Grand Bargain/Grand Theft or Fiscal Cliff/Fiscal Gift
S Murph - 11/14/2012 - 20:09
Thanks Ms Kimberly for clearing the air about the Grand Bargain. The Grand
Bargain is more like Grand Theft or the Fiscal Cliff is going to be a Fiscal
Gift. Obama is playing on the public’s perceptions of how he was treated as the
first Black president. The Rethugs played the part of bad cops and he played the
part of the good cop. If you are looking at it through that lens then you think
that the Obama has had his character raked and scraped on the curb by all those
evil Rethugs. His reelection is affirmation that rejects the foul yelling and
screaming that the crazy Rethugs have been foaming at the mouth with over his
first term. BUT hold up wait a minute!!!
If you look at it from the point of view that this is a political dog and pony circus, where the objective is to bait the public with one thing while you move to accomplish something else, well then the grand bargain becomes a grand deception and grand theft. This whole media carnival is a grand psyops in real time. It is designed to make the Obama look like the good cop fighting the bad cops the lunatic Rethugs. Everyone is in on it, the media plays the role of the narrator, the Rethugs play the role of the bully on the block and the Obama plays the role of the guy who is just trying to do the right thing but those nasty Rethugs keep jacking him up.
But the real story is going on behind the scenes, Obama and the rethugs are planning some big political trick-a-ration where Obama is going to GIVE the Rethugs just what they want and the public will get screwed like two dollar tricks (Yea I said that)!!!
Here is how the trick-a ration will unfold, Obama will be the negotiator and the rethugs will be ... the rethugs (what else can they be). Obama will step up and draw a line BEHIND him and start negotiating. The rethugs and some blue junk yard (southern demowits) dogs will start hootin and hollering, Obama will step up and draw a line further BEHIND himself. This process will continue until Obama has backed down, backed up and backed out and GIVEN the rethugs everything they want (What a Negotiator)!!!
Some might think that I’m just talking out of my head. So here is a link to Cenk Uygur from TYT and he will explain it in a way that might make more sense with numbers to back up what he is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdQBqstcqY
If Obama wanted to back up from the fiscal cliff (that the public DID NOT PUSH the country to the edge of) he could ...
Get out of all the unfunded undeclared wars we’re involved in (think Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya and Syria Yea that is us too). Think that might save us a few dollars???
He could cut the over blown obscenely corrupt Pentagon budget. Think that might save us a few dollars???
He could prosecute some of the wall street gangstas (IE Jamie Diamond, Lloyd Blankfein John Corzsine just to name a few). Think that might GET us a few dollars???
He could stop the UNGODLY war on drugs that has destroyed millions of people's lives militarized law enforcement and along with stop and frisk have turned police into bounty hunters that are HUNTING young black and Brown men down like dogs. Go here to see an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8
He could put the brakes on the prison industrial complex which is spawned by the war on drugs. Think that might save us a few dollars???
And last but not the least he could let the Bush tax cuts expire that would save us about a TRILLION dollars!!!!
He could do any number of these things BUT he probably more than likely WON'T. Why you ask, because the folks who paid to put him in office don't what that and they tend to get what they paid for (can you hear me now)???
LOL Please help Us All
Peace
S Murph
_______________
If you look at it from the point of view that this is a political dog and pony circus, where the objective is to bait the public with one thing while you move to accomplish something else, well then the grand bargain becomes a grand deception and grand theft. This whole media carnival is a grand psyops in real time. It is designed to make the Obama look like the good cop fighting the bad cops the lunatic Rethugs. Everyone is in on it, the media plays the role of the narrator, the Rethugs play the role of the bully on the block and the Obama plays the role of the guy who is just trying to do the right thing but those nasty Rethugs keep jacking him up.
But the real story is going on behind the scenes, Obama and the rethugs are planning some big political trick-a-ration where Obama is going to GIVE the Rethugs just what they want and the public will get screwed like two dollar tricks (Yea I said that)!!!
Here is how the trick-a ration will unfold, Obama will be the negotiator and the rethugs will be ... the rethugs (what else can they be). Obama will step up and draw a line BEHIND him and start negotiating. The rethugs and some blue junk yard (southern demowits) dogs will start hootin and hollering, Obama will step up and draw a line further BEHIND himself. This process will continue until Obama has backed down, backed up and backed out and GIVEN the rethugs everything they want (What a Negotiator)!!!
Some might think that I’m just talking out of my head. So here is a link to Cenk Uygur from TYT and he will explain it in a way that might make more sense with numbers to back up what he is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdQBqstcqY
If Obama wanted to back up from the fiscal cliff (that the public DID NOT PUSH the country to the edge of) he could ...
