Financial Times reports that Chinese military engineers took photographs and samples from wreckage in Abbottabad Pakistan let Chinese military engineers photograph and take samples from the US helicopter that was left behind when American special forces killed Osama bin Laden, it has been reported. If true, the claim would underline the deterioration in US-Pakistani relations since the raid in May in Abbottabad, outside Islamabad in which the al-Qaida leader died. Members of the Chinese military were allowed to survey the wreckage of the hi-tech helicopter and take samples of its “stealth” skin, which allowed it to enter Pakistan undetected by radar, the Financial Times reported, quoting US sources. “The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI [Pakistan's intelligence agency], gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” an intelligence figure was quoted as saying. The FT said it had been told by figures close to the White House and the CIA that Pakistan had given the Chinese access to the helicopter. It quoted a figure close to the CIA as saying: “We had explicitly asked the Pakistanis in the immediate aftermath of the raid not to let anyone have access to the damaged remains of the helicopter.” There was no immediate comment from the White House. A spokesperson for the US state department said that it was aware of the report. Amid a worsening relationship between the two countries since the unilateral US raid to kill Bin Laden, the Pakistani military declared last month that it did not need US military aid after the White House confirmed that it would withhold some $800m (£492m) in assistance to the country’s armed forces. Pakistan in turn has expelled US military trainers, limited the ability of US diplomats and other officials to get visas, and restricted CIA operations on its territory. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, went to Pakistan weeks after the raid in a bid to secure the return of the wreckage. The US fears that cutting-edge military technology in the tail of the helicopter, abandoned after US forces blew up the rest of the craft, could be reverse-engineered in China. Pakistan said it would return the wreckage as a tentative first step towards hitting the reset button in the two countries’ badly damaged relations. Pakistan US military China United States Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Over 100 of world’s top scientists write to PM warning of impact to range of industries of proposed cuts in research funding More than 100 of the world’s most senior chemists, including seven Nobel laureates, have written to David Cameron to warn of the impact of proposed cuts in funding for scientific research essential to industries ranging from biotechnology to agriculture. In a letter sent to the prime minister on Monday, and seen by the Guardian, professors of chemistry from universities including Imperial College London, Oxford, Leeds, Glasgow, Bristol and Queen’s University Belfast, argue that the decision to reduce funding for synthetic organic chemistry would “injure” the UK economy and “irreparably damage” its global competitiveness, while forcing chemists to look overseas for jobs. It was accompanied by a statement backing synthetic organic chemistry – which produces key compounds for everything from plastics, drugs and food to petrochemicals and paints – signed by more than 100 senior scientists from companies such as Novartis, Bayer and BASF, as well as Nobel laureates including Sir Harry Kroto, Sir Peter Mansfield and Sir John Sulston and heads of departments at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Synthetic organic chemistry and the new molecules that synthetic chemists produce will in the 21st century come to influence vast tracts of human endeavour from molecular archaeology to molecular zoology,” it reads. “To even think of disadvantaging and disabling such important scientific innovation beggars belief.” Anthony Barrett, a professor of chemistry at Imperial, organised the letter after meetings last week with the government agency that distributes funds for chemistry in the UK, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), left him concerned that critical decisions affecting the future of the sector had been made without proper consultation with scientists. “As an academic and entrepreneur, I am seriously concerned by the damage which this EPSRC prioritisation will cause to many university departments of chemistry, vibrant industries and fragile new spin-out companies in the UK,” he told the Guardian. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), chemistry-linked sectors contribute £258bn to the UK GDP, supporting directly and indirectly around 6 million jobs. The EPSRC announced a project this year called “Shaping Capability” aimed at prioritizing its annual budget of more than £760m of public funds to deal with expected budget cuts of up to 15% in real terms over the next few years. It plans to fund chosen research areas at the expense of others, based around the national importance of that field. One of the first announcements of areas earmarked for reductions was synthetic organic chemistry, which is currently funded with £44m through more than 200 grants. In their letter to the prime minister, the UK academics said they were “profoundly disturbed” by the EPSRC’s move. “Perhaps, most worryingly, this decision will significantly disadvantage biomedical research and innovation, resulting in fewer spinout companies and SMEs being