The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Abby Huntsman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abby Huntsman. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Did Fox News Mention Inciting Violence?



Crooks & Liars

Fox's Huntsman 'Asks' If Democrats' Criticisms Of Trumpcare 'Risk Inciting' Violence



As part of Fox & Friends' ongoing efforts to demonize any opposition to Dear Leader Donald Trump, cohost Abby Huntsman did her best to suggest that critics of Trumpcare are dangerous – while concern trolling about inflammatory rhetoric. Huntsman kicked off the propaganda by saying, "Lawmakers promised to clean up the fiery rhetoric on Capitol Hill…
StumbleUpon

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Abby Huntsman! MSNBC! What Are You Doing?






Today, The Cycle's Abby Huntsman showed her pathetic ignorance about the TRUTH about entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. This note clears up that confusion...

I've been writing and saying for a long time that Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with the deficit and debt. However, that's not completely true. It's half-true and I'm explaining why right now.

Over the past 2.5 years, I've written several posts and comments regarding the Fascist GOP talking point/propaganda about SS and Medicare adding to the deficit. Even Ronald Reagan famously said that they don't have anything to do with the deficit and debt. But, then, he went out and did something that did make them a part of the deficit and debt: he "borrowed" $500 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, from which SS and Medicare benefits are paid, to finance his deficit-spending. Reagan was the first of four US Presidents in a row that "raided" the SSTF to pay for deficit-spending. Sadly, President Clinton did, as well, but, he remains the only President to "pay it back" by raising the SS income tax "cap".

The biggest offender in raiding the fund was Bush 43. In early 2003, with one war and one coming plus tax breaks already in effect, Bush 43 and his party knew that they had to be financed somehow. At that time, there was more than $6 trillion in the SSTF. So, Bush 43 and his party raided the SSTF for $2.75 TRILLION to finance all of that deficit spending. In order to avoid being charged with grand larceny, Bush 43 and his Fascist acolytes left "Treasury Bonds" as "I.O.U.'s". To this day, those bonds are still drawing interest, which means that the SSTF is owed more than $3 TRILLION. It is that interest that's adding to the deficit.

But, here's how the statement at the top is half-true: we are not borrowing money to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. That's a pathetic Fascist GOP talking point and the GOP use it to justify their secret plan to abolish both programs, thereby leaving the money left over in the SSTF to be redistributed upwards to the wealthy and big corporate masters of the GOP in tax breaks.

So, yes, the SSTF is a CREDITOR of our national debt. But, there's something you must realize: only about 15% of the current $17 trillion debt is owned by "foreign interests", like China and foreign citizens, etc. Just 15%...the rest is "internal", owned by other governmental agencies who had their funds raided and American citizens. But, what do the Fascist GOP propagandists say, "we're borrowing money from China to pay our bills". That may be true for other programs, but, as for Medicare and Social Security, they are not being financed by debt. The SSTF is a CREDITOR and still has enough money in it to pay full benefits through 2037 and 75% afterwards.

Allow me to repeat: WE ARE NOT BORROWING MONEY TO PAY SS AND MEDICARE BENEFITS! 

I have to say, once again, how disappointed I am with Abby Huntsman... when GOP Con woman S.E. Cupp left MSNBC for CNN's Crossfire reboot, it was my hope that Abby would bring a Progressive or Moderate GOP voice to The Cycle. But, instead of showing us that she's actually informed about the truth of political matters, all we get from her is a parroting of Fascist GOP propaganda, talking points and BS. 


SHAME ON YOU, ABBY! SHAME ON YOU, PHIL GRIFFIN! (MSNBC President)
____________________________________


The Pardu
On March 15th, 2014, I published a piece with a focus on the Huntsman as a 27 year old daughter of a millionaire who was born to a billionaire and her comments of Food Stamp recipients.

I stand with Andrew Rei's comments about MSNBC management's decision to replace the "Unbrained" S.E. CUPP. Yet, the need to follow The Cycle business model with a woman conservative millennial (who happens to be perceived by some as "cute") seems to pose MSNBC management a staffing challenge.

Ultimately and existentially, Andrew Rei and I are wasting our critique. If MSNBC continues to staff the Cycle based on its current business model, management will not find any young (supposedly cute) conservative who will posit any differently than Cupp and Huntsman. They are of a paradigm mindset along this line: "We are concerned with what we give you." 

