Freedom Rider: Grand Bargain is the Satan Sandwich


by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

President Obama is taking his case for a grand austerity bargain with the Republicans on the road, moving us “closer to eliminating the threadbare safety net.” Not so long ago, it would have been inconceivable that a Democratic president barnstorm the country, “loudly and publicly demanding support for making right wing fantasies come true.”


Freedom Rider: Grand Bargain is the Satan Sandwich

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

They want to starve the beast as it were and kill all government spending that is not related to defense.”

Flush with victory and even shedding tears of joy, president Obama will hit the road to convince us to happily stab ourselves in the back. The “fiscal cliff” hoax began immediately after all the votes were counted. No sooner was Obama declared the winner than the White House, congressional leaders and the corporate media all began issuing dire warning about the consequences of not shredding what is left of the small safety net that Americans still have.

The president was so eager to begin the cutting process that he called two people who are allegedly his rivals, Republican congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, on election night. The two people who should be his opposition were among the first he reached out and touched. Both men ignored the president and told someone in their respective households to say they were asleep. Such is unrequited love.

In 2010 Senator McConnell publicly stated that defeating the president was his first priority. The idea that he and others like him would be inconvenienced by an Obama victory was in large part responsible for the joy progressives experienced after the president was declared the winner. Visions of McConnell and Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove crying rivers of tears sealed the deal for the Obama acolytes.

But suppose the victim of the racism, slurs, slanders, lies and twitter posts from racist know-nothings is still not our friend? Does the disrespect and even hatred directed at him warrant a carte blanche on the issues which effect all of our lives? Perhaps the enemy of our enemy is not our friend after all.

He is planning a tour ‘beyond the beltway’ to make his case for a so-called “grand bargain” of austerity measures.”

While the president is certainly subjected to overtly racist attacks, that does not mean he should be above scrutiny and criticism. He is planning a tour “beyond the beltway” to make his case for a so-called “grand bargain” of austerity measures which will weaken the economy, cause great human suffering, and move us closer to eliminating the threadbare safety net.

The case for the grand bargain consists of two very big lies. One, that austerity will bring the country out of recession, and two, that entitlement programs played a role in creating the federal deficit. It is government spending which can bring the economy out of recession, but conservatives want none of it. They want to starve the beast as it were and kill all government spending that is not related to defense. It is hard to believe the second fact, that entitlements are not responsible for the budget deficit, when we are constantly told otherwise. If a lie is told often enough without rebuttal it is treated as fact.

Years of Democratic accommodation to corporate interests has brought us to the point where we must fight a Democratic president in order to preserve programs which came into being because of the Democratic party. Not so long ago Social Security was called “the third rail of politics” because it was politically untouchable. It was inconceivable that a Democratic president would take his entitlement cutting show on the road, loudly and publicly demanding support for making right wing fantasies come true. Steadfast support for Social Security was always the lowest hanging fruit for Democrats. Now we can’t count on the party that markets itself as protecting our interests to make even the smallest effort on our behalf.

We can’t count on the party that markets itself as protecting our interests to make even the smallest effort on our behalf.”

The truth is that Barack Obama is no mere victim of Republican antipathy. He is quite happy to cut deals, as he said himself before election day. “I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.” The president is not being dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table. After all, he convened the Simpson-Bowles “catfood commission” on his own, without any prompting from Republicans. The only thing that saved us from drastic entitlement cuts in 2011 was dissent within Republican ranks. He was ready to do the deal and Democrats were ready to allow it.

Last year when Obama was on the verge of happily complying with the Republicans, Congressional Black Caucus member Emmanuel Cleaver quite rightly called the deal a “sugar coated satan sandwich.” The congressman was perhaps being too kind. There is nothing sugar coated about what can only be called a betrayal of the millions of Obama voters who are getting precisely what they do not want.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)


Yes, M. Kimberly, yes.

Yes, Margaret Kimberly, yes.

 There's the myth rolling around on the big websites that progressives should now push Obama, as if that will make Obama change.   It is not based in any history of Obama's actions to date.  Fantasy of hope.  With  denial. 

