The coming social disaster as best I can figure
 

House Speaker John Boehner’s budget proposal will change the face of the American social and political landscape - increasing poverty, putting hundreds of thousands of low income Americans out on the streets, denying medical assistance to the low income disabled and elderly, and eviscerating the SNAP or “food stamps” program. Boehner would have American Society regress to the era of the 30's as described by John Steinbeck in his great and tragic novel, “The Grapes of Wrath.”

Boehner’s plan can properly be called “class warfare,” and a significant consequence of this class warfare can't help but translate to racial warfare, as well.

As we all know by now, Boehner’s manifesto rejects all tax increases. A House GOP aide talking about the Republican members of the deficit reduction committee (“the gang of six”) said bluntly: “We appoint members to the committee, and we’re not appointing any Republicans who will vote for tax hikes.”

Instead, a $1.8 trillion reduction will come from “entitlement reforms and savings.”

This savings will be acquired over the next ten years by one of three possible methods – all equally draconian:

•Behind Door Number One: Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees - a form of political suicide that even extremists like Boehner will not actually contemplate.

•Door Number Two: Repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its strictures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues. However, Republicans will seek to repeal many of those measures as well. (Yes, I am also confused by this last).

•Door Number Three: Completely obliterate the social safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

Absent any compromise on tax increases, there are simply no other ways to obtain $1.8 trillion in entitlement cuts within the next decade.

In addition (yes, it gets worse), House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s own plan would slash Medicaid and health reform by $2.2 trillion. Ryan would also cut $127 billion from SNAP and reduce Pell Grants and other student financial assistance by $126 billion. Looking for an education to get you a better job or pull you solidly into the middle class? Keep looking. And remember what happened to Oliver Twist when he asked for more soup.

Previously, core assistance programs for the poor were exempted from across the board cuts by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, enacted in 1985. Now, the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill will remove these exemptions. With an election coming up, which door are the Republicans likely to choose? Don’t all answer at once. The entitlement cuts will most heavily target the programs created for people of lesser means and, yes Virginia, less political power.

Meanwhile, the many lucrative tax breaks that benefit the wealthy and the powerful corporations have been pledged protection by Boehner who certainly shows great sympathy for the robber baron class if no one else.

Extra credit question: Who said, "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community $60,000 during his lifetime. Fellow Countryman, that is your money, too."

a) Charles Darwin
b) Sarah Palin
c) Office of Social Policy’s “A New People”
(hint: “C” was translated from the German)

All of the above is written in my own words. My major source for the information came from the non partisan outfit, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-25-11bud-stmt.pdf.

Piss poor attitude copped from Bill the Cat

PS This is NOT a diatribe directed at any member of the Cellar (unless John Boehner became a member when I wasn’t looking), but if thinking so helps you get through another night scrounging through the dumpsters, feel free.

I am simply amazed that this cold-hearted and altogether totally greedy mindset has taken hold.

It is really scary.

I just hope that once the masses have been totally downtrodden on, they will finally raise the fuck up and destroy all that the rich find valuable.

Robert Greenspan is less than neutral. jus sayin'.

I don't know what the answers are though, so to comment further would be less than productive.

*cough* That would be Robert GreenSTEIN *cough*

lol - thanks. I lost my original reply and retyped incorrectly. Freudian slip perhaps? Doh!

Well, at least the uber rich will still have their yachts and diamond mines and foreign made cars. That will help me sleep at night - knowing they are safe.

:D

What is so amazing to me is that unless you are one of the uber-rich, you, too, could find yourself in need pretty damn quick. One illness like cancer or schizophrenia would wipe out most Americans (even with the recommended 6 months worth of salary savings) in pretty short order.

All from Wiki.

Democracy Alliance: Billionaires for Big Government
What’s Next for George Soros’s Democracy Alliance?

http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.html?id=551

The Democracy Alliance Does America The Soros-Founded Plutocrats

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50576483...ded-Plutocrats

Quoting Greenstein is akin to quoting Glenn Beck as if it has validity to a political statement.

I had some trouble with your links, but here's what I discovered about your Capital Research outfit. In its own words:

It looks to me as if quoting Capital Research is akin to quoting Sarah Palin as if she had the validity of a brain.

Not nearly as bad as Greenstein and Beck... Palin is a figment of the left-wing nut media's imagination, she is no threat to anyone but her own future.

While I dislike Boehner, the reports on the debt ceiling negotiations seemed to indicate that he was more willing to compromise than his tea party base. The problem ultimately lies with those who voted the tea partiers into office, IMHO.

