Barry's Buffoons Thread:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
obama-the-great.jpg




Obama Science Czar Called for Carbon Tax to Redistribute Wealth from Global 'North' to 'South'
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
By Christopher Neefus

CNSNews.com) ? John P. Holdren, who then-President-elect Barack Obama nominated as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, called just five months before his nomination for a global climate-change agreement that would allow wealth to be redistributed from countries in the global "North" to countries in the "South."

On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program ?Democracy NOW!? Holdren told host Amy Goodman: ?It?s important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.?

51692.jpg

Dr. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. (AP photo)


There really is no end to these nuts that Barry puts forth as a CZAR of something. Just replace CZAR with MINISTER and we are really close to National Socialism, uhhh the Nazi Party, Bring the heat.
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
President Obama to Make Recess Appointment of CMS Administrator Republicans Attacking

President Obama to Make Recess Appointment of CMS Administrator Republicans Attacking

President Obama to Make Recess Appointment of CMS Administrator Republicans Attacking as 'Expert on Rationing'

With Congress officially on recess, President Obama will on Wednesday use his ability to make recess appointments to name one of his more controversial nominees: Donald Berwick, nominee to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The April nomination of Berwick -- president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement -- was in trouble and might not have been able to meet Senate confirmation due to comments Berwick made in the past about rationing health care. Even if Berwick could have been confirmed by the Senate, Democrats have little appetite for another round of fighting about changes to the health care system, Democrats said.

In an interview last year with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said society makes decisions about rationing all the time, and that the "decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

He has also praised the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which he said had "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn."

Said Berwick, "You can say, 'Well, we shouldn?t even look.' But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited -- we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can?t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base."

Berwick said the degree to which the knowledge base is "linked directly to policy and decision is a matter of choice. You could make it advisory, or you could make it mandatory, or you could make it a policy rule. But to remain ignorant of the cost implications of a drug that is marginally better than what is already out there is simply bad policy."


Because of these comments and others, Berwick was criticized by conservatives, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, calling him an ?expert on rationing.? The Republican Policy Committee sought to directly tie Berwick's praise of the UK's NICE with some of the more troubling testimonials against the UK system.
In response to these and similar criticisms, a number of physicians' groups and health care organizations wrote a letter on Berwick's behalf, saying "Unfortunately, some of Dr. Berwick?s speeches and writings have been quoted in ways that misrepresent his beliefs. Specifically, it has been suggested that Dr. Berwick is an advocate of health care rationing and that he in some way supports the government making health care decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors. This misrepresentation does a disservice to Dr. Berwick who has a long history as a leader in promoting patient-centered care."

Berwick, they said, "has consistently prioritized patients? needs and preferences not only through his best practice initiatives, but also by teaching health professionals how to put patients at the center of health care decision- making through IHI?s health professions training work. In short, Dr. Berwick?s commitment to patient-centered care is about putting control of health care decisions in the hands of informed patients and their families, working in partnership with their physicians."
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer posted on his blog this evening that many "Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points. But with the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors? care under the Affordable Care Act, there?s no time to waste with Washington game-playing."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversees approximately one third of all health care spending in the United States, more than $800 billion. Becker's nomination had been endorsed by President George W. Bush's two CMS administrators, Mark McClellan and Tom Scully, the American Hospital Association, the AARP, and others.
Obama has used his Constitutional ability to make recess appointments for a few other controversial nominees, including labor attorney Craig Becker, now on the National Labor Relations Board, and Chai Feldblum, now on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

At this point in his presidency, President Bush had made 15 recess appointments. Obama's actions Wednesday will bring his total to 18. White House officials argued that Obama has a total of 189 nominees pending before the Senate, with almost half of them pending for more than three months.


President Bush, a White House official said, "was not facing the same level of obstruction. Twenty-eight of President Obama?s nominees have been held on the Senate floor for more than three months. At this point in the Bush administration, only six of his nominees had been waiting that long."

