Q: Who are the holders of U.S. debt?
A: The biggest are the Social Security trust funds (16 percent), the Federal Reserve banks (12 percent), China (8 percent), Japan (7 percent) and mutual funds including money-market funds (6 percent).
There is a follow-up pie chart, and text; but just looking at the Fed not taking any hit, the foreign governments not taking any hit, the private investors not taking any hit; Social Security is left to take the full and complete brought-to-you-by Paul Ryan hit. This pie chart:
If debt reduction is to happen it will be screwing old folks; per Paul Ryan "policy wonkery," otherwise known as the GOP answer-man proposal of the "zombie eyed granny starver."
Who else might be in the camp (or camp following) the granny starver? You might be surprised, if naive, and angered yet more, if both jaded and informed. More later. Maybe.
Just remember, taxing the rich is apparently off the table, reform of corporate taxation is off the table, and as to who supports foreclosing such other policy options with screwing Social Security recipients the only remaining consideration on the table; guess who is on board and go figure.
Again, more later, maybe.
For something interesting, that opening FactCheck link has a sidebar link, here. Some people are as they are and for them CHANGE is unlikely.
__________UPDATE (revised and extended)__________
With regard to the furniture/furnishings takers, Warren in a clip surrounded by a critique.
The critique is basically that Warren confuses her own goals with those of the Clintons. Her goals and Bernie's goals - are they Clinton goals, or is Paul Ryan closer to the Clintons than Warren to the Clintons?
Among Warren goals is preservation of Social Security, just as Bernie is for it. Counter to Ryan, the granney starver. And, Warren is one of the most trustworthy politicians/academics sitting in the federal legislative branch. Trust Warren. Whoever else you trust, her policies and record are outstanding, and force trust more so than an endorsement at the tail end of an actual contest can change that into a distrust. She has her reasons, she endorses as she does, and then it is worth saying endorsements only count so much and what's her real choice at this point? Take a hike, endorse Bernie despite awful numbers against that, or get in line?
She got in line. Hopefully she bargained the endorsement in a trade for a Supreme Court nomination. She'd be a good Scalia replacement.
Whatever Warren's totality of motives for the endorsement may prove to be, it is wholly trustworthy that she honestly believes Ms. Clinton would be a better White House Commander in Chief person than either Trump or Paul Ryan. Regardless of how close the Clintons may be to sharing in the Paul Ryan-Social Security agenda, Warren cannot be faulted for believing Clinton, whatever faults the Clintons embody, is a cut better than Trump. The level of fervor Warren spoke with in getting in line can be questioned as unmerited, but enough said.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
This video - substitute "Paul Ryan" for "Marco Rubio," and watch. The attempt is to create a generational Angst. Old farts, okay they keep where they are; no hit. Young, well, the hit has to fall somewhere, and if you camp in our campgrounds we may reevaluate things, and put the hit on the old farts. We, The GOP, are open minded to who'd sell out - we can work with those who'd sell out the rest of us, for benefit of the robber barons; the malefactors of great wealth. A sell-out is always welcome in the Republican tent. What else did you think "Big Tent" meant?
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Jill Stein. Video, here and here. The disaffected need not take a hike on the top ballot spot. There is an outlet for telling the Democratic Party establishment we are tired of the crap, and progressives cannot be taken for granted - the insult of that is too offensive - and -
 |
| An intolerable premature superdelegate blight. |
_________FURTHER UPDATE (revised and extended)___________
Okay, Jill Stein as an alternative to tell the Democrats that progressives cannot be scorned and yet depended on to get in line every four years to continue voting for Rockefeller Republican people from the inner party's establishment [a.k.a. in line for voting a cramdown candidate winnowed from among the cadre of cramdowned superdelegates put in place to quell populism having a voice within the comfortable inner party hive]. See Stein on DemocracyNow, this short video, and decide for yourself how viable that might really be.
Online per MSNBC, Sanders after his recent White House meeting [before Obama endorsed the Clintons].
So it appears Sanders is getting in line, but intending to extract some form of concession from the haughty establishment. Good luck on that Bernie.
Four things would be substantial and attention getters that should not be ignored: 1- Firmly ending for the future the superdelegate blight. Has to be. 2- Deficit reduction has to be by tax reform, the rich paying more. 3- Stop screwing the young via student debt, and remediate things for those already under that obscenely heavy stone, a stone loved by the 1% as in "put them in debt behind the 8-ball to keep them docile and quiet." 4- A fifteen buck minimum wage consented to by the Clintons, who have enjoyed an apparent $250,000 minimum hourly wage, and who thus should have the minimally required conscience to not balk over fifteen bucks for non-Clintons.
If those four things are indelibly promised by the Clintons and allied souls; can they be trusted?
Of course not. But what else is in the realm of possible besides a Trump presidency; or even worse a Ryan putsch at the Republican convention where Trump would be sidelined and Ryan with his odious personality and policies would evolve into the 2016 GOP presidential candidate. Better Trump than Ryan. That is clear.
If there is a successful Ryan putsch, the song here would be hold your nose, vote for the Clintons. However, that point is not at all crystal clear, in that we must really try to discern, really and not superficially, to what actual policy degree the Clintons honestly differ from Ryan. At best, some might see a difference as Rockefeller Republicans vs take no prisoners GOP poisoning of all good still left in the nation.
"Ryan is worse than the Bush family," is a way of characterizing how truly awful he is. Some might say, "No different," but I conclude, "Worse."
WRAP UP: Readers who infer the opinion here is voting Jill Stein as an alternative to getting in line is not viable, would be correct.
But each person must decide for himself/herself. There still is the opportunity to leave the top ballot line blank. As if to say: None of these circus clowns is presidential, so none gets my vote being the sentiment. That is about where opinion here at Crabgrass stands at this point in time. Something in Jill Stein suggests a kinship with Trump, to me, personality-wise. The Democrats have done nothing via their cramdown of the Clintons to change Crabgrass feelings of near total distrust, but there is time until November and prudence involves waiting.
Last, a John Oliver thought:
If Trump University is not a University, what is that saying about Trump Steaks?
That's from an online item, under ten minutes long, should any reader care to watch.
_________________________________
FURTHER: Note that it was four points and not five, a fifth being getting the money out of politics. It is entirely inconceivable to even suggest the Clintons and their inner-hive confederates want that to ever happen. Or that they would ever permit it to come near to happening. Rail against Citizens United all you want, but another Clinton presidency would be without any chance of Citizens United being undone during such a presidency. They are offered the money, they take the money, in horrendous amounts, the pattern is real and ongoing; and while that fifth column anti-capital fifth suggestion would be D.O.A. in any Clinton redux, the other four concessions would be possible - with superdelegate reform being least likely. Note also that Paul Ryan has been discussed here more than once without the term "Antichrist" having ever been used. Such restraint shall, after this brief deviation, be maintained and such terminology shall never again appear here - a promise.