One of their congressmen that happens to be a pastor said that their political 'deal' to increase their country's debt limit (see Note 1) and cut spending is a 'sugar coated satan sandwich'. The reason that 'holy' fella said that was because he is afraid that those pending cuts would affect medicare, social security etc which according to him is 'anti-thesis to the teachings of all the great religions of the world which say that less fortunate people should be helped' (see video in below link). Wah, so righteous...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dem-rep-emanuel-cleaver-calls-debt-deal-a-sugar-coated-satan-sandwich/
What that holy lying or dumb fella does not say or know is they had for centuries been making their satan sandwiches from other people's flour! And they sugar coated it so well that many a fool around the world thought that those satan sandwiches were made out of their country's greatness and not out of conduct anti-thesis to the teachings of their own religion (as if it mattered). See Note 2.
Anyone from places like Africa that see Americans collecting social benefits and free medical care would be scratching their heads wondering how those 'poor' Americans got to be so fat if they are so poor. For those that had not seen real poor people in Africa and India etc., really poor people in those places are 'skin and bones only' hor (may be because they don't get to eat sugar coated satan sandwiches).
The explanation for that 'contradiction' is best summed up by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin who said that that country is a 'parasite on the world' living on credit from the rest of the world.
http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Putin-US-parasite-world-afpsg-1485206393.html?x=0
The more hosts a parasite can feed off the fatter it gets - Parasite Principle number 1.
Parasite Principle Number 2? Keep the parasitic act going for as long as possible (dead hosts are of no use to parasites). That's what 'extending the debt ceiling' essentially means.
At the ASEAN meeting a few weeks ago where leaders from Asia were present, Hilary Clinton was asked by reporters whether the debt limit issue will be 'resolved'. Her confident reply was 'it will be resolved'. The smirk in her face was more telling. That smirk said 'of course we will, that way we can screw you fellas some more...' (the biggest creditors for that parasite are Asian countries).
Note 1:
The US has a 'law' set in the first half of the 20th century that requires its government to get approval from its legislature (i.e. parliament) before it can borrow more money beyond the limit previously approved. Depending on which report you read, they have extended that limit by 80 to 100 times in less than a century! They do it so often they have lost count of it. It is also psychologically 'good' for thieves not to remember (at least pretend to forget) the not so pleasant things they did.
One president alone extended it 18 times in 8 years! It is not a coincident that that country's debt grew the most during that fella's presidency. But that did not seem to be such a big deal then - the whole world was busy crying over some 'Sept 11' and supporting their 'wars on terror'. You can say, the world was too shocked and awed by that bully to know what was happening behind the curtains. But, as many people said, those wars were just excuses for them to raid others' wealth to pay for their 'parasitic growth' and perhaps to distract others from what was really happening to their debt driven economy. It is not a coincident the 2008/9 financial crisis happened at the end of the same idiot's 8-year presidency.
Note 2:
Anyone that knows their history knows that they started off by robbing the lands of others a few hundred years ago (like Chinamen in Malaya/Singapore, they were just losers from Europe looking for 'paradise').
In fact, it was so good they decided to keep the spoils to themselves by whacking their British lords and send them packing to concentrate on India, Asia and Africa - only suckers think it was because of some dispute over tea (there is always more to Tea Parties...)
By then they already were in debt (for whacking the greatest empire of that time is not cheap hor) and you know how they pay those debts off? They settled their 'war bonds' by exchanging them with titles to 'worthless' lands belonging to.... the Red Indians (that's why it was worthless). Sound like selling Facebook shares?
After 'independence', they were free to do what they liked. So, when they needed to grow they just grabbed more and more lands belonging to...the Red Indians again (according to the British they had more respect for the indigenous people and used to stop indiscrimate land grabs...of course).
Every 'agreement' they signed with the Red Indians did not mean anything to them. Basically, each time they wanted more land, they got the Indians to agree to cede more. When the Indians did not agree and decided to fight back, they just called them savages and killed them off and sign a new agreement. Then repeat the cycle again and again until nothing left (don't know how but the Red Indians and their land just disappeared - may be they read some great book and turned white).
A few decades later they grew big enough to whack their biggest competitor left in that continent - the 'Mexicans' who were really Spanish bastards with tiny amounts of Aztec blood to qualify them as 'savages' and thus deserving of gringo's domination.
That was how that country 'grew' from the east coast to the west coast of North America - they called it their Manifest Destiny (which is not very manifest to many till today).
Then supposedly to get them from east to west quicker, they decided to build rail roads (pony express too slow). But to do that they needed cheap labour which Chinamen had huge supply of (better and cheaper than black slaves). So a fella (who later started a famous university) lobbied their government to allow him to import large numbers of chinamen workers.
But those chinamen soon found out that those rail roads were also meant to get gringo to some gold mines at a place chinamen soon called 'gold mountains'. That was also why they whacked the Mexicans (don't believe? go watch Zorro). So when the rail road jobs were done, those half-child half-devil (according to the English writer Rudayrd Kipling in his poem - below link) chinamen turned to competing with great free whitemen for those gold which is of course a no-no (people had to whack the Mexicans for that right and you chinamen get it free?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
So the same fella that imported cheap chinamen railroad labour then sponsored a 'bill' called the Chinese Exclusion Act to get rid of those idiotic chinamen who then had no choice but to go to places like Singapore and Malaya to 'star' as coolies while that whiteman got filthy rich on railroad and Mexican gold....rich enough to start his 'great' Stanford University. (Canada and Australia also adopted similar legislations to ban Chinamen - can see why they all are such 'coveted' places for Chinamen idiots of today?)
