Monday, March 18, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 18, 2013


Today's newsbites...

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b501c302-8cea-11e2-aed2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NtZ6CDiE

On Saturday morning, the finance ministers of the Eurozone may well have started a bank run.

With the agreement on a depositor "haircut" for Cyprus...

* NOPE. NOT FOR "CYPRUS." FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANKS IN CYPRUS. HUGE FRIGGIN' DIFFERENCE, FOLKS...

(*SNORT*)

...the Eurozone has effectively defaulted on a deposit insurance guarantee for bank deposits. (That guarantee was given in 2008 after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.) [This "guarantee"] consisted of a series of nationally coordinated guarantees [designed] to make the political point that all savings are safe.

(*GUFFAW*)

* OOPS!

(*STILL LAUGHING*)

[L]egally, Cyprus is not defaulting or imposing losses on depositors.

* HA! THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "LEGALLY" HAS NO REAL MEANING ANYMORE. (AND, YEAH... I'M BEING 100% SERIOUS; THE RULE OF LAW NO LONGER EXISTS IN ANY MEANINGFUL SENSE ONCE GOVERNMENT DECIDES THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. LOOK AT OBAMACARE. LOOK AT THE CHRYSLER BAILOUT AND HOW BONDHOLDERS WERE STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHTS. IF THE OLIGARCHS REALLY WANT SOMETHING... THEY GET IT.)

The country is levying a tax of 6.75% on deposits of up to 100,000 euros...

* DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE! DEPOSITS OF MONEY WHICH IS AFTER-TAX SAVINGS! IT'S NOT A SALES TAX... NOTHING IS BEING BOUGHT! IT'S NOT AN INCOME TAX... THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED! IT'S A DEMAND FOR 6.75% OF ALL SAVINGS UP TO 100,000 euros!

...and a tax of 9.9% above that threshold.

* AND A DEMAND FOR 9.9% OF ONE'S SAVING OVER 100,000 EUROS...!!!

Legally, this is a wealth tax.

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING SO PHONY AND RIDICULOUS ON IT'S FACE SINCE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' OBAMACARE OPINION...???

* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T ABOUT POLICY... IT'S NOT ABOUT IDEOLOGY... IT'S ABOUT THE OLIGARCHY SIMPLY "REDEFINING" LANGUAGE IN AN OWELLIAN FASHION!

If one wanted to feed the political mood of insurrection in southern Europe, this was the way to do it. The long-term political damage of this agreement is going to be huge. In the short term, the danger consists of a generalized bank run, not just in Cyprus.

* I DON'T SEE THIS HAPPENING...

* WHY...??? BECAUSE THE OLIGARCHY IS WORLDWIDE. BECAUSE CYPRUS IS A TEST CASE FOR FUTURE ACTIONS CONCERNING GREECE... ITALY... SPAIN... PORTUGAL... IRELAND...

(*SHRUG*)

* I WON'T BE SURPRISED IN THE LEAST IF THEY BACK DOWN FROM ROBBING SMALL DEPOSITORS AND UP THE LEVEL OF CONFISCATION AGAINST LARGE DEPOSITORS.

* FOLKS... DON'T THINK THE OBAMAITES AREN'T WATCHING CYPRUS CAREFULLY... VERY CAREFULLY...

* FOLKS... DON'T THINK YOUR SAVINGS ARE SAFE. THEY'RE NOT. ONE PRESIDENTIAL "DECREE..."

(*SHRUG*)

March 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9934645/American-Way-why-its-become-clear-that-Obamas-White-House-is-open-to-the-rich-and-closed-to-the-poor.html

Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.

* SEEMS LIKE WHAT'S OLD IS NEW AGAIN!

Since last weekend, Mr. and Mrs. Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the "sequester" that imposed cuts across the board.

These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.

(More frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.)

(Three calligraphers reportedly remain on staff.)

Meanwhile, "noble" Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, "Organizing for Action."

Organizing for America is the third version of Obama's original monster campaign machine, Obama for America, which then morphed into a re-election campaign machine, Organizing for America, on the third day of his first term. It has now re-launched again as Organizing for Action (OFA) - a non-profit, tax-exempt group headed by his former campaign advisers.

