Campaigners say plants being grown in US may worsen global food crisis, while farmers express cross-contamination fears US farmers are growing the first corn plants genetically modified for the specific purpose of putting more ethanol in gas tanks rather than producing more food. Aid organisations warn the new GM corn could worsen a global food crisis exposed by the famine in Somalia by diverting more corn into energy production. The food industry also opposes the new GM product because, although not inedible, it is unsuitable for use in the manufacture of food products that commonly use corn. Farmers growing corn for human consumption are also concerned about cross-contamination. The corn, developed by a branch of the Swiss pesticide firm Syngenta, contains an added gene for an enzyme (amylase) that speeds the breakdown of starches into ethanol. Ethanol plants normally have to add the enzyme to corn when making ethanol. The Enogen-branded corn is being grown for the first time commercially on about 5,000 acres on the edge of America’s corn belt in Kansas, following its approval by the US Department of Agriculture last February. In its promotional material Syngenta says it will allow farmers to produce more ethanol from the corn while using less energy and water. Meanwhile, campaigners say the corn will heap pressure on global food supplies and contribute to environmental degradation. They argue Enogen will lead to an increase in the amount of food crops going to fuel, leaving less for human consumption and leading to food price rises. That will lead to food price rises on the global market. “The temptation to look at food as another form of fuel to use for the energy crisis will exacerbate the food crisis,” said Todd Post of Bread for the World, a Christian anti-hunger organisation. Although individual events such as the Somalia famine are caused by a complex combination of factors, several studies have established that the expansion of biofuels has pushed up food prices worldwide, making it harder to afford for the poorest. A World Bank report released on Tueday says food prices that are now close to their 2008 peak have contributed to the famine in Somalia. Marie Brill, a senior policy analyst at ActionAid warned: “It’s going to put even more pressure on a really tight market. It will be really tempting to farmers to take on this new more efficient ethanol form of corn.” The food industry is warning of the dangers of contaminating existing corn crops with the new GM corn. The same traits that make the modified corn so attractive to the ethanol industry – the swift breakdown of starches – would be a disaster for the food industry, turning corn chips into shapeless lumps, and stripping the thickening properties from corn starch. Even a small amount of the amylase corn – one kernel out of 10,000 – could damage food products, according to data supplied to the North American Millers’ Association by Syngenta. The organisation, like most food industry groups, has opposed the corn, noting failures to prevent cross-contamination from earlier GM breeds. The European Union, South Korea, and South Africa have not approved its import. Enogen also has to catch on among farmers. “I’m sceptical as a farmer,” said Allen Jasper, who runs a cattle-feed operation near Whitten, Iowa. “The first thing I’m going to ask is how does it yield. Any time you try and change a corn plant and get it to do something that is not native to the plant you have to be sceptical of the yield.” Syngenta maintains the corn variety has a high yield, and that it has the appropriate safeguards to prevent cross- pollination. After Kansas, the company plans to expand its growing area to Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and southwest Minnesota. Farmers will grow the corn under contract to an ethanol production plant, getting a premium over regular corn. Buffer rows of corn will be planted. “This is a very slow ramp-up. This is not a broad acre crop at this point,” said Paul Minehart, a Syngenta spokesman. Steve McNinch, of Western Plains Energy, in Kansas, the only ethanol plant to have processed the new corn, said adding a small amount of amylase corn to the mix – about 10% – would increase production by 10%. GM Farming Energy Food Famine United States Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
On Monday's NBC Today, chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd described liberal wishful thinking as “conventional wisdom” as he explained how: “The Obama team has been taking comfort in the fact that they believe this Republican race is moving to the Right, that it's a race to the Right. And they take comfort in that and they think that's going to help them long-term.” At the same time, Todd seemed perplexed that the President's poll numbers had fallen despite the conservative values of the Republican 2012 contenders: “But as that happened – and it was a lot of attention over the last four or five days….the President's numbers have still gone down. And that Gallup number, where it dropped in the daily tracking below 40 for the very first time in the presidency.” Later in the segment, fill-in co-host David Gregory asked Todd about how Obama was “going to run against certain members of Congress” and doubled-down on his attacks on Michele Bachmann during an interview with her on Sunday's Meet the Press. Gregory played a clip of that interview in which he dismissed Bachmann's opposition to raising the debt ceiling. The Minnesota Congresswoman pointed out that, “All the people out in America said don't raise the debt ceiling. That's the problem with Washington, they're not listening to the people.” Gregory fired