UPDATE: Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., called the recess appointment "an insult to the American people. Dr. Berwick is a self-professed supporter of rationing health care and he won't even have to explain his views to the American people in a Congressional hearing. Once again, President Obama has made a mockery of his pledge to be accountable and transparent."
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein

U.S. president tells Channel 2 Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.
By Haaretz Service
Tags: Barack Obama Benjamin Netanyahu Middle East peace Israel news U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.

In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."

U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walking at the White House, on July 6, 2010.

Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."

"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.

"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.


Obama added that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. "I think [Netanyahu] understands we've got a fairly narrow window of opportunity? We probably won?t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It?s going to be difficult."

The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.

When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that "I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about," adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to "secure Israel for another 60 years"

In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not "blindly optimistic" regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be "a great source of hope."

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin "very soon", but warned that they would be "very, very tough."
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.

Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.

At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. "This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation," he said, adding "the sooner the better."
"Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will," he said.
................................................................

How can you not just love this President.

Rough two years but alot accomplished.

He passed a Health Care bill when nobody gave him a holy chance in hell.

He stood up to the crooked Insurance Co, drug Mfg, and doctors who are still stealing us down the bankrupt path.

As far as protecting the country. I feel alot safer with Obama than I ever did with madman Bush and President Cheney, the war dogs.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program ?Democracy NOW!? Holdren told host Amy Goodman: ?It?s important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.?

There really is no end to these nuts that Barry puts forth as a CZAR of something. Just replace CZAR with MINISTER and we are really close to National Socialism, uhhh the Nazi Party, Bring the heat.
I'm pretty much for as much redistribution of wealth as possible.

Most of the worlds wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few. So if using revenues from carbon taxes to help save tropical rainforests by slowing deforestation is another form of wealth redistribution, I'm OK with it in theory. In practice, it could be very difficult to pull off though.

I suppose Dr. Holdren's a nut for suggesting that population control's in the best interest of the planet and our ultimate survival as a species as well?

Trench
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
at least its differant charts

DTBlackgumby pulls out the same fawking one
for a multitude of explanations.
 

pd1

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 24, 2001
1,288
57
48
67
missouri
Here is a redistribution of wealth chart:


r-DISPARITY-huge.jpg




Basically what I've felt for quite a while. If you look at the chart from 1994 on, that about sums it up.

That is real redistribution of wealth. I still can't see why dogs is so against it.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Here is a redistribution of wealth chart:


r-DISPARITY-huge.jpg

I presume KC thinks high incomes are unworthy, and the government should be able to dictate what someone can keep.

One would wonder why the government should have the power to tell taxpayers that some people are more entitled to their earnings than the people who earned it? This isn?t about who makes what, it?s about the power to appropriate other people?s property. (At least that's what I thought the post was about)

I don't see the logic of coveting other people?s money as good. I understand the need for taxes, I also understand the desire for hating on rich folks.

I don?t understand the need to take ever increasing amounts of other people?s money. Nor do I see the value of ever smaller numbers of taxpayers, supporting ever larger numbers of free riders. Taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people is a losing philosophy.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,055
1,343
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I presume KC thinks high incomes are unworthy, and the government should be able to dictate what someone can keep.

One would wonder why the government should have the power to tell taxpayers that some people are more entitled to their earnings than the people who earned it? This isn?t about who makes what, it?s about the power to appropriate other people?s property. (At least that's what I thought the post was about)

I don't see the logic of coveting other people?s money as good. I understand the need for taxes, I also understand the desire for hating on rich folks.

I don?t understand the need to take ever increasing amounts of other people?s money. Nor do I see the value of ever smaller numbers of taxpayers, supporting ever larger numbers of free riders. Taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people is a losing philosophy.

You are completely fucking lost, dude. Do you think the rich people just started making more money by chance - OR - do you think there could be some legislative changes that helped propel their income FAR beyond that of everyone else? Wake up.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
You are completely fucking lost, dude. Do you think the rich people just started making more money by chance - OR - do you think there could be some legislative changes that helped propel their income FAR beyond that of everyone else? Wake up.

