Sometime ago Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Chinese President Hu Jintao a "dictator". It was surely right but it wasn't ok. Why?.
When questioned on congressional Democrats' end-of-year compromise with Republicans that gave tax cuts to America's highest earners, Reid spoke about the need for Democrats to work within the system as it exists - a system, he said, that is very different than that of China. That was all right too, so what's the matter? I myself agreed on it, if he would mean just that but he didn't unfortunately.
When questioned on congressional Democrats' end-of-year compromise with Republicans that gave tax cuts to America's highest earners, Reid spoke about the need for Democrats to work within the system as it exists - a system, he said, that is very different than that of China. That was all right too, so what's the matter? I myself agreed on it, if he would mean just that but he didn't unfortunately.
"He is a dictator. He can do a lot of things through the form of government they have... Maybe I shouldn't have said dictator, but they have a different type of government then we have, and that is an understatement ... so we have to work in the system we have - the best system ever devised to rule the affairs of man and woman. And one of the way we get things done - and in fact important way we get things done - is through compromise." (www.cbsnews.com ) Somebody will say "that's democrazy, my friend". Sorry pal, it's not.
I'll try to explain why.
What he simply meant was Eisenhower's "military-industrial-political complex". In brief, socialism for the banks and the military, capitalism for everybody else that means lots of lies, endless wars and killings and misery for all except those few people at the top of the military-industrial-political complex.
Today the US Congress has begun sending out letters warning staff they will be suspended from this weekend along with hundreds of thousands of other workers as part of a looming federal government shutdown. (www.guardian.co.uk)
Is this a right compromise?
All of those workers must be taxpayers as well, right? Well, who ask people when money from direct taxpayer bailouts go into the pockets fraudulent bankers?
You should know this story now. Some people turned the world up side down with the financial crisis, and then had Paulson from Goldman Sachs being the US treasurer at that time, saving their ass with taxpayers’ money and everyone thought that was a great mission accomplished.
Was that democracy?
Today the Republicans want a cut in the federal deficit of $40bn. The Democrats made a compromise offer of $34.5bn on Wednesday. The new sticking points are mainly the areas where the Republicans want cuts – abortion programmes and environmental protection, on which the Democrats refuse to give way. (www.guardian.co.uk)
Only "the U.S. DoD's annual budget was roughly $786 billion in 2007.This figure does not include tens of billions more in supplemental expenditures allotted by Congress throughout the year, particularly for the war in Iraq. It also does not include expenditures by the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons design and testing." (http://en.wikipedia.org).
In short, all they need to get what the Republicans want is a small cut in the DoD's annual budget that's still the spending of the rest of the world combined but, you know, wars are fabulously profitable for the few.
I'll try to explain why.
What he simply meant was Eisenhower's "military-industrial-political complex". In brief, socialism for the banks and the military, capitalism for everybody else that means lots of lies, endless wars and killings and misery for all except those few people at the top of the military-industrial-political complex.
Today the US Congress has begun sending out letters warning staff they will be suspended from this weekend along with hundreds of thousands of other workers as part of a looming federal government shutdown. (www.guardian.co.uk)
Is this a right compromise?
All of those workers must be taxpayers as well, right? Well, who ask people when money from direct taxpayer bailouts go into the pockets fraudulent bankers?
You should know this story now. Some people turned the world up side down with the financial crisis, and then had Paulson from Goldman Sachs being the US treasurer at that time, saving their ass with taxpayers’ money and everyone thought that was a great mission accomplished.
Was that democracy?
Today the Republicans want a cut in the federal deficit of $40bn. The Democrats made a compromise offer of $34.5bn on Wednesday. The new sticking points are mainly the areas where the Republicans want cuts – abortion programmes and environmental protection, on which the Democrats refuse to give way. (www.guardian.co.uk)
Only "the U.S. DoD's annual budget was roughly $786 billion in 2007.This figure does not include tens of billions more in supplemental expenditures allotted by Congress throughout the year, particularly for the war in Iraq. It also does not include expenditures by the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons design and testing." (http://en.wikipedia.org).
In short, all they need to get what the Republicans want is a small cut in the DoD's annual budget that's still the spending of the rest of the world combined but, you know, wars are fabulously profitable for the few.
No comments:
Post a Comment