back: “But why does that make it – why does it make it the right thing to do?” Turning to Todd on Today, Gregory saw Bachmann's position as something that could be used to go after her: “This issue of public opinion on the debt ceiling driving her vote, is this something that both the President uses as a potential wedge, and even other more mainstream candidates in the Republican Party?” Todd agreed: “It isn't just President Obama that's going to be hitting her on this. She's got a target on her back right now.” Here is a full transcript of Gregory's August 15 exchange with Todd: 7:05AM ET DAVID GREGORY: Chuck Todd is NBC's chief White House correspondent and political director. Also the host of MSNBC's 'The Daily Rundown.' He's in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, stop number one on President Obama's bus tour, this morning. Hey Chuck, good morning. So the President's got new tracking numbers out. A new low at 39%. He's hitting the road, also in the Midwest, which he knows is an important battleground for him next year. What's the game plan here? Is he talking about what he can do with Congress or does he now just want to turn on the Republicans?
Continue reading …
• ‘Mega-rich get extraordinary tax breaks’ • Investor says move needed to tackle US debts • Strong Tea Party opposition to tax rises The days of ‘coddling’ America’s super-rich with low taxes must end if its debt problems are ever to be solved, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Buffett has called on US politicians to impose higher taxes on his fellow wealthy Americans, who he says are currently indulged with an unfairly generous tax regime. Writing in the New York Times on Monday , Buffett argued that the richest members of US society are not making a fair contribution to repairing the country’s finances. “While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,” wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year. “These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places,” the 80-year old investor added. Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year – a lower proportion than any of the 20 other people who work in his office. Under the debt ceiling deal agreed in Washington, a “super committee” of 12 congressmen and senators must find $1.5tn worth of savings and cuts to help cut America’s national debt. Tax rises are hugely unpopular with elements within the Republican party, with the Tea Party movement adamant that America should balance its books by cutting public spending. Buffett argues that this super-committee should raise the tax rate paid by those earning more than $1m a year, including earnings from capital gains which are currently taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. Those raking in upward of $10m a year could then pay even more. The package of tax cuts brought in by President George W Bush are set to expire at the end of 2012, although they could be extended. Many of the leading Republicans who hope to challenge Barack Obama at the next presidential election have argued for lower taxation to stimulate the US economy. On Saturday Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, argued that it was an “injustice” that almost a half of all Americans currently pay no federal income tax. “Spreading the wealth punishes success while setting America on a course for greater dependency on government,” Perry argued as he announced his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination . It was not clear whether Perry hopes to increase the percentage of US citizens paying federal income tax by bringing more of them into better-paid jobs, or by lowering the income tax threshold. Either way, Buffett argues that the US political class should be looking at the other end of the spectrum. As he put it: “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.” Warren Buffett US economy US domestic policy United States Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Liberals need to grow up and stop criticizing President Obama. So said Fareed Zakaria Sunday on the CNN program bearing his name (video follows with transcript and commentary): FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: Over the last week, liberal politicians and commentators in America took to the air waves and OpEd pages to criticize the debt deal that Congress reached. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans, but rather at Barack Obama, who, they concluded, had failed as a president because of his persistent tendency to compromise. This has been a running theme ever since Obama took office. Exactly what news outlets does Zakaria frequent if he believes the ire of liberal politicians and commentators last week “was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans?” From the moment stocks began declining after the debt ceiling was raised, the blame has all gone to the Tea Party and the GOP. Did Zakaria somehow miss all the left-wing talk about the Tea Party Downgrade? Is this man completely oblivious to what happens around him, or does he believe much like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that there should have been absolutely no reporting of conservative views concerning the debt ceiling? Whatever the answer, Zakaria started his opening op-ed with a deeply flawed premise, and it was all downhill from there: ZAKARIA: I think that liberals need to grow up. As “The New Republic's” Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda. In this view, write Chait, every known impediment to the legislative process – special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macro economic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public