Feb 11, 2013

Debt Problem? What Debt Problem?

FDR was a very crafty politician. When he proposed the Social Security Act as a safety net for Americans, he set the pay out for benefits to be at age at 65, when the average lifespan for a male was 59 in 1935. Since then, the goal post was moved a few feet, but life expectancy has grown. 

Significantly.

When the baby boomer's come to the retirement trough, they're going to drink it all, and hide the rest. Which is one of the myriad of reasons that there's a deficit problem. And it's not just about not having cash to get Head Start funds – it's also about National Security.

In September, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said that, “many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat,” he said. “We must, and will, do our part.”


Yet today, the Washington Post has an article who's headline states, “the job of debt reduction is nearly done.” Color me confused. Did Mr. Obama solve the debt crisis in just three months? Did Mr. Obama issue a secret executive order that ended spiraling healthcare costs, Social Security obligations, and cut the Defense budget in half?


Mullen had said, “As you know, the President has made a decision to reduce the defense budget by more than $450 billion over the next 10 years. That’s a lot of money from any perspective, but, in fact, it only represents a little over 9 percent a year from our baseline.”


$450 billion sounds like a lot, however, our deficit sits at 1.09 trillion – today – and there's no mention on how to control or contain the out of control spending – specifically to the increasing problems of entitlements.


Did Mr. Obama “make the decision” or is he simply allowing sequestration to happen?


Sequestration, you'll remember is the Congress-made hurricane that is due to hit Washington in a few weeks. It's cuts - but it's a dumb, stupid chopping off of essential and non-essential duties and obligations of the Federal Government. That is, as opposed to both parties rolling up their sleeves, and doing a little surgery to make real and necessary cuts to the budget. Real spending cuts. It'd be a great time to kill off those stupid projects and “bridges to nowhere.” No where, ever has trimming 10% off the top, from all departments made any sense. You trim the fat and the unproductive parts of your business - not the good parts. But this is government. So throw logic and good sense right out the window. Those were the first things to get cut, long ago.


Mr. Obama has stated over his weekend radio address that, “Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit [over the next decade] by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt.”


Now, I am terrible at math – especially when we're talking about trillions, but where does the Administration come up with the other 1.5 to hit the 4 trillion target? Is he waiting on Congress to do it? Not only does that make me laugh with the absurdity, it's showing me that Mr. Obama is still painfully ignorant of the people he thinks he's dealing with. Congress Critters aren't ever going to do “what's good for the country” they're only interested in their direct constituents – which means the people that cut their checks and give them hot stock tips.


Where's the discussion of the 16 trillion dollarsof debt we've accrued, and are still paying interest on? And then costs keep going up? I don't see where any of this 'projecting' takes into account those pesky aging baby boomers. Is that part of this math problem? And when you start using real math – you start seeing numbers like 81 trillion. Hey, don't get me wrong, Chinese debt is cheap, but it's still compounding interest. Problem with the stuff is that you want more an hour later.


To this, I can only guess that at heart, Mr. Obama is an Illinois 'machine' politician. The answer lies there, in Sweet Home Chicago. He'll take the playbook that worked for the Pharaohs Richard and Mr. Obama's previous employee, Rahm Emanuel – which is to nickle and dime every citizen to the point of poverty. You want a pamphlet on Green Living – that's a dollar and fifty cents. Entry into Rocky Mountain National Park? Expect it to go 20 per vehicle to twenty a head. Deficit reduction, you know? Hey, we're still cheaper than Disneyland, right? Oh, but parking is extra. And we subcontracted the parking to a private firm. In China.

He Quit Before God Could Fire Him

The Vatican Radio website has just posted Pope Benedict's resignation statement. Here it is:
Full text of Pope's declaration
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.
However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
Benedict XVI was one of the oldest new popes in history when he was elected in 2005. He will be 86 years old in April. (Source)
The last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII (1406–1415) (Source)
The last Pope to resign voluntarily was Pope Saint Celestine V (1215 – 19 May 1296)(Source

Rumor mill says that Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson of Ghana is the favorite for succession.

Thank you to laaabaseball

Feb 8, 2013

Storm Prep

I think you can make the conversion to beer fairly easily here too. 1 Bottle = to one 6 pack.

Not U 2 R2 D2?

Meth, not even once!  Guess he got a little nuts with that Disney money?

Feb 6, 2013

Where's the Outrage

Salon has asked "Why isn't there more outrage about the president's unilateral targeted assassination program on the left?"

Where's the outrage?

"Eleven senators wrote to the president on Monday demanding the administration hand over all legal justifications for killing US citizens by drones. They are pressing to see a more detailed 50-page memorandum from the office of legal counsel.

The letter, signed by eight Democrats and three Republicans, hints at confrontation over Brennan's appointment if the administration does not co-operate."

Ooh. A strongly worded letter.


Did you read or listen to the US Government's rational for their operations?
“Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment, that individual’s citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation. Under the traditional due process balancing analysis of Mathews v. Eldridge, we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person’s interest in his life. But that interest must be balanced against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans…”
The tl;dr here is that  Mathews was about a guy whose Social Security Disability benefits were terminated, and he hadn't run out of options for being reinstated, he sued for not being allowed a pre-termination hearing.

It's about property rights on a Social Security Check... so the DOJ is using that case to justify the killing of American citizens?

Your US Government - Justifying the 3/5 of a Man, The Mexican American War, The Trail of Tears, Tuskegee Experiments and on and on...