* NOT PROFIT TAX EXEMPT GROUP...?!?!

* STAFFED BY HIGHLY PAID AND BENEFITED POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES OF BARACK OBAMA...!!! THE JOBS THEMSELVES ARE "PROFIT" TO THOSE AWARDED THEM!

* THIS... IS... INSANITY...

Apparently no longer "for America", the group might just as well be called Organizing for Obama's Agenda.

* WHICH WOULD BE FINE... WERE IT NOT FOR THE WHOLE "NOT FOR PROFIT; TAX EXEMPT" SCAM!

Its mission: to support the president in his attempt to achieve enactment of gun control, environmental policies and immigration reform.

OFA is a legal, tax-exempt advocacy organization, established as a social welfare group under the rules of both the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Elections Commission. It can accept unlimited contributions, so long as it promotes the common good and does not primarily engage in electoral politics.

* SO MUCH FOR THE "RULES OF THE IRS AND FEC!"

As it is not required to publicly disclose donors, OFA is actually one of those "shadowy" organizations Obama railed against as a candidate when he supported campaign finance reform.

(*SNORT*)

In 2010 the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling known as Citizens United that allowed unlimited corporate and individual donations to so-called "super political action committees", which at least have to disclose their donors, and to social welfare organizations, which do not.

* AND WHO CREATED THESE SO-CALLED "SUPER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES...???" (ANYONE REMEMBER A GUY NAMED JOHN MCCAIN...??? ANYONE REMEMBER A GUY NAMED FEINBERG...??? CAN YOU SAY "THE POLITICIANS OF BOTH PARTIES THEMSELVES...???")

At the time, Obama loudly criticized the decision, saying: "That's one of the reasons I ran for president: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington."

* OBAMA IS A FAKE, PHONY FRAUD; ALWAYS WAS. HELL... HE EVEN FOOLED ME TO AN EMBARRASSINGLY LARGE EXTENT BACK IN 2007/8.

But then "President Obama" reversed course, giving his blessing to a super PAC supporting his 2012 re-election, and now to OFA.

(*SMIRK*)

March 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/18/dems-preserve-us-mexico-food-stamp-partnership-while-usda-prepares-for-meat/

Salmonella outbreaks.

E. coli outbreaks.

Millions of dollars in economic losses.

These are among the scenarios the Obama administration warned about last month as it claimed the sequester would "force" the U.S. Department of Agriculture to furlough meat inspectors.

* LYING SACKS OF SHIT... BUT TO CONTINUE...

But while the administration prepares to take that step, it continues to pursue a "partnership" with the Mexican government to "raise awareness" about food stamps among immigrants from that country.

* "MARKET" FOOD STAMPS. TO FOREIGNERS. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE! AT LEAST... ONCE UPON A TIME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

When a top Senate Republican proposed cutting off funds for that program last week - in the form of an amendment to a budget resolution - Democrats on the Budget Committee shot it down.

* UNANIMOUSLY!

It's hard to put a firm price on the cost of the partnership, which was launched under the George W. Bush administration...

* BUSH SUCKED. BUT HE'S BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR WELL OVER FOUR YEARS NOW.

...but an aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has railed against the partnership for months, said it could easily be in the millions.

Since 2004, the program has blossomed to include dozens of meetings and conferences and health fairs with Mexican officials - all of which cost money, not to mention the cost to the food stamp program of new enrollees brought in as a result of this partnership.

* AND, FOLKS... ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU ALL - IN 2004 NOT ONLY WAS BUSH PRESIDENT, BUT REPUBLICANS (IN NAME ONLY) CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND RETAINED THAT CONTROL THROUGHOUT 2005 AND 2006!

"We have uncovered extensive evidence that federal authorities have - during the Bush and Obama administrations - aggressively undermined a core legal tenet of immigration policy: that those granted admission should be self-sufficient and contribute to the economic health of the nation," Sessions said. "It is amazing that Budget Committee Democrats would unanimously vote to continue funding these costly promotions, especially when our debt is causing such profound economic harm."