Get out of all the unfunded undeclared wars we’re involved in (think Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya and Syria Yea that is us too). Think that might save us a few dollars???
He could cut the over blown obscenely corrupt Pentagon budget. Think that might save us a few dollars???
He could prosecute some of the wall street gangstas (IE Jamie Diamond, Lloyd Blankfein John Corzsine just to name a few). Think that might GET us a few dollars???
He could stop the UNGODLY war on drugs that has destroyed millions of people's lives militarized law enforcement and along with stop and frisk have turned police into bounty hunters that are HUNTING young black and Brown men down like dogs. Go here to see an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8
He could put the brakes on the prison industrial complex which is spawned by the war on drugs. Think that might save us a few dollars???
And last but not the least he could let the Bush tax cuts expire that would save us about a TRILLION dollars!!!!
He could do any number of these things BUT he probably more than likely WON'T. Why you ask, because the folks who paid to put him in office don't what that and they tend to get what they paid for (can you hear me now)???
LOL Please help Us All
Peace
S Murph
_______________
From The Real News: 'Is the "Fiscal Cliff" Fictitious?
Nixakliel - 11/14/2012 - 12:12
Paul Jay Interviews John Weeks- Prof Univ of London School of Oriental &
African Studies (SOAS)
@ http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9116 }
First- Almost 40% of the U.S. Debt is owned by the U.S. Gov't itself or by state
gov'ts. Another 20% is held by various private pension funds. The
biggest holder of U.S. debt is the Social Security system. If interest
goes up, the Social Security system has more money and is more solvent. I'm not
for interest rates going up, what I'm saying is paying this interest isn't money
going down a rat hole It's not just throwing money away. People hold those
assets- people like you & me— particularly me, because I'm retired. So those
interest payments in part are what funds people's pensions. That should be kept
in mind when thinking whether or not the US' debt is really a problem.
JAY: There's been a lot of talk in the election campaign about how much debt China owes. Romney must have talked about that every speech—we don't want to keep borrowing money from China... What's the significance of foreign-held debt? Doesn't that matter?
WEEKS: It matters because that's interest that you're paying outside the US. And the Chinese Gov't certainly has its own agenda, and this particular agenda is to be the strongest country in the world. And they'll probably achieve it. I think there're ways to get around that and should stop selling debt to the Chinese, in as far as that's possible—it's not completely possible, because the debt's sold on the open market & you can't regulate who buys it. The extent that it's a problem that China holds this debt, is because they could use it as a lever when they have a political goal. They aren't going to say, we want all our money one day. What they'd say is — let's take the case of this dispute over the South China Sea, where they have a dispute w Vietnam, Philippines and 3 or 4 other countries. They might say we'll cash your debt in if you don't keep your mouth shut, and we'd really like it if you support us, but at least don't oppose us. That's a potential problem, but it's not a financial problem, and there's a way to get around it- by the US Gov't selling its bonds and debt to the Social Security system, and sell it to itself, by borrowing directly from the FED. Then you can run a bigger debt without obligating yourself to China or any other country in the world ...
The solution is to get economic growth going, and then the U.S. debt will decline in importance relatively to GNP. At the end of WWII U.S. debt was over 200% of GNP.
JAY: Well, those yelling about the fiscal cliff and the need to reduce the deficit and debt, they must know all the same numbers you have. Why are so many so concerned about this?
WEEKS: I think it's ideological. The deficit resulted from the 2007 recession. Before 2007 the deficit was small. Now it's large. Why? Because as the economy contracts & grows slower, the Gov't receives less revenue. It has to pay unemployment compensation. When economic times are good, money is flowing into the unemployment fund. It's a special fund with a special tax. But when there's economic down-turns there's more unemployment, & you have to pay unemployment compensation- drawing down from the fund. When the economy goes into recession, expenditures for unemployment compensation and various types of welfare support increase just when revenue is decreasing- resulting in a deficit. BUT those Gov't payments softens the decline in demand. If we didn't have a deficit, & tried to keep the budget balanced, the economy would have gone into a total collapse. The deficit will get smaller when we start to grow [the econ].
JAY: But there must be some kind of limit to how big it can get, Otherwise, why not quadruple unemployment funds? You could just hand out money to everybody to spend.
WEEKS: There's a limit of course. Problems arise when you're run a deficit and the economy is near full employment, which generates excessive demand, which can be inflationary and that inflation will feed back in financial markets and increase prices. BUT we're very far from that situation. The deficit you can run depends on how much it costs to service the debt it creates (that's very low) and whether or not it's likely to create an excess demand, which is inflationary. We have so much unemployment the chances of having resource shortages is very slight.
