Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FINALLY - the "BOTHS" are fading

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 21, 2013, 10:06 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

recent polls show the blame for the sequester battle:
49% blame congress
31% blame the president

11% blame both ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼ ‼


For the last year, many of the MSM people on MSNBC have been detailing the R obstruction that has supported the 1% & locked down our progress for the 99%.
I especially like the fact that Ed & Lawrence & Rachel & Chris are VERY free with the words lie & liar

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Excellent post!!

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/msnbc-boldy-clairifies-itself-as-the-propaganda-wi/

MSNBC boldly clarifies its position as the propaganda wing of the Democratic party

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Typical - an article ( which may all be true ) and post YOUR conclusion as if it was a fact.
Sure - MSNBC is liberal/progressive and some of its people have "confessed" that they are Democrats - so what! .


Why don't you tell us the lies that you have heard on MSNBC
or at least argue about the positions on the ISSUES that have been voiced on MSNBC
Can you mention a few issues that you think "the fox candidate" would have handled better than "the MSNBC candidate"


A number of MSNBC people critcized Obama for not pardoning Gov Selignman. Would willard have pardoned Seligman?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

Why is it that when ever someone is critical of Obama you assume they are a republican?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I have been critical of Obama

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Hmmm?.....'cause he doesn't realize that 'red baiting' went out of style with corduroys in the earlly '60s

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

See my reply above

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Have to laugh about that: Whenever he attacks my work, he re-cycles arguments from the far right. Used material developed by Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum last time.

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

Its the politics of identity. And I believe its a troubling trend in this country. The traditional political parties in this country have no ideology anymore the people that claim allegence to them identify with the parties on a cultural level and don't really care about the policies that they inact.

So for instance if obama hires a secretary of education whos main accomplishment was dismantling, privatizing and opening up over 70 charter schools in chicago then thats ok because obama is a sophisticated ubane lawyer.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7977326&page=1

It's also ok if the president decides that its fine to kill american citizens without trail or hold them in indefinate detention then thats acceptable as well because he has a D before his name and and he identifies with him on a cultural level. Irregardless if he abuses these new powers or if he makes it possible for future presidents to abuse these rules that he inacts today. These things don't matter.

But lets say an inarticulate texan or a evangelical religious fanatic inacts these policies then this guy would be up in arms. He would protest in the streets and would post on this forum about the insanity of these new powers that the president has given himself or the privitization of the public education system. Or the any number of the "liberal" betrayal's obama is guilty of. Its the same people in moveon.org that led the anti war movement while bush was in office and then went home after 07 because they got a bunch of democrats elected because its ok if we are in perpetual war if the democrats are in charge.

Its the same thing with the other side as well. They are two factions of the big buisness party and their base regards each side with a cult like status.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Well put Peter. I just cannot understand it. My main problem with partisanship is people trying to make OWS partisan, as they believe that would be a good thing. It's late, I'm tired, frustrated, and an going to bed. Good Night

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Could not have said it better myself.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What is wrong with the sequester? Why is everyone against preventing the military from killing people? or occupying foreign countries?

I blame congress and the president. Finally they did something good for the people.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The sequester DOES cut the military budget ( GOOD!)-
AND will save no one's life.
But it will cost tens of thousands of jobs and push thousands of kids out of headstart and there are many other "social" cuts that will hurt the 99%

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I dont get "social" benefits, nor do I ever expect to. "Headstart" programs wil go ahead, even with a reduced budget.

I guess the ONE bad thing about the sequester is that it leaves 'some' military spending, when there should be absolutly none.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"I dont get "social" benefits, nor do I ever expect to" Thank you for being honest enough to explain that you vote for what is good for you, not America.


By Matt Vasilogambros - National Journal
President Obama has been warning that deep cuts triggered by sequestration could be devastating for the military and other government programs. But many Republicans, determined to see a reduction in federal spending, show no sign of wanting to cut a deal with the president to avoid the sequester.

Here are some of the programs that would be pared as part of the sequester, according to a report by the
White House Office of Management and Budget:

Air Travel: An estimated $619 million would be cut from the operations and facilities and equipment accounts of the Federal Aviation Administration, according to a report by House Appropriations Committee Democrats. This could mean major flight delays and an economic hit on the millions of people who depend on air travel every day.

$483 million cut from the FAA operations budget, forcing all FAA employees to be furloughed for 11 days. On any given day, that could mean that 10 percent of the FAA’s 40,000 employees could be on furlough, resulting in longer delays, reduced air-traffic control, and losses in tourism. There will also be a hiring freeze.
$136 million cut from the FAA’s facilities and equipment account, which helps maintain and modernize the air-traffic control infrastructure.
Transportation Security Administration screeners would receive a seven-day furlough.

