What does sex have to do with deficits? Not much. However, the OBSESSION with sex, at least as committed within the GOP sems to obsess the lying hypocrites of the mainstream media andWashington. Nope. I do NOT care about the new, racist allegation taht Herman Cain had a long-germ "affiar" with a woman other than his wife. The reason we did not delve into this stuff (for example with JFK, Eiwenhower or FDR, among many others), even during the supposedly REPRESSED 195s, was that it is a SORDID IRRELEVANCE (a SMEAR) to condkuct a "trial" of a politician's PRIVATE sexual habits in the media. Kinsey, and other surveys, of course, suggest that some 50% of all men have committed adultery. That is really the case against adultery being a crime, and it is the same case against it being an "issue" in a political comapaing. You are automatically being unfair, since you are targeting the people who are CAUGHT, when you KNOW that the sheer SORDIDNESS of "investigating" EVERYONE'S sexual conduct, and conducting "trials" (media or otherwise) about it, brings us ALL down to a level well below the adulterers themselves. yep. I am specifically referring to the EVIL people of the media here, who--by the way--almost certainly commit ADULTERY at a higher rate than the ordinary person. Geraldo Rivera, on the unfair and unbalanced network, this means YOU. And there is a better case for blatant RACISM as to Herman Cain than there ever was as to Barack Obama, with CNN and the ret of the mainstream media being the RACISTS. John Edwards was WHITE. Thre was NO interest in investigating his adultery, while he was running for President or Vice President, until the National Enquirer made it impossible to ignore Edwards. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, have TARGETED Herman Cain. Yep. This was anohter of those "featured" Associated Press articles tonight on AT&T/Yahoo (Boycott AT&T and Yahoo, I beg you). This is rdid, racist stuff, presented by sordid, racist people (and hypocrites). I have no respect for them (the media--not Herman Cain). This is true even if Cain is "guilty" of adultery in the past. This is only the prelude to the real article, and why "sex' is in tht title. This article is about howl the LIES on defiicts are so much more important than sexual "indiscretioins" that the media should be ashamed of themselves--except tahey have no shame.
Deficit lies? Here is where the massive VIDEOTAPE (or digital now) comes in. Politician after politician, and ALL of CNBC (with the possible exception of Rick Santelli), are on record as saying: "We are gong to 'pay for' short-term deficits with long-term deficit 'cuts'". This is an OBVIOUS LIE ("paying for" short-term deficits with long-term deficit "cuts"). Yep . I am calling Ben Bernanke a LIEAR (in addition to being The Worst Failrue in the History of World Finance). President Obama mainstains his position as Liar-in-Chief. But Jon Kyle, and almost every other GOP (Grand, Outdated Party) politician is a LIAR. Chuck Schumer is a LIAR. So is Cris Wallace (the unfair and unbalanced network--indeed the whole network). Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are LIARS. Bascially all of teh GOP Presidential candidates are LIARS. Doubt me? Never do that!!!!!!!!!!
Let us assume we are at the end of the Clinton years, with a Gingrich House, and the budget is "balanced". Let us even assume (hard as this may be on your imagination) that we have NO debt. In other words, we are assuming a clean slate, for the puropose of TESTING (like a "stress test" on banks) this "theory" that we can "pay for' short-term ADDITIONS to the deifict iwt h "long-term "cuts". This is actually the most FAVORABLE "test" we can make for the "theory", since it is rally obvious that it is absurd to suggest taht we can" pay for" ADDITIONS to the deficit when we are not parying for" teh government we have BEFORE the additions to the deficits.
Okay. We have (assumption) no deebt and no deficit. We have a balanced budget. But Democrat and GOP politicians notice that their "rules" say that we can "pay for" a deficit with spending "cuts" and revenues over TGEN YEARS. So they decide to rEALLY get the economy moving, and spend TEN TRILLION DOLLARWS more this next year than the government is taking in. This means creating a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR deficit/debt in one year. Is this a problem. According to LIARS TimGeitner (Treasury Secretary) and Ben Bernanke (Fed Chariman)--along with CNBC and all of those others--this is NOT A PROBLEM, so lonkg as you "pay for" that ten trillion dollars in DEBT wyou have just created, over ten years. Liar-in-Chie Obama repreats this lie almost every day--saying that his "jobs bill" is "fully paid for". ...............................................................................................................................................Sorry, I fell on the floor, laughing, and my fingers went out of control As lyou know, I cna't really proofread or spell check, because of my eyesight, so I just have to leave this the way it is.