If we had a progressive president, he'd increase Gov't expenditure, to stimulate the economy. The economy would grow. Tax revenue would flow in. He'd could raise taxes on the rich. Then you'd have a virtuous circle. He had to spend to get things going, which would tempoarily increase the deficit, but that's the way which the deficit would eventually be reduced.
Washington's not doing that because of its control by financial interests [IE: the Wall St Banksters]. There're 2 important things RE: financial interests. One is that they don't produce anything themselves. So the way they get their income is they redistribute it from the rest of the economy. How do they that? Where do they redistribute it from? They've pretty much driven the manufacturing sector into the ground in the US, so the only place where they can extract it is from the Gov't itself. I think part of their strategy is, cut Gov't expenditure so that Wall St gets it instead.
I think that the financial interests see a unique historical moment. They think they can destroy the welfare state and that the vehicle for doing so is to use the deficit as a faux-technical argument, to avoid saying everybody ought to go hungry and they're all useless—though Romney came close to saying that—saying instead that their heart bleeds ['I feel Your Pain'], but we have to get the deficit down, so we're going to have to cut Social Security [which is NOT part of the 'Deficit Problem' while the DoD's budget is] and we're going to have to cut Medicare, because we just can't afford it—which is complete and total rubbish. We're one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford it who can? I think that they want to destroy the welfare state, what little of it that's left in the US, so they can redistribute income and wealth to themselves.
______________________________
JAY: There's been a lot of talk in the election campaign about how much debt China owes. Romney must have talked about that every speech—we don't want to keep borrowing money from China... What's the significance of foreign-held debt? Doesn't that matter?
WEEKS: It matters because that's interest that you're paying outside the US. And the Chinese Gov't certainly has its own agenda, and this particular agenda is to be the strongest country in the world. And they'll probably achieve it. I think there're ways to get around that and should stop selling debt to the Chinese, in as far as that's possible—it's not completely possible, because the debt's sold on the open market & you can't regulate who buys it. The extent that it's a problem that China holds this debt, is because they could use it as a lever when they have a political goal. They aren't going to say, we want all our money one day. What they'd say is — let's take the case of this dispute over the South China Sea, where they have a dispute w Vietnam, Philippines and 3 or 4 other countries. They might say we'll cash your debt in if you don't keep your mouth shut, and we'd really like it if you support us, but at least don't oppose us. That's a potential problem, but it's not a financial problem, and there's a way to get around it- by the US Gov't selling its bonds and debt to the Social Security system, and sell it to itself, by borrowing directly from the FED. Then you can run a bigger debt without obligating yourself to China or any other country in the world ...
The solution is to get economic growth going, and then the U.S. debt will decline in importance relatively to GNP. At the end of WWII U.S. debt was over 200% of GNP.
JAY: Well, those yelling about the fiscal cliff and the need to reduce the deficit and debt, they must know all the same numbers you have. Why are so many so concerned about this?
WEEKS: I think it's ideological. The deficit resulted from the 2007 recession. Before 2007 the deficit was small. Now it's large. Why? Because as the economy contracts & grows slower, the Gov't receives less revenue. It has to pay unemployment compensation. When economic times are good, money is flowing into the unemployment fund. It's a special fund with a special tax. But when there's economic down-turns there's more unemployment, & you have to pay unemployment compensation- drawing down from the fund. When the economy goes into recession, expenditures for unemployment compensation and various types of welfare support increase just when revenue is decreasing- resulting in a deficit. BUT those Gov't payments softens the decline in demand. If we didn't have a deficit, & tried to keep the budget balanced, the economy would have gone into a total collapse. The deficit will get smaller when we start to grow [the econ].
JAY: But there must be some kind of limit to how big it can get, Otherwise, why not quadruple unemployment funds? You could just hand out money to everybody to spend.
WEEKS: There's a limit of course. Problems arise when you're run a deficit and the economy is near full employment, which generates excessive demand, which can be inflationary and that inflation will feed back in financial markets and increase prices. BUT we're very far from that situation. The deficit you can run depends on how much it costs to service the debt it creates (that's very low) and whether or not it's likely to create an excess demand, which is inflationary. We have so much unemployment the chances of having resource shortages is very slight.
If we had a progressive president, he'd increase Gov't expenditure, to stimulate the economy. The economy would grow. Tax revenue would flow in. He'd could raise taxes on the rich. Then you'd have a virtuous circle. He had to spend to get things going, which would tempoarily increase the deficit, but that's the way which the deficit would eventually be reduced.
