Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, September 30, 2014



And now... today's Newsbites!

(Found in the Comments Section!)


Posted by at

12 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/30/afghan-us-security-pact/16467441/

The United States and Afghanistan on Tuesday signed a long-delayed security agreement that will allow about 9,800 American troops to remain in the country past this year.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FIRST OF ALL, THIS "AGREEMENT" HAS NO LEGAL FORCE UNTIL THE U.S. SENATE APPROVES IT.

* SECOND OF ALL... WHY EXACTLY DO WE WANT 9,000 AMERICAN TARGETS STATIONED IN A FAILED STATE WHERE MOST HATE US?

"This agreement is only for Afghan security and stability," Afghan President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai said. The agreement was signed a day after Ahmadzai was signed into office.

The agreement ensures a long term presence of U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan and sets the two countries on a more stable relationship.

* NO IT DOESN'T. IT SETS UP MORE AMERICANS TO BE MURDERED. (WAIT AND SEE!)

U.S. and Afghan officials had agreed on terms of the accord more than a year ago, but former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai had refused to sign. Karzai had an often rocky relationship with Washington.

Karzai had complained about U.S. airstrikes that have killed Afghan civilians and U.S. overtures to the Taliban, the Islamists who had ruled Afghanistan until ousted by American forces in 2001.

* WELL IMAGINE THAT...

(*SNORT*)

The residual U.S. force will be responsible for advising and supporting...

* S*U*P*P*O*R*T*I*N*G...

...Afghan security forces and conducting counterterrorism missions against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

* AND CONDUCTING COUNTER-TERRORISM MISSIONS AGAINST AL-QAEDA AND... er... ITS... er... "AFFILIATES."

* WAR WITHOUT END, FOLKS, IN THE "SERVICE" OF THE OLIGARCHY.

The American combat mission in Afghanistan ends this year.

* OBVIOUSLY NOT! (SEE ABOVE!)

September 30, 2014 at 11:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/marc-f-bernstein-where-all-the-teachers-are-above-average-1412032523

New York recently released evaluations that rank 95% of the state's teachers as "highly effective" or "effective," 4% as "developing," and only 1% as "ineffective" for the 2012-13 school year.

Never mind that more than half of the state's students in grades 4-8 weren't proficient in reading and math, according to statewide test scores.

* AGAIN...

Never mind that more than half of the state's students in grades 4-8 weren't proficient in reading and math, according to statewide test scores.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

Never mind that more than half of the state's students in grades 4-8 weren't proficient in reading and math, according to statewide test scores.

As a former New York state superintendent of schools for more than 20 years, I wasn't at all surprised. State law and school culture make it nearly impossible to get an honest evaluation of teachers' effectiveness.

* ASK YOURSELVES, FOLKS... HAS YOUR SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT EVER VOLUNTEERED THIS INFORMATION? I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS NO. FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... THESE PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN'T BE TRUSTED. (EVEN THIS CLOWN IS ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH NOW THAT HE'S OUT - NO LONGER PART OF THE SYSTEM!

According to the New York State Education Department, state law requires that 60% of a teacher's rating be based on classroom observations...

* SUBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS. RIGHT?

...and other measures agreed upon at the local level through collective bargaining with the union.

(*SNORT*)

Another 20% is based on student performance on grades 4-8 statewide math and reading tests or "locally determined student learning objectives."

* A WHOLE 20%, HUH?

(*SMIRK*)

The remaining 20% is again based on "locally determined" objective measures as bargained between school management and teachers unions.

New York State Education Commissioner John King noted that more than 80% of the teachers were rated exclusively under criteria determined by local districts or through negotiations. (New York City's teachers weren't included because the city and its teachers union couldn't agree on contract language that would permit reporting of teacher-evaluation data.)

School culture strongly frowns upon administrators rating teachers as less than satisfactory. Administrators who are critical of teachers often lose the [affection] and cooperation of the faculty. Most elementary schools have fewer than three- or four-dozen teachers; they constitute a family with members supporting one another regardless of deficiencies. Fellow teachers are well aware when colleagues have personal issues that might diminish their effectiveness, and they expect administrators to compensate by being generous in their evaluations.

