People have exposed Rush Limbaugh for years. At least 41 advertisers have eliminating their funding to the man's radio show. What do I think of these circumstances? It's easy to see my view of these things. Rush was wrong since even he disagreed with Fluke's politics; he didn't have to discuss her in those terms. He apologized for them, but this doesn't make up the evil, bigoted remarks Rush Limbaugh said. Rush condemned those with drug addiction and ironically he was caught being addicted to Oxycotin once before. He slandered my people (or black people), but he was caught in numerous scandals. His true secrets are out. It's out. He supports the evils in the war on terror and minimized the horrors of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Now, the liberal establishment legitimately exposes Rush Limbugh's extremism. Yet, they won't own up to the current administration's errors. These errors include the imperial attacks in Somalia, the unjust NATO war crimes in Libya, and the assassination of an American citizen. Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son were American citizens and they were murdered by the U.S. government. They were murdered without a trial at all. Many of them were with us in protesting the Bush era crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations in the world. Today in 2012, many of them are eerily silent and trying to even justify the lynching of black people in Libya. They even support the Western funded terrorist rebels in Syria. Some of them want death when it’s under Democratic approval. That's a disgrace. This isn't red or blue. This isn't male or female. This isn't young or old. That's a fact. How can these people call themselves liberal when they agree with indefinite detention, targeted killings, drone strikes, and the destruction of Libya plus Somalia? Recently, Attorney Eric Holder tried to justify murdering people without due process, approval from the legislature, and no approval from the American people (in the war on terror).
A review of economics is very important to comprehend during the course of our lives. There are the production of goods and services. They depend on 4 categories of resources and these resources are interdependent in the production process. Interdependence means that all of the resources in society are relied upon each other (or they need each order in order for the economy to flow fluidly). Now, the first factor of production is labor (or any human effort used to produce goods and services. It's like worker forming steel in a factory, capital (a man made resource in the production of other goods and services. Capital can be tools, buildings, and equipment), natural resources (like oil, water, etc. that can be used in the production of goods and services. All of these resources are produced by nature), and an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is like a risk taker that organizes the other resources for production. An entrepreneur can be more economic efficient if he or she uses innovator, unique style, and advanced tools. All forms of production depend on natural resources, which need capital for conversion to usable goods and labor to make the conversion. Supply and demand are concepts that deal with the fundamentals of the U.S. market economy. Supply and demand interact with each in order to determine price in a market economy. Demand is the ability for someone to buy a good or service at various prices. Supply is the ability for a person to provide quantities of a good or service at various prices. Supply can simply deal with me owning 100 shoes that I can sell at a certain price. The law of demand means that quantity demanded varies inversely to price. If everything is equal, the lower the price, the higher the quantity demanded and vice versa. Substitutes, complements, number of demanders, consumer preference, and income can influence demand. The law of supply means that quantity supplies vary directly with price. This means that if all else remains the same, the lower the rice, the lower the quantity supplied and the higher the price, the higher the quantity supplies. Factors that influenced supply include price influencing supply, the number of producers, technology, government policies, and productivity of resources. Equilibrium is a very important concept of economics. Equilibrium is the point where supply and demand balance with each other in a supply plus demand graphs. The region below the equilibrium point is a shortage, while above the equilibrium point is called a surplus. There is a circular flow of economic activity. Households (own the factors of production) sell those resources to businesses.