Thus, in our hypothetical (where we have no debt and no deficit, but intend to pass a "jobs bill" that CREATES a ten trillion dollar deficit), Congress and the President "offset"..................................................................................Sorry, could not control the laughter agai--"offset" teh ten trillion dollar deficit for the next year with tgen trillion dollars in deficit'cuts" over the next ten years. Of course, the "cuts" are not in actual spending, but in PROJECTED spending, meaning that we will ave deficits for almost ALL of the nextt ten years somewhere close to the same ten trillin dollars (adding some portion of ten trillion dollars to our debt each year). It does not even matter that the "cuts" will probably nbot even take place (unless the final collapse occurs in our country, and we become Greece),.
You say this is absurd? You say that we could not possibly "fford" to do this, even though we SAY that we are taking care of our "short-term" deficit problem with our "long-term" "solution"? You are exactly right. But that (my hypothetical) is EXACTY what we are doing NOW, and what Obama, Bernanke and Geitner are LYING about (when they say we have a "short-term" jobs problem and a "long-term" deficit problem).
Message to Bernanke and Geitner (not to mention Obama and the GOP); "Short-term" deficits CREATE a "long-term" deficit problem, AND a "short-term" deficit problem. It is an outright LIE to say that you can "pay for" a "hsort-term" deficit with "long-term" "cuts" in the defict. If you don't believe this, then you need to carefully consider my hypothetical again.
You still doubt me? You really ae a fool, aren't you? What is our DEBT now? Right. It is approximately 15 TRILLION dollars, except that only somewhat more than 10 TRILLLION dollars of that debut are "real", because they represent money we owe ourselves (government to government debt). Thus, we have done exactly what my hypothetical says, except that we have done it over a limited number of years, instead of ONE. Oh, I realize we already had a debt, but the fact is that the vast majority of this debt has been created in the past ten lyears. And, yet, "we" (the liars I have identified, including the GOP) want to "pay for" ADDITIONS to the current deficits/debt by "paying for' those additons over the next ten years. That is EXACTLY my hypothetical, and it make sno difference whether we created this more than ten trillion dollar debt in one year or not. It is an absurd LIE to say that we are "paying for" ANY ADDITIN to current deficits by "cutting" the deficit (not the debt) over the next ten years. To call tis an Orwellian Big Lie ("1984" style) is to be too kind. This is one of the most outragous lies ever attempted on the American public--especially outrageous because ALL of our politicians seem to participate in this lie, and ALL of our financial 'experts".
It is enough to make you weep. When yoiu here a politician, or media LIAR, say thqat we will "pay for' this ridiculous, GIMMITCK/fraud of a payroll tax cut" with FUTURE deficit" "cuts", realize lthat you are hearing from a LIEAR, and that I am BEGGIN you NEVER to vote for such a person (as I will not vote for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or most of the GOP members of Congress, as I willl not vote for Barack Obama or any leftist Democrat).
We need EVERY DIME of deficit "cuts' in the future to "pay for' the government we have now. Anyone who has the unmitigated gall to even quesitn this obviuos fact should NOT be representing us ANYWHERE . They should al lbe DEFEATED.
With this kind of Big Lie (one among many) out there, the media asks me to worry about Herman Cain's "adultery" (or vague, non-criminal "sexual harrassment")???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. No, I won't worry about it with Newt Gingrich either. Too bad I have so many REAL issues with Newt. Nope. I have told you Chrisitans out there, accurately, that the media (and leftist politicians, along with some "rightest" onews) are trying to USE your supposed inability to practice Christian FORGIVENESS (and your other religious beliefs) to get you to BETRAY your own best intersts. Now I can't say it is in your best interest to support Newt, but I am still endorsing Herman Cain. You Chrisitans (real Christians, and not FALSE Christians like Barack Obama, who Bill Maher and I agree is NOT a Christian)need to stop letting the EVIL people of the media lead you around by the nose. You need to vote for people who will advance your agenda, and not worry about irrelevancies (as to this political agenda) like adultery. Free advice from an agnostic. You should take it. I do feel for you if you see NO real GOP contender wo will advance your agenda. But that does not change the fact that you should ignore these back fence gossip SMEARS (admitted or not, as the SMEAR is the LIE that these tings are important, or "fair").
P.S. As mentined in the article itself, no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment