Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done
"enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others,
his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think
sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We
have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst
thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the
other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of
dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get
involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the
Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual
circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are
well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not
accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military
personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of
Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the
CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."
Do you want war in the Middle East? Other than Ron Paul, every GOP candidate virtually insures it!
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Call Me F**KING Surprised - Romney’s Tax Plan Takes From the Poor, Gives to the Rich
A new non-partisan study has determined that Mitt Romney's tax plan "strongly favors the wealthiest Americans."
The analysis comes from the Tax Policy Center, who note that the bottom 20 percent of earners would see their taxes increase by 1.3 percent ($149) on average. Well, that doesn't sound too bad. But how are the super-rich fairing?
Every poll shows that even the rich, yes the rich even say it,should pay more taxes (well of course not all the self-indulgent assholes).
With record unemployment and people on food stamps, we need to give the rich a bigger tax break???
The Tax Policy Center also looked at how Romney's new tax plan would affect the deficit over the course of the next decade. The answer, it turns out, is "not so well."
So the all important deficit issue of the GOP (cough, cough) is nothing but lies. Deficits are good as long as the rich get richer, and a GOP is President.
And in case you're wondering how Obama's tax plan stacks up, the Tax Policy Center reveals that it "would increase taxes on the top 20 percent of earners by two percent while leaving taxes on other Americans essentially unchanged." Won't somebody think of the one percent?
Is there anyone who does not yet see why OWS does have a single, coherent message?
Soon the poor will having nothing left to eat except the rich.
The analysis comes from the Tax Policy Center, who note that the bottom 20 percent of earners would see their taxes increase by 1.3 percent ($149) on average. Well, that doesn't sound too bad. But how are the super-rich fairing?
Seriously? I am living in a parallel universe?The top 20 percent, meanwhile, would see an average tax cut of $16,134 — a 5.4 percent reduction in their tax rate. The top one percent of earners would see their average tax rate fall by nearly $150,000 per year, and the top 0.1 percent would see a reduction of more than $725,000.
Every poll shows that even the rich, yes the rich even say it,should pay more taxes (well of course not all the self-indulgent assholes).
With record unemployment and people on food stamps, we need to give the rich a bigger tax break???
According to the Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan would add $900 billion to the deficit in 2015, when the changes would go into full effect. The group has also found that the 20 percent tax cut, combined with Romney's proposal to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, would add $3 trillion to the deficit over ten years — even if the Bush-era tax cuts and more recent tax cuts are extended.
So the all important deficit issue of the GOP (cough, cough) is nothing but lies. Deficits are good as long as the rich get richer, and a GOP is President.
 |
| Vein & Company? |
Is there anyone who does not yet see why OWS does have a single, coherent message?
Soon the poor will having nothing left to eat except the rich.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Hey Fat Old Lady – You Will Die A Miserable Horrible Death
In the poster-child for Teacher Of the Year Award, we have a
winner, Principal Dorothy Bond of Haywood High School.
Public school teachers have a difficult enough challenge as
it is. But Principal Dorothy Bond of
Haywood High School, has set the sites even higher. She has decided that the separation of church
and state should be tossed aside in favor of her bible beliefs (Yes believing
in a false deity, born to a virgin, and not heard again for 150 years – makes her
top of the class).
During a recent meeting with students, she allegedly pointed
to a bunch of gay students and told them they were going to hell. She also made
sure that pregnant students were aware that their lives were over.
WOW!!!! That was inspirational. And so Christ like (wasn’t one of Jesus’
principal disciples a former (?) prostitute?).
But hey, each to their own, if you not gay or a pregnant teen.
To be fair, if there is a God and he's anything like the one
this crazy lady believes in, it's not just the gays who are going to hell.
We're all fucked.
Everything Is Coming Up Roses!
Everything is coming up roses!!! Can't you just hear it (certainly as presented by MSNBC, Fox, etc.)
According to iFoodstamps - the number of Americans living in poverty (or at least doing a
damn good job of fooling the government in pretending they do). As of December,
per SNAP
this number just hit another record high of 46.5 million, an increase of
384,000 in one month (and ending the trend of declines from October and
November), 2.4 million in 2011 (about as many as have dropped out of the Labor
force.
We don't have soup lines (right now) because we have food stamps (unless until the GOP get ride of them).
But roses smell good, so "everything is coming up roses."
We don't have soup lines (right now) because we have food stamps (unless until the GOP get ride of them).