But even that vast Mexican land and gold grab was not enough to satisfy those bastards and they ended up fighting each other for the right to boss over that by then 'huge empire' . There was nothing civil about their civil war. And only half-childs reading children history books think that it was all about freeing slaves.
After they sorted out whether the blue or the red gang become the boss, they decided that Spanish north America was not enough and declared that the remainder of Spanish America is their 'sphere' (Monroe Doctrine). After that, any one in Central or South America that did not listen to them (i.e. let them boss around and take their resources on the cheap) would get popped. Only in the last decade or so (as gringo empire stealth collapses) did those half countries got some real freedom.
Then, even Spanish Americas were not enough. They wanted all of Spain's colonial possessions. That's how islands from Hawaii to Guam to Philippines got to be 'part of USA'.
Then came the World Wars where everyone else just killed each other off while gringo pretended to play nice guy while selling arms and other supplies to some of them. After all the other major powers were left half-dead, they stepped in to become 'leader of the free world' where anyone around the world (not just Americas) that did not listen to them were not allowed to trade with others by way of various excuses like being communists, leftists etc.
With such history you think they really believe in freedom, fair trade and free markets?
[Guardian Report]
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 August 2011 19.45 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/01/us-debt-republicans-smell-victory
It was easy wandering round the corridors of Congress yesterday to spot who had won the debt standoff. In huddles with party colleagues or heading off to caucus meetings to discuss the details of the deal or standing in front of TV cameras, it was the Republicans who had all the smiles.
Democratic members of Congress looked uneasy, at times shifty; and some downright were angry. "If I were a Republican, this is a night to party," Emanuel Cleaver, a Democratic member of the House from Missouri, told MSNBC. Cleaver, a Methodist pastor and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, which met to discuss its reaction to the deal, dismissed it as a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich".
Even the Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who helped negotiate the compromise with Barack Obama and the Republican leaders at the weekend, had serious reservations. Pelosi, a Californian on the liberal wing of the party on many issues, picked up on Cleaver's food metaphor and expanded on it. The deal, she told ABC, was a "Satan sandwich with Satan fries on the side". She voted last night for the bill to raise the debt ceiling, which passed by 269 to 161, but told colleagues in advance she would leave it to their consciences how they voted. Democrats came into the House chamber in a subdued mood, walking slowly as if at a funeral. The near silence on their side of the chamber contrasted with the noise on the Republican side, as members chatted away and hugged one another.
The 15-minute vote began at 6.50pm. Unlike parliament, there is a screen above the chamber with all the names of members in lights and their votes recorded electronically with either a green Y or red N. The Republicans watched cheerfully; the Democrats could barely watch.
Republicans aligned to the Tea Party movement voted against but even they did not appear unhappy with the deal. In return for Congress raising the debt ceiling, normally a routine matter, the Republicans have secured more than $2 trillion in spending cuts and forced the Democrats to do this without any tax rises. The Tea Party Republicans did not get all they wanted but they got most of it, and sacrificed almost nothing in return.
The decisive day in Congress after weeks of a standoff was Sunday, when the Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, in negotiation with Barack Obama, reached agreement on the broad outline of a deal. Congress itself was eerily quiet. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, warned his fellow Democratic senators to remain on Capitol Hill. "I would not suggest [going to] a ball game," he said.
Even though they were around, the place was far from full of frantic politicians running up and down staircases and corridors, as might have been expected in a major crisis. Congress felt almost empty, occupied mainly by journalists, sitting at the foot of the statues of dead politicians and military leaders waiting for the leaders to come out.
By yesterday the place was packed, and there was excitement, the staircases and corridors filled with politicians discussing the merits of the deal and the looming votes. Obama opted against marching from the White House up Pennsylvania Avenue to Congress, as Jed Bartlet did in the West Wing, and instead sent vice-president Joe Biden, a Senate veteran. His job was to sell the deal to disenchanted members in the Senate and the House.
Getting the vote through the Senate was regarded by the Republican and Democratic leaderships as relatively easy. The House was the potential problem, with a revolt on the Republican side by Tea Party Republicans and a revolt from Democrats fearful of the impact on the poor. One of the left-leaning Democrats in the House, Raul Grijalva, from Arizona, reflected the view of many of his party colleagues, that the White House had surrendered too much: "This deal trades people's livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. This deal weakens the Democratic party as badly as it weakens the country.
"We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want."
What is galling for Democrats is that they hold the White House and the Senate while the Republicans hold only the House, the more junior of the two chambers. And yet is it the House that appears to be dictating events.
The House, which saw the Republicans take control in November, when there was an influx of members backed by the Tea Party movement, secured a win earlier this year when it threatened to shut down the federal government and Obama gave in. Now it appears he has again. "Capitulation" and "Cave-in" summed up the mood of many left-leaning Democrats.
One of the few independents in the Senate and one of the few American politicians to describe himself as a socialist, Bernie Sanders from Vermont, voted against. Expressing worry about the impact on social security, Medicare, Medicaid, community health centres, education and other programmes, he said he could not support a proposal that "balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country".
The House Speaker, John Boehner, addressing his own members, said that while the Republicans had not got everything they had wanted (such as an assurance that the Pentagon will not be a major victim of spending cuts), they had got most of it and changed the debate in Washington.
But his stance failed to sway the Tea Party Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, the Congresswoman who is seeking the party's nomination to take on Obama for the White House next year. She voted against.
"Throughout this process the president has failed to lead and failed to provide a plan," she said. "The 'deal' he announced spends too
much and doesn't cut enough. Someone has to say no. I will."
Boehner had better luck with other potential rebels. First he used policy arguments, but he saved his best for last: He told his colleagues that if they voted for the bill they could embark on a five-week holiday immediately afterwards. For a few waverers, that might have done the trick.
No comments:
Post a Comment