WHERE IS THE MSM OUTCRY OVER THE RIDICULOUS DEMOCRATIC BUDGET PROPOSAL?

7 comments

Posted on 17th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , , ,

I’ve been pretty clear that I think both political parties are corrupt beyond hope. They are captured by the special interests that bribe them. Both parties want to keep the status quo. They don’t want real change. The banking interests and the mega-corporations have a stranglehold on our financial, economic, and political systems. When Paul Ryan presented his budget propsal last week, the MSM shreiked in horror and ridiculed it as unrealistic and cruel. Cartoonists across the land had a field day of showing dying old people in the streets. The propagandists at CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the liberal media were foaming at the mouth with scorn and ridicule.

Paul Ryan’s budget plan is a joke. It is built upon false assumptions of tremendous GDP growth, no recessions, no wars, and low interest rates. It doesn’t make any cuts to our Military Industrial Complex. It doesn’t address the criminality of Wall Street. It will not balance the budget in 10 years. Only Rand Paul has proposed a budget that will actually CUT spending and put the country on a sustainable economic path. It will never see the light of day.

Did you even know that the Democrats had put forth a budget? I haven’t heard a peep from the liberal pundits about the absolute worthlessness of this piece of crap. The Democratic plan puts forth undetermined tax increases, doesn’t even mention the Social Security system, vows to not touch Medicare and will lead to a doubling of the national debt in ten years. Where is the MSM to tear apart this joke of a proposal? The sound of crickets from these faux journalists.

If you needed any more proof of the intellectual dishonesty and liberal bias of the MSM, this is it.

So it goes.

The Democrats’ complacent budget plan

Saturday, March 16,2013

SENATE BUDGET Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) has now weighed in with a budget plan to counter the House Republican tax-and-spending blueprint. We’ll get to that Democratic document in a moment. First, here’s a quick fiscal reality check, based on an analysis published Feb. 28 by economists William G. Gale and Alan J. Auerbach of the Brookings Institution.

There has been halting but real deficit reduction progress in recent months. The United States faces no imminent budget “crisis.” Nevertheless, the economists write, “the 10-year budget outlook remains tenuous.” Even assuming steady economic growth, the national debt in 2023 will be twice as high as its historical average, as a percentage of the economy — and poised to resume rising. That long-term fiscal problem, driven by the growth of entitlement programs for an aging population, remains unaddressed. Dealing with it, Messrs. Gale and Auerbach write, will take tax and spending changes “several times the size of those adopted under the recent legislation.”

Except for the part about no imminent crisis, the Senate Democratic budget recognizes none of this. Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against the Republicans and reassures the party’s liberal base — but deepens these senators’ commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda.

The Democratic budget rightly pushes back against the more mindless anti-government impulses of the GOP. It emphasizes infrastructure, education and research, which can enhance the economy’s growth potential. It protects programs for the poor. It includes revenue as part of the solution.

OFTHEPLAN’S modest $1.85 trillion in 10-year savings, half would come from eliminating tax loopholes and deductions. The document admirably backs this goal with a sophisticated explanation of distortion and unfairness wrought by federal tax expenditures. But it is woefully imprecise about which breaks — including popular items such as the mortgage-interest deduction — it would eliminate. It alludes to economist Martin Feldstein’s intriguing plan to cap deductions and credits but doesn’t dare endorse it.

It is on the issue of entitlements that the Democrats’ document really disappoints. There is literally nothing — not a word — suggestive of trimming Social Security, whether through greater means-testing, a more realistic inflation adjustment or reforming disability benefits. The document’s fuzzy call for $275 billion in “health savings” is $125 billion less than the number President Obama has floated.

As for the coming flow of baby boomers into Medicare, the Democrats declare that “new retirees deserve the same promise of quality, affordable health care from which their parents have benefitted — and it is the position of the Senate Budget that they ought to get it.” There’s plenty of excoriation for the GOP “premium support” plan. But there’s no explanation of how the Democrats would pay for their “promise” — nary a hint of the many cost-saving reforms that would extend Medicare’s life without embracing the GOP plan.

