Thursday, April 14, 2011

My reaction to Obama's speech on reducing the deficit

President Obama gave a speech the other day outlining his administration's proposal for reducing the budget deficit.  I'm going to excerpt some of the parts of the speech that stood out to me, and offer some brief commentary and analysis.  Let's begin.
Now, at certain times -– particularly during war or recession -– our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary.
Mr. Obama, what exactly are the priorities of this country?  It seems rather obvious to me what the U.S. government's real priorities are:
  • waging an endless war against the Islamic world at the behest of the criminal Zionist regime in Israel, which has a complete lock over the political system in the United States through the Zionist Power Configuration, a network of think tanks, policy organizations, lobby groups, media outlets and private organizations exerting tremendous force over the U.S. government (just take a look at the individuals who actually run the government if you're still confused about this)
  • bailing out the criminal private banks and financial institutions on Wall Street and other corporations that have engaged in fraud, criminality and a wholesale looting of the American treasury in order to facilitate their insatiable desire for money and power
  • scaling back the very meager social safety net that U.S. citizens favor and pay taxes to fund- Social Security benefits, Medicaid/Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other assistance to those in need- all in order to "reduce the deficit"
  • funneling money to the military-industrial-intelligence-National Security State complex in order to further erode the God given rights of every person in this country, and perpetuate the never ending war described above
Do you think that is a fair characterization of the U.S. government's priorities?  If not, please explain.

So, assuming my characterization is accurate, why should American taxpayers be on the hook for these irrational, immoral, and illegal priorities?

The speech continues:
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -– but we didn't pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -– tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
Well, I'd agree Mr. Obama, our government should not be enacting tax breaks for the very top tier economic elite of this country.  But, you left out a very key piece of information- the two wars you are talking about were a direct result of the Zionist false flag attack on 9/11, which we know was facilitated by criminal elements in the U.S. government, private sector, military and intelligence agencies, and media, many of whom have direct ties to the state of Israel.  Shouldn't we end these disastrous, illegal wars of aggression, prosecute for treason and high crimes against the state the key members of the U.S. government and private sector responsible for facilitating and covering up this horrendous atrocity, and go to war against the state of Israel, which was largely responsible for the operation on 9/11?
When I took office, our projected deficit, annually, was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more.

In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pocket. It was absolutely the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.
Uh, excuse me Mr. President, the "series of emergency steps" that the U.S. federal government took not only benefited those most responsible for the financial crisis and recession, but virtually ensured their future criminal behavior, as they now know they can not only get away with their fraudulent practices and financial shenanigans, but go running to the U.S. government to bail them out while the American people are left on the hook.  We saw the elite banking and financial interests in this country engage in unbelievable levels of criminality, which resulted in the collapse of the U.S. economy and a worldwide economic downturn, and then get rewarded with literally trillions of dollars of bailout money that saved them from their losses and rewarded their criminal behavior.  Instead of being prosecuted and jailed for their illegal acts, they were rewarded.  David DeGraw has a pretty good analysis of the situation:
I’ve written many reports detailing the crimes of Wall Street during this crisis. The level of fraud, from top to bottom, has been staggering. The lack of accountability and the complete disregard for the rule of law have made me and many of my colleagues extremely cynical and jaded when it comes to new evidence to pile on top of the mountain that we have already gathered. But we must not let our cynicism cloud our vision on the details within this new information. 
Just when I thought the banksters couldn’t possibly shock me anymore… they did.
 We were finally granted the honor and privilege of finding out the specifics, a limited one-time Federal Reserve view, of a secret taxpayer funded “backdoor bailout” by a small group of unelected bankers. This data release reveals “emergency lending programs” that doled out $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayer money – $3.3 trillion in liquidity, $9 trillion in “other financial arrangements."
Wait, what? Did you say $12.3 TRILLION tax dollars were thrown around in secrecy by unelected bankers… and Congress didn’t know any of the details?  [...]
The Federal Reserve was secretly throwing around our money in unprecedented fashion, and it wasn’t just to the usual suspects like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.; it was to the entire Global Banking Cartel. To central banks throughout the world: Australia, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, England… To the Fed’s foreign primary dealers like Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France)… All their Ponzi players were “gifted.” All the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations got their cut.
Shouldn't we be enforcing the rule of law, jailing these greedy, criminal bankers and shutting down their operations?  Shouldn't we confiscate their assets, parade their criminal management and corporate boards out in front of the cameras, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?  That would probably go a lot further in ending our economic problems than continuing to allow this reckless, irrational behavior, ensuring that the American taxpayer is on the hook for the losses of these criminal banks, while they keep the profits from their fraudulent actions.

Mr. Obama continues:
Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we'll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. That means more of your tax dollars each year will go towards paying off the interest on all the loans that we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest that we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Think about that. That's the interest -- just the interest payments.
First off, when you say the U.S. is borrowing money from countries like China, what exactly do you mean?  I was under the impression that the U.S. government borrowed money from the private central bank called the Federal Reserve, which loans the U.S. government money at interest, and makes decisions independently (largely) from the federal government.  From what I gather, countries like China buy our debt, bonds and Treasury notes.  Could you, or anyone reading this, please clarify?

