Friday, January 11, 2013

Obama - The First President That Progressives Want Him To Use Them So He Can Win Because He Is Smarter Than Them And Their Right-Wing Enemies


You often hear Progressive Fundamentalists say "Obama's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers"

During the first campaign I told you of the number of people that I debated against who demanded that I agree with the supposition that "Obama is smarter than all of us".


The ONLY thing that I yield is that Obama gives Progressive Fundamentalists justified cover to compromise themselves in support of Progressivism's fight against the Right-Wing.

As the US Government commits "offenses" that would have otherwise drawn protests in their ranks - they act pragmatically, reasoning that if they go against "Obama" - their arguments will strengthen the right wing and make Obama weaker - forcing him to defend himself against their common enemy all by himself.

Obama understand that if he throws out "one Progressive bone" domestically for his base to fight their right-wing enemy over - he can conduct what would otherwise be a violation of their left-wing progressive views on the foreign policy military, intelligence or domestic financial services standard.    If there is any chess that is being played THEY ARE moving their own pieces as they converge around Obama their "King piece".

I was mistaken in my previous assessment as I noted that the Progressive compromise with Obama will show its face when an "Enemy Republican" President takes office in the future.

The more accurate and updated analysis is - that as future Progressive Presidents take office - as the nation's "Democratic and Cultural Shift" transpires - that which was considered "Right-wing Militarism" will be fully integrated into Progressive-Fundamentalist rationalization - with only the SELF-NARRATED JUSTIFICATION for the attack having changed.  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

In Exclusive Listening To MSNBC's Ed Schultz You'd Be Clueless About The American Debt Crisis And The Entitlement Crisis


The best way to get people to operate against their long term best interests is to frame their efforts as "A Struggle" and then keep them focused on the EVIL ENEMY.

It should come as no surprise that on the Fiscal Cliff where the evil Republicans were fighting for a $80 billion per year preservation of "Tax Cuts For The Rich" - President Obama was victorious (note: I do not know at this time all of the details of the legislation that passed the US Senate) - this DESPITE never having a budget deficit on his watch that was below $1 Trillion.

We are told that the "Fiscal Cliff" debate which sought about $1.6 trillion in "savings" over a 10 year period ($160 billion per year) has a greater negative impact than does these massive (near)$700b to  $1 Trillion annual deficits that are projected for the next 10 years.

It is important for Mr Schultz frame this as a "Protection Of Social Security" at the hands of the Democrats.   I can imagine that a few years ago the voters of Detroit, Chicago, and Newark were said to be "protecting something" as they fought off the enemy and won dominate control over the commanding heights of the respective cities.


Despite its fiscal 2012 “net cash flow” deficit, as SSA describes it, the agency was able to book an on-paper “increase” of $64.580 billion in the Social Security Trust Funds. That, SSA says, is because the U.S. Treasury “paid” the trust funds $112.398 in “interest” in fiscal 2012 on the historial surpluses in Social Security taxes that the Treasury siphoned off to cover other spending by the federal government.
As of the end of calendar year 2011, according to SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund equaled approximately $2.678 trillion.
The last time the Social Security program ran a “net cash flow” surplus was in fiscal 2009. In that year, Social Security’s revenues exceeded its benefit and overhead payments by $19.358 billion. In fiscal 2010, Social Security ran a $36.8 billion deficit; and, in fiscal 2011, it ran a $47.975 deficit.

We have the murky accounting of "The Government Owing Itself" and "Paying itself Interest" for the money that it borrowed from ITSELF (The Social Security Trust Fund).
My point is not a partisan indictment but the notation that as we accept this scheme, while the gap between our organic production versus the standard of living that we live - this fiat economy that is based upon the confidence of investors may not respond to the Federal Reserve's antics in keeping the house of cards going.

I still have not heard from a single person who shows the downside of driving the development of "The Least Of These" through the local institutions rather than stringing them along with hopes of "nationalized social justice".