Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 682)
Socialist Senator: Obama Was Wrong – Social Security Checks Will Go Out If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised

America's only admittedly socialist member of Congress said Wednesday that he disagreed with President Obama's comments concerning Social Security checks possibly not going out on August 3rd if the debt ceiling isn't raised. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he felt checks to seniors and disabled vets would be cut no matter what, the host of MSNBC's “The Ed Show” responded, “So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: And Senator, what was your response to the President when he told a, an anchor in an interview he couldn’t guarantee that the checks would be there on April 3rd, that he couldn’t guarantee that the Social Security checks would, would hit people’s bank accounts if we don’t take action. What’s your response to that? True or false? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VERMONT): Well, there are differences of opinion about that. There are some who would argue, and I tend to agree, that given the fact that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, then you can figure out a way you must make sure that seniors and disabled vets get their checks. SCHULTZ: So you would take issue with the President on that statement, that he may have been fear-mongering in essence? SANDERS: What he is saying is, look, there’s not enough money here to pay our debts. That’s true. I think, in fact, we can pay Social Security. Interesting when possibly the most liberal member of Congress goes on national television contradicting a Democrat president. That'll teach Schultz never to ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. Of course, on this rare occasion, Sanders was correct. The Bipartisan Policy Center published some very compelling numbers about this matter that jive nicely with what NewsBusters has been sharing for over a week. As reported by the Weekly Standard Friday: The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). That leaves about $39 billion to fund other things. As such, whether or not the President specifically said Social Security checks are in jeopardy if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the mere suggestion is indeed fear-mongering, and the American people deserve a more factual representation of what would happen in a few weeks if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on this issue. As it's become crystal clear that's not going to come from the White House or their media minions, it sure was surprising to see a grain of truth on MSNBC, especially coming from Sanders.

Continue reading …
Bernanke ready to launch QE3

Federal Reserve chief admits he is prepared to start third round of quantitative easing if US economy continues to flag Ratings agency Moody’s warned it might strip the US of its AAA rating just hours after the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, was poised to inject further funds into the US economy and commit to several years of low interest rates to combat flagging growth and prevent further rises in the unemployment rate. Bernanke said a third round of quantitative easing, called QE3, could be necessary if the economy fails to regain momentum in the second half of the year. Moody’s said it will review the federal government’s triple-A bond rating because the White House and Congress are running out of time to raise the nation’s $14.3tn borrowing limit and avoid a default. The US treasury says the government will default on its debt if the limit is not raised by 2 August. Moody’s said: “An actual default, regardless of duration, would fundamentally alter Moody’s assessment of the timeliness of future payments.” Earlier in the day stock markets jumped as investors cheered the prospect of increased support from the Federal Reserve, with the Dow Jones industrial average increasing 150 points, or 1.2%, in morning trading. The FTSE 100 closed up 37 points at 5906. Bernanke said the Fed could launch another round of treasury bond-buying before the end of the year. He said it could also cut the interest it pays to banks on reserves held by the central bank as a way to encourage them to lend more. The Fed could also be more explicit about how long it planned to keep rates at a record low, which would give investors confidence about its efforts to continue supporting the economy. The Federal Reserve chairman’s warning came as Republicans and Democrats continued to wrangle over a package of measures to cut the government deficit and stimulate the economy. Republicans have favoured plans to curb spending and cut taxes, while Democrats have emphasised the need to maintain spending to boost the economy. Republicans, many of them Tea Party representatives, have attacked the Fed’s programme of quantitative easing as a chief cause of high inflation following a sharp rise in commodity prices. Bernanke has denied that low yields on Treasury bonds, brought about by his low interest rate policy and programme of bond buying, have encouraged investors to speculate on commodities in such numbers that they influence the price. Delivering his twice-yearly report to Congress, Bernanke said the central bank was prepared to provide additional stimulus if the current US economic slump persisted. He maintained that temporary factors, such as high food and petrol prices, had slowed the economy, and that growth should pick up when those factors ease in the second half of the year. If that forecast proved wrong, he said, the Fed was prepared to do more. “The possibility remains that the recent economic weakness may prove more persistent than expected and that deflationary risks might re-emerge, implying a need for additional policy support,” Bernanke told the House financial services committee, on the first of two days of testimony. In answer to critics of his policies, including some regional bank presidents, Bernanke conceded that inflationary pressures on energy and food might end up being more persistent than the Fed anticipated. He said the central bank would be prepared to start raising interest rates faster than currently contemplated if prices did not moderate. The Fed has kept its key interest rate at almost zero since December 2008. Most City economists believe it will not start raising them until next summer and some believe rates will not be raised until 2013. Bernanke was testifying after the US government released a dismal jobs report last week. The world’s largest economy added just 18,000 jobs last month, the smallest increase in nine months. And the May figures were revised downward to show just 25,000 jobs added, fewer than half of the number initially reported. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2%, the highest this year. Companies pulled back sharply on hiring after adding an average of 215,000 jobs per month from February to April. The economy typically needs to add 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate. At the June meeting, the central bank lowered its economic growth forecast for the second half of the year and said unemployment would not fall below 8.6% this year. The Fed also agreed at that meeting to end, on schedule, its programme to boost the economy through the purchase of $600bn in Treasury bonds. US economy Quantitative easing Ben Bernanke Economics Interest rates United States Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Tucker Carlson Carries Water for Rupert Murdoch, Claims Outrage Politically Motivated by Liberal Media