created, such as the contract research organisations, which are a particularly successful sector of the economy.” The scientists called for MPs on the House of Commons science and technology committee to invite the EPSRC’s chief executive, David Delpy, to give evidence to them and defend his agency’s actions. A spokesman for the EPSRC said it had to take a strategic approach with its limited funding, if the UK was to maintain its global research standing. He said funding for synthetic organic chemistry was being rebalanced after a spike in 2008-09. “To provide renewed support to that degree will not be sustainable particularly when considering other priorities within the physical sciences portfolio therefore the EPSRC investment in this research area will be reduced relative to others in the portfolio.” David Phillips, president of the RSC said that UK chemists had been left in the dark about the EPSRC’s plans for future funding and that his organisation had not been consulted, by their definition, on the proposals. “If the EPSRC, as we are led to believe, has made this decision based on hard data provided by universities concerning money awarded and impact of research then it should engage with the chemistry community and present that to us.” An EPSRC spokesperson said the agency had “shared our developing plans with a wide range of stakeholders at various stages, discussed the approach and key sources of information and evidence being used, and invited them to highlight important information which should be taken into account, but we did not ask these bodies to make our decisions for us … This process could not have been done by holding a formal consultation process and we have been clear throughout that we did not do this.” Paul Clarke, a chemist at the University of York who sent a letter to science minister David Willetts last week in order to raise similar concerns from more than 100 UK chemists over the EPSRC’s plans, said that there was a risk that the agency’s ideas would undermine the scientific research base of the UK. “In five years time the skills for conducting fundamental science in the UK will not be here, because everyone will be chasing money to work on the widget the EPSRC thinks will solve societal problems. At the moment we’ve got a quango that appoints itself, is about to appoint the peer review people in line with its priorities. Who is it accountable to? Nobody is onboard with these policies. These policies will lead to nothing short of the destruction of fundamental scientific research in the UK.” Barrett said that it was understandable that chemists would get cuts to their public funding in present economic conditions. “I’ve no problem with downsizing, what we have an objection to is taking the downsizing and giving an additional burden to a sector of the economy that’s highly successful. We’re quite happy to take our punishment but we don’t see why we should take extra punishment because of a few people that are not qualified have made decisions that are wrong.” Chemistry Research funding Higher education Research Science funding crisis Science policy Alok Jha Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
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 …Harnessed and in bulletproof vest, Anders ‘not unmoved’ by return to island but no remorse shown, investigators report Norwegian police took the self-confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik back to Utøya island on Saturday to stage a reconstruction of his slaughter of 69 people there three weeks ago. In a photograph of the visit in the VG newspaper, 32-year-old Breivik is shown standing in a shooting position, as if aiming a rifle at someone in the water. “We were able to animate his memory with regard to what happened out there,” police prosecutor Paal-Fredrik Hjort Kraby told reporters, adding that many new details emerged in the eight-hour journey around the island. “It was clear the suspect was not unmoved at being back on Utøya, but he did not want to elaborate on it to anyone and there was no expression of regret for his actions,” Kraby said. In VG’s pictures Breivik is shown harnessed with a rope leash while clad in a bulletproof vest and red sweater as he led investigators around Utøya under heavily armed protection. At times he also wore handcuffs and ankle cuffs. Kraby described Breivik as calm and co-operative, as he has remained through almost 60 hours of interrogation since the July 22 shooting, which followed a car bomb explosion in Oslo that killed eight. The victims had been attending an island summer camp run by the youth wing of Norway’s Labour party, which Breivik condemned in a rambling manifesto. Most of the victims were in their teens or 20s, and some were shot while attempting to swim to safety. Despite Breivik’s admission that he committed the attacks, Kraby said an extensive reconstruction was needed to show survivors and relatives exactly what happened. “It’s important they get to know as much as possible about what happened on the island, even if it has to come from the suspect himself,” said Kraby. “We’re seeking as many details as possible about each killing.” (Additional reporting by Terje Solsvik; Editing by Rosalind Russell) Anders Behring Breivik Norway Europe The far right guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Iowa Republican Chair Tells Palin To "Get To Work" If She’s Looking To Be A Candidate