You mean the corporations that pay little or no taxes, run by old white men who pay a lower tax rate than most middle class taxpayers? Where's the indignation? I bet those corporations have microwave ovens, refrigerators, and cell phones! Oh the hypocrisy.

"General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from
Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the
company will invest $2 billion in China
and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is
the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but
paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the United States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff
Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed
to help create jobs.
I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed
to be creating those jobs.
If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I
don't know what does."

:lol: Don't forget the air conditioning. The bastards have air conditioning!

And bejewelled

Dan Rather once wrote in his book that the South only gained power as a voting block because it allowed more people to live in the heat. There may be something to it.

Interesting

http://acivilamericandebate.wordpres...me-inequality/

The Statement you linked to was released in July before the passage of the actual bill. Here is the Statement the CBPP released after passage:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3555

It didn't turn out like Mr. Greenstein anticipated, half the automatic cuts are in defense, and your original post is :yeldead: dead on arrival.

Also, "in my own words" doesn't mean barely rewriting the original and adding "grapes of wrath" hand-wringing.

That is a GREAT link, Spexx! I can just see Merc's eyes popping out of his head should he happen to take a look at it.

Thanks for posting that! ;)

The same can basically be said about Republicans who want to lower taxes to spur investment. Why would they invest in the USA over China or any other upcoming economy?

Thank you for pointing out an additional source of information that I had overlooked. I think both statements, the one On House Speaker Boehner's New Budget Proposal and the second on the New Debt Ceiling Agreement contain a great deal of vital information and policy proposals which Americans need to be aware of.

The OP remains very much alive. Here is what is stated in your link in regard to what can happen if the joint committe cannot come to an agreement:

If anything, half the automated cuts going to defense only make the possible scenarios worse.

Your critique of my writing skills is duely noted. What I was trying to do was to avoid a huge dump of cut and paste with never a word of personal comment added - a sin certain members here committ all too often.

And you don't have to like Grapes of Wrath if you don't want to, although I think its a shame to dismiss an American writer with the stature of John Steinbeck out of hand. :p:

How are they directly doing this?

I never look at anything that tool posts, sorry.:D

This refutes EVERYTHING that spexxies link said.

OH NO! it cunt be true!!!!!!!!! his holiness was wrong?!?!!??!?!? :lol2:

I know how to solve this:

The Death Penalty for Parking Violations!

That'll fix your wagon.

That was very worth reading. I would recommend it.

And this refutes EVERYTHING: https://sites.google.com/site/icouldnotagreemore/

That was just for you Sam.

Awww... Gee. I feel so special! :blush: :p:

That was a really interesting article. I admit my eyes slid over some of the numbers and graphs, but what I understood of it was fascinating :p

I don't know how else to look at that progression except as a result of the slow, quiet, and unnamed as such, class assault by the political and economic elite.

Or the progression of class assault by the left who want to turn it into a class war. That is the only way they can win when the chips are down. How many times did we hear Obama and the Dems say that the Republickins want to take away SS? That is a bold faced lie. When in fact, no one ever said such a thing. What was said is everything is on the table. Sort of follows what his very own debt reduction commission published.

Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buff...o_code=CF64-1#

So the ALG's interpretation of the line in the Berkshire document is that Berkshire probably owes some taxes.

Are you suggesting that incorporated entities decline to take advantage of all the benefits of the tax laws available to it? Why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than the law obligates them to do so? Your citation says they had the chance to pay more but didn't. Ok, that makes them EXACTLY like every other person I know. I only pay what I have to, I take advantage of all the legal options available to me to minimize the taxes I pay, so do you.

And I'd like you to try to substantiate the assertion that Buffett advocates paying more taxes. What I've read is that Buffett advocates changing the tax laws so that those with more means pay more taxes. This story simply validates Buffett's point--the laws in place now make it legal and possible, indeed, compulsory for corporations to pay as little as possible (see fiduciary responsibility and corporate opportunity). Which, ironically, results in a lower percentage than some individuals pay.

Thanks for making Warren Buffett's point for him.

... :lol:.... Dude you have to be kidding me?

pretty selective quoting---

you kind of left that part out.

It's their interpretation. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, you, me, everybody. In this situation the opinions that matter are the ones in the courtroom. My lawyers can beat up your lawyers, etc etc.

It's one article describing one outfit's opinion, and cited by one other outfit. Meh.

Absofuckinglutley...... So what's your point?

A wacko extremist progapanda service pretending to be "Fair and Balanced" created half truths. So TheMercenary posts it here as if it was fact. Again to everyone outside America or too young to know an America where wackos were mostly silent (also called the KKK), TheMercenary represents the large numbers of Americans so easily brainwashed by soundbytes.