Click here to view this media After being asked if Rupert Murdoch’s scandal in the U.K. might affect his operation here in the United States, Tucker Carlson, who is a frequent guest on Fox News, of course carries water for his Uncle Rupert on this morning’s edition of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. CARLSON: Well Fox News is a huge and vital part, as far as I can tell from the publicly available data on this question of News Corporation. Fox is a profit center. Fox is very successful and in my view for good reason. Um… Fox is fine. As far as I know Fox has not been implicated in this and I don’t expect it will be. Maybe someone should ask Carlson if he’s read any of these posts by Media Matters. Three Things You Should Know About NOTW’s Hollywood Operation 9-11 Families: Investigate Murdoch In U.S. Shareholder Lawsuit: Phone-Hacking Scandal Damaged News Corp.’s Image Tucker went on to claim that a lot of the outrage strikes him as being politically motivated and said that if people are upset with what News of the World did when they were spying on people, they should be equally upset about the government doing it and that they’re hypocrites if they’re not. I don’t remember ever hearing Tucker Carlson complain about the Patriot Act before this. And I would imagine that most of the people who are complaining about what Murdoch did don’t like the Patriot Act too terribly much either and have voiced their opposition to it. Finally Carlson was asked about the claims that Fox is ignoring the story and instead of answering the question, he immediately went on to attack the rest of the media that is covering it as being liberal and just having it out for Rupert Murdoch and Fox. SCULLY: CNN and MSNBC, two of your former employers… CARLSON: Yes. SCULLY: …have been running stories saying that Fox is ignoring this story. CARLSON: Of course they are. They’re Fox’s competitors. Of course. They love it. The New York Times is going wall to wall. I mean this is like a new 9-11 for the New York Times. I was reading the Times a minute ago… I read the New York Times everyday. I think it’s a great newspaper. It’s a very left wing paper however and they’re not good at hiding their agenda sometimes. Sometimes they are. But they’ve got a lot of good stuff on there in their pages, but they are just going hard on this story and gleefully so. They don’t like Rupert Murdoch. They don’t like his politics. They hate Fox. They hate Fox’s politics. Their editor, the guy who was the editor up until a couple of weeks ago has said so in public. So yeah, of course they’re reveling in it, as is their right by the way. And you know, I understand that. When your enemy is in trouble, pounce.

Continue reading …

Well, I guess it's getting serious now in the melodrama known as the Minnesota state government shutdown. If the Gopher State shutdown goes on much longer, hundreds of bars and restaurants will lose their ability to serve alcohol because they can't renew their liquor licenses. Worse, as reported by Eric Roper at the Minneapolis Star Tribune ,

Continue reading …

Great news, everybody! Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus are sharing marriage tips! Shall we all gather round and take notes? These two supergeniuses of marriage, morality, and normalcy are feeling real share-y lately, and as the facts surface showing that Marcus’s federally funded * “clinic” engages in “reparative” (pray-the-gay-away) “therapy,” perhaps we can examine what makes this God-ordained right-knowing perfect couple of God click. Of course, there’s a hippie-dippy school of thought that says every love is unique and beautiful just as it is. Having disqualified themselves with a lifetime of hateful policy and b.s. medicine, the Bachmanns can enjoy all the scrutiny and judgement they have eagerly heaped on others. Feel free to share ways they can perfect their union in the comments! *SOCIALISM!