INSHORT, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament. Read alongside the GOP’s own partisan outline, it leaves only a faint hope that sensible members of both parties, together with Mr. Obama, might yet meet in the serious middle.

— The Washington Post

RAND PAUL WINS

2 comments

Posted on 16th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

Rand has assumed the mantel handed down by his dad. His message is appealing to young people. He needs to scorn and ridicule the old guard like McCain and Graham. They are artifacts. The Republican Party needs to shed its neo-con, Wall Street roots and appeal to liberty minded, anti-big government, anti- spending people.

Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll: what does it mean?

Like his father former Rep. Ron Paul before him, Sen. Rand Paul won CPAC’s presidential straw poll of conservative activists. But In the 40-year history of CPAC, only two straw poll winners have gone on to become president – Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

By , Staff writer / March 16, 2013 at 6:52 pm EDT
NATIONAL HARBOR, MDRand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican senator from Kentucky, won the presidential straw poll Saturday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Senator Paul’s victory, with 25 percent of the vote, was fueled by strong support from college students who came to CPAC by the busload. Paul was following in the footsteps of his father, retired Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas, a three-time presidential candidate who rode the support of young, libertarian-oriented voters to CPAC straw poll victory in 2010 and 2011. Libertarians emphasize keeping the role of government in daily life as small as possible.

Coming in a close second was Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida with 23 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania came in third with 8 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) came in fourth with 7 percent – noteworthy, because Governor Christie was not invited to speak at CPAC this year. Christie, the most popular Republican in the country, had worked closely with President Obama after hurricane Sandy right before last November’s election, probably hurting Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

In all, 23 names appeared on the ballot, a sign of how wide open the 2016 presidential race is. In the 40-year history of CPAC, only two straw poll winners have gone on to become president – Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It is fashionable to say that the unscientific CPAC straw poll is meaningless – especially more than three years before the next presidential election. But for Paul, Saturday’s victory adds another plum to what has already been a successful CPAC outing – the first since his father retired and passed the torch of the iconoclastic Paul brand to his son.

On the first day of the three-day conference, Paul gave a well-received speech to a packed ballroom; many people waved red and black signs that said “Stand with Rand.” He delivered probably the most memorable line of the whole three days: “The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered,” Paul said. “I don’t think we need to name any names, do we?”

It was widely assumed he was referring to Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, who attacked Paul and two other outspoken conservatives – calling them “wacko birds.” Paul gained considerable notice recently for his talking filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA over the issue of whether the US can use drones against Americans on American soil. Paul stood and talked nonstop for nearly 13 hours (thus the signs at CPAC).

On Friday, Senator McCain apologized for his comment. And the Rand Paul youth-driven juggernaut continues.

“Rand Paul continues a lot of what his father is about,” says Andrew Olding, a junior at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, who came to CPAC on a bus organized by the Ohio College Republican Federation. “I was a fan even before the filibuster. I’m a libertarian at heart – I believe government exists to protect life, liberty, and property.”

MCCAIN & GRAHAM THINK THE WHOLE WORLD IS A BATTLEFIELD

8 comments

Posted on 8th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , , ,

RAND PAUL FILIBUSTERING DIRTBAG JOHN BRENNAN

37 comments

Posted on 6th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , ,

 Rand is making his pop and Jimmy Stewart proud. John Brennan is a scumbag who will murder Americans with drones when ordered to do so. FUCK HIM!!!

Rand Paul begins talking filibuster against John Brennan

By Ed O’Keefe , Updated:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) began speaking just before noon Wednesday on the Senate floor in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, saying that he planned to speak “for the next few hours” in a rare talking filibuster.