August 14, 2011 No CommentI would seriously love to delve deep into the psyche of Sarah Palin. There are entire libraries full of books to write on the unique blend of narcissism, hubris and willful ignorance that make up just her public persona. When all the GOP presidential candidates started to set up camp in Iowa, with the intent to woo potential support in the Ames Straw Poll, I knew it wouldn’t be long before Sarah grasped desperately for at least a little measure of that spotlight. And true to form, Palin made a surprise revival of her bus tour, eager to show her kids the “historical significance” of the Iowa State Fair and their sticks of fried butter. But no, she’s not there to launch a presidential campaign, or to divert attention from any of the other legitimately glad-handing politicos. It’s just a matter of coincidence that she was conveniently available to talk to the media there , dontcha know.? But that’s not good enough for Iowa Republican Chair Matt Strawn, who advised La Palin that if she thinks she can flounce in at the last moment and prove that she’s still a relevant candidate, she’s got another thought coming. It takes work for you to be taken seriously in the first completely meaningless political event: you have to shake hands, you have to kiss babies, you have to meet voters face to face and be prepared to answer questions from them. And that is why Sarah Palin–no matter how many times she pulls these diva acts and preens for the cameras, coyly saying she hasn’t made up her mind–isn’t running for President. It’s work. And it’s unpleasant to have to mingle with the riff-raff and pretend to care about their problems. There’s nothing about it that appeals to the Half-Governor. Being on camera and making snide remarks is far more rewarding.
Continue reading …
US police chief ‘seriously interested’ in Scotland Yard position though home secretary has banned foreigners from applying The former US police chief Bill Bratton has said he is a “progressive” who can lead British policing out of “crisis”, reduce crime despite budget cuts, and bring about “transformational” change in the aftermath of last week’s UK riots. In an interview with the Guardian, Bratton said he was “seriously” interested in the vacant post of commissioner of the Metropolitan police but that the home secretary, Theresa May, had been “adamant” in banning foreign nationals from applying. Bratton – credited with turning around troubled police departments in New York and Los Angeles – is understood to have been David Cameron’s choice to run Scotland Yard. Instead he will advise the prime minister on gangs and crime after the Home Office insisted candidates must be British. According to Whitehall sources, Bratton has also told friends that he was so keen to take the job he would be prepared to take British citizenship if it made the difference. Cameron’s courting of Bratton continued to provoke criticism by senior British officers on Sunday. The series of rows between the Tories and senior police officers intensified yesterday. They are disputing where the blame lies for losing control of the streets to looters, who deserves the credit for quelling the riots, and whether budget cuts will endanger public safety. The day’s developments include: • Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, criticised “empty slogans” after Cameron’s remarks about a “zero tolerance” of crime – a theory Bratton used in New York. In a statement Sims said: “I continue to work with the Police Authority to develop a policing response that is consistent with available good practice but is not slavishly adopting empty slogans.” • Theresa May, the home secretary, meanwhile, insisted it was her job to tell police chiefs “what the public want them to do”. In his Guardian interview Bratton hits out at those opposing foreign expertise to help UK policing and warns against being “parochial”. • The London mayor, Boris Johnson, said he would continue to fight for more police officers. The appointment of Bratton as a consultant on gangs by the prime minister was attacked over the weekend by Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. In a swipe at Orde, who has dismissed the call for foreign police chiefs as “simply stupid”, Bratton says Orde himself was successful as an Englishman coming in as an outsider to run the police in Northern Ireland: “I find it ironical the hue and cry about outsiders,” Bratton said. He adds that if US police chiefs spoke out against politicians in the same way as Britain’s, they would be fired. Bratton’s remarks are his most extensive yet on how the US and his experience can, he claims, make British streets safer, and will be seen by some as a job application. He told the Guardian he had been “an outsider” when he took over police departments in the US and the situation with the Met “mirrors” those he inherited in New York and LA police departments. The similarities were a leadership stepping down amid a corruption scandal, disorder on the streets, rows with politicians, and community concerns about policing. Bratton said: “The Met is having its share of issues and leadership crises, certainly. It is a mirror image of when I went into the NYPD and LAPD, and both those cities turned out quite well. I’ve been an outsider in every department I’ve worked in. Bureaucrats change processes, leaders change culture. I think of myself as a transformational leader who changes cultures.” Bratton said US police chiefs had shown their British counterparts the way, securing large falls in crime despite facing falling budgets. In LA, were he stepped down as police