Speaking of the Federal Reserve, would you mind informing us, the simple-minded out here too stupid to understand or pay attention, who actually owns the Federal Reserve, and how their decisions are made?  Also, why is a private entity controlling the money supply and credit of the sovereign nation of the United States?  Isn't that exactly what our founding fathers warned against?  I guess they were rather extreme, and would probably be consider crazed, conspiracy theorists today, maybe even kooks.  Either way, I remember learning about guys like Thomas Jefferson who said things like this:
A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
It's also been said that the root of all the wrongs of this world is the concept and practice of issuing debt compounded by interest.  So why do we borrow from international bankers that literally print the money they lend us and reap the rewards by collecting interest on the money they just created out of thin air?  Is that why they foment all these wars throughout history- so we can go further into debt to the international banking cartel, giving them more control over our economy, political system and society?  Shouldn't we do something about that Mr. Obama?

The speech continues:
We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before; we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what's causing our deficit.
Please tell us what is causing our deficit!!!  Could it have anything to do with the trillions of dollars we have given to the crooks on Wall Street and other international bankers?  Could it have anything to do with the illegal wars of aggression our military has been engaged in for the past decade (at least)?  Do tell!
So here's the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget -- two-thirds -- is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Two-thirds. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20 percent. What's left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That's 12 percent for all of our national priorities -- education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, our national parks, food safety, keeping our air and water clean -- you name it -- all of that accounts for 12 percent of our budget.
Well, that actually seems about right, at least based on the research I've done.  This chart I found, which shows the federal budget in 2009, largely backs up what you're saying Mr. Obama.

Let's continue with the speech.
In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That's who needs to pay less taxes?
No, that is not who needs to pay less taxes.  But, maybe instead of always focusing on taxes, taxes, taxes we could focus on prosecuting the elite criminals that have looted our economy?  Don't get me wrong, the tax code in this country is extremely skewed and favors the very wealthy (doesn't everything?), but what we are lacking here is a fundamental concept of the rule of law.  Well, I take that back.  The rule of law seems to be working just fine when it's enforced against the common folks in this country.  What we have is a two-tiered justice system, in which the elite members of society-- be they in the private sector or public sector-- are exempt from the rule of law, even while committing the most obvious, well-documented and blatant of crimes, while the average person is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, many times for "crimes" in which there is not even a victim.  Glenn Greenwald explains this much better than I can:
...America's two-tiered justice system -- the way in which political and financial elites now enjoy virtually full-scale legal immunity for even the most egregious lawbreaking, while ordinary Americans, especially the poor and racial and ethnic minorities, are subjected to exactly the opposite treatment: the world's largest prison state and most merciless justice system.

So, Mr. Obama, what do you think we need to do to address our deficit problem?  Punish those responsible for causing the deficit in the first place, and who engaged in criminal practices and lied our country into war?  
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week. That step alone will save us about $750 billion over 12 years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs that I care deeply about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments that we need to grow and create jobs.
The first step we need to take is to cut spending on programs that you "care deeply about," huh?  Some backbone you have.  No upholding the rule of law?  No telling the truth about the wars, about the false flag attack on 9/11, about the rampant criminality taking place on virtually every level of the federal government?  What else do you propose?
The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. Now, as Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world.

Over the last two years, Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we're going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete.
Oh really?  It seems to me that the policies of the U.S. government represent the biggest threat to the U.S. homeland and people.  And just what are our interests around the world, and who's interests exactly are they?  The only interest I have is visiting and meeting other people around the world.  What do we need to defend in other parts of the world?  Oh yeah, that's right.  You mean we have to defend the elite financial and corporate interests around the world, in addition to invading and destroying anyone Israel considers it's enemy.

And by the way, regarding your approach to "find additional savings in our defense budget," over at, David Sirota reports:
The administration's spending cuts would actually make defense an even larger part of the overall discretionary budget.

According to the White House plan, which Obama unveiled on Wednesday, while defense would be cut by $400 billion over the next decade, non-defense discretionary spending would be cut by $770 billion. That means stuff like labor law enforcement, low-income energy assistance and food aid to the poor would be cut almost twice as much as the bloated defense budget.

What's particularly galling about these numbers is that they're part of a budget in which defense already makes up 58 percent of discretionary spending. In other words, out of the $1.2 trillion of proposed cuts to the overall discretionary budget, nearly two-thirds will be imposed upon the non-defense priorities that comprise just 42 percent of the existing discretionary budget.

That means despite all the headlines about proposed defense cuts, Obama is proposing to tilt the overall share of discretionary spending even further toward the Pentagon...

Well, let's see what's left in your proposal to reduce the deficit.
The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. [...]

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.

Now, in the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I've pledged here. But just to hold Washington -- and to hold me --- accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy -– if we haven't hit our targets, if Congress has failed to act -– then my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.
Jeez, that last bit doesn't sound too reassuring.  Come to think of it, your entire proposal doesn't sound too reassuring.  But let's be serious- you failed the 9/11 Litmus test long ago, so we know your a traitorous puppet anyways, in the pocket of the criminals hell bent on destroying this world.  I guess we'll just be seeing more of the same in the coming years.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.