policy – are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. This does happen if you're watching the movie “The American President,” but not if you're actually watching what goes on in Washington. Maybe this “recurring liberal fantasy” was fostered by folks like Zakaria that presented Barack Obama to the American people as a messiah. If the public has a Hollywood-like view of this president, it's because the media put him on a pedestal like nobody before him. It is therefore quite hypocritical of Zakaria to scold citizens for behaving exactly the way he and his colleagues trained them to: ZAKARIA: The disappointment over the debt deal is just the latest episode of liberal bewilderment about Obama. “I have no idea what Barack Obama believes on virtually any issue,” Drew Westen writes in “The New York Times.” Confused over Obama's tendency to take balanced positions, Westen hints that his professional experience, which is as a psychologist, suggests deep traumatic causes for Obama's pathology. Let me offer a simpler explanation. Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good. Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Liberals feel it should have been bigger. But, remember, despite a Democratic House and Senate, it just passed by one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial services industry, though it isn't one that broke up the large banks. He enacted universal health care through a complex program that was modeled after the Republican Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. And he's advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts. Now, maybe he just believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit that is 10 percent of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100 percent of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion hoping that it will jump start the economy. Maybe he believes that while American banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system and that, in a globalized economy, constraining American banks alone will only ensure that the world's largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese. He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people, who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong, but also many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is, in fact, a crucial part of stabilizing our long-term fiscal situation and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts – cuts, by the way, that are smaller than they appear because they all start from the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus. Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence, appeasement? Or is it just common sense? Or is this an extremely unqualified individual who is way over his head and should never have been given the adulation and sycophantic praise he's received from so-called journalists as well as those in the entertainment media since the moment he tossed his hat into the presidential ring back in 2007? No matter what the answer, it is fairly clear that Zakaria is not likely to become an Obama critic regardless of what happens to the economy, the debt, or the nation's credit rating. That's all the Tea Party and Republicans' fault because “Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist” possessing “common sense.” The good news for Zakaria is this intransigence represents job security.
Continue reading …Michele Bachmann, Government Leech, Wins Iowa Poll. Claims She Knows All About ‘Job Creation’
August 14, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media (h/t Dave at Video Cafe) On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Jake Tapper interviews Iowa straw poll winner Michele Bachmann. (Let’s point out that the Iowa straw poll is a fundraiser for the state GOP. It actually costs $30 to take part, so it tends to attract the true believers.) It’s traditional for the media to let candidates have their initial victory lap without too much in the way of hard questions, and Tapper pretty much leaves her alone — except for a few half-hearted jabs asking her what she would cut in government spending: TAPPER: So the Republican field gets smaller by one, with former Governor Tim Pawlenty dropping out, but Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the victor, still has a long road to the nomination. And she joins me now. Congresswoman, first of all, congratulations on your victory. BACHMANN: Thank you, Jake. Thanks for having me on. TAPPER: Now, do you have any reaction to Governor Pawlenty dropping out? BACHMANN: Well, I wish him well. I have great respect for the governor. We’ve known each other for a long, long time. And he brought a really important voice into this race. And I’m grateful that he was in. He was a — really a very good competitor. TAPPER: You guys did have words during — during the campaign, and one of the — you seemed to represent a more uncompromising Republican. He seems to represent more of a compromising Republican, someone willing to make deals. One of the reasons you did so well in the straw poll was because your message resonated so much with Tea Party Republican, with Christian conservatives. I’m wondering, how do you expand beyond the Republican base? Why would a moderate Republican vote for you? BACHMANN: Well, everywhere I’ve gone, all across Iowa, there isn’t an event that I do that I don’t have people come up who say that, “Michele, I’m a Democrat, and I’m voting for you,” “I’m an independent, and I’m voting for you.” They’ll tell me, “I voted for Barack Obama, but I’m not voting for him again. I like you; I like what you say.” And I think it’s because I’m talking