Why are wackos attacking Buffet? Because Buffet so accurately identified some of America's greatest problems. The rich are getting rich at the expense of all other people. Then these same 'rich' are buying those most responsible for their obscene wealth - wacko extremists Republicans.

One would think those who are not mega-rich would be furious. But some are that easily brainwashed by soundbytes. What is destructive to every American reading this is what TheMercenary has been told is good - by "Fair and Balanced" propaganda machines (and think tanks) masking as new services (and responsible researchers).

Deutche Welle featured a news report entitled "Why is the American Empire constantly at war?" Because so many Americans are now told how to think by soundbytes from Limbaugh and other "Fair and Balanced" extremist propaganda machines.

When do we find Saddam’s WMDs? Why did we all but protect bin Laden when wackos controlled the White House and Congress? At what point do the brainwashed discover history says they were obviously lied to – and still believe those lies.

You all need to remember now... this guy gave millions to Obama.

tw gave millions to Obama?

My point is that a single hostile opposing voice does not a fact make. People talk shit all the time, as you well know. Doesn't make it true, just makes it talk.

You could look up tautology if you wanted to learn more.

Dude, if you ignore Buffet's failure to pay what is owed you have no hope in any conversation defending the liberal fools.....

Dude.

Who's to say what is owed? There's a dispute. There's a question about the interpretation of the tax laws, such questions are resolved in court. Of course you know this already. It is the purpose of the court to decide which party's position is right. Until that judgement is rendered, the payment is pending.

You don't have the authority to say what Berkshire Hathaway owes in taxes, and neither does this Americans for Limited Government outfit. The court does. It's complicated because, surprise, surprise, the tax code is byzantine. The very kinds of things that complicate such points as "how much is owed" are the very things that provide the kinds of LEGAL opportunities to reduce Berkshire's tax liability. The very things that make it possible for a kabillion dollar corporation to pay a lower rate of taxes than, say, the secretary.

This story makes Buffet's very point that our laws are built in favor, OVERWHELMINGLY in favor, and to the tune of tons of money, in favor of the rich, and at the expense of our country. Thank you, TheMercenary, for highlighting Buffet's point that our laws need to be changed.

Yeah, what BigV said.

And Buffet is only one person, albeit a rich one. His is only one voice in the debate.

And please explain to me why liberals are fools for wanting to protect the social safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society? Where is the wisdom in putting low income children, disabled, and elderly out on the street; depriving them of nutrition by taking their food stamps away; and refusing them medications and medical treatment by dismantling Medicaid?

The cruelty that will be unleashed on the poor if these cuts take place is indefensible. I would really like to know how you personally can defend such actions. And some cut and paste response is really not an acceptable response.

Wait, where is all the wailing about "The Rich", the "Millionaires and Billionaires", the "Owners of the Private Jet Companies".... or were you just talking about the people who make more that 220k? Where is the outrage about Obama's relationships with Goldman Sachs, or GE and the jobs creation program they just announced in China, all the while the CEO sits on Obama's cabinet? The list goes on and on.... your outrage is misplaced.

How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress? Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years. They only way any of this is going to change is if the people vote Republickins in lock stock and barrel. I don't think that will happen either.

The thought that such cuts are looming is fantasy perpetrated by Obama and the fear mongering Leftists. I see it is working.

You are welcome.:)

Maybe Obama and his ilk can start by saving money here!:

U.S. Secret Service gets 2 new buses ahead of Obama tour

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...60-503544.html

There are an easy 2 million plus in savings, for a three day trip.

From "it's unconstitutional to fund the social safety net":
to "don't worry about all the politicians who want to defund the social safety net; they don't have enough votes":Don't worry about the crazy I promote because someone will probably stop it?
I don't think it's Obama calling it a Ponzi scheme or a monstrous lie or a fraud. The most "fear mongering" he's done is say that checks may not go out if we default on our treasury bonds, which form the bulk of the Social Security trust fund, and pay for the administration of much of the rest of government.

Social Security is fine for decades if left alone. It's not fine if we default on our debts.

There are plenty of things I don't like about Obama, but in all of them the Republicans are worse.

Save money by repeatedly leasing, converting, then downconverting and returning busses? I doubt that much, if any, money would be saved. Not to mention:

First of all, I have nothing against the rich in general. You want to cast me in the role of a foot soldier in the Great American War of Class Hatred. Sorry, but I already burned my draft card.

I have said repeatedly on this forum that my major objection to the national political situation as it now stands is the fact that the Congress is mainly interested in amassing wealth and power for its own members, and that if you are an individual or a corporation who has the bucks, you can buy yourself your very own version of American Government which almost always is not in the best interest of the American people.