The famous 2008 IOUSA documentary is a part of austerity propaganda. Peter G. Peterson supported the documentary. Peterson since the 1970's desired especially the privatization of all of Social Security for the youth. He lied and said that Social Security could be gone when Social Security has a surplus (and will remain for a very long with little twists in it). Stealing money from Social Security has been a vision of Republicans for generations. The film claims that our current system is unsustainable absent drastic action. We have huge health care costs in America's corporate health care system. If we can keep the health care costs under control, then we can handle budget deficit issues and a better standard of living. The documentary claims that people from across the political spectrum support their austerity agenda. The reality is that most Republicans like the Heritage Foundation and centrists like the Brookings Institute agree with this fiscal agenda. Social spending had nothing to do with the stagnant economy in the 1970's. The slowdown of productivity growth in the 1970's because of automation and globalization influenced the economic slowdown of the 1970's.The government can maintain deficits as long as the growth of debt doesn't exceed the growth of GDP. The ratio of debt to GDP doesn't rise over time is one sign of fiscal stability. The film says that our children and grandchildren will be forced to sacrifice some parts of Social Security. This is pure paranoia. This fact is completely meaningless from the standpoint of Social Security. The program is projected to hold more than $5 trillion in government bonds at that point. The Congressional Budget Office projects that these bonds, together with annual tax revenue, will be sufficient to keep the program fully solvent until 2049 with no changes whatsoever (or in the 2030s). The attack on Social Security has been a goal of the plutocracy since its invention. That is why the Congressional puppets in 2010 cut payroll contributions to Social Security from 6.2% to 4.2%, representing a loss to the Social Security Fund of $140 billion the first year! This 2010 Obama/Republican Party payroll tax cut actually represented a 30 percent reduction of money going into Social Security.Peter Petersen is a hypocrite since he wants to destroy Social Security for us who are young, while he collects $2,700 a month from Social Security. Social Seucrity payments help those who are borderline near poverty. Once the elderly poverty rate was 35% as late as 1959. Now, it's about 10%, because of the reliable Social Security program that they have paid into. Social Security isn't part of the federal budget since it's independent of it being a despository fund. It isn't an entitlement program being paid for by government taxes. It's a separate program with its own revenue stream and retiree payments. This Social Security trust fund system is one of the few programs set up by the federal government that continues to operate successfully. To take a sample year, in 2002, the SSS received $627 billion in checks, $453.8 billion in taxes, and an additional $49 billion in interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion in profit, to add to the trillions it has in surplus from previous years. The film talks about the shift from surpluses to deficit. This was caused by the stock market bubble and the recession not by social programs. You will notice that these deficit hawks refuse to reduce the public sector health care costs by reforming the U.S. health care system itself. People like Peterson won't call for a single payer type of health care system. The idea being to reduce costs by making health care more efficient rather than just cutting services in Medicare and other public sector programs. Big Pharma dominates the health care system in the USA mostly. A radical deficit reduction plan is silly when individuals need jobs now. The documentary is right on some things. It's correct to point out that we should look in our debt and deficit statistics in a cogent, mature fashion. It's right to expose the expensive nature of tax cuts for the super rich too. Yet, the film is corporatist.
Big banks and Hollywood go hand in hand. In fact, the movie industry in Hollywood was funded by the Bank of Italy or the Bank of America. Sometimes, these movies of Hollywood promote a sense of historical revisionism (like glamorizing gangsters and harboring a hatred of real heroes). The 1939 blockbuster movie "Gone with the Wind" was based off the book of the same title. The author of the book was Margaret Mitchell. The movie, the Confederates were considered the heroes, while the brave Union soldiers were classified as the villians. Giannini of the Bank of America funded Hollywood heavily in 1930. Giannini worked to assist Los Angeles. He authorized a loan to then 2 of Hollywood's most aggressive producers. Their names are Freemason Darryl F. Zanuck and Joseph Schenck to form a new company called 20th century FOX (in 2 years later). With $400,000 in Bank of Italy money, Zanuck worked furiously to rush six films into production, including such financial successes as The Bowery, The House of Rothschild, Cardinal Richelieu, and Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back. By the end of the decade 20th Century-Fox had expanded into a $60 million studio and was turning out some of Hollywood's biggest box-office attractions. Joseph Schenck launched the career of Mariyln Monroe. Some MI6 agents were famous actors like Charlie Chaplin and Errol Flynn. In 1939, the Bank of America panicked when a book entitled Factories in the Field was published. The book was about the exploitation of migrant farm workers, and the ownership of the mega-farms by Bank of America. So, even back then, populists wanted to expose the powers that be. Even today, the CIA is very known to advise on Hollywood films. Even former agent Milt Beardon advised on the film called "The Good Shepherd" form 2006. Charlie Wilson's War, the story of US covert efforts to supply the Afghan mujahideen with weaponry during the Soviet occupation of the 80s. Milt wanted to promote the lie that the West supplying arms to Afghan militants didn't influence 9/11 at all. If America used a peaceful means to develop Central Asia and the Middle East (via a radical development program without funding terrorists), then 9/11 could never of transpired. Many CIA agents don't want the total truth of their operations known in films, but they desire to misdirect certain clues of the CIA's secrets. Ironcially, mind control, occult images, terror, wars, and other concepts from the CIA including the intelligence community worldwide has been glamorized via Hollywood films. The same people owning Hollywood are in league with the military industrial complex indeed.
By Timothy
.
No comments:
Post a Comment