about what people really care about, and that’s turning the economy around and job creation. And I’ve been there, and I’ve done that. I’m a former federal tax lawyer. And my husband and I also started our own successful company. I get it with job creation. Oh, yeah. She goes from being a foster parent where she gets to claim the maximum from her state because her husband is a mail-order psychologist — and then they expanded into a clinic that takes government money for praying away the gay. And then she gets elected and starts collecting federal benefits. Doesn’t sound like “job creation” to me — more like “working the system.” And I think what people see in me is that I’m a real person. I’m authentic. And they want someone who’s going to go to Washington and represent their values. That’s really what you saw here in Iowa in the straw poll yesterday. You saw a big message sent to Washington. People really saw the kind of the punch to the gut that America got this last week, and they really want someone that they can trust that they believe in who’s actually going to turn the economy around. TAPPER: Governor Perry jumped into the race yesterday. And like you, he’s a hero to the Tea Party and to social conservatives, but he’s also the nation’s longest-serving governor with a record of creating jobs. He’s leading you in some national polls. He has great support among your base. He has the executive experience you do not have. Why should a Republican voter pick you over Governor Perry? BACHMANN: Well, I’ve been in Washington fighting the fights for the last four or five years. And I’ve been at the tip of the spear on these fights, for instance, raising the debt ceiling. I was the leader for the last two months saying, “Let’s not raise the debt ceiling.” I had a plan for not going into default and not raising the debt ceiling. The president had no plan. I was the first member of Congress to introduce the full repeal of Obamacare and of the Dodd-Frank law. And I fought against the Obamacare bill and brought literally tens of thousands of Americans to fight it. I think that’s what I’ve demonstrated, is that I have a core set of principles that I believe in. I’ll fight for them. That’s what we need in a president of the United States, because a president is more than just a manager. What they really bring is leadership to bear. They appoint good people, and they bring leadership. And that’s what we need, is someone who we can believe in and trust in, who’s going to stick to what they say. TAPPER: Don’t you think Perry is now your chief competitor, in terms of you — you guys are going after the same voters. You have a lot of the same themes. Why would someone pick you over him? BACHMANN: Well, I think because I have a demonstrated, proven record that I will fight for what people care about. I am bringing that message, of when it comes… TAPPER: And he hasn’t been fighting for what they care about? BACHMANN: Well, you know, he’ll run his own race, and he has his own message. I have mine. And I think of it, again, on the — on the national stage, I’ve been involved in all of these issues and will continue to be. TAPPER: Governor Pawlenty wondered if you even met the minimum requirement to be president because you lacked executive experience and results. BACHMANN: Well, you know, there is no requirement in the Constitution that one be a governor in order to go into public service. Ronald Reagan was a governor, but what made Ronald Reagan great wasn’t his governing experience as a governor. It was his core set of principles. Jimmy Carter was also a governor, but I don’t think anyone would argue that America prospered and flourished under Jimmy Carter’s presidency. So being a governor and having governor-level experience isn’t the number-one requirement. It’s really, who is the person? What is their character? That’s what the Federalist Papers talked about. What’s their character? Who are they? What have they done? In Minnesota, I led a movement and put my voice behind changing education. That’s really how I cut my teeth in politics, was on education reform. And we’re not a conservative state. We’re far more of a liberal state. But I brought Democrats and independents and apolitical people together. We actually changed our entire education system in Minnesota, because I brought people together, and we had reform. That’s what I’ll do as president of the United States. TAPPER: You talk about your leadership on the debt ceiling issue, but Rick Santorum, who came in fourth in the straw poll, called your position on just refusing to raise the debt ceiling, he said it was not only irresponsible, but outrageous, since immediately the government would have to cut 40 percent of the government. What cuts would you make? BACHMANN: Well, it’s not outrageous at all. What’s outrageous is turning us into the biggest debtor in the history the world. No nation has ever been in debt to the level that we are. And it wasn’t that long ago that we were the world’s largest creditor. We have to get our house in order. This year alone, we’ve brought in $2.2 trillion in revenue from all the taxes we pay in, and then we spent not only every penny of that, but we spent $1.5 trillion more. TAPPER: Right. So what would you cut? BACHMANN: That’s a problem. TAPPER: What would you cut? BACHMANN: Well, immediately, I think what we need to do is recognize that we will tell the markets that we will pay the interest on the debt, don’t worry about default. Number two, we will pay our men and women in military. It’d be irresponsible not to. And anyone who’s currently on Social Security, you get paid. But beyond that, I would bring all members of Congress