This means I am certainly very angry at the wealthy who play this corrupt game, but I an not angry "just because" at anyone who happens to be rich. I have also stated repeatedly that I am against the out-sourcing of American jobs. And frankly, anyone who makes it to the National level in politics has sold his soul long ago, and yes, this includes the President, as well.

Get a grip, Merc. Saving the social safety net is not the equivalent of a communist revolution led by some American version of Lenin. I advise you to stop reading Ayn Rand until your mind clears. We are not living through a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged.

All we have to do is allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire. Now, I actually do know (or did know) some fairly wealthy people back in the Clinton era. None of these people were selling their vacation homes in Aspen or firing the au pair or the gang of Mexican gardeners who groomed the grounds of their mansions.

I have nothing against someone who amassed a bunch of wealth and now wants to enjoy it. I do think these people shouldn't object to paying a little more in taxes to the government and the country whose policies may it possible for them to be so wildly successful. And don't forget the hard working American citizens who were employed by these individuals and whose work ethic helped make that business or company a profitable concern. Maybe some of them later got hit a few hard blows by fate. It is only humane to help these people when they need it.

The conservative right wing of which you are a member, has stated in so many words that they will dismantle medicaid, cut housing vouchers for the seniors and the disabled by 70% and cut the food stamp program. I have given you chapter and verse on these things earlier in this thread and in other posts of mine. They are printed out as part of the Republican strategy and anyone who wants can read these things for themselves. The documents are readily available on the Internet.

I don't know what Obama's game is with Social Security, and frankly, I don't care. Neither party will dare to make cuts to Social Security for my generation. It would be political suicide. Younger folks can probably count on Social Security being a very different program for them then it is for my generation. I feel this is misguided at best and will cause much hardship at worst. But there is little I can do about it. I'll be dead, thank God.

To repeat for the 100th time the programs under attack which constitute our social safety net are: the various housing programs administered by HUD - ALL of them. Medicaid which is the ONLY source of medical care and prescriptions for many of the 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. SNAP or food stamps which provide food not only to unemployed workers or low income people in general, but most importantly, their children. If some rich asshole objects to paying a few percent more in taxes to help feed this country's children, he should be deported and never allowed to come back to this country.

You put off my question of how you would defend these actions by doing a tap dance and saying it won't happen anyway. There is a chance it could. All Congress has to do is retain its current balance of power and it will happen. Again, please tell me how your attitude can be morally defensible.

Yeah, that Liberal/Left Wing outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office, reported the following:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12413

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw :eek: Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)

And after the trip, they're going to light the buses on fire to ensure they can never be used again.

Wouldn't put it past them...:rolleyes:

:lol:Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat. Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.

The fool could ride in a cab for all I care. You miss the point. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.... for a three day re-election campaign.

You certainly wave the banners every chance you get.

Agreed. But there is a difference between the rhetoric out of the Obama re-election speeches he is giving now and where the problems lie for a real world long term solution.

Define "wealthy". But again I agree.



We are moving in that direction with this administrations policy and the Demoncratic attempts to spend our way into bankruptcy.

That is not going to fix what ails us....

I have no problem with that. We need a net, not a crutch. And what we have now is a crutch.

False on so many levels... :rolleyes:

Change, not eliminate or "disable".

It is fearmongering and demonizing as an attempt to gain votes and get re-elected. It is a scam....

Everything is on the table. They have all made this quite evident.

Why should I defend something that I do not believe will happen?



This is an inditement of the current administration.

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw :eek: Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)[/quote]

Not that she has, but I have no problem seeing a little worker flag waving. There's been plenty of right-wing, anti-poor flagwaving on this board.

You're always the first to throw out the 'class warfare' accusation Merc, but you appear to be an active fighter in that war.

Ah, but it does when he is running for President.
Yet the R's ARE going after SS and there is little reason to do so. What the R's need to do is look at the military spending. Something they will never do because 99% of them are in bed with, owned or profit from the companies which benefit from it.

Liberals want to make this a class war, it does not need to be that. Obama has been waging a class war since the day he took office. I am an active fighter in the war against their class war...

Bullshit - The R's have repeatedly stated No tax increases - PERIOD. I think I'm safe inferring that would mean that they are "off the table."

What military/defense/pentagon spending cuts have they proposed? What has pissed me off the most about the R's is that they have not balanced one fucking thing they want to take away from the bottom with anything at the top.

They are.

To early to tell... There is no way anyone can tell who will be at the top. And in the end the the President does not dictate fiscal policy, Congress does that.

Another rebuke of this Administrations performance over the last few years...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78C40O20110913