Hey Bev! Sho ya right

"Unless these "progressives" are planning the mother of all revolts/civil disobedience (and they ain't) don't expect Obomber to throw them any crumbs now. "

Beverly, since yall know how much I'm keen to symbolism, how about this one.  Obama treated the "hard charging, amped up progressives" (hardy har har) to a CONFERENCE CALL.  I'm sure they listened intently to him telling them to go off a fiscal cliff as they sipped their lattes and chumped on Dunkin Donuts.  I'm sure they threatened him most vociferously. (LOL)

On the other hand, the next day the Big $$$ CEOS are INVITED TO THE WH for a face-to-face with Barry.  I'm sure the Executive Chef of the WH "threw down" they probably supped on foi gras stuffed with imported parma ham drizzled with white truffle oil and a nice Cobb Salad with delicate shavings of Parmgiano Regianno (the indisputable King of Cheeses according to Mario Batali) versus Dunkin Donuts and 2 day old jelly rolls. 

Don't worry, Obama's got his priorities straight.  As Dave Chappelle would say, "I'm RICH B.....CH!!!"

From The Real News: 'Is the "Fiscal Cliff" Fictitious?

Paul Jay Interviews John Weeks- Prof Univ of London School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) @ } First- Almost 40% of the U.S. Debt is owned by the U.S. Gov't itself or by state gov'ts. Another 20% is held by various private pension funds. The biggest holder of U.S. debt is the Social Security system. If  interest goes up, the Social Security system has more money and is more solvent. I'm not for interest rates going up, what I'm saying is paying this interest isn't money going down a rat hole It's not just throwing money away. People hold those assets- people like you & me— particularly me, because I'm retired. So those interest payments in part are what funds people's pensions. That should be kept in mind when thinking whether or not the US' debt is really a problem.

JAY: There's been a lot of talk in the election campaign about how much debt China owes. Romney must have talked about that every speech—we don't want to keep borrowing money from China... What's the significance of foreign-held debt? Doesn't that matter?

WEEKS: It matters because that's interest that you're paying outside the US. And the Chinese Gov't certainly has its own agenda, and this particular agenda is to be the strongest country in the world. And they'll probably achieve it. I think there're ways to get around that and should stop selling debt to the Chinese, in as far as that's possible—it's not completely possible, because the debt's sold on the open market & you can't regulate who buys it. The extent that it's a problem that China holds this debt, is because they could use it as a lever when they have a political goal. They aren't going to say, we want all our money one day. What they'd say is — let's take the case of this dispute over the South China Sea, where they have a dispute w Vietnam, Philippines and 3 or 4 other countries. They might say we'll cash your debt in if you don't keep your mouth shut, and we'd really like it if you support us, but at least don't oppose us. That's a potential problem, but it's not a financial problem, and there's a way to get around it- by the US Gov't selling its bonds and debt to the Social Security system, and sell it to itself, by borrowing directly from the FED. Then you can run a bigger debt without obligating yourself to China or any other country in the world ...

The solution is to get economic growth going, and then the U.S. debt will decline in importance relatively to GNP. At the end of WWII U.S. debt was over 200% of GNP.

JAY: Well, those yelling about the fiscal cliff and the need to reduce the deficit and debt, they must know all the same numbers you have. Why are so many so concerned about this?

WEEKS: I think it's ideological. The deficit resulted from the 2007 recession. Before 2007 the deficit was small. Now it's large. Why? Because as the economy contracts & grows slower, the Gov't receives less revenue. It has to pay unemployment compensation. When economic times are good, money is flowing into the unemployment fund. It's a special fund with a special tax. But when there's economic down-turns there's more unemployment, & you have to pay unemployment compensation- drawing down from the fund. When the economy goes into recession, expenditures for unemployment compensation and various types of welfare support increase just when revenue is decreasing- resulting in a deficit. BUT those Gov't payments softens the decline in demand. If we didn't have a deficit, & tried to keep the budget balanced, the economy would have gone into a total collapse. The deficit will get smaller when we start to grow [the econ]. 

JAY: But there must be some kind of limit to how big it can get, Otherwise, why not quadruple unemployment funds? You could just hand out money to everybody to spend.