National Parks: In order to cut 5 percent of its budget, the National Park Service would have to slash $110 million, according to Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. The NPS has already begun to plan for sequestration by cutting park hours and visitor services in some of the nation’s leading national parks—from Yosemite to the Great Smokey Mountains. The group estimates that over a million visitors to the nation’s 12 leading national parks would experience the effects of the budget cuts, as several of the parks would have to close visitor centers, restrict campsites, limit trail access, and delay spring road openings.

The Pentagon: Most of the 800,000 civilian employees of the Defense Department would get unpaid leave, called a furlough,for up to 22 days, saving the Pentagon between $4 billion and $5 billion through the rest of the fiscal year.
TRICARE, which provides health care for active and retired military personnel and their dependents, would get cut by $3 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Health Services: In a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. , Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius outlined the significant impact to the nation’s health services if sequestration goes into effect: $350 million cut from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
109,000 fewer people in need of critical treatment might not get admitted to inpatient facilities.
91,000 fewer people would receive substance-abuse treatment.
30,000 children would go without child-care services.
373,000 seriously ill adults and emotionally disturbed children would not receive treatment.
4 million fewer meals would get delivered to seniors' homes.
424,000 fewer HIV tests would be administered.
540,000 fewer doses of vaccines would be available for the flu, hepatitis, and measles, among other diseases.
$1. 6 billion cut for medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
$120 million cut in federal support for health centers, which could lead to 900,000 fewer patients served.
$168 million cut in embassy security.

Humanitarian Aid: In his first major speech as secretary of State, John Kerry said the budget battles in Washington could hurt the U. S. effort to provide economic and political aid across the world. He underscored those concerns in a letter to Mikulski last week, saying the State Department would have to cut $2. 6 billion for this fiscal year. In addition to potentially delaying visa requests and hindering peacekeeping efforts, here are some programs Kerry said could face cuts: $200 million in global humanitarian assistance, citing American efforts in Syria, the Horn of Africa, and the Sahel.
$400 million in global health funding that fights AIDS and child hunger.
$500 million in security-assistance accounts, which goes toward conflict prevention.
$70 million in operations expenses for USAID.

Education: If sequestration goes into effect, $406 million would get cut in Head Start programs, resulting in 70,000 children losing access to the service.
That would lead to the layoffs of 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and staff who work in the program.

Disaster Relief: The Federal Emergency Management Agency would receive a $1 billion cut, while also losing over $120 million in homeland security grants.

Additional Cuts: The National Science Foundation ($375 million), the Library of Congress, NASA ($950 million), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Patent and Trademark office would also have their budgets cut.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I vote for what is good for me because it is something I can control. Along with what is being cut, federal health aid for obese people should be cut.

Foriegn financial aid should have stopped years ago.......

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Ahhh - cut foreign aid
I wonder where that puts you on the political spectrum
Read any ayn rand lately?
google "ayn rand william hickman" - ENJOY!

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I want all activity at the federal level to cease. That makes me more of an anarchist than a libertarian anyway......

I want direct government, so Im not really an anarchist, nor a libertarian.

I said federal 'finacial' aid. Giving money to the corrupt countries is like giving a drug addict $10 on the street. We should be giving them food or medicine, not money.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"I said federal 'finacial' aid. Giving money to the corrupt countries is like giving a drug addict $10 on the street. We should be giving them food or medicine, not money."
I am shocked - we agree on that!

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So what is the big deal then? The sequester cuts finacial aid, not the regular kind, of which takes little to no money.....

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

In case you did not see the cuts detailed above -
SPECIFICALLY - Which do you think will help America?
and
would it not be better to tax the 1%
By Matt Vasilogambros - National Journal

Here are some of the programs that would be pared as part of the sequester, according to a report by the White House Office of Management and Budget:

Air Travel: An estimated $619 million would be cut from the operations and facilities and equipment accounts of the Federal Aviation Administration, according to a report by House Appropriations Committee Democrats. This could mean major flight delays and an economic hit on the millions of people who depend on air travel every day.

$483 million cut from the FAA operations budget, forcing all FAA employees to be furloughed for 11 days. On any given day, that could mean that 10 percent of the FAA’s 40,000 employees could be on furlough, resulting in longer delays, reduced air-traffic control, and losses in tourism. There will also be a hiring freeze. $136 million cut from the FAA’s facilities and equipment account, which helps maintain and modernize the air-traffic control infrastructure. Transportation Security Administration screeners would receive a seven-day furlough.

