in 18 months you will be begging them for a job can earn bonuses of multiple millions.
The reason why I'm not President of the United States is because on the second day in office I’d be asking the Head of the Joint Chiefs, “what do you mean we ran out of missiles?”
The reason why I'm not President of the United States is because on the second day in office I’d be on TV explaining why there were no more goobermint workers. Then I'd resign, with a 'mission accomplished' banner behind me.
The ole Jim Roger's response. I love it when they are actually dumb enough to ask him that in interviews, trying to trap him. They just don't seem to understand that there's no such thing as a necessary evil.
Rogers stole it from me. Used it in '91 when I ran for city council.
hrmmmm. My reasoning is far more simplistic: in college too many people saw me inhale.
Not only did I inhale........I held it in as long as I could!
When i was in college in the eighties my roommates invented the worlds first known vaporizer. Too many red-eyed pictures of me to run for president.
The Obama Administration's strategy has always been about pitting one group
against another . So was his campaign. We need someone to unite the country,
not divide it, especially now as we are entering into such uncertain times. I hope
someone comes forward before the elections. 4 more years of Obama's bad
policies could destroy the country.
Ever try and reason with a Lib? Unity is not possible. Libs are mentally ill.
You're so incredibly obnoxious, I'm beginning to think you are a liberal pretending to be a conservative just to turn everyone against the conservatives.
No, it is just a very disturbed human being. We Liberals enjoy postings from cunthair as he is a typical representative of your ilk. Enjoyable to flame. Have a good evening defending Mr. Dorkhair.
Weiner, why do you always grandstand and chime in at the end of the thread when all the substance has been set out by others?
You're an embarassment to the canine order. Myn's smoked you libs here with great finesse...
Believe me, there is no way I'm going to defend, "Mein Herr", because (1) he gives fascists a bad name and (2) I'm at the liberal end of fascism.
So, what you're saying is that you want someone to come forward to pit different groups against each other?
Because that's the only real 'choice' ever offered.
Besides, nothing is as dangerous as bi-partisanship. It's evil squared.
this argument needs broadening a bit, the big picture. There are actually not 2 Parties to vote for but 2 voters;
Voters (insane, thinks it makes a difference casting a vote for one Party or other)
Non-Voters (realists, makes no difference, changes nothing, sane)
People forget the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to be a mostly gridlocked sausage factory.
does this mean there's going to be special new taxes on banks and bankers and financial companies ?
Yes. -21 cents vs -12 cents. What a tax!
This age of kings must come to an end
Obama wants class warfare? Well he got it: Americans vs their elitist, corrupt, irresponsible, thieving government."
Actually, I'd be THRILLED is the USG would just stand aside at let the class warfare commence between the Wall Street elites and the rest of us. Without the power of the state to back the bastards up, it would be a pretty short war.
Looks like i've been duplicated.
hence the problem and the irony: the state does back them up. So what now there Wild Bil Hicks?
Just wondering...are the spelling/grammatical errors in Timmay's letter that of his own hand? Or a poorly executed cut-and-paste by Tyler?
Here is the original
The world needs more people like you. The kind that knows everything, can do everything and never makes a mistake.
but... why have we never heard from you? Ever?
people who are flawless must be successful right?
no?
I write and routinely make no grammatical or spelling errors. Hell, if you read commentary on UK news websites, you'll notice that the proles there also manage to do the same.
For Gaythner to release something containing such errors is ridiculous; he has, afterall, legions of secretaries and proofreaders at his disposal.
You will forget how to spell if you haven't picked up a pen in 15 years and have everything dictated and transcribed instead!
He also forgot how to pay his taxes.
Alzheimers?
never underestimate the total cretin level of the public sector ..sloppy is a way of life, shambolic is a religion and Barney Frank can trash the entire US property sector and piss away $1 Trillion on the toxic after-farce and still gets 'respect' amoung all his Ronald McDonald colleagues in Washington DC
Creutzfeldt–Jakob related dementia.
Comes from eating babies.
Isn't afterall actually two words, or is that a British thing?
Tim? Is that you? It must be, because who-the-fuck-else would defend your abominable spelling? Dude, I knew you were a poor Treasury Secretary, but I didn't think you were an imbicile. I sure was wrong. It appears you are dumber than Bush! You should be proud. I am glad you were able to spell your own name correctly.
I apologize to you sir or madame for offending your sensibilities. You are right. I should not care that the person in charge (in title, at least) of the United States Treasury can't be bothered with the menial task of spelling.
You can go shit in your hat, too.
Just wondering... how do you introduce spelling errors while cutting and pasting?
PFM.
When I read your name I seen "arrogantcunt"
Whatever, D-bag. Because why would I want to hold the Secretary of the United States Treasury to the ridiculously high standard of being able to speak, write, and spell? I am an "arrogantcunt" because I find it completely fucking full-on retard that this little bitch cares so little he won't even take the time to have someone with some intelligence read his shit before he publishes it.
Why should I even read if he can't write it?
As for you, please go shit in your hat.
One of the stated reasons Cantor walked out was over the hedge fund manager tax. They're taxed at the long-term capital gains rate.
Link?
It looks like Jim DeMint may have Timmy concerned a bit.
Sure, it's all over the place, and there are better explications out there, but here's one from a newspaper. All the Blue Team was asking was that hedgies have their income taxed as, well, ordinary income, not as long-term capital gains. I can't imagine how this would even be controversial in the public eye.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/budget-talks-suspended-cantor-bolts-over-taxes
On the DeMint thing, I wrote my senators asking them to support it. No response back yet. I'm not holding my breath.
That is not all the socialsts ( dems) want.
I support all income taxed at the same rate, but i am not inclined to give an inch right now. Maybe later if obamao loses the election.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, so chill... just saying that's *the stated reason* Cantor walked. The real reason is probably that he can't deliver the votes, so he has to put this up as a fig leaf.
"the real reason" is that he's a know nothing, petulant child, posing for is Tea Party / Corporate masters
So SRV, we put you in the bigger goobermint/paid moveon shill camp?
I'm in the beat the FatCats to a pulp camp... meow!
Union trolls, out in droves.
The fact that you equate the tea party with big business tells me the last time you left your house was to get on a bus so your masters could put you out in a color coded t-shirt to spout nonsensical talking points like a drooling idiot.
It's called critical thinking, try it some time.
BTW who organized y'alls excursion into ZH? DU? DK?
The real reason is that house republicans have been put on notice that they are expected to stick to their WRITTEN pledge that they will not raise taxes. There was no ambiguity in the pledge.
Zack attack is right. There arent enough votes to pass even one dollar in tax increases in the house.
The real reason is that welfare scum like you have taken enough money from those who work for it. Why should taxes be raised to bail out failed companies and support leeches like yourself?
Even if that was all they wanted, and even though I am strongly in favor of taxing all income equally, if the want to raise revenue by adjusting depreciation formulas and reducing charitable giving - I would have walked out solely on that basis, as it means they have absolutely no idea how to actually address the structural economic and job problems.
I thought you had to hold a positon for 1 year to qualify for the captial gains rate, not 1 millisecond.
These people are grasping at straws.....Nothing but a bunch of sociopaths..........
Im with Ron Paul, Lets Declare Bankruptcy......
billionaires who doesn't work for Banks is Obama's enemy.