WEEKS: There's a limit of course. Problems arise when you're run a deficit and the economy is near full employment, which generates excessive demand, which can be inflationary and that inflation will feed back in financial markets and increase prices. BUT we're very far from that situation. The deficit you can run depends on how much it costs to service the debt it creates (that's very low) and whether or not it's likely to create an excess demand, which is inflationary. We have so much unemployment the chances of having resource shortages is very slight.

If we had a progressive president, he'd increase Gov't expenditure, to stimulate the economy. The economy would grow. Tax revenue would flow in. He'd could raise taxes on the rich. Then you'd have a virtuous circle. He had to spend to get things going, which would tempoarily increase the deficit, but that's the way which the deficit would eventually be reduced.

Washington's not doing that because of its control by financial interests [IE: the Wall St Banksters]. There're 2 important things RE:  financial interests. One is that they don't produce anything themselves. So the way they get their income is they redistribute it from the rest of the economy. How do they that? Where do they redistribute it from? They've pretty much driven the manufacturing sector into the ground in the US, so the only place where they can extract it is from the Gov't itself. I think part of their strategy is, cut Gov't expenditure so that Wall St gets it instead.

I think that the financial interests see a unique historical moment. They think they can destroy the welfare state and that the vehicle for doing so is to use the deficit as a faux-technical argument, to avoid saying everybody ought to go hungry and they're all useless—though Romney came close to saying that—saying instead that their heart bleeds ['I feel Your Pain'], but we have to get the deficit down, so we're going to have to cut Social Security [which is NOT part of the 'Deficit Problem' while the DoD's budget is] and we're going to have to cut Medicare, because we just can't afford it—which is complete and total rubbish. We're one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford it who can? I think that they want to destroy the welfare state, what little of it that's left in the US, so they can redistribute income and wealth to themselves.

Fiscal Cliff: A fiction emanating from the Shock Doctrine

Think about the core result of "going over the cliff."

TAXES GO UP.  Bush tax cuts expire.  SPENDING GOES DOWN, that includes military spending.

Well spending for social programs is going to go down regardless.  Taxes increase to Clinton-level rates which is what the people voted for.

Only in a country that is completely controlled by financial interests and a media that is controlled by fiancial interests would this scare tactic actually consume the airwaves and have traction.  This fake crisis is representative of the U.S.'s moral and intellectual depravity. The country is not bankrupt but its leadership is.

Obama is going to strike a bargain that essentially finances increases to the defense budget and tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of the Middle Class, its really that simple.  They are going to find "revenue" by closing the loopholes We the People benefit from, like the mortgage deduction.  If Obama was not wedded-- indeed a slave to the MIC-- he would relish cutting the defense budget.  And if he were truly progressive he'd relish raising taxes.  But he's neither.  Truly amazing deceit and sophistry.Another wealth transfer on top of the 23 trillion and counting Obama transferred to Wall St. crooks, while not prosecuting a single one. 

The "Fiscal Cliff" is not a cliff and the language itself is intended to scare people. The name itself is designed to create panic, evoking disaster imagery of people and the economy falling off a cliff. It is the latest manufactured "crisis" and we are all supposed to be terrified and demand immediate and extreme solutions.

Again, the very people screaming loudest about deficits are the people who passed tax cut after tax cut, and military spending increase after military spending increase, and started war after war. Then these same "serious people" terrify the public, telling them that budget deficits will lead to the destruction of the country — and soon. After a decade of screaming “9/11,” “9/11,” noun verb “9/11,” they screamed "deficit, deficit, deficit." Now they scream, "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff."

Then after the public is suitably stirred up and terrified they offer “solutions” they say are necessary to cut the scary deficit (that they caused, for this purpose).

And the fixing all has to happen right now, in the "lame duck" Congress, before those new legislators We, the People elected can take office.

The "Grand Bargain"

The "serious people" are pushing for a "grand bargain" that they say will "solve" the "deficit problem" "once and for all."

Of course, nothing in any "grand bargain" can bind the Congress, and any part of this "grand bargain" can and will be undone by Congress at the earliest opportunity.