Washington's not doing that because of its control by financial interests [IE: the Wall St Banksters]. There're 2 important things RE: financial interests. One is that they don't produce anything themselves. So the way they get their income is they redistribute it from the rest of the economy. How do they that? Where do they redistribute it from? They've pretty much driven the manufacturing sector into the ground in the US, so the only place where they can extract it is from the Gov't itself. I think part of their strategy is, cut Gov't expenditure so that Wall St gets it instead.
I think that the financial interests see a unique historical moment. They think they can destroy the welfare state and that the vehicle for doing so is to use the deficit as a faux-technical argument, to avoid saying everybody ought to go hungry and they're all useless—though Romney came close to saying that—saying instead that their heart bleeds ['I feel Your Pain'], but we have to get the deficit down, so we're going to have to cut Social Security [which is NOT part of the 'Deficit Problem' while the DoD's budget is] and we're going to have to cut Medicare, because we just can't afford it—which is complete and total rubbish. We're one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford it who can? I think that they want to destroy the welfare state, what little of it that's left in the US, so they can redistribute income and wealth to themselves.
______________________________
Fiscal Cliff: A fiction emanating from the Shock Doctrine
Enlightened Cynic - 11/14/2012 - 17:41
Think about the core result of "going over the cliff."
TAXES GO UP. Bush tax cuts expire. SPENDING GOES DOWN, that includes military spending.
Well spending for social programs is going to go down regardless. Taxes increase to Clinton-level rates which is what the people voted for.
Only in a country that is completely controlled by financial interests and a media that is controlled by fiancial interests would this scare tactic actually consume the airwaves and have traction. This fake crisis is representative of the U.S.'s moral and intellectual depravity. The country is not bankrupt but its leadership is.
Obama is going to strike a bargain that essentially finances increases to the defense budget and tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of the Middle Class, its really that simple. They are going to find "revenue" by closing the loopholes We the People benefit from, like the mortgage deduction. If Obama was not wedded-- indeed a slave to the MIC-- he would relish cutting the defense budget. And if he were truly progressive he'd relish raising taxes. But he's neither. Truly amazing deceit and sophistry.Another wealth transfer on top of the 23 trillion and counting Obama transferred to Wall St. crooks, while not prosecuting a single one.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/46525/fiscal-cliff-scare-talk-follows-shock-doctrine-script
The "Fiscal Cliff" is not a cliff and the language itself is intended to scare people. The name itself is designed to create panic, evoking disaster imagery of people and the economy falling off a cliff. It is the latest manufactured "crisis" and we are all supposed to be terrified and demand immediate and extreme solutions.
Again, the very people screaming loudest about deficits are the people who passed tax cut after tax cut, and military spending increase after military spending increase, and started war after war. Then these same "serious people" terrify the public, telling them that budget deficits will lead to the destruction of the country — and soon. After a decade of screaming “9/11,” “9/11,” noun verb “9/11,” they screamed "deficit, deficit, deficit." Now they scream, "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff."
Then after the public is suitably stirred up and terrified they offer “solutions” they say are necessary to cut the scary deficit (that they caused, for this purpose).
And the fixing all has to happen right now, in the "lame duck" Congress, before those new legislators We, the People elected can take office.
The "Grand Bargain"
The "serious people" are pushing for a "grand bargain" that they say will "solve" the "deficit problem" "once and for all."
Of course, nothing in any "grand bargain" can bind the Congress, and any part of this "grand bargain" can and will be undone by Congress at the earliest opportunity.
The outline of this "bargain" involves "tax reform" and "getting a handle on entitlements." Tax "reform" does not involve allowing raising tax rates on the wealthy. It "reforms" taxes by getting rid of various deductions. "Getting a handle on entitlements" means cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and the rest of the things that We, the People do for each other. Social Security by law does not contribute to the deficit -- they just threw it in because it is "in crisis"
(Note -- The Social Security "crisis" is that under certain economic projections its funding might run a bit short many years down the road. This future shortfall is in comparison to the military budget which, unlike Social Security, has no separate funding mechanism and runs 100% short every year. But that is not a "crisis.")
So a fix for a budget problem that as caused by cutting taxes, massively increasing military spending and crashing the economy will be "solved" by ... not fixing those things.
_____________
TAXES GO UP. Bush tax cuts expire. SPENDING GOES DOWN, that includes military spending.
Well spending for social programs is going to go down regardless. Taxes increase to Clinton-level rates which is what the people voted for.
Only in a country that is completely controlled by financial interests and a media that is controlled by fiancial interests would this scare tactic actually consume the airwaves and have traction. This fake crisis is representative of the U.S.'s moral and intellectual depravity. The country is not bankrupt but its leadership is.