* I'M NOT AMAZED. INDEED, I WONDER IF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE VOTED IN LOCK-STEP TO DISCONTINUE FUNDING THE PROGRAM. (I WOULDN'T BET MY LIFE ON IT...)

[Even President Obama's] Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, indicates the number of legal, non-citizens participating in [foodstamps] - now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- has increased from 425,000 to 1.23 million between 2001 and 2010.

Meanwhile, the USDA continues to press forward with plans to furlough meat inspectors, describing it as a necessity of the sequester...

* WELCOME TO AMERICA 2013, FOLKS...

March 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-gop-charm-offensive-is-just-damage-control/2013/03/18/80f1a5e6-8fce-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html

In his first term in office, President Obama played at least 100 rounds of golf, spending, by his own estimate, an average six hours per outing on the links. So how many hours did he spend meeting with House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan in that same time period?

* FAIR QUESTION, ISN'T IT...? AND I'M TALKING "EXPAND" THE QUESTION... EXPAND IT TO THE TOTAL TIME OBAMA SPENT IN GENUINE WORKING SESSIONS WITH REPUBLICAN LEADERS.

After his recent lunch with Obama, Ryan (R-Wis.) revealed that it was “the first time I’ve ever had a conversation with the president that lasted more than two minutes.”

Think about that.

* NO... SERIOUSLY... I AGREE - THINK ABOUT THAT!

We’ve been through debt ceilings, super committees, sequesters and fiscal cliffs, yet the president waited until his fifth year in office to actually sit down and talk with the Republican chairman of the House budget committee?

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* THERE WAS THAT ONE OBAMACARE MEETING... BUT THAT WAS FOR THE CAMERAS... THAT WAS A STUNT, NOT A SERIOUS ATTEMPT TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

It’s not just Ryan who is getting a sudden dose of love from POTUS. On Wednesday, Obama went up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican caucus. According to Politico, “The last time Obama met with the House Republican conference was in Jan. 2010 at the party retreat in Baltimore.”

2010.

More than three years ago.

(*SIGH*)

Recall that only a few weeks ago, Obama couldn’t be bothered to sit down with Republicans as the sequester approached. He was too busy holding campaign-style rallies and issuing apocalyptic warnings of the plagues and pestilence that would soon descend upon the land if the GOP did not bend to his will and accept another round of tax increases. Now, all of a sudden, the apocalypse has been postponed, and Obama is on a charm offensive.

What changed?

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

* HERE'S WHAT CHANGED...

Here’s a clue: A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found “nearly three-quarters say they are feeling no impact on their lives [from the sequester], and fewer than half expect a toll on their family finances if the cuts continue.”

A McClatchy-Marist poll shows that 59% of Americans say the sequester will either have no impact at all on them or would have a positive impact. And here is the kicker: Marist found that when it comes to handling “the biggest political clash of the year — over the federal budget and how to curb deficits — voters split 44% to 42% between preferring Congress or Obama.”

More Americans approve of the way Congress — the most unpopular institution in the land — is handling of the sequester than the president!

The sequester has been something of a disaster for Obama. From obfuscating its origins, to exaggerating its impact, the White House’s blame the GOP strategy has backfired. Americans, it turns out, don’t like being misled. They don’t like it when the secretary of education warms that there are “literally now teachers who are getting pink slips” because of the sequester — only to find out that in fact no pink slips were issued. They don’t like it when the president warns that, “starting tomorrow, everybody here, cleaning the floors at the Capitol, they’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards. They just got a pay cut.” — only to learn that the Capitol superintendent had to send out an e-mail to his alarmed staff reassuring them that Obama’s statement was “NOT true.”

So now, in an effort to mend fences, the president who would not give Ryan the time of day for his first four years in office is suddenly inviting him to the White House for lunch, hosting high-profile dinners with GOP senators and making forays to the Capitol for meetings with House Republicans.

Let’s be clear: These are not signs of a new spirit of bipartisanship in the White House. They are damage control.

The question for the president is whether the damage can be controlled. [T]rust, when squandered, is very hard to regain. The problem with crying “wolf” is that once people figure out you’re not telling the truth, they don’t take your cries seriously any more.