The outline of this "bargain" involves "tax reform" and "getting a handle on entitlements." Tax "reform" does not involve allowing raising tax rates on the wealthy. It "reforms" taxes by getting rid of various deductions. "Getting a handle on entitlements" means cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and the rest of the things that We, the People do for each other. Social Security by law does not contribute to the deficit -- they just threw it in because it is "in crisis"

(Note -- The Social Security "crisis" is that under certain economic projections its funding might run a bit short many years down the road. This future shortfall is in comparison to the military budget which, unlike Social Security, has no separate funding mechanism and runs 100% short every year. But that is not a "crisis.")

So a fix for a budget problem that as caused by cutting taxes, massively increasing military spending and crashing the economy will be "solved" by ... not fixing those things.  


Cenk: Don’t fear the ‘fiscal cliff,’ but be very, very afraid of President Obama’s potential ‘grand bargain’

Are African Americans Allowed to Criticize Obama?

Cenk asked someone over at if its ok for Dr. Cornel West to call Obama a "Rockefeller Republican in Black face". Lol

Grand Bargain/Grand Theft or Fiscal Cliff/Fiscal Gift

Thanks Ms Kimberly for clearing the air about the Grand Bargain. The Grand Bargain is more like Grand Theft or the Fiscal Cliff is going to be a Fiscal Gift. Obama is playing on the public’s perceptions of how he was treated as the first Black president. The Rethugs played the part of bad cops and he played the part of the good cop. If you are looking at it through that lens then you think that the Obama has had his character raked and scraped on the curb by all those evil Rethugs. His reelection is affirmation that rejects the foul yelling and screaming that the crazy Rethugs have been foaming at the mouth with over his first term. BUT hold up wait a minute!!!

If you look at it from the point of view that this is a political dog and pony circus, where the objective is to bait the public with one thing while you move to accomplish something else, well then the grand bargain becomes a grand deception and grand theft. This whole media carnival is a grand psyops in real time. It is designed to make the Obama look like the good cop fighting the bad cops the lunatic Rethugs. Everyone is in on it, the media plays the role of the narrator, the Rethugs play the role of the bully on the block and the Obama plays the role of the guy who is just trying to do the right thing but those nasty Rethugs keep jacking him up.

But the real story is going on behind the scenes, Obama and the rethugs are planning some big political trick-a-ration where Obama is going to GIVE the Rethugs just what they want and the public will get screwed like two dollar tricks (Yea I said that)!!!

Here is how the trick-a ration will unfold, Obama will be the negotiator and the rethugs will be ... the rethugs (what else can they be). Obama will step up and draw a line BEHIND him and start negotiating. The rethugs and some blue junk yard (southern demowits) dogs will start hootin and hollering, Obama will step up and draw a line further BEHIND himself. This process will continue until Obama has backed down, backed up and backed out and GIVEN the rethugs everything they want (What a Negotiator)!!!

Some might think that I’m just talking out of my head. So here is a link to Cenk Uygur from TYT and he will explain it in a way that might make more sense with numbers to back up what he is saying.

If Obama wanted to back up from the fiscal cliff (that the public DID NOT PUSH the country to the edge of) he could ...

Get out of all the unfunded undeclared wars we’re involved in (think Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya and Syria Yea that is us too). Think that might save us a few dollars???

He could cut the over blown obscenely corrupt Pentagon budget. Think that might save us a few dollars???

He could prosecute some of the wall street gangstas (IE Jamie Diamond, Lloyd Blankfein John Corzsine just to name a few). Think that might GET us a few dollars???

He could stop the UNGODLY war on drugs that has destroyed millions of people's lives militarized law enforcement and along with stop and frisk have turned police into bounty hunters that are HUNTING young black and Brown men down like dogs. Go here to see an example

He could put the brakes on the prison industrial complex which is spawned by the war on drugs. Think that might save us a few dollars???

And last but not the least he could let the Bush tax cuts expire that would save us about a TRILLION dollars!!!!

He could do any number of these things BUT he probably more than likely WON'T. Why you ask, because the folks who paid to put him in office don't what that and they tend to get what they paid for (can you hear me now)???


LOL Please help Us All


S Murph

@ S Murph thanks for the youtube link

Is this guy Obama not the most hideous, craven, self-serving, narcisstic MONSTER you've ever seen.

I promised the readers I would staunch my 4 letter screeds/tirades, but Obama is a bastard, a truly worthless human being.

Obama could give a rats behind about the poor, the working class middle Americans be they Black, White, Latino...whatever.

What Cenk doesn't talk about, perhaps because of time limitations, is that neither party cares about their/our "heroes." those serving in America's imperial ventures.  I hope this translates into fewer and fewer people voluntary joining the military but alas many will do it just to pay the bills.  The homeless and unemployment rates of Veterans are a national tragedy and speak to the psychopathic mindset of our nation's "leaders."

I won't even address the 19,000 women reported raped or sexually assaulted serving in the military in 2010.  That deserves its own special attention.

Cenk's screed is also proof positive that your vote doesn't count that this notion of a democracy is nothing but a bad dream, nay a nightmare.

I'm so glad I didn't waste my energy voting, giving my assent to a brazen criminal enterprise.

Mission Impossible: This (Presidency) will self destruct in....

For more than 4 years my attitude at those persons of all pigmentations who've remarked at how bright and smart Obama is, how he's playing 3 dimensional chess with his opposition has ranged from laughter to amazement.

OBAMA IS DUMB AND DUMBER.  This poor narcicisstic sociopath is about to be hoisted on his own petard.  Historians will be left with the same puzzlement I and others have:  was this guy dumber than a doornail or simply a "tool?"

Funny how all second term presidents wax on about their legacies, Obama is no different. But history won't be kind to Obama because the consequences of his "Grand Bargain" will mean whatever incremental (and suspect) gains in employment he can take credit for will not only be reversed but the unemployment situation will actually worsen.

Obama won't be fulfilling his dreams and goals, at the end of the day he will be fulfilling his opposition's goals:  I strongly side with those economists who believe that the Grand Bargain will result in greater unemployment and economic dislocation. You don't have to be a Brookings Inst. economist or posess a MBA from Wharton to see this train wreck coming.

How greater wealth concentration and undercutting the social safety net is good public policy or "Forward" progress is beyond me?!

We the People won't gain much consolation from this but Obama is positioning himself to go down in history as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century.  Small consolation prize for the masses mind you, because the poser will be happy becoming a multi-millionaire and it wouldn't surprise me that his future largess comes from a position with the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute.

Once a useful tool, always a useful tool.  After the Grand Bargain the Obama legacy will self-destruct in 60 seconds. The tragedy is that he will have hollowed out the progressive movement even more and given renewed vigor to the Right Wing/Libertarian memes AGAIN.  If the Dem. Party had a pair they would dump Obama's schemes for their own self preservation,, but we know how spineless they are.

Aside from the possibility of seeing ANOTHER resurrection of the Right Wing GOP after unemployment hits double digits once more, I (we) could find solace in Obama and the Dems going down into the dust bin of history.

Obama is Grover Norquist's BFF

Is the "Fiscal Cliff" a Fiction? Wednesday, 14 November 2012 11:13
Written by 

By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | Interview and Video 

My anger and disgust are reaching new heights.

And I'm left with restating my previous remarks that Obama will DESERVEDLY go down in history as one of the worse Presidents of all time.   Times were better under Bush than Obama.  Because the poor and the working class at least had a fighting chance, now they have no chance at all.   Obama has expanded the WOT beyond Bush's wildest dreams and he's achieved something Grover could only dream of under Republican presidents which is the destruction of Social Security and the last remnants of the Great Society/Welfare State.

Is Obama simply stupid or is he simply pathological?  Despite all these cries of pressure from the faux Left, Obama has made up his mind to put his foot on the people's necks.