* AND SCREW THE KIDS...

(*SHRUG*)

Changes are needed to honestly evaluate teachers. In New York, teachers and administrators are eligible for tenure after three years, which means decisions are made at around 2 ½ years of experience. Unless a serious infraction takes place, tenure is almost always granted.

A decade ago, to much fanfare, New York started requiring 35 hours a year of "professional development" for teachers and administrators. But this requirement is farcical. Teachers who attend monthly faculty and grade-level meetings and the two or three superintendent's conference days required by union contract meet this requirement without additional training.

* UNBELIEVABLE...

School administrators can also satisfy their yearly requirement by participating in normal administrative activities.

* UNFRIGGIN'BELIEVABLE...

September 30, 2014 at 1:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389096/obama-betrays-kurds-robert-zubrin

In his speech to the United Nations last week, President Obama pledged to the world that the United States would use its might to stop the horrific depredations of the terrorist movement variously known as the Islamic State, ISIS, or, as he calls it, ISIL.

Unfortunately, the president’s actions since then have been anything but consistent with his pledge to stop the terrorism.

As these lines are being written, some 400,000 Kurds in and around the town of Kobane in northern Syria, on the Turkish border, are being besieged and assaulted by massed legions of Islamic State killers armed with scores of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and heavy artillery.

Against these, the Kurdish defenders have only AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades.

The Kurds have called on the U.S. to send in air strikes to take out the jihadist forces. In response, the administration sent in two fighter jets Saturday, which destroyed two Islamic State tanks and then flew away. The Kurds are begging for arms. The administration has not only refused to send arms, but is exerting pressure both on our NATO allies and on Israel not to send any either.

Over 150,000 Kurds have fled their homes to try to escape to Turkey, but they are being blocked at the border by Turkish troops.

* TURKEY. OUR "ALLY" WHICH ISN'T REALLY AN ALLY.

* VERSUS... THE KURDS... WHO HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS BUT WHOSE INTERESTS HAVE LONG BEEN MORE ALLIED WITH OURS THAN NOT.

Turkey is allowing Islamist reinforcements to enter Syria to join the Islamic State...

* AGAIN... OUR "ALLY" TURKEY.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

...while Islamist elements of the Free Syrian Army, funded and armed by the United States, have joined forces with the group in the genocidal assault on the Kurdish enclave.

* SOUNDS LIKE A POLICY OBAMA AND HIS LACKIES WOULD COME UP WITH - DOESN'T IT?

* SERIOUSLY... FOLKS... THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T INCLINED TO HATE OBAMA... THOSE OF YOU WHO INSTINCTIVELY SCOWL AT THE WORD "REPUBLICAN"... DOES NOT THIS ASS BACKWARDS FOREIGN POLICY SOUND EXACTLY LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE OBAMA CAMP? BE HONEST!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

According to Kurdish sources, the Turks are massing troops on their own side of the border, with the apparent plan being to sit in place and allow the Kurds to be exterminated, and then move in to take over the region once they are gone.

(This is the same plan as Josef Stalin used when he allowed the Nazis to wipe out the Polish underground during the Warsaw rising of 1944, and only afterward sent in the Red Army to take control of what was left of the city.)

If anything, it is even more morally reprehensible, since it could be pointed out in Stalin’s defense that his forces were at least pummeling the enemy elsewhere while the Warsaw fight was under way. In contrast, the Turks are doing nothing of the sort. For an American administration to collude in such a mass atrocity is infamous.

* I REMEMBER AS IF IT WERE YESTERDAY... PAPPY BUSH BETRAYING THE KURDS... MY REACTING TO THAT WITH DISGUST... MY ACTUALLY LEAVING THE GOP FOR AWHILE (RE-REGISTERING AS A CONSERVATIVE) IN PROTEST AGAINST BUSH'S BETRAYAL OF THE KURDS.