What legislative changes? I guess Warren Buffett was the only one to get rich with hard work?

Being wealthy is merely a matter of making good choices throughout your life. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. Ditto for the poor.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Being wealthy is merely a matter of making good choices throughout your life. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. Ditto for the poor.

This is correct to a point but when the top 1% of the country owns 80% of the wealth, something is wrong. If you can't see that there really is no helping you.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
This is correct to a point but when the top 1% of the country owns 80% of the wealth, something is wrong. If you can't see that there really is no helping you.

I guess I?m missing the point then. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the error of my ways. The rich are too rich so we need to bring them down so we can make ourselves better?is that the answer?

To me it just makes sense that you get more of the behavior you reward, and less of the behavior you punish. To me, taxes are punishment. When you tax something you are going to get less of whatever is taxed. If the cigarette tax is increased you have less people smoking. It just makes sense right?

So when you tax work?you get less productivity. To make matters worse, the harder you work the more you?re taxed and the more severe your punishment becomes.

Poor people don?t provide jobs. If you want to tax professional athletes at 50% of their earnings?go for it. If you want to tax movie stars at 50% of their earnings?go for it. Besides what to they produce anyway?right?
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I guess I?m missing the point then. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the error of my ways. The rich are too rich so we need to bring them down so we can make ourselves better?is that the answer?

To me it just makes sense that you get more of the behavior you reward, and less of the behavior you punish. To me, taxes are punishment. When you tax something you are going to get less of whatever is taxed. If the cigarette tax is increased you have less people smoking. It just makes sense right?

So when you tax work?you get less productivity. To make matters worse, the harder you work the more you?re taxed and the more severe your punishment becomes.

Poor people don?t provide jobs. If you want to tax professional athletes at 50% of their earnings?go for it. If you want to tax movie stars at 50% of their earnings?go for it. Besides what to they produce anyway?right?

When CEO's make 200+ times what their employees make, something is wrong. Do you really think they deserve to make 200 times what their workers make? That is crazy. Without their employees they are nothing. The rich are only rich at the expense of the poor. Wake up.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,483
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
This is correct to a point but when the top 1% of the country owns 80% of the wealth, something is wrong. If you can't see that there really is no helping you.

Will you liberals go to Huffers post and spread your misinfo amongst your own. Its the blind leading the blind--

Sheez little wonder your all for redistribution of wealth. Anyone ever tell you garbage in-garbage out.

Tell us something you know something about --like what the bottom 20% owns.

How much wealth do the richest 1% have? - Yahoo! Answers
Jul 17, 2007 ... The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. ... high income Asia-<WBR>Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. ...
<CITE>answers.yahoo.com ? Social Science ? Economics</CITE> - Cached - Similar
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Will you liberals go to Huffers post and spread your misinfo amongst your own. Its the blind leading the blind--

Sheez little wonder your all for redistribution of wealth. Anyone ever tell you garbage in-garbage out.

Tell us something you know something about --like what the bottom 20% owns.

How much wealth do the richest 1% have? - Yahoo! Answers
Jul 17, 2007 ... The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. ... high income Asia-<WBR>Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. ...
<CITE>answers.yahoo.com ? Social Science ? Economics</CITE> - Cached - Similar

DTB is more anal than usual today.

Just for future reference if I were you I wouldn't use Yahoo Answers for facts.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Will you liberals go to Huffers post and spread your misinfo amongst your own. Its the blind leading the blind--

Sheez little wonder your all for redistribution of wealth. Anyone ever tell you garbage in-garbage out.
Perhaps you'd care to respond to this chart DTB? :0corn

DTB... Here's a little hint in understanding this chart: YOU are a member of the bottom 80% that accounts for only 7% of the financial wealth in this country.

saupload_wealth_distribution_usa.png


Trench
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top