Published on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 by Common Dreams

Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect 'Bitter Pills'

- Common Dreams staff 


In a conference call with key supporters Tuesday night, President Obama urged Democratic activists to stay engaged in the coming budget negotiations concerning the so-called "fiscal cliff" but also telegraphed plainly his intent to give away much in his showdown with Republican lawmakers

 As the Huffington Post, who listened in on the call, reports:

The president, speaking from a White House phone, cautioned listeners to expect disappointments during his second term. As he has in the past, Obama warned that he was prepared to swallow some bitter pills during the negotiations, including some that would agitate the base. 

However, if the call to his supporters on Tuesday is any indication, and as Obama meets with a cadre of corporate CEOs Wednesday to discuss their budget ideas, it's becoming hauntingly clear that Obama is perhaps dangerously close to making many of the same mistakes again. """


EC:  Truth be told it's truly all over except for the crying and gnashing of teeth.  This Grand Bargain and evisceration of the "Welfare State" has been Obama's intention since he's been elected, and now it's simply coming into fruition.  Here's what's interesting:  conference call with "supporters" but personal meeting with CEOs.  The sheeple will never get it so it seems.


2013 is going to be a hell of a year.

What Obama really loves...

The only thing he loves more than his narcissitic self are Whitemen and inanimate objects, and "process."  Some of you won't like what I'm about to say but Obama is a Uncle Tom to the 10th power.  What he craves to feed his narcicisim is the approval of White Men.  I believe Obama would grab his knees and drop his drawers to please White Men.  There's something psychologically wrong this guy, the way he craves the approval of the White Male Establishment, the "Boys Club" if you will.

He loves B-52s, drones and joy sticks more than he loves those who elected him.  He could give a damn about Liberals, poor people of any hue and especially Blacks.  I think he despies us.

Why do I say this?  Because how do you judge a person who VOLUNTARILY bargains from a position of weakness.  Who gives substantial ground before the push and pull of neogiations even start?  He's a weak, unprincipled man, a craven, cynical heartless politician.

Most Democrap Presidents would at least make a half-hearted attempt to staunch military spending.  But Obama loves the implements of warfare more than people.  One of the best descriptions I've read of him is CONSERVATIVE TECHNOCRAT; Obama loves "process."  And the end result of that is he is building the architecture of a police state, an inverted facist state with elegant attention to detail.

And this architecture will outlive his presidency, THAT'S the Obama legacy, that and putting the nail in the coffin of entitlements.

Where Bush shot from the hip and make things up as it goes, he was actually more cautious than Obama, despite his disdain for the Constitution.  Whereas here we have a "Constitutional Scholar" who has meticulously shredded the Constitution AND enshrined the abuses INSTITUTIONALLY.

No one has summarized Obama with more alacrity than Glenn Ford:  Obama is far and away the most effective evil.  If Mittens had been elected I honestly believe the Democraps would have stymied his abuses more than they've stymied Obama's.  Mitt was just talking loud and saying nothing to appeal to the Right Wing gas bags.  Not that the Democraps would have done it out of any moral indignation or sense of what's right, but they would have done it out of sheer competition.  That opposition alone would have not only stymied Mittens it would have made him more cautious.  The Democraps would have even enlisted the "base" to thwart Mittens.  With Obama, silence and acquiescence is golden.

Again, all of the adoration he seeks from White Male approval will be his undoing.  They respect Obama as much as he respects us, perhaps even less.

What a pathetic man. I hope and prays he gets his comeuppance soon.  Because truth be told he allowed Petraeus to turn the US consulate in Bhengazi into a CIA paramilitary outpost.  One intelligence insider claims that Obama was actually watching the attack on the embassy but didn't say anything to save his political hide.  Not all Right Wing musings are pure fantasy.  Food for thought.  I don't believe for one minute that the embassy attack was due to some "cartoon" or crap-quality video/movie, I believe it had to do with BLOWBACK.  And it was/is that blowback that has generated the coverup and the possible sacrifice of the embassy staff, who were likely CIA agents versus ambassadors. 

US IS on a Fiscal Cliff

Let's get this straight the U.S. is on a fiscal cliff and has been on one since it became a net debtor nation during the Reagan years.  The Left clearly puts up a front of being the "protector" of the social programs but says NOTHING about lack of monetary soverneity which at the heart of the problem.

The USA is trillion of dollars in debt and interest payments his now the second largest budgetary item after military spending.  What this means is that for every social spending dollar the govenment must BORROW that money and has to make interest payments to the private Federal Reserve Bank for the privilege to spend money and meet social needs.  

The inflated military spending and interest payments advantage Jewish power since they are the benefiicary of these programs.  The real problem is that the Left desire for social spending without monetary soverneity becomes a transfer to the rich in order to meet social spending.  So the Left is actually being DISINGENUOUS by concealing this fact.  Therefore the national and personal debt has driven the USA off a  "fiscal" cliff.  

A real program to repair the society instead of "social programs" is to eliminate Jewish power that ABSORBS the wealth out of the economy.  What is needed is a massive reduction in military spending, the restoration of monetary sovernety and ending ALL USURY.  With monetary sovernety the government can provide outright stipends and redevelopment of its infrastructure which will stimulate cash flows -- DEBT FREE.

Postal accounts (like they have in Japan) can be restored (this was ended by Eisenhower) can server as the national bank.  People can decide for themselves how to use their stipends.  Ending usury  would reduce prices by about 50% of prices is due to interest on debt.  Monetary soverenty would enable greater liberty and greater freedom of choice as people would have the power to decide their use of their money.

True social programs comes about when people have more freedom and power and ending the fraud of the Federal Reserve System is vital in order to get the U.S. off the fiscal cliff.

Speaking of Grand Bargain, check out the BP deal

Published on Thursday, November 15, 2012 by Common Dreams

Crime, No Punishment: BP Gulf Settlement Deal "Pathetic" say Groups

'Fine amounts to a rounding error for a corporation the size of BP'

- Common Dreams staff

British oil company BP plead guilty to 14 felony and misdemeanor charges and agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines on Thursday, over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, the resolution was reportedly made in exchange for a waiver of future prosecution on the charges, and critics say it will not come close to covering the untold damage caused by the disaster and outstanding federal civil claims.

“Today's announcement of a proposed settlement between BP and the US government fails every aspect of the commonly accepted notion of penalty," said Greenpeace senior investigator Mark Floegel in response to the news.

"We’re stunned. This settlement is pathetic," said Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum. "The $4 billion penalty is equivalent to just a fifth of the company’s 2011 profits 

Quote:  "We're stunned.  This settlement is pathetic."

Well guess what folks, you ain't seen nothing yet.  Wait till Barry inks his Grand Bargain and ushers in Greek-like austerity.  Look Barry is keeping his promises, we just ain't listening:  the coming austerity and rampant corporate crimes with no consequences is definitely "Change you can believe in."  Ask Wall St. and BP if you don't believe me.

"Change is gonna come." (I am a craven, heartless, dumber than dumb politician and I approve this message).


It's not hard to define the Black agenda

During the old white male chimp-out after the election, the Republican cavemen charged Black people with wanting "free sh*t!"

Once you keep this in mind, the more you'll clearly see that this isn't a Black president. This is the president for and by the likes of people who are in groups like the Trilateral Commission: hence Dr. Cornel West' extremely accurate labeling of Obama as a Rockefeller Republican.

Clear litmus test to see if you have a Black president:

"The Second Bill of Rights" (the proposal that got FDR murdered by Wall street & London)


The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. [1] In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee everyone:

•Employment, with a living wage
•Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
•Medical care
•Social security

The modern approach:

•1% Wall Street Sales Tax
•No Cuts
•Student Loan Amnesty
•Stop All Foreclosures: New Frazier-Lemke Act
•Medicare for All
•Jobless Benefits for 99ers and Beyond
•10% National Usury Law
•Minimum Wage and Living Wage
•Restore Food Stamp Benefits
•Seize and Nationalize the Federal Reserve System
•0% Federal Credit for Production

Other proposals:

•Real investigations and prosecutions of persons, and/or the break up of institutions behind the murders of Abraham Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X.

•Real investigations and prosecutions of persons, and/or the break up of institutions that were behind 9/11, COINTELPRO, the international drug trade, the prison industrial complex, police brutality, gentrification, and the financial crisis.

•No beer summits with racist cops. Lol.