Watch live video from the Senate floor below:

Paul, who strongly opposes the Brennan nomination and the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones, becomes the first senator to make use of the procedural tactic in more than two years and the first to do so since the Senate approved a bipartisan rules reform package in January.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 a.m. Eastern time. Around the one-hour mark, he acknowledged “I can’t talk forever” and said his throat was getting dry.

At the start if the 1 p.m. hour, Paul was the only senator on the floor. Just 30 people watched from the Senate gallery above while a few security guards, stenographers and Senate pages held their appointed spots on the floor. In the rafters, a man responsible for operating the Senate television cameras was seen reading a newspaper.

At 2:57 p.m., after Paul had been talking for more than three hours, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined the filibuster and gave Paul a break. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined at 3:08 p.m. The three senators are now taking turns talking, with Lee and Cruz alternately asking Paul questions.

Paul’s comments from the Senate floor come as he’s raised objections in recent weeks. Paul first threatened to filibuster the Brennan nomination in late February, when he sent a letter to administration officials asking whether the U.S. government would ever use a drone strike to kill an American on U.S. soil.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.

Paul called Holder’s refusal to rule out drone strikes within the United States “more than frightening.”

On Wednesday, Paul elaborated on his concerns: “When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.”

Paul noted that he has voted for Obama’s previous Cabinet nominees, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and suggested his cause was not partisan.

“I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees,” Paul said. “But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution. I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say that he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking a country.

“I would be here if it were a Republican president doing this. Really the great irony of this is that President Obama’s opinion on this is an extension of George Bush’s opinion.”

Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state.

“Are you going to drop … a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.

By the 2 p.m. hour, Paul said he would continue to speak as long as he can, but he admitted: “Ultimately, I can’t win. There’s not enough votes.”

Brennan has gained the support of some Republican senators, even as others want to hold up his nomination in hopes of getting more answers from the White House on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. His nomination easily cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee this week, suggesting he would have the 60 votes required to end Paul’s filibuster and bring the nomination to a vote.

Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate where the chamber’s rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters.

Paul’s talking filibuster is the first conducted by a senator since December 2010, when Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) held the Senate floor for more than eight hours in opposition to Obama’s proposed tax-cut plan.

The longest filibuster in the Senate was Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (D-S.C.) 24-hour filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act (Thurmond later became a Republican). Two other senators — Sens. Alphonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) and Wayne Morse (I-Ore.) — have also filibustered for more than 20 hours.

OBAMA & LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA REVEALED AS FEAR MONGERING LIARS

14 comments

Posted on 4th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Where are Obama, Reid and Pelosi with their shreiking about the hellfire and devastation that have been unleashed on the country by the massive 1.5% spending slowdowns from the evil sequestration budget nicks (not cuts)? Are old people dying in the streets? Have airlines had to shut down? Is Iran and North Korea ready to invade our homeland? Have we had to curtail our War on Terror to such an extent that we’ve only murdered 10 Afghan children today? Will we lose the War on Drugs now that a couple paper pushers in DC have to take 7 days off this year?

The liberals and neo-cons have had their bluff called and they look like the lying assholes we all know they are. Sequestration is a fart in a gale force wind of spending. The only thing that stinks is the shit that has been flung by the MSNBC Obama loving douchebags. Chris Matthews and his band of fear mongering libs are nothing but blowhards with an agenda of controlling you and spending your money on shit they like. The Feds were spending $2 trillion of YOUR money in 2000. The Feds were spending $2.7 trillion of your money in 2007. The Feds are spending $3.8 trillion of your money today. Are you getting 90% better service from your government than you did in 2000? Is your life better or worse than it was in 2000? What did we get for an extra $1.8 trillion of government expenditures?

Grownups like Rand Paul could cut $500 billion from the federal budget without hurting your life in any way. Once this Obama clusterfuck implodes, maybe the country will turn to rational, truth telling people like Rand Paul, but I doubt it.