National Parks: In order to cut 5 percent of its budget, the National Park Service would have to slash $110 million, according to Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. The NPS has already begun to plan for sequestration by cutting park hours and visitor services in some of the nation’s leading national parks—from Yosemite to the Great Smokey Mountains. The group estimates that over a million visitors to the nation’s 12 leading national parks would experience the effects of the budget cuts, as several of the parks would have to close visitor centers, restrict campsites, limit trail access, and delay spring road openings.

The Pentagon: Most of the 800,000 civilian employees of the Defense Department would get unpaid leave, called a furlough,for up to 22 days, saving the Pentagon between $4 billion and $5 billion through the rest of the fiscal year. TRICARE, which provides health care for active and retired military personnel and their dependents, would get cut by $3 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Health Services: In a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. , Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius outlined the significant impact to the nation’s health services if sequestration goes into effect: $350 million cut from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 109,000 fewer people in need of critical treatment might not get admitted to inpatient facilities. 91,000 fewer people would receive substance-abuse treatment. 30,000 children would go without child-care services. 373,000 seriously ill adults and emotionally disturbed children would not receive treatment. 4 million fewer meals would get delivered to seniors' homes. 424,000 fewer HIV tests would be administered. 540,000 fewer doses of vaccines would be available for the flu, hepatitis, and measles, among other diseases. $1. 6 billion cut for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. $120 million cut in federal support for health centers, which could lead to 900,000 fewer patients served. $168 million cut in embassy security.

Humanitarian Aid: In his first major speech as secretary of State, John Kerry said the budget battles in Washington could hurt the U. S. effort to provide economic and political aid across the world. He underscored those concerns in a letter to Mikulski last week, saying the State Department would have to cut $2. 6 billion for this fiscal year. In addition to potentially delaying visa requests and hindering peacekeeping efforts, here are some programs Kerry said could face cuts: $200 million in global humanitarian assistance, citing American efforts in Syria, the Horn of Africa, and the Sahel. $400 million in global health funding that fights AIDS and child hunger. $500 million in security-assistance accounts, which goes toward conflict prevention. $70 million in operations expenses for USAID.

Education: If sequestration goes into effect, $406 million would get cut in Head Start programs, resulting in 70,000 children losing access to the service.

That would lead to the layoffs of 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and staff who work in the program.

Disaster Relief: The Federal Emergency Management Agency would receive a $1 billion cut, while also losing over $120 million in homeland security grants.

Additional Cuts: The National Science Foundation ($375 million), the Library of Congress, NASA ($950 million), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Patent and Trademark office would also have their budgets cut.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Taxes should be voluntary. Your 99% shouldn't be forced to pay for the 1% and vice versa unless it is done voluntarily.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The ultimate solution when a coward is cornered - afraid to answer a question

change the subject

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

How did I change the subject? My objection with the Federal Government is that I dont get to dictate where my money or goes, or whether I pay any at all.

The sequester is good because it decreases congress' power to spend my money against my will. or at least the unlimited power to sign my name next to anything that they do.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

now lets see - anarchist???
in 3000 years, has there ever been a successful anarchist civilization?
if you want some fun - google "ayn rand william hickman"

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anarchism? Ayn Rand? Did you even read my post?

Did I propose that society lack government? or just that taxes should be voluntary? I dont believe that I suggested anarchy......

I want a common law republic. not anarchy.

[-] -3 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

You do know that Headstart has been proven a huge waste of money. Right?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and your proof is ???

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Einsatzgruppen (in this context, mobile killing units) were squads composed primarily of German SS and police personnel. Under the command of the German ...

Fucking diseased asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

great slideshow here

http://www.businessinsider.com/easy-wasteful-budget-cuts-federal-government-2013-2

if nothing else you get to see the picture of the General Services Administration dude in the hot tub again. we should never forget those clowns.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

or what about the cost that it takes to send a politician to a far away city to listen to lobbyists and not me?

I would like to completely de-fund the federal government if I had my way.

[-] 0 points by WiccanRevolutionary (63) from South Charleston, OH 1 year ago

Both are to blame. It's disturbing that these "Boths" are fading. Or are you nuts?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

if you don't know that BOTH play a role in this failing system, obviously you know nothing of the failure to prosecute banks under the executive branch, the failures of Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, the failures of ongoing wars based on lies, as well as the roles of the treasury secretary and more.

You're defending a presidential administration that kills and indefinitely detains Americans without trial and funds regimes that have child soldiers.