March 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-a-dishonest-budget-debate/2013/03/17/18fdb79e-8d8b-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

The budget debate may seem inconclusive, but it’s having pervasive effects.

Choices are being made by default.

Almost everything is being subordinated to protect retirees.

Solicitude for government’s largest constituency undermines the rest of government.

We don’t need a charm offensive; we need a candor offensive. The budget debate’s central reality is that federal retirement programs, led by Social Security and Medicare, are crowding out most other government spending. It’s the math: In fiscal 2012, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and civil service and military retirement cost $1.7 trillion, about half the budget. If they’re off-limits, the burdens on other programs and tax increases grow ever greater.

This is an immensely important story almost totally ignored by the media. One reason is that it’s happening spontaneously and invisibly: Growing numbers of elderly are simply collecting existing benefits. The media do not excel at covering inertia.

The military is shrinking and weakening: The Army is to be cut by 80,000 troops, the Marines by 20,000. As a share of national income, defense spending ($670 billion in 2012) is headed toward its lowest level since 1940. Even now, the Pentagon says budget limits hamper its response to cyber-attacks.

“Domestic discretionary spending” — a category that includes food inspectors, the FBI, the National Weather Service and many others — faces a similar fate. By 2023, this spending will drop 33% as a share of national income, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. Dozens of programs will be squeezed.

Nor will states and localities escape. Federal grants ($607 billion in 2011) will shrink. States’ Medicaid costs will increase with the number of aged and disabled, which represent two-thirds of Medicaid spending. All this will force higher taxes or reduce traditional state and local spending on schools, police, roads and parks.

Liberals drive this process by treating Social Security and Medicare as sacrosanct. Do not touch a penny of benefits...

Hypocritical conservatives are liberals’ unspoken allies. Despite constant grumbling about entitlements, they lack the courage of their convictions. Consider House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s latest budget plan. From 2014 to 2023, he proposes cutting federal spending by $4.6 trillion. Not a cent comes from Social Security, while Medicare cuts are tiny, about 2%. His major Medicare proposal (in effect, a voucher) wouldn’t start until 2024.

* AGAIN... FOLKS... IT'S ONLY IN COMPARISON WITH FAR WORSE SCUMBAGS THAT RYAN EVER LOOKS GOOD! UNDERSTAND... RYAN IS "ONE OF THEM." HE ONLY MASQUERADES AS A CONSERVATIVE.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

What frustrates constructive debate is muddled public opinion. Americans hate deficits but desire more spending and reject higher taxes.

* SO TREAT THEM LIKE ADULTS! TELL THEM THE TRUTH! TEACH THEM THE TRUTH IN SCHOOL!

In a Pew poll, 87% of respondents favored present or greater Social Security spending; only 10% backed cuts. Results were similar for 18 of 19 programs, foreign aid being the exception.

* FOLKS... AS CONTEMPUOUS AS I AM OF "PEOPLE" BY NATURE... THESE POLL NUMBERS DON'T COME OUT OF LOW IQ's - THEY COME OUT OF IGNORANCE... IGNORANCE DELIBERATELY FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE BY THE ELITES... BY THE SCHOOLS... BY THE MEDIA... BY THE POLITICIANS...!

Only the occupant of the bully pulpit can yank public opinion back to reality. This requires acknowledging that an aging America needs a new social compact: one recognizing that longer life expectancies justify gradual increases in Social Security’s and Medicare’s eligibility ages; one accepting that sizable numbers of well-off retirees can afford to pay more for their benefits or receive less; one that improves generational fairness by concentrating help for the elderly more on the needy and poor to lighten the burdens — in higher taxes and fewer public services — on workers; and one that limits health costs.

Obama hasn’t talked intelligently or openly about America’s aging.

In budget negotiations, the administration has made some proposals (a different inflation adjustment for Social Security benefits, a higher Medicare eligibility age) that broach the subject. But Obama hasn’t put these modest steps into the larger context of social change; nor is it clear how much the administration supports them.

(It’s true that Republicans should also accept higher taxes — but only after the White House engages retirement spending.)

* FOLKS... I FEAR VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

March 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)