I sure hope I can make it through the day without the sequester nicks resulting in my demise. The horror!!!! 

Sequester should chop federal fat, not bone

Sunday, March 3,2013

 

Imagine that your boss nicked your pay by 2.4 percent. Would you dodge next month’s rent, skip your insulin purchases and unplug your refrigerator to lower your power bill? Most likely, you would cancel your Showtime subscription, repair — not replace — your old shoes and ski Utah in 2014 (maybe).

In his immeasurable brilliance, President Barack Obama would pick premium cable instead of insulin and Park City over paying the landlord.

Similarly, as March 1 triggers the sequester — an automatic spending-cut mechanism that Obama himself initiated in July 2011 — Obama won’t curb Washington’s extravagance to finance this year’s $85 billion sequester. Instead, like a fiscal Stephen King, Obama frightens Americans into embracing Big Government by siphoning Uncle Sam’s bone marrow rather than giving him liposuction.

Fiscal Year 2013’s $3.553 trillion budget will be $15 billon larger than FY 2012’s. Nonetheless, Obama hysterically claims that the sequester’s “cuts” mean:

• Fewer childhood vaccines. Next stop, a measles renaissance?

• Furloughed federal meat inspectors. This would present Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” in IMAX 3-D at your local supermarket.

• “Airport security will see cutbacks,” Obama prophesied. Lines will grow so long that a Transportation Security Administration frisking will come as a relief.

• “Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” Obama warned. After all, government’s last priority should be to protect property and prevent homicide.

• “The sequester makes it awfully, awfully tough” to shield America from terrorist attacks, declared Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Why should phantom budget restraint frustrate al-Qaida’s pitch-black ambitions?

It would be bad enough if these really were Washington’s only options. Obviously, they’re not. Washington can and should whack spending without making life easier for rubella, E. coli, militant Islam and other lethal, low-level life forms.

Among many others, these plans could help:

• Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who co-authored the Decrease Spending Now Act. It would shift to debt relief a whopping $45 billion in tax dollars now stalled in dormant federal accounts.

“Hundreds of billions of dollars are borrowed and then left unspent because Congress routinely bites off more than it can chew,” Rubio stated. Added Price: “Leaving billions of taxpayer dollars to gather dust in federal coffers only encourages fiscal irresponsibility. By rescinding this unspent and unobligated money … we can contribute to the larger goal of breaking the government’s habit of borrowing and spending money we cannot afford.”

• Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would cut $85 billion annually by not replacing departed federal employees ($6.5 billion in savings), bringing the $128,226 average yearly federal civilian compensation closer to the private sector’s $64,560 (reducing $32 billion), curtailing federal travel by 25 percent ($2.25 billion), limiting Pentagon research to military applications ($6 billion), requiring competitive bids on government contracts, paying market wages on federal projects ($19 billion) and halving foreign aid ($20 billion).

• The Public Interest Research Group and the National Taxpayers Union jointly identified $1 trillion in 10-year savings through 56 budget cuts that liberals and conservatives should love. These range from killing a $10 million biodiesel education grant to a $160 billion modernization of federal computer systems. The $77 billion Crop Insurance program should be uprooted. The feds own some 55,500 buildings that are “not utilized or underutilized.” Sell them. Even giving them away would save taxpayers $17 billion in maintenance expenses — on empty buildings!

The research group and taxpayers union urge Medicare to calibrate excessive labor and office-space outlays with the actual prices that prevail in lower-cost communities. Savings: $47.6 billion.

Rather than spend $179,750 an hour to fly Air Force One from rally to rally to demonize Republicans, Obama should sit still long enough to send Congress a budget request. The federal Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 mandates that the president’s spending plan reach Capitol Hill by the first Monday of February. Obama’s last two budgets arrived late, and this year’s is AWOL.

Before Obama barks at Republicans yet again, he should start doing his job.

Deroy Murdock is a Fox News contributor and a media fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

« Older Entries