soylent green energy - it's made of people!

The UN has called for an immediate suspension of government-mandated US ethanol production, adding to pressure on Barack Obama to address the food-versus-fuel debate in the run-up to presidential elections.

Most US ethanol is made from corn. The dispute over ethanol promotion pits states such as Iowa that benefit from higher corn prices – and in some cases are swing states in the election – against livestock-raising states such as Texas that are helped by lower corn prices.

The UN intervention will be seized upon by state governors, lawmakers and the meat and livestock industry, who have expressed alarm at surging prices for corn. Members of the Group of 20 leading economies – including France, India and China – have already expressed concern about the US ethanol policy.

The US is poised to divert around 40 per cent of its corn into ethanol because of the Congress-enacted mandate despite “huge damage” to the crop because of the worst drought in at least half a century, José Graziano da Silva, director-general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, warned.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that [ethanol] mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channelled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Financial Times.

---

source:
As Starvation Looms, UN Begs Obama to Suspend Biofuel Mandates
via Hawaii Free Press from:
Environmentalists Implementing their Population Control Plans - August 9, 2012

turn of the screw(ed)

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." - Barack Obama (2008)

he lied...

as a matter of fact, when you think about it (assuming, of course, you think), the tax increase hits the poor much heavier than the rich.
and here's the proof:

Income up to:	Marginal Tax Rate 2012	Tax Paid	Effective Tax Rate	2013 Marginal	2013 Tax Paid	2013 Effective	Difference Paid
$8,700	10.0%	$870	10.0%	15.0%	$1,305	15.0%	$435
$35,350	15.0%	$4,868	13.8%	15.0%	$5,303	15.0%	$435
$85,650	25.0%	$17,443	20.4%	28.0%	$19,387	22.6%	$1,944
$178,650	28.0%	$43,483	24.3%	31.0%	$48,217	27.0%	$4,734
$388,350	33.0%	$112,684	29.0%	36.0%	$123,709	31.9%	$11,025
example: $500,000	35.0%	$151,761	30.4%	39.6%	$167,922	33.6%	$16,161

"For they all cast in from the surplus that they had, but this one has cast in from her want, everything that she had; she cast in all her possessions." - Jesus (Mark 12:44)

the problem is simple... the poor need what little money they have... the rich can spare a dime... this is the basis for much of the liberal's arguments... tax the rich; they can afford it... unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life... there aren't enough rich people to siphon off.

in 2009 (which is the data i have handy... i'd look up 2011, but i'm being lazy), there were about 140.5 million tax returns in the US... 4 million tax returns (that's 2.8% of all returns) from earners of $200,000 or more... from those under that magic number, there were 136.5 million tax returns (or 97.2%).

of the income tax collected from the 2.8% of rich folk, the IRS collected $434 billion... from the other 97.2% of the poor folk, the IRS collected $432 billion... literally half of all of the taxes collected came from those bastard 2.8% rich people who aren't paying their fair share.

a good liberal will reference Mark 12:44 in an effort to squeeze more money from the rich... the problem is the rich are the ones investing in retirement accounts, investing in businesses, and hiring people... they pay salaries of everyone (economically) below them... they put the most into Social Security (which should make any good Marxist happy)... every tax on the rich is also a tax on the poor... it creates more unemployed workers... it takes money out of investment funds... it means less goes into Social Security.

and for God's sake, stop extending the Bush Era Tax Cuts... it's just less money going into Social Security... 2% every year is being withheld from Social Security because of this... end those, and cut 2% from tax payers over $200,000... they'll invest it... they'll hire people... they'll save Social Security... we'll help the poor, create jobs, and become a profitable nation again.

this is not rocket science... it's economics.

---

source:
United States: 2013 Federal Income Tax Update
23 May 2012
Article by James N. Phillips and Timothy C. Smith of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

eugenics much?

Pursuant to PPACA’s provision for no-cost preventive care services for women, insurance policies will be required to provide no-cost prenatal genetic testing starting August 1, 2012. A preventive treatment exists in response to many non-genetic prenatal tests.

There is no treatment pre- or post-natally for the extra 21^st-chromosomal material that causes Down syndrome. Currently, an estimated 400,000 Americans have Down syndrome. Characterizing prenatal testing for Down syndrome as “preventive care” expresses a policy that fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome should be prevented from being born. Indeed, a member of the Court’s majority, Justice Ginsberg, previously stated in an interview that one purpose of abortion is to reduce “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Population reduction is exactly what happens where there is a public policy for prenatal genetic testing.

In and of itself, prenatal testing is value neutral and simply provides information—indeed, the diagnosis of Down syndrome is typically accompanied by shock because it, too, is unexpected. Further, reducing the cost of prenatal testing through public policies is not necessarily problematic. But if prenatal testing is to be offered at no-cost, why is there not a corresponding mandate to provide all of the information necessary for an expectant mother to make an informed decision?

To say that a genetic condition should be prevented, with the only means of that prevention being abortion, is morally objectionable. It hearkens back to the eugenics atrocities of the last century. To further have that goal stated by a federal regulation is grossly objectionable and, one would hope, unexpected by our elected officials, as it very likely was when the regulations were passed.

source:
Supreme Court Unexpectedly Upholds Regulatory Elimination of Down Syndrome July 12, 2012 By Amy Julia Becker

---

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

source:
The Place of Women on the Court By EMILY BAZELON Published: July 7, 2009