together. And this isn’t some project for 10 years and 15 years down the road. Right now, we’re going to reform entitlements. We’re going to reform them for anyone who’s currently not on them. We’re going to change them so that they’ll work, because… TAPPER: Medicare, Medicaid? BACHMANN: Medicare, Medicaid, they have to be changed. Why should we continue to run these program the way we did 45 years ago? Systems have changed. We can — we can make these far more efficient than what they are. Social Security is another program, 80 years old. Why would we continue to run it in the same way we did 80 years ago? Let’s modernize it so it’s there for people who depend on it. TAPPER: One last question I wanted to ask about. You once characterized homosexuality as, quote, “personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement.” Do you believe that? BACHMANN: Well, I am running to be the president of the United States. I am not running to be any person’s judge. And I give — I ascribe dignity and honor to all people, no matter who they are. And that’s how I view people. TAPPER: So you would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to your administration? BACHMANN: I would look, first of all, will they uphold the Constitution of the United States? And, number two, are they competent to do what they need to do? And are they the best at who they are? That’s my criteria, nothing more. TAPPER: Last question, and that is, does Pawlenty leaving the race and Rick Perry coming into the race change your strategy at all? BACHMANN: Well, I think every day going forward we’ll take a look at what’s happening with strategy, but our main strategy is to win. Obama is my strategy. I intend to be the nominee of the Republican Party and to take him on and to defeat him in 2012, because we have to turn the economy around and create jobs. That’s what I’m going to do. And I’m committed to not resting until we repeal Obamacare. TAPPER: All right. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, thanks so much for joining us, and congratulations again. BACHMANN: Jake, thank you.
Continue reading …Rep. Steve King Claims the Stock Market Would go Up if Obama Embraced the Policies of Milton Friedman
August 14, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After just espousing the Congress of the United States passing a balanced budget amendment as the cure to our economic problems which has no chance in hell of passing and would just make our economic problems worse if we limited or federal government’s ability to borrow money in times of crisis, Rep. Steve King in his profound wisdom let all of America know just what he thinks would make the stock markets jump up 1000 points this coming Monday. President Obama needs to denounce Keynesian and adopt those of Milton Friedman instead. President Obama needs to let everyone know he’s a one term president. President Obama needs to “embrace and endorse the Republican nominee because that’s the free market, freedom, and liberty party.” And then King had the nerve to invoke their saint, Ronnie Ray Gun and him asking if you are better off now than you were four years ago, when Reagan would not be welcomed in today’s Republican Party that has been taken over by TeaBirchers and right wing extremists like Congressman Steve King of Iowa. King also had the nerve to call President Obama a Keynesian economist on steroids, when he’s compromised with these hostage takers on the right in our Congress on economic policies and for those like the Paul Krugman’s and the Dean Bakers’ of the world along with a lot of the rest of us, he’s not been way to far to the right with his economic policies, but heaven forbid Steve King won’t let a few facts get in the way of his hyperbole here. And if that flame throwing wasn’t enough, King compared Obama to Hugo Chavez with nationalizing American businesses, with a litany of lies about what a government takeover actually means. King went on to pretend like the business friendly, former health care plan that was endorsed by the likes of Mitt Romney among others was “nationalizing” our health care program. Those of us who were pushing for single payer could only wish that lie were true, but it didn’t stop King from spinning “Obama-Care”, or the Affordable Care Act as some evil Socialist government takeover of our health care system here. He also was callous enough to take up the ridiculous argument from John McCain and Snooki, bitching about taxes on tanning salons, because god knows we can’t have anyone who can afford that paying a few dollars more to pay for other health care expenditures. And the hyperbolic language didn’t end there. King followed up with saying that “Obama-Care” needs to be “ripped out by the roots” and compared the health care law to a malignant tumor in our society that “feeds on your freedom and your liberty.” I hate to break it to the Congressman, but that “tumor”, while it did not go far enough, was at least a step in the right direction with fixing what’s wrong with our health insurance industry in America that needs to be strengthened and now watered down or eliminated as King was proposing here. King wrapped it up by saying the next president should repeal “Obama-Care” on inauguration day. It’s so nice to know that King has his priorities in place, like looking out for the profits of the health insurance industries. In his world, freedom means the freedom to gouge your customers while making sure the CEO’s profits aren’t limited, Wall Street investors get their take, and in the mean time those who are paying their money to these companies get gouged. I hate to break it to Steve King, but that’s not my idea of “freedom.”
Continue reading …Rep. Steve King Claims the Stock Market Would go Up if Obama Embraced the Policies of Milton Friedman
August 14, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After just espousing the Congress of the United States passing a balanced budget amendment as the cure to our economic problems which has no chance in hell of passing and would just make our economic problems worse if we limited or federal government’s ability to borrow money in times of crisis, Rep. Steve King in his profound wisdom let all of America know just what he thinks would make the stock markets jump up 1000 points this coming Monday. President Obama needs to denounce Keynesian and adopt those of Milton Friedman instead. President Obama needs to let everyone know he’s a one term president. President Obama needs to “embrace and endorse the Republican nominee because that’s the free market, freedom, and liberty party.” And then King had the nerve to invoke their saint, Ronnie Ray Gun and him asking if you are better off now than you were four years ago, when Reagan would not be welcomed in today’s Republican Party that has been taken over by TeaBirchers and right wing extremists like Congressman Steve King of Iowa. King also had the nerve to call President Obama a Keynesian economist on steroids, when he’s compromised with these hostage takers on the right in our Congress on economic policies and for those like the Paul Krugman’s and the Dean Bakers’ of the world along with a lot of the rest of us, he’s not been way to far to the right with his economic policies, but heaven forbid Steve King won’t let a few facts get in the way of his hyperbole here. And if that flame throwing wasn’t enough, King compared Obama to Hugo Chavez with nationalizing American businesses, with a litany of lies about what a government takeover actually means. King went on to pretend like the business friendly, former health care plan that was endorsed by the likes of Mitt Romney among others was “nationalizing” our health care program. Those of us who were pushing for single payer could only wish that lie were true, but it didn’t stop King from spinning “Obama-Care”, or the Affordable Care Act as some evil Socialist government takeover of our health care system here. He also was callous enough to take up the ridiculous argument from John McCain and Snooki, bitching about taxes on tanning salons, because god knows we can’t have anyone who can afford that paying a few dollars more to pay for other health care expenditures. And the hyperbolic language didn’t end there. King followed up with saying that “Obama-Care” needs to be “ripped out by the roots” and compared the health care law to a malignant tumor in our society that “feeds on your freedom and your liberty.” I hate to break it to the Congressman, but that “tumor”, while it did not go far enough, was at least a step in the right direction with fixing what’s wrong with our health insurance industry in America that needs to be strengthened and now watered down or eliminated as King was proposing here. King wrapped it up by saying the next president should repeal “Obama-Care” on inauguration day. It’s so nice to know that King has his priorities in place, like looking out for the profits of the health insurance industries. In his world, freedom means the freedom to gouge your customers while making sure the CEO’s profits aren’t limited, Wall Street investors get their take, and in the mean time those who are paying their money to these companies get gouged. I hate to break it to Steve King, but that’s not my idea of “freedom.”