But roses smell good, so "everything is coming up roses."
“How did you not notice 24-year-olds were being paid $2 million a year who clearly didn’t know anything?”
In many cultures, older people are viewed as wise and worthy of respect. It is viewed that only by living a life full of ever changing events that one can appreciate the present.
No one told that to anyone of us the US. Youth is vitality and vigor. Old ways are just that - old and outdated.
They say that history always has a way of repeating itself. Whether it’s the tragedies, the famines, the prosperous times, or the faith of the people in the Bible, we always find that throughout history most of what has happened has already happened again or will happen soon.
But as outlined in Zero Hedge today, having faith and trust in a 24 year old is perhaps naive, but more likely trusting the fox in the hen house. What could go wrong?
The flip side of that is that younger people are more willing to accept change
and view things differently.
The question then, is how to reconcile the two axioms.
I think most would agree, that "trusting" 24 year olds with economics for the future (when they have lived but 24 years) is putting "change" above "foresight." There mist be an equilibrium and 24 year olds deciding economic policy just doesn't sound right.
But hey, younger and younger guys are winning the Grand Championship of Poker more and more. Luck? Or just more wiling to go all in, damn the consequences?
No one told that to anyone of us the US. Youth is vitality and vigor. Old ways are just that - old and outdated.
They say that history always has a way of repeating itself. Whether it’s the tragedies, the famines, the prosperous times, or the faith of the people in the Bible, we always find that throughout history most of what has happened has already happened again or will happen soon.
But as outlined in Zero Hedge today, having faith and trust in a 24 year old is perhaps naive, but more likely trusting the fox in the hen house. What could go wrong?
The flip side of that is that younger people are more willing to accept change
and view things differently.
The question then, is how to reconcile the two axioms.
But hey, younger and younger guys are winning the Grand Championship of Poker more and more. Luck? Or just more wiling to go all in, damn the consequences?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
All Hail The Holy Roman Emperor - Executive Power and Absolute Power
This is a tough article for me. I like what President Obama has done very much and think he has served us well as President. It also seems that others have been overly critical of his Presidency, including attacking him over things which he inherited from past administrations.
However, I have a great deal of trouble with the Administration's position on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, regarding U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki in his efforts to obtain a court order barring the U.S. Government from assassinating him without due process.
In a nut-shell, the ACLU and CCR filed a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Awlaki, with Awlaki's father as the named plaintiff, to prevent the Obama administration from proceeding with Awlaki's due-process-free assassination. According to the suit, Awlaki is unable to file the lawsuit on his own because the U.S. government's threats to kill him, as well as its prior unsuccessful attempts, cause him to be in hiding and thus make it infeasible for him to assert his legal rights directly.
This is a very difficult case and involves a very undesirable accused terrorist (assuming all the accusations against him are true).
I mean, who wants to defend the rights of a terrorist who has publicly stated that he wishes to kill millions of Americans? Shouldn't this be an easy case and we could all just say good riddens?
The problem is that it raises some very difficult Constitutional issues, including the question of whether the US Government should be able to execute one of its own citizens without due process.
What is alleged in the suit is that the Government is violating Awlaki's "Fifth Amendment Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process." The Complaint also alleges that using lethal force against a U.S. citizen in these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure, and also violates the Alien Tort Statute, which bars "extrajudicial killings."
As I said this is very heavy stuff, and is the very foundation of our personal liberties and freedoms. It is the Administration's response which has given me so much pause.
According to The Washington Post, the Administration filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.
I think we call all appreciate the notion that the Government must have certain state secrets which should not be divulged. But what is surprising is that the are not asking the Court to not disclose those matters which are "state secret" but to not review the entire case as a state secret. That gives me great pause.
If the President has the power to order American citizens killed without due process, and to do so in complete secrecy without the review by any court of his decision, then what doesn't he have the power to do? Does he have absolute "executive powers"?
Some are insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor. However, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree.
So what is the reach of Executive Power? To answer that we must look to the unique American concept of Separation of Powers.
According to Wikipedia:
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States.
Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies — is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress.
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the president - the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office -- "...with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"-- receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government and, in general, each branch is seen as a check and balance on the other branches.
The idea of unfettered Executive Powers tends to run con tray to the notion of co-equal branches. It doesn't take much to realize that a President who can do whatever he chooses under the notion of Executive Power is more an Emperor than apart of a co-equal government.
Most notably Nixon declared he could not break the law as he was President. Richard Nixon—whose presidency is sometimes described as "Imperial" - used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight.
George Washington was offered the role of "King." He rightfully turned it down. Now is the time to stop the intrusion of the legislative and executive branches into our freedoms least we become mere serfs.
However, I have a great deal of trouble with the Administration's position on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, regarding U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki in his efforts to obtain a court order barring the U.S. Government from assassinating him without due process.
In a nut-shell, the ACLU and CCR filed a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Awlaki, with Awlaki's father as the named plaintiff, to prevent the Obama administration from proceeding with Awlaki's due-process-free assassination. According to the suit, Awlaki is unable to file the lawsuit on his own because the U.S. government's threats to kill him, as well as its prior unsuccessful attempts, cause him to be in hiding and thus make it infeasible for him to assert his legal rights directly.
This is a very difficult case and involves a very undesirable accused terrorist (assuming all the accusations against him are true).
I mean, who wants to defend the rights of a terrorist who has publicly stated that he wishes to kill millions of Americans? Shouldn't this be an easy case and we could all just say good riddens?
The problem is that it raises some very difficult Constitutional issues, including the question of whether the US Government should be able to execute one of its own citizens without due process.
What is alleged in the suit is that the Government is violating Awlaki's "Fifth Amendment Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process." The Complaint also alleges that using lethal force against a U.S. citizen in these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure, and also violates the Alien Tort Statute, which bars "extrajudicial killings."
As I said this is very heavy stuff, and is the very foundation of our personal liberties and freedoms. It is the Administration's response which has given me so much pause.
According to The Washington Post, the Administration filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.
I think we call all appreciate the notion that the Government must have certain state secrets which should not be divulged. But what is surprising is that the are not asking the Court to not disclose those matters which are "state secret" but to not review the entire case as a state secret. That gives me great pause.
If the President has the power to order American citizens killed without due process, and to do so in complete secrecy without the review by any court of his decision, then what doesn't he have the power to do? Does he have absolute "executive powers"?
Some are insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor. However, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree.
So what is the reach of Executive Power? To answer that we must look to the unique American concept of Separation of Powers.
According to Wikipedia:
Separation of powersis the political doctrine according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies — is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress.
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the president - the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office -- "...with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"-- receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government and, in general, each branch is seen as a check and balance on the other branches.
The idea of unfettered Executive Powers tends to run con tray to the notion of co-equal branches. It doesn't take much to realize that a President who can do whatever he chooses under the notion of Executive Power is more an Emperor than apart of a co-equal government.
Most notably Nixon declared he could not break the law as he was President. Richard Nixon—whose presidency is sometimes described as "Imperial" - used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight.
George Washington was offered the role of "King." He rightfully turned it down. Now is the time to stop the intrusion of the legislative and executive branches into our freedoms least we become mere serfs.
Everything Is Coming Up Roses - Go Back & Spend Your Unemployment Check!
"Why Aren't Small Businesses Hiring?"
A recent Gallup Poll on Hiring may have some answers.
That 24% cannot and will not hire because they fear going out of business within a year says quite a lot.
Bear in mind this is in spite of the fact that "economic confidence is approaching its highest levels in the last four years. U.S. small-business owners are also about as optimistic about their business and their future hiring as they've been at any point during that time."
This
economy is on the edge of a precipice and few see it.
Hopefully the view on the way down is nice. Those at the top can just look out their castle doors and wonder where all the help has gone! Those damn lazy serfs.
A recent Gallup Poll on Hiring may have some answers.
85% of those surveyed -- are most likely to say the reasons they are not doing so include not needing additional employees; worries about weak business conditions, including revenues; cash flow; and the overall U.S. economy. Additionally, nearly half of small-business owners point to potential healthcare costs (48%) and government regulations (46%) as reasons. One in four are not hiring because they worry they may not be in business in 12 months.Always nive to sip your coffee over such rosy news. No wonder we all suffer anti-indigestion (good stock buy opportunity?)
That 24% cannot and will not hire because they fear going out of business within a year says quite a lot.
Bear in mind this is in spite of the fact that "economic confidence is approaching its highest levels in the last four years. U.S. small-business owners are also about as optimistic about their business and their future hiring as they've been at any point during that time."
Hopefully the view on the way down is nice. Those at the top can just look out their castle doors and wonder where all the help has gone! Those damn lazy serfs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)