Obama is going to strike a bargain that essentially finances increases to the defense budget and tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of the Middle Class, its really that simple. They are going to find "revenue" by closing the loopholes We the People benefit from, like the mortgage deduction. If Obama was not wedded-- indeed a slave to the MIC-- he would relish cutting the defense budget. And if he were truly progressive he'd relish raising taxes. But he's neither. Truly amazing deceit and sophistry.Another wealth transfer on top of the 23 trillion and counting Obama transferred to Wall St. crooks, while not prosecuting a single one.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/46525/fiscal-cliff-scare-talk-follows-shock-doctrine-script
The "Fiscal Cliff" is not a cliff and the language itself is intended to scare people. The name itself is designed to create panic, evoking disaster imagery of people and the economy falling off a cliff. It is the latest manufactured "crisis" and we are all supposed to be terrified and demand immediate and extreme solutions.
Again, the very people screaming loudest about deficits are the people who passed tax cut after tax cut, and military spending increase after military spending increase, and started war after war. Then these same "serious people" terrify the public, telling them that budget deficits will lead to the destruction of the country — and soon. After a decade of screaming “9/11,” “9/11,” noun verb “9/11,” they screamed "deficit, deficit, deficit." Now they scream, "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff."
Then after the public is suitably stirred up and terrified they offer “solutions” they say are necessary to cut the scary deficit (that they caused, for this purpose).
And the fixing all has to happen right now, in the "lame duck" Congress, before those new legislators We, the People elected can take office.
The "Grand Bargain"
The "serious people" are pushing for a "grand bargain" that they say will "solve" the "deficit problem" "once and for all."
Of course, nothing in any "grand bargain" can bind the Congress, and any part of this "grand bargain" can and will be undone by Congress at the earliest opportunity.
The outline of this "bargain" involves "tax reform" and "getting a handle on entitlements." Tax "reform" does not involve allowing raising tax rates on the wealthy. It "reforms" taxes by getting rid of various deductions. "Getting a handle on entitlements" means cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and the rest of the things that We, the People do for each other. Social Security by law does not contribute to the deficit -- they just threw it in because it is "in crisis"
(Note -- The Social Security "crisis" is that under certain economic projections its funding might run a bit short many years down the road. This future shortfall is in comparison to the military budget which, unlike Social Security, has no separate funding mechanism and runs 100% short every year. But that is not a "crisis.")
So a fix for a budget problem that as caused by cutting taxes, massively increasing military spending and crashing the economy will be "solved" by ... not fixing those things.
_____________
Hey Bev! Sho ya right
Enlightened Cynic - 11/16/2012 - 09:04
"Unless these "progressives" are planning the mother of all revolts/civil
disobedience (and they ain't) don't expect Obama to throw them any crumbs
now. "
Beverly, since yall know how much I'm keen to symbolism, how about this one. Obama treated the "hard charging, amped up progressives" (hardy har har) to a CONFERENCE CALL. I'm sure they listened intently to him telling them to go off a fiscal cliff as they sipped their lattes and chumped on Dunkin Donuts. I'm sure they threatened him most vociferously. (LOL)
On the other hand, the next day the Big $$$ CEOS are INVITED TO THE WH for a face-to-face with Barry. I'm sure the Executive Chef of the WH "threw down" they probably supped on foi gras stuffed with imported parma ham drizzled with white truffle oil and a nice Cobb Salad with delicate shavings of Parmgiano Regianno (the indisputable King of Cheeses according to Mario Batali) versus Dunkin Donuts and 2 day old jelly rolls.
Don't worry, Obama's got his priorities straight. As Dave Chappelle would say, "I'm RICH B.....CH!!!"
Beverly, since yall know how much I'm keen to symbolism, how about this one. Obama treated the "hard charging, amped up progressives" (hardy har har) to a CONFERENCE CALL. I'm sure they listened intently to him telling them to go off a fiscal cliff as they sipped their lattes and chumped on Dunkin Donuts. I'm sure they threatened him most vociferously. (LOL)
On the other hand, the next day the Big $$$ CEOS are INVITED TO THE WH for a face-to-face with Barry. I'm sure the Executive Chef of the WH "threw down" they probably supped on foi gras stuffed with imported parma ham drizzled with white truffle oil and a nice Cobb Salad with delicate shavings of Parmgiano Regianno (the indisputable King of Cheeses according to Mario Batali) versus Dunkin Donuts and 2 day old jelly rolls.
Don't worry, Obama's got his priorities straight. As Dave Chappelle would say, "I'm RICH B.....CH!!!"
No comments:
Post a Comment