Continue reading …Rep. Steve King Claims the Stock Market Would go Up if Obama Embraced the Policies of Milton Friedman
August 14, 2011 No CommentClick here to view this media After just espousing the Congress of the United States passing a balanced budget amendment as the cure to our economic problems which has no chance in hell of passing and would just make our economic problems worse if we limited or federal government’s ability to borrow money in times of crisis, Rep. Steve King in his profound wisdom let all of America know just what he thinks would make the stock markets jump up 1000 points this coming Monday. President Obama needs to denounce Keynesian and adopt those of Milton Friedman instead. President Obama needs to let everyone know he’s a one term president. President Obama needs to “embrace and endorse the Republican nominee because that’s the free market, freedom, and liberty party.” And then King had the nerve to invoke their saint, Ronnie Ray Gun and him asking if you are better off now than you were four years ago, when Reagan would not be welcomed in today’s Republican Party that has been taken over by TeaBirchers and right wing extremists like Congressman Steve King of Iowa. King also had the nerve to call President Obama a Keynesian economist on steroids, when he’s compromised with these hostage takers on the right in our Congress on economic policies and for those like the Paul Krugman’s and the Dean Bakers’ of the world along with a lot of the rest of us, he’s not been way to far to the right with his economic policies, but heaven forbid Steve King won’t let a few facts get in the way of his hyperbole here. And if that flame throwing wasn’t enough, King compared Obama to Hugo Chavez with nationalizing American businesses, with a litany of lies about what a government takeover actually means. King went on to pretend like the business friendly, former health care plan that was endorsed by the likes of Mitt Romney among others was “nationalizing” our health care program. Those of us who were pushing for single payer could only wish that lie were true, but it didn’t stop King from spinning “Obama-Care”, or the Affordable Care Act as some evil Socialist government takeover of our health care system here. He also was callous enough to take up the ridiculous argument from John McCain and Snooki, bitching about taxes on tanning salons, because god knows we can’t have anyone who can afford that paying a few dollars more to pay for other health care expenditures. And the hyperbolic language didn’t end there. King followed up with saying that “Obama-Care” needs to be “ripped out by the roots” and compared the health care law to a malignant tumor in our society that “feeds on your freedom and your liberty.” I hate to break it to the Congressman, but that “tumor”, while it did not go far enough, was at least a step in the right direction with fixing what’s wrong with our health insurance industry in America that needs to be strengthened and now watered down or eliminated as King was proposing here. King wrapped it up by saying the next president should repeal “Obama-Care” on inauguration day. It’s so nice to know that King has his priorities in place, like looking out for the profits of the health insurance industries. In his world, freedom means the freedom to gouge your customers while making sure the CEO’s profits aren’t limited, Wall Street investors get their take, and in the mean time those who are paying their money to these companies get gouged. I hate to break it to Steve King, but that’s not my idea of “freedom.”
Continue reading …
CNN political analyst John Avlon, the former Rudy Giuliani aide, was brought on to the network to cast stones as “wingnuts” on both sides, but he's always preferred to beat up on the “far right.” That's what happened on CNN.com after Thursday's presidential debate. His commentary was titled “Are Republicans At War With Reality?” Avlon did try to single out the more moderate Republicans. “Mitt Romney appeared positively presidential next to the seven dwarfs who stood beside him,” and for a dwarf, “Jon Huntsman had a respectable, if subdued debut. He did not pander to the lowest common denominator. He did not flip or flop.” But the rest were all wingnuts. He began: So here's what I learned watching Thursday night's Republican debate: States' rights should rule the day, unless you're gay. Small government is the rule unless a rapist impregnates his victim. Loyalty oaths should be the new normal. Ten-to-one spending cuts to tax increases is an ideologically unacceptable compromise. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a stand for fiscal responsibility even if it were to trigger an immediate default. The action onstage in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday night provided a portrait of a grand old party that seems increasingly at war with reality itself. Responsible governance and philosophic consistency were endangered species in this political arena. Avlon concluded that only his two favorites were “even vaguely presidential” in Ames: “At a time when America needs a strong and vibrant center-right, that once-core Republican constituency was almost entirely unrepresented on the stage Thursday night. And not coincidentally, the two candidates closest to that zip-code — Romney and Huntsman — were the only ones who appeared even vaguely presidential.”
Continue reading …Gary Locke was “humbled and honored” to today become the first Chinese American to serve as America’s ambassador to China, showing a clear eye on cooperation between the two global powers in facing common challenges. “If our people, our business people, our scientists, our students can really join together,” Locke…
Continue reading …