Continue reading …
Can the eurozone survive the Greek debt crisis?

If Greece defaults on its debts, the consequences could spread across Europe, and prove catastrophic for the euro The economic crisis in Greece is the most important thing to have happened in Europe since the Balkan wars. That isn’t because Greece is economically central to the European order: at barely 3% of eurozone GDP, the Greek economy could vanish without trace and scarcely be missed by anyone else. The dangers posed by the imminent Greek default are all to do with how it

Continue reading …
The Man in the Moon: Killing NASA is a way to poke ourselves in the eye

enlarge Credit: Pegasus News Today, I read yet another angry article on the continuing death spiral of the American economy, which ended with what has become a rather stale cliché: We can put a man on the moon, but… Actually, no. We can’t put a man on the moon. We might have been able to do it once upon a time, a long time ago. But today? In this technologically overloaded era, we can chat with friends and rellies on the other side of the planet, we download half the Library of Congress on our Kindles and Kobos, we can tweet what we had for breakfast in California to the twittering lunchtime crowd in New York, we can play on-line video games with sophisticated graphics and total strangers, and we can blog about it to the entire world. But we cannot do what we once did with not much more than a slide rule and the completely insane self-confidence that we as Americans could do anything we set our minds to. Failure was not an option. Now it’s a way of life. Last Friday, the space shuttle Atlantis lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center for the last time, and heralded the end of America’s space shuttle program. For half a century, NASA not only employed generations of scientists and technicians for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programs, it gave America the impression that we ruled the stars, proud, brave, invincible, the best and the brightest the world had to offer. We could do what no other nation has ever done – we left our footprints on the dust of the moon. In 1968, I sat in a movie theatre entranced like so many others by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and less than a year later, Neil Armstrong made Hollywood fantasy an American reality. Less than four years later, in December, 1972, Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan became the last Americans to have walked on the Moon. A little less than forty years later, it seems quite likely I will not live long enough to see another human being step onto the moon. Certainly not another American. Gene Cernan has long been a genial ambassador for America’s space program, but lately has become an outspoken critic of what he considers a deliberate agenda to destroy what NASA has achieved. It’s not just about the end of America’s space shuttles. ‘The agenda is to dismantle America’s space program, Cernan said. ‘There’s no objective. There’s no timetable. There’s no goal. And there’s no mission. We’re retiring America’s space program. We’re out of the business.’ We’re out of the business. Quite literally. 7,000 rocket scientists are now joining the rest of the vast army of unemployed Americans. Florida’s once booming space industry is an empty shell, where not only those highly educated engineers, project managers and technicians who worked directly for NASA are competing for work in a labor market where over 10% are now unemployed, everyone who benefitted from the industry – restaurant owners, shop keepers, hotel owners, doctors, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, you name it – are struggling for survival; for every aerospace job lost, two local jobs are gone as well. And just to add salt to the wounds, the worst housing collapse in decades is making it near impossible for workers to sell up and move somewhere else for a job. It’s not just the space industry; it’s entire communities dying. There are valid criticisms of the NASA space programme, particularly NASA’s $100 billion proposal to return astronauts to the moon so far costing $9.1 billion with little to show for it, ‘was over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies.’ But Obama’s decision to kill… sorry… ‘redirect’ America’s space programme is more about saving money than any idealistic aspirations. On May 25th, 1961, President Kennedy stood before a joint session of Congress and declared, ‘I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth,’ and gave a nation and even the entire world a sense of optimism and unity we have rarely experienced. Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, can only come up with ‘We’re putting the science back into the rocket science.’ Yawn. All hope is not completely dead, of course. The $4 billion NASA spends yearly on human space exploration will now be used for developing new technologies in rocketry, including in-orbit fueling, autonomous rendezvous, orbital fuel transfer systems and closed-loop life support systems, to send astronauts to a nearby asteroid, maybe a brief foray back to the moon, or even the Martian moons. Sounds great… but the White House plan is tellingly short on the more niggly details, such as just exactly where astronauts would fly next, on what type of rocket ship, or even when. No timetables have been established for human flights beyond low-Earth orbit. ‘Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year, people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of ‘firsts,’ NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters. ‘And imagine all of this being done collaboratively with nations around the world. That is what the president’s plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new capabilities to make it a reality.’ Yeah, right. Just imagine in one hand and spit in the other, see which one fills up first. Once we’ve developed the capability to turn our imaginary space programme into reality, pigs will fly. What this is really about is killing NASA’s post-Columbia moon program and shifting the cost of development and operation of new rockets and capsules from the government to private industry, preferring new commercial manned spaceflight capability. There’s a word for this: ‘privitization.’ And we’ve seen oh so well how that’s worked out. Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, an architect of the now-cancelled moon program, has called the shift to commercial space operations a profound mistake. ‘I’m one of the biggest proponents of commercial spaceflight that there is, but it doesn’t yet exist,’ he said. ‘I would like an enlightened government policy to help bring it about, but I don’t believe you get there by destroying all your government capability so there’s no option but for the government to do whatever necessary to get the – quote – commercial operators – unquote – to succeed. That’s not the way to do it. ‘Basically, you’re burning the bridge behind you. Even if it’s successful, now what you’ve done is you’ve created not a space program for the United States, you’ve created a capability to get to low-Earth orbit but there’s nothing to do there because there’s no government program. Where’s the market?’ And there’s the crunch. Even if you’re not a right-wing Ayn Randite capitalist shark, it’s a valid question: where’s the market? Who is going to use this new commercial space flight? To go where? To do what? Joy rides for millionaires? In the meantime, American astronauts will now have to pay the Russian Space Agency to get to the International Space Station aboard Russia’s even more venerable Soyuz spacecraft, to the tune of around $50 million per round-trip. In our rush to cut back all the ‘unnecessary’ programmes, such as Medicare and Social Security along with NASA, in order to ‘balance the budget,’ we will continue this long, not-so-slow slide down into irrelevancy and endemic depression. Where we had a Kennedy who could galvanize the American spirit and bring out the best in us, this administration, hounded by the jackals on the right to cut everything to the bone (unless you’re an oil company or a multi-billion dollar bank, that is) is not only allowing us to fail, but helping us along. With a poke in the eye for good measure. We can put a man on the moon, but we… well… can’t put a man on the moon. How sad is that?

Continue reading …

NPR's Sam Sanders gave some free publicity on Wednesday to a boycott organized online targeting Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. Sanders spotlighted the efforts of self-described ” geek socialist ” Chris Coltrane, who “wants people to vote against Murdoch” due to his supposed ” unaccountable power .” The writer also failed to include any quotes from supporters of the media tycoon. The radio producer, who also recently worked for The Washington Post , began his NPR.com article, ” Boycotting Murdoch Could Be Harder Than You Think ,” by briefly touching on the current News of the World scandal. He then noted that “Facebook users organized a handful of groups aimed at exacting revenge by boycotting Murdoch and his British newspaper publishing company, News International, a subsidiary of Murdoch's behemoth News Corp.” Sanders also highlighted the efforts of anti-Murdoch protesters on another social media site, despite admitting that the cause has yet to take off: “On Twitter, a BoycottMurdoch account launched before the hacking scandal is drawing more followers . ( The effort is still small — it has fewer than 800 followers and 125 tweets so far .).” After acknowledging that “Murdoch's vast holdings, especially in the United States, make it challenging to carry out a boycott in a way that truly hurts his bottom line,” the NPR writer quoted extensively from his “geek socialist”: Some protesters realize it may be tough to exact real financial pain. Chris Coltrane, a comedian and self-described “geek socialist,” has staked out the domain www.boycottmurdoch.com , where he plans to launch a full-fledged site soon. Coltrane remains pragmatic about its goals. As he put it in an email to NPR: “In practice, Murdoch's empire is so vast that we know this [a Murdoch boycott] isn't always practical. In fact, we dare say that it's almost impossible, without relentless dedication . … Because of that, we are asking people to boycott Rupert Murdoch as much as possible. Do as much as you can to not give Murdoch money.” Coltrane says he's been planning the campaign for a while to protest what he calls Murdoch's “unaccountable power,” but the recent hacking scandal pushed him over the edge . He wants people to vote against Murdoch with their wallets now, even if a total boycott may never happen: ” If we can convince people to boycott Murdoch completely, we'll be delighted. But even if we can only get people from 40 percent to 80 percent, that will still be a definite victory .” Near the end of his article, Sanders listed several “things you couldn't do if you were engaging in a complete boycott of all things News Corp.” (including being unable to “watch any of your favorite sitcoms on the o nline video site Hulu.com, which is a NewsCorp joint venture with NBC Universal and Disney;” as well as a total ban on ” any book published by HarperCollins since NewsCorp owns that company as well. So forget picking up an extra copy of a J.R.R. Tolkien book .”). Despite his wide-reaching list, the NPR producer added that ” there's one bright spot for would-be Murdoch boycotters who also happen to be Super Bowl fans . Fox, which frequently broadcasts the big game, and did so this January, isn't scheduled to broadcast a Super Bowl again until 2014. So, you can get your pigskin fix and stick it to News Corp . at the same time, at least for a few more years.” In reality, a would-be boycott participant isn't actually “sticking it” to News Corp. if they don't have the rights to broadcast the big game in the first place. Only months earlier, NPR promoted another left-leaning online campaign, when correspondent Tovia Smith spotlighted a homosexual activist's income tax protest on the Morning Edition program on April 12.