It doesn't matter that young Huntsman and young Cupp are of "ample" financial background. Huntsman is probably set for instant wealth upon the passing of certain family patriarchs. For anyone to believe any young conservative will offer intellectually based point-count-point is naive at best. Therefore, it seems we will continue to see The Cycle littered with mindless insensitive  conservative opine from a young (supposedly cute) millennial. 

To expect more from conservative America and young (supposedly cute) conservatives is simply "A Bridge Too Far."  MSNBC's continues to employee young women who are pure nefelibata without the remote prospect of reaching a viable path across that bridge (too far).
StumbleUpon

Saturday, March 15, 2014

27 Year Old Republican Millennial with Billionaire Lineage Wants To Make You Work Till Age 75!


Awesome Screenshot Capture; LA Times

March 14, 2014

Abby Huntsman, 27, daughter of GOP Presidential wanna-be Jon Huntsman, used a recent MSNBC's "The Cycle" closing-the-show rant opportunity to speak from the core of GOP ideology. Huntsman spoke at length about the need to raise the age requirement for Social Security benefits to age seventy-five (75). She proves that age and generation makes no difference if one's ideology is so deeply embedded it has evolved to a paradigm. Ideology can change with information, intellect, maturity and the desire for openness, all focused on decisiveness. A paradigm is like a drug addiction; it is with the host human for life. 

You might say, "But Pardu there is such a phenomenon as a "paradigm shift." Of course, I will retort within the realm of my definition, above. My retort will direct you to the fragment of the sentence after the conjunction "and", below. 

"Ideology can change with information, intellect, maturity and the desire for openness, all focused on decisiveness."

Young Huntsman and the gift of her father that manifest in a high paying spot on MSNBC.



Paradigm?  

Ms. Huntsman is the product of family upbringing which includes Mitt Romney-like spoon-feeding from birth to the privilege of a father whose politics has helped secure her your current job. Undoubtedly Young Huntsman doesn't need to suffer the rigors of a daily job. She chooses to do so, which is commendable to say the least.  Her persuasive speech reveals a much  more than a wealthy 27 year old who if she chooses could have no serious worldly cares. Her 'push' for retirement age 75 has roots as a core GOP paradigm, despite our not hearing the policy item for quite sometime. Raising the retirement age sits under the cover of GOP policy as surely as the party's aversion to taxing the nation's wealthy and corporate entities. 

How can we help but contemplate was Huntsman's short speech sanctioned by party powerbrokers? Was it encouraged by GOP operatives who watch-over and coach "lockstep" GOP ideology to the extent their public figures receive copies of issue playbooks? Or, did young Huntsman venture out on her own to simply fulfill her turn in The Cycle's end of show rant box? If the latter is the case, one has to question the comment during a key mid-term election year.

Would Ms. Huntsman force people to continue struggle in jobs, despite living to what most would consider advanced age?  Does she really believe companies will continue to employee people as they grow well into their late 60s and early 70s? As companies dispense older employees, does Ms. Huntsman have strategies for the older workers to bridge the gap to the GOP 75 year of age social eligibility?

GOP policy since FDR has been, "No"
 to Social Security."  

FDR's "Let Me Warn You!"
_____________________________  
Republicans spend enormous amounts of time and energy working to do great harm to Social Security and Medicare. Medicare is an issue as the population ages, and so called "entitlement" programs consume copious amounts of mandatory federal spending. The worker payroll contribution benefit should receive focused efforts to protect, reinforce and strengthen benefits aging Americans.  Social Security, on the other hand, is also not an "entitlement" program. People, employees, workers, Americans also via payroll contribution for the full extent of their working lives pay into the Social Security system. Social Security is  very well funded through the latter years of the 21st Century. Before we look at another critical GOP Social Security fallacy, I offer a web page with critical information. 
Strengthen Social Security Dot Gov

How important is Social Security for retirement?

For most Americans, Social Security is essential for retirement. Two out of 3 seniors rely on Social Security benefits for most of their income. And Social Security’s importance is increasing. Americans have traditionally relied on the “three-legged stool” of Social Security, personal savings and employer pensions to have sufficient income for retirement. But savings rates have dropped, housing values have plummeted and the availability and value of employer pension plans have rapidly declined. For many, Social Security is the only stable leg of the “three-legged stool." 
How is Social Security funded?