chief in 2009, despite high unemployment and a 15% budget cut, crime is down by 10%. Bratton said: “You can run around saying the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, or you actually do something about it. You have to play the hand you’re dealt. I’ve always dealt initially with budget cuts.” “Out of crisis comes opportunities. If you want to speed up the process of change, nothing does it better than a good old crisis.” Bratton said the chance to become Met commissioner was attractive: “If it was open to people other than British citizens it would be something I would seriously consider. I understand the home secretary is adamant in opposing that.” Bratton declares he is steeped in the traditions of British policing, and insists he can change its culture and that human rights is at the heart of his thinking: “Britain is the birthplace of democratic policing. Robert Peel’s nine principles [of policing] shaped my thinking.” But it had to learn from elsewhere: “Anyone who looks only inwards is not going to be as successful as someone who looks outside, the world over. It’s a big world out there.” He says his track record demonstrates his toughness on crime, but paints a much more rounded picture of himself. He told the Guardian he is a “progressive” who points out he hired more people from the ethnic minorities, women, gay people and transvestite people to make the police forces he ran reflect the communities they serve. The rebellion by British police chiefs spread , with fresh annoyance being triggered by Cameron telling a Sunday newspaper he wanted “zero tolerance” policing adopted on Britain’s streets. The courts opened their doors on a Sunday for the first time as the justice system continued to struggle to process suspected looters and rioters. The police surge in numbers following the rioting was maintained , but unless there is further trouble or intelligence of fresh disorder, some areas will start reducing the officers out on the street on Monday . British Police chiefs who thought government criticism was limited to the Met’s handling of the outbreak of disorder in London, now feel the attack has spread to the reaction to force in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. On Sunday Chief Constable Sims said: “I look forward to being held to account for the decisions I have made over the past week which I believe were consistent with the available information and resources. I am proud of how quickly the force adopted new tactics to this unprecedented challenge.” Amid stiff sentences being handed out to rioters and looters, Sims called for compassion not to be lost: “Sentencing is justifiably harsh but we must not at this time abandon all compassion for some of our very damaged young people who have been caught up in these incidents.” Tim Godwin, acting commissioner of the Met, said the criticism had led to “upset” among his command team and officers on the ground. Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport police and a public order expert who is seriously considering applying for the Met commissionership, said he did not believe government claims that budget cuts would not damage the police: “We cannot pretend that the scale of cuts we face will not impact on the frontline of policing. “It is simply not possible.” Metropolitan police Police Theresa May David Cameron Public services policy Public sector cuts Public finance Vikram Dodd Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
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 …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 …
Refined mansion tax proposal being fed into debate on abolishing 50p tax rate for those earning more than £150,000 The Liberal Democrats are pushing for the eventual disbanding of the 50p rate of tax to see the implementation of a new land tax levied on properties above £1m. In a refinement of their controversial mansion tax policy launched at their party conference two years ago, the Lib Dems now believe there is an argument for levying capital gains tax on any money made from the sale of a property after the first £1m. The Lib Dem idea is being fed into the debate surrounding how to bring down the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000. A review into the rate is expected to confirm suspicions it does not bring in much revenue but serves to deter international business from locating in the UK at a time when the chancellor is seeking to encourage inward investment and spur growth. Over the weekend, George Osborne gave his clearest sign that the top rate would come down. Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Osborne said there was “not much point” in having a tax that raised scant funds but that served to drive businesses out of Britain. Osborne said: “I’ve said with the 50p rate I don’t see that as a lasting tax rate for Britain because it’s very uncompetitive internationally, and people frankly can move. What is it actually raising? It’s only been in operation for a year, this tax, put in place by the last government.” Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem Treasury chief secretary, has said supporters of abolishing the 50p rate are living in “cloud cuckoo land”. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, has said if it goes it must be replaced by another imposition on the wealthy – possibly a mansion tax which would hit owners of the highest-value properties. Liberal Democrats Tax and spending Tax Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …