>> ^Psychologic:

Ah, so it's a bigger deal now because it involves a US citizen.
All those other people we've killed in drone strikes... they were "foreigners" so fewer people cared.

How about we just stop bombing people in general?


No, it's mostly the same few people that care.

The specifics here are just a clearer violation of the law.

Ah, so it's a bigger deal now because it involves a US citizen.

All those other people we've killed in drone strikes... they were "foreigners" so fewer people cared.


How about we just stop bombing people in general?

>> ^hpqp:

oh @marbles darling, did I touch a nerve?
I already told you, I am a program run by the New World Order to scour the Sift for renegade truth-bearers such as yourself. Don't you think you should stop trying to attract your worst enemy's attention? Tin foil hats cannot stop predator drones you know.
>> ^marbles:
hpqp's arrogance (or more like the abundance thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a tool. An ignorant one at best, a state owned one at worst.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski's evidence (or more like lack thereof) up 'till now suggests that he is a quack. A well-intentioned one at best, a fraudulent one at worst.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business





Oh, I get it. So you mimic government propaganda then. Maybe that explains why you're using Obama's tasteless predator drone joke.

Alex Pareene: "Hah! It's funny because predator drone strikes in Pakistan have killed literally hundreds of completely innocent civilians"

Absolutely you have a right to your opinion! I was quite clear that you can disagree with her.

It seems to me that you do concede my main point in your sentence that begins "She may not be a shill for the Government." That is what I was objecting to -- the ascribing of motivations.

Seems to me you are conceding that indeed you don't know her motivations.

So we agree! I like it when we can agree!

This is just a pet peeve of mine. Bugs me. I have observed how, in both public and private life, the presumption that someone knows someone else's motivations can lead to an escalation of tensions rather than to true debate about issues.

I struggle with it myself. It has taken years of practice to back away from statements like that.

I'm a great person in a crisis, after all this practice. Just recently, my dad got sick and his wife and family got seriously weird towards him. I managed to hold the center and didn't let it descend into emotional chaos, as both sides flailed away, ascribing motivations right and left.

I recognize that it is my pet peeve. It comes up a lot in the sift comments. Most times, I ignore it.

Couldn't tell you why this time I felt the need to engage. Maybe because I adore Rachel so much? Felt the need to defend her from an unfair attack? (Please note, I'm not saying you have to agree with her. Just that the ascribing motivations felt unfair. Which you agree is correct.)

Blah blah blah. Pet peeves. Annoying, aren't they?



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
"Towards the end of the interview (~8:05) they begin discussing Assange and WikiLeaks, where she characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist. She claims that the only information released was either minor or "unsafe" (so which is it?), yet nevertheless displayed inherent weaknesses in US information security protections.

I assume that she considers 'minor' many of the events revealed by the leaks, such as:
* Pfizer's pressuring/blackmail of Nigerian prosecutors to settle over the investigation of illegal tests of drugs on sick children
* US's role in sabotaging Cancun climate talks
* Cover up of US drone strikes that killed innocent civilians in Yemen by Yemeni and US officials
* The revelation that US armed forces turned a blind eye to Iraqi police torture and murder of prisoners
* Shell Oil's boastful admissions of infiltration in to Nigerian govt.
* etc., etc.
* etc."


LOL. What sir am I guessing at or presuming exactly? And what reasons am I "making up"? As stated above. If she's repeating the bullshit we hear on the "news" every day from our own elected officials, ("characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist".) then she's certainly not in favor of his actions. Since she claims to be a journalist, why the hell isn't she doing her job? As the lawyer in the CNN video that's in the #2 spot pointed out several times to the CNN "Reporter" about her doing HER job. She may not be a shill for the Government, but she definitely isn't asking the right questions, nor is she blaming the correct people. She should be calling out the people who did the things in the documents instead of killing the messenger.

That's MY opinion. See, I have a right to mine as well. Don't recall ever saying no-one else has a right to theirs. But you certainly implied that I have no right to mine since it's clealrly: "just plain wrong headedness"

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So here's my pet peeve.... folks who think they know the motivations and intentions of other people without asking them.

You can disagree with Rachel about her point of view. To presume that you know what motivates her is just plain wrong headedness.

I see the same thing outside of the public realm, in every day life, all the time. I see it in posts here on the sift all the time.

How can you possibly know she is a shill for the government? You are guessing. You cannot possibly know that.

Disagree her opinion about Assange and Wikileaks for your own good reasons. I don't see that it is necessary to make up reasons.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of anyone who thinks what Assange is doing is wrong/criminal. We should not be lied to by our own Government, period. They should not be allowed to continue to do things in our name that make America and the American citizens look bad. Their actions put our lives in danger. And quite frankly, I'm not very happy knowing there's people in the world that want to kill me because of things the American Government has done in my name without my knowledge.

She's proving herself to be just another talking head/shill for the Government agenda. In my eyes, at this point she and MSNBC (I'll also throw CNN in there for good measure.) for the most part are no better than the lying morons at FAUX NEWZ. They just have a different slant on their lies. One network lies in favor of the right, the other for the left. It's really quite disgusting the way these people sell their souls, and sell out the American people to have money, and fame. I really thought she was one of the good ones. Now, I have changed my mind.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

Ahh! I knew there was a catch, there is a remaining 'non-combat' force of about 56,000. These will still be trained to carry out attacks, working alongside private contractor personnel (which are having their presense doubled!).

So it's essentially business as usual, we just won't hear about it.

Edit: Ohh btw, the contractors will be carrying out Predator drone strikes. Certainly no problems predicted there.