Continue reading …

The combination of this Washington Post article , with its references to Grover Norquist’s sacred texts, and the Jon Stewart clip below had me highly entertained today: Far-right Republican fundamentalists have led their party straight into a concrete dead end. No one except their own tiny minority of no tax/no government churchgoers is buying their shtick anymore, and they are trapped. No fact can reach them, because their dogma is too thick. No argument or logic will sway them. Polling showing them losing the issue debate by big numbers doesn’t matter. Appeals to their morality fall on deaf ears. But now they are in even deeper trouble, because their corporate masters have come calling. The bankers on Wall Street know that while most Americans would feel the effects of the economic consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, they would be the first to feel the pain, and that isn’t acceptable to them, so they are calling in their massive amount of chits. John Boehner being willing to cut a deal with Obama on taxes was the first sign of it; Mitch McConnell turning tail and crying uncle with his rather strange proposal was the second signal. There’s a problem, though: the Republicans have dug themselves so far in with the tea partiers on the lunatic fringe, they are having trouble returning to the land of reality. In the 30 years I have been involved in politics, the Republicans have been one of the most disciplined, lockstep political machines in American history, but today they are in complete disarray. It’s called meltdown, and it isn’t pretty. Caught between crazy tea partiers and big business guys used to having their orders followed to a T, they are in a very bad place. I have plenty of complaints about Democratic politicians, but at least most of them are sane. The Republicans have locked themselves in a big building that looks increasingly like an asylum, and they are in deep trouble. We’ll see what happens next, but it doesn’t get more interesting than this.

Continue reading …

The combination of this Washington Post article , with its references to Grover Norquist’s sacred texts, and the Jon Stewart clip below had me highly entertained today: Far-right Republican fundamentalists have led their party straight into a concrete dead end. No one except their own tiny minority of no tax/no government churchgoers is buying their shtick anymore, and they are trapped. No fact can reach them, because their dogma is too thick. No argument or logic will sway them. Polling showing them losing the issue debate by big numbers doesn’t matter. Appeals to their morality fall on deaf ears. But now they are in even deeper trouble, because their corporate masters have come calling. The bankers on Wall Street know that while most Americans would feel the effects of the economic consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, they would be the first to feel the pain, and that isn’t acceptable to them, so they are calling in their massive amount of chits. John Boehner being willing to cut a deal with Obama on taxes was the first sign of it; Mitch McConnell turning tail and crying uncle with his rather strange proposal was the second signal. There’s a problem, though: the Republicans have dug themselves so far in with the tea partiers on the lunatic fringe, they are having trouble returning to the land of reality. In the 30 years I have been involved in politics, the Republicans have been one of the most disciplined, lockstep political machines in American history, but today they are in complete disarray. It’s called meltdown, and it isn’t pretty. Caught between crazy tea partiers and big business guys used to having their orders followed to a T, they are in a very bad place. I have plenty of complaints about Democratic politicians, but at least most of them are sane. The Republicans have locked themselves in a big building that looks increasingly like an asylum, and they are in deep trouble. We’ll see what happens next, but it doesn’t get more interesting than this.

Continue reading …