* AND NOW OBAMA FOLLOWS IN GEORGE H.W. BUSH'S FOOTSTEPS...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

If we are to win the war against the Islamic State, we need ground forces, and the Obama administration has rejected the idea of sending in any of our own.

* AS WELL HE SHOULD! NO MORE AMERICAN BLOOD AND TREASURE SHOULD BE SQUANDERED!

The Kurds, who have demonstrated both their bravery and their willingness to be friends with America, are right there, and already engaged in the fight. If supplied with adequate arms and backed by serious U.S. tactical air support, they could roll up ISIS as rapidly as the similarly reinforced Northern Alliance did the Taliban in the fall of 2001.

* NO. THE TURKS CAN PROVIDE AIR SUPPORT. THE GULF STATES. ISRAEL. OTHER NATO COUNTRIES. THEIR MIGHT IS SUFFICIENT TO WIPE OUT ISIS/ISIL AND IF IT'S NOT... WELL THEN WHAT GOOD ARE THEY AS ALLIES...???

Done right, this war could be won in months, instead of waged inconclusively for years.

The administration, however, has rejected this alternative, and has instead opted for a Saudi-Qatari plan to allow the Syrian Kurds to be exterminated while training a new Sunni Arab army in Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile the killing will simply go on, with the United States doing its part to further Islamist recruitment by indulging in endless strategy-free bombing of Sunni villages.

September 30, 2014 at 3:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/2014-elections-senate-democrats-iraq-syria-111445.html

Democrat Kay Hagan didn’t mince words about the Iraq War during her 2008 Senate campaign against Republican Elizabeth Dole.

“We need to get out of Iraq in a responsible way,” Hagan declared in May of that year. “We need to elect leaders who don’t invade countries without planning and stay there without an end.”

Hagan is striking a different chord these days. Locked in a tough reelection battle, the first-term senator boasts that she’s more strongly supportive of airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants than her Republican challenger, Thom Tillis, and says she’s been pressing the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels since early last year.

* REMEMBER THAT NAME - KAY HAGAN... SCUMBAG.

A host of Democratic Senate hopefuls who rode anti-war sentiment into office in the past decade are running for re-election now as hawks, staking out hard-line positions on the latest upheaval in the Middle East.

* A HOST OF DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFULS ARE SCUMBAGS...

(*SHRUG*)

Take Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa. He picked up a Republican-held House seat largely on the strength of his opposition to the war in Iraq. He backed cutting off funding for military operations and spoke out against the surge. When his opponent warned at a 2006 debate of chaos if the U.S. cut and ran, Braley responded: “Chaos already is ensuing in Iraq.”

Now Braley is running against military veteran Joni Ernst in one of the most contested Senate races in the country. “ISIS is a threat that must be stopped,” Braley said during a debate Sunday. “Anytime American citizens are attacked by a terrorist group, they need to be brought to justice or to the grave.”

* BRUCE BRALEY - DEMOCRAT - NEWLY REBORN "SUPERHAWK!" (I THINK I'LL STICK WITH "SCUMBAG" THOUGH.)

Just last August, Braley demanded Obama get congressional authorization before taking any military action in Syria.

* AND NOW...???

He even said he voted to give the president limited authority “to begin strikes against those in Syria and Iraq.”

(In fact, the resolution that passed Congress two weeks ago was to arm Syrian rebels.)

Braley’s campaign defended his comment by drawing a distinction between “strikes” and “airstrikes,” saying he was actually referring to the arming of Syrian rebels to fight militants.

* WHAT... A... SCUMBAG...

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 30, 2014 at 5:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Only one vulnerable Senate Democrat voted against that resolution to arm the rebels: Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, who warned that the weapons could fall into the wrong hands.

* THANK YOU, MARK BEGICH!

Every other Democrat facing a viable challenger, including Jeff Merkley in deep-blue Oregon and Al Franken in Minnesota, voted with the 78-member majority.

(*SNORT*)

It’s a remarkable turn considering how outspoken each was about bringing the troops home from the Middle East during the 2008 campaign.

* YES... er... "REMARKABLE."

(*SNICKER*)

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Nowhere on the Senate trail is ISIL more of a flash point than New Hampshire. Republican candidate Scott Brown has been hammering Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for failing to understand “the nature of the threat,” as he put it in one commercial that began airing last week. This has prompted the freshman Democrat to begin quietly running a response ad (her campaign has not released it to the news media), in which she says: “I support those airstrikes. I think it’s important for us to take the fight to ISIL.”

* WOW... (JUST... WOW...)

Shaheen has traversed the map, so to speak, on military action in the Middle East. When she ran unsuccessfully for the Senate a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, she said at a debate: “I’ll stand with President Bush on national security, the war on terrorism and to disarm Saddam Hussein.”

* YET...

In 2008 rematch against then-Sen. John Sununu, after the war had gone south, Shaheen vowed to fight to bring the troops home. “I would vote to authorize military action if the U.S. or any of its treaty partners are attacked militarily, and to prevent an imminent attack,” she said on a 2008 questionnaire. But “I oppose the Bush doctrine of preemption because it implies that the United States will use preemption as a first option, rather than a last resort.”

Shaheen’s campaign said there is nothing inconsistent about her past comments.

* UH-HUH...

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 30, 2014 at 5:39 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Democrats such as Colorado Sen. Mark Udall and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor have expressed much more public reluctance than Shaheen, Hagan or Braley — but they still voted in favor of the Syria resolution.

(*SMIRK*)

* PROFILES IN COURAGE ALL...

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Pryor offers perhaps the clearest illustration of how dramatically the politics of Middle East intervention have shifted. In July, he pushed an amendment to ban the administration from training and equipping the Syrian rebels. It failed on a 21-9 vote of the Appropriations Committee. “There is just too much of a chance that those weapons will land in the hands of extremists, just like in Iraq,” Pryor said at the time.

* AND HE WAS RIGHT!

This month, Pryor voted for the resolution to arm the rebels, saying he still had “reservations” but that unspecified “safeguards” were added in.

* WHAT... A... SCUMBAG...

Republican challenger Tom Cotton, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, called the votes political, accusing Pryor of a “complete lack of seriousness” on “matters of war and peace.”

* NOW THAT'S SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!

The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s Brad Dayspring: "The emergence of national security on the campaign trail highlights staggering incompetence on the part of these Democratic senators and congressmen who not only ignored a growing national security threat but served as rubber-stamps for a President who referred to ISIS as the JV team earlier this year.”

September 30, 2014 at 5:39 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/30/us-navy-sailors-harbor-widespread-distrust-of-seni/

Navy sailors harbor "widespread mistrust" in the admirals who command them, complaining of poor leadership and a disciplinary environment that tolerates absolutely no mistakes, says a survey of the fleet.

* AND THAT'S JUST THE NAVY. WHAT OF THE ARMY, AIR FORCE, COAST GUARD... AND MARINES?

The disgruntlement runs deepest in the officer corps, where scores of commanders have been relieved of duty in recent years.

"Senior leadership should stop proactively highlighting the reliefs for cause of commanding officers, command master chiefs, and other senior enlisted advisors," said the report "2014 Navy Retention Study." "What was originally intended to demonstrate accountability to the public has, instead, resulted in a significant breach of trust with our sailors and resulting in an almost 'reality TV' mentality."

The independent survey was released amid complaints by some aviators about excessive political correctness as the military seeks to stamp out sexual harassment and misconduct in an increasingly gender-integrated Navy.

* IS "WINNING WARS" EVEN ON THE TOP 10 LIST OF GOALS FOR OUR SENIOR MILITARY LEADERS ANYMORE...???

"Most troubling is the perception sailors hold of senior leadership," the report says under the heading "Widespread Distrust of Senior Leadership."

"Sailors feel strongly about their distrust of senior leadership, and believe the Navy has a significant risk-averse culture and zero-defect mentality," the report says. "Officers in particular hold an incredibly negative view of the current state of affairs, with vast majorities decrying the overwhelming perception of a risk averse and zero-defect mentality culture."

When asked whether they agreed that the Navy operates a risk-averse culture, nearly 90% of officers answered "yes."

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 30, 2014 at 11:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Sailors also do not like wartime at sea deployments that stretch from six months up to nine months.

The report, based on an Internet survey that garnered responses from more than 5,000 sailors, was compiled by a group of active-duty Navy sailors and civilian researchers, with the Navy's support.

It was led by Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, a "Top Gun" F-18 Hornet pilot who was a speechwriter for the Navy's top admiral and now is executive officer of a carrier strike fighter squadron. Cmdr. Snodgrass has argued that the work climate will lead to a retention crisis if not addressed.

Cmdr. Christopher Servello, a spokesman for the chief of naval personnel, said: "Not sure we agree with all of the conclusions that were drawn, but we are grateful for the effort done by this group. ... Much of the raw data collected matches what we have seen in our own surveys."

Cmdr. Servello said actions being taken include "pushing decision-making down to the lowest levels of command and empowering units' leaders to train and focus on war fighting first."

He said retention is above average for officers and enlisted, but there are "pockets that have leadership's attention." These include the nuclear Navy, junior flight officers and special warfare, which includes the SEALs.

* WHEN THE SEALS HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE NOT JUST IN THE POLITICIANS, BUT IN THEIR OWN NAVY BRASS... LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

Cmdr. Snodgrass' report language is tamer than an article he wrote last winter on the U.S. Naval Institute website.

"Unfortunately," Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote, "the fact that a growing number of quality officers have already left the service or are planning to head for the doors seems to be going undetected by senior leadership."

He wrote of "a recent shift within the Navy to eradicate behavior that is, by its very nature, ineradicable."

"Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit," he said. "Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated."

September 30, 2014 at 11:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/uncle-sams-8-trillion-annual-debt-churn-why-washington-is-pertrified-of-honest-interest-rates/

* THE HEADLINE: Uncle Sam’s $8 Trillion Annual Debt Churn: Why Washington Is Pertrified Of Honest Interest Rates

I know that headline sounds completely outrageous.

But it is actually true.

The U.S. government is borrowing about 8 trillion dollars a year, and you are about to see the hard numbers that prove this.

When discussing the national debt, most people tend to only focus on the amount that it increases each 12 months. And as I wrote about recently, the U.S. national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014. But that does not count the huge amounts of U.S. Treasury securities that the federal government must redeem each year.

When these debt instruments hit their maturity date, the U.S. government must pay them off. This is done by borrowing more money to pay off the previous debts.

In fiscal year 2013, redemptions of U.S. Treasury securities totaled $7,546,726,000,000 and new debt totaling $8,323,949,000,000 was issued. (The final numbers for fiscal year 2014 are likely to be significantly higher than that.)

So why does so much government debt come due each year?

Well, in recent years government officials figured out that they could save a lot of money on interest payments by borrowing over shorter time frames. For example, it costs the government far more to borrow money for 10 years than it does for 1 year. So a strategy was hatched to borrow money for very short periods of time and to keep “rolling it over” again and again and again.

This strategy has indeed saved the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments, but it has also created a situation where the federal government must borrow about 8 trillion dollars a year just to keep up with the game.

* YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS - RIGHT FOLKS?

So what happens when the rest of the world decides that it does not want to loan us 8 trillion dollars a year at ultra-low interest rates?

I am about to share with you some numbers that were originally reported by CNS News. As you can see, far more debt is being redeemed and issued today than back during the middle part of the last decade…

* UTILIZE THE LINK AND READ THE NUMBERS FROM THE ACTUAL ARTICLE!

The only way that this game can continue is if the U.S. government can continue to borrow gigantic piles of money at ridiculously low interest rates.

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND...

Our current standard of living greatly depends on the continuation of this game. If something comes along and rattles this Ponzi scheme, life in America could change radically almost overnight.

* FOLKS... IT'S BEEN CHANGING OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS... BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT A COLLAPSE OF THE PONZI SCHEME WOULD USHER IN!

In the United States today, we have a heavily socialized system that hands out checks to nearly half the population. In fact, 49% of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government each month according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

* IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH THEN YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 30, 2014 at 11:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Americans received more than 2 trillion dollars in benefits from the federal government last year alone.

* AND THINK ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT $2 TRILLION THAT WAS BORROWED... AT INTEREST!

At this point, the primary function of the federal government is taking money from some people and giving it to others.

* AND BORROWING! ADDING TO THE DEBT BURDEN OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL ONE DAY HAVE TO MAKE GOOD ON PRESENT DAY PROMISES!

In fact, more than 70% of all federal spending goes to “dependence-creating programs” and the government runs approximately 80 different “means-tested welfare programs” right now.

* SICK! OBSCENE! WICKED!

But the big problem is that the government is giving out far more money than it is taking in, so it has to borrow the difference. As long as we can continue to borrow at super low interest rates, the status quo can continue.

But a Ponzi scheme like this can only last for so long.

It has been said that when the checks stop coming in, chaos will begin in the streets of America.

The looting that took place when a technical glitch caused the EBT system to go down for a short time in some areas last year and the rioting in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri this year were both small previews of what we will see in the future.

* YOU'D BETTER BE ARMED... AND TRAINED... AND HAVE A PLAN... AND FRIENDS...

And there is no way that we will be able to “grow” our way out of this problem.

* NOPE. THE "BEST" WE CAN DO IS DEFAULT. (AND CHINA ISN'T GONNA LIKE THAT...)

As the Baby Boomers continue to retire, the amount of money that the federal government is handing out each year is projected to absolutely skyrocket.

September 30, 2014 at 11:54 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Just consider the following numbers…

Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.

Today, more than 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and it is being projected that ObamaCare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

When Medicare was first established, we were told that it would cost about $12 billion a year by the time 1990 rolled around. Instead, the federal government ended up spending $110 billion on the program in 1990, and the federal government spent approximately $600 billion on the program in 2013.

It is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

* WHERE'S THE MONEY GONNA COME FROM, FOLKS? HMM...???

-At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years; that comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. Today, that number has fallen to 2.5 workers, and if you eliminate all government workers, that leaves only 1.6 private sector workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits.

* AGAIN... FOLKS... ESPECIALLY YOU FOLKS WHO MAKE A HABIT OF VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS... EXPLAIN THE MATH TO ME BY WHICH ALL IS MADE WELL?

Right now, there are approximately 63 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million. Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

* OH, SURE... THEY'LL UP THE RETIREMENT AGE... ULTIMATELY THEY'LL INSTITUTE MEANS TESTING... THEY'LL SIMPLE STEAL THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE MIDDLE CLASS ON UP... AND AT THIS POINT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE AT EACH OTHERS THROATS.

* FOLKS... AT WHAT POINT DOES "WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION" BECOME THE RALLYING CRY - FROM BOTH THE PRO AND ANTI SIDES - FOR SUCCESSION AND CIVIL WAR?

The U.S. government is facing a total of 222 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities during the years ahead. Social Security and Medicare make up the bulk of that.

* THE PRO-IMMIGRATION FORCES SAY OPENING THE FLOODGATES BRINGS IN WORKERS WHO WILL REFILL GOVERNMENTAL COFFERS? FOLKS... QUESTION... HOW'S THIS WORKED IN MEXICO... AND THROUGHOUT CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA? WHERE ARE THESE HISPANIC PARADISES... THESE ROLE MODELS FOR FUTURE AMERICA?

Yes, things seem somewhat stable for the moment in America today.

* NO. ACTUALLY THEY DON'T.

Don’t get blindsided by what is ahead. Evidence of the coming catastrophe is all around you.

* I ONLY WISH I HAD AN ANSWER...

September 30, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)