"if you believe the president or the CIA has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable." -glenn greenwald

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

offered protection by Octavius.

who killed dissenters while out in the sticks.

he wrote their laws

laws - laws-laws

their power lost

http://allpoetry.com/poem/6396983-Bad_Romans_revised-by-Matt_Holck

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

what's the matter democrats? Shit get too real for you?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

They're simply talking heads, with an ego-driven need to be "right" and have others acknowledge the "wisdom" of their thoughts and choices. If you'll notice, they rarely post anything substantive they themselves have written, instead preferring to copy/paste other folks' work. That way, in the event someone criticizes one of their posts substantively, they can easily disavow and disassociate themselves (which would not be possible if they had written it).

The problem with all this is that it accomplishes nothing (which is the point), because anytime someone posts something beyond their kin, they immediately attack on spurious grounds and denounce the poster to assert their supposed moral or ideological "superiority". The right-wing has plenty of folks like this too.

The unfortunate part of all this is that moderates and realists, the people we really need to reach, get tired of their BS and leave...

The following link is as good an example as any:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-searching-for-ways-to-screw-the-corrupt-syste/#comment-933181

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

something tells me you are one of the 49%

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

who do you blame?
the people who want to cut jobs for the 99%
or
the people who want to keep taxes low for the 1%

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

The Republicans of course. Obviously Obama is just a lightweight figure head. Whatever happens isn't his fault. Bully pulpit? Most powerful man in the free world? Exaggerations. Poor guy. All those people expecting him to do so much. Just not fair to ask all that of one man.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

OK - I'll feed the beast - Is Obama powerful enough to close Gitmo?

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Who knows? Did he even try? The anti Bush crowd clammed up and never made it an issue. Doesn't matter anyway. Instead of taking prisoners, Obama prefers using drones to kill them all. Obama and Axelrod that is. Don't forget Obama's senior campaign adviser attended all those kill list meetings. I'm sure he helped pick out some good targets; one's that would boost the old campaign.

Let's play a game and substitute Bush for Obama in the above. Now, how do you feel? Be honest.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Lets play a game - and not change the subject when we are cornered.
Please dont tell me that you dont know that BEFORE Obama was elected, almost everyone wanted to close it - Obama & Bush & McCain.
The obstructing Rs stopped it by not authorizing any money to do it.
Please dont tell me that you dont know that
Oba ma is president - not king
Please dont tell me that you dont know that

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

So by being a president and not a king, you automatically only get credit for good things that happen and aren't responsible for not doing what you promised to do?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I agree with that - it is sad that Obama made a close Gitmo promise that he did not do
but - again - HE COULD NOT because of the Rs obstruction
There are other things that he has done that I do not like,
but I dont slam any pol when their record is so clearly tilted towards the 99%
Can you think of ANY issue that Bush or McCain or Romney would have handled more to y our liking?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Bullsh*t.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

vulgarity is always a good reply when you are too
ignorant or afraid to answer a simple question.

Shall we try again?
Can you think of ANY issue that Bush or McCain or Romney would have handled more to your liking?
Come on, try - I'm sure you can imagine something -

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

All O had to do was order the military to close Gitmo. Period. He is commander in chief, not the Rs.

He made a boatload of promises during the campaign. Anyone with sense knew he couldn't keep most of them. But closing Gitmo was one he could have kept as it was entirely within his power.

He could have stopped the company's practice of foreign rendition and use of torture. He could have stopped using drones to kill foreign nationals in nations with whom we are not at war. He did not have to assert that he has the power to extra-judicially murder American citizens. But he did. Hell, he is expanding, enhancing and institutionalizing these government "programs".

Get the picture? Your hero is a tyrant and war criminal. Just like Dubya.

And I would say exactly the same thing about Romney or McCain had they been elected and done likewise. Unlike MSNBC, and apparently you, I don't change my tune when "our guy" gets elected.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And when he closed Gitmo, where would the prisoners go?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Fool or paid D shill? Which one are you bensdad?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I'm someone who refuses to communicate with a troll who is afraid to answer a simple question - [byebye troll()


but never fear - I will call you out on your next lie

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

One cannot help but notice your hypocrisy of re-cycling and regurgitating old extreme right-wing arguments. Does being married to the D cause make democracy inconvenient bensdad?

[-] 1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

I tend to think it is a little of both but his above comment is correct. Closing Gitmo just creates an identical prison complex elsewhere. They aren't just going to let suspected terrorists go free.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Nor would I have expected all of the Gitmo prisoners to go free. But we do have prisons stateside capable of holding those that remain. Moreover, both as non-state actors and accused terrorists, their trials ought be removed to federal court and adjudicated. Are we a nation of laws? Gitmo proves not.