Social Security’s revenue was about $800 billion in 2010. The program has three sources of income. The largest source comes from workers and employers who contribute 6.2% each on wages up to $106,800 a year; this raises about 80% of the total. The second source is investment income from Social Security’s reserves, which are held in Trust and invested in interest-bearing U.S. treasury bonds; this raises about 15% of total revenue. Finally, Social Security gets about 5% of its revenue from the taxes that beneficiaries pay on their Social Security benefits. 
Is Social Security going bankrupt?

Social Security will never go bankrupt. Its major source of income comes from the contributions of workers and employers; as long as there are workers, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress took no action, Social Security can pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 25 years and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2037 there is a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits. Social Security has faced far worse financial problems in the past, but Congress has never failed to act to ensure full funding of benefits. 
Read more linked in title above
We posit cutting human services programs is an easy-out for a tea party infested Congress that finds it all too easy to take the  'scalpel' to social /human services programs.  As promised, we also look at GOP policy and its potential impact on the American experience and life for older Americans. Let me be more specific. "Potential Impact" on life for all who become eligible for Social Security, but "disparate impact" for some racial and gender groups. It may not bother the GOP that white Americans live moderately longer than black Americans. I suggest we can rest assured the GOP doesn't give a damn about their policy paradigm and its impact on the black male. Disparate impact is an illegal workplace guideline in federal workplace law (Civil Rights Act 1964, Title VII-Employment Law). 

Definition


Adverse effect of a practice or standard that is neutral and non-discriminatory in its intention but, nonetheless, disproportionately affects individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.

Disparate treatment


Definition
Intentional discriminatory dealing with individuals who have a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.

Read more 

Of course, disparate treatment and disparate impact relate to employment law. While the "disparate" guideline and restrictions relate to federal employment law, I find the basic and underlying premise of employment law applicable as the GOP strives for changes to Social Security eligibility. Let's fact it, Social Security is an involuntary employment related requirement. By law, you received mandatory payroll deductions from your first (early life) paychecks to your last paycheck before retirement. Thus, the guidelines have applicability and relevance when considering GOP policy and strategy to force you and me to work until the day before end of life memorials and funerals.
Memorials and funerals means dead, you say? 
Yes, as a matter of fact. It seems the GOP wants to make major age related eligibility requirements that literally means far less time in receipt of Social Security benefits for all retirees. By their desire for change, they are also practicing a form of "Disparate Impact" as black males have the shortest life expectancy than any group of US denizens.
The GOP also seems to continue to show deep disregard for large swaths of people who living geographic regions that serve as their political base: the US South, western Midwest and Plains states.


Life Expectancy

Life expectancy at birth for the overall U.S. population was 78.7 years in 2011 — unchanged from 2010. Across all races and ethnicities, life expectancy for women (81.1) exceeded that for men (76.3) by nearly five years.
Among racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics showed the highest life expectancy (81.4), followed by non-Hispanic whites (78.8) and non-Hispanic blacks (74.8).

Mortality Rates

The overall age-adjusted mortality rate in 2011 was 740.6 deaths per 100,000 population — and all-time low and 0.9% lower than in 2010.

When compared with the year 2000, 2011 mortality rates have declined across all population groups, whether defined by gender or race/ethnicity. The largest decreases occurred among males, with the greatest mortality reduction (22.6%) among non-Hispanic black males.

Mortality Rates by State

Mortality rates across the 50 states and the District of Columbia vary dramatically, from a low of 584.8 deaths per 100,000 population in Hawaii, to a high of 956.2 deaths per 100,000 population in Mississippi.
Generally speaking, states in the southeast had higher mortality rates than states in other regions.









 
I personally find the wealthy lineaged Abby Huntsman's posit offensive. She seems to have placed political ideology well ahead of concern for people. Who wants to be forced to work until age 75? Specifically, when all life-expectancy actuarial tables point to the need to start funeral panning as we move into their early 70s. How long will extreme GOP callousness continue to manifest? They will do so until American voters send them a message to "Knock-it-off." 

StumbleUpon