RE: Debt Ceiling...Action

It's political war...
The 'extreme right wing' is not willing to raise the debt ceiling...Apparently, they could care less if the whole country tanks, and we all croak on the sidewalk...
So, the least people can do is show them their 'wrath' as much as possible...Unless of course, you agree with what Eric Cantor and his following want...
------
Call and/or slam them with postcards...(Sometimes it's necessary to be a real pain in the ass)...

..
=====================================================================================

Eric Cantor

Richmond Office | 4201 Dominion Blvd. Suite 110 | Glen Allen, VA 23060
p: (804) 747-4073 | Toll Free: (800) 438-3793 | f: (804) 747-5308

Culpeper Office | 763 Madison Road #207 | Culpeper, VA 22701
p: (540) 825-8960 | f: (540) 825-8964

DC Office | 303 Cannon House Office Building | Washington, D.C. 20515
p: 202-225-2815 | f: 202-225-0011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of today...Mitch McConnell is willing to make 'a deal' sort of with Obama...And the 'Cantorites' are giving him holy hell about that.

Fury on the right as McConnell outlines new plan for Obama to raise debt ceiling
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...204213811.html

Raising the debt ceiling cannot continue. If it does, the whole country is guaranteed to tank. If it is raised now, Obama pushes forth is high speed rail plan and other costly programs to create a 'need' to raise it again. And again. Our nation is in debt that is almost unrecoverable. The Democrat plan is to make it unrecoverable, so that the nation can no longer make its interest payments.

Then you'll see how the nation 'tanks'. That's the plan.

If the debt ceiling is not raised today, existing commitments can be met including military spending, Social Security (that's OUR money anyway, so don't threaten to withold it, Obama!), interest payments on the debt, Medicare... all these continue. Unless, of course, the Democrats choose to disrupt them to cause havoc then blame the Republicans. They certainly have the power to pull that stunt.

and then there are your made up quotes. when did obama threaten to hold back ss if the debt ceiling is not raised? yes he might have warned that might happen, not the same thing. i'll agree that marx wasn't a great family man, that doesn't mean you or anybody gets to put words to him.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Raising the debt ceiling cannot continue. If it does, the whole country is guaranteed to tank. If it is raised now, Obama pushes forth is high speed rail plan and other costly programs to create a 'need' to raise it again. And again. Our nation is in debt that is almost unrecoverable. The Democrat plan is to make it unrecoverable, so that the nation can no longer make its interest payments.

Then you'll see how the nation 'tanks'. That's the plan.

If the debt ceiling is not raised today, existing commitments can be met including military spending, Social Security (that's OUR money anyway, so don't threaten to withold it, Obama!), interest payments on the debt, Medicare... all these continue. Unless, of course, the Democrats choose to disrupt them to cause havoc then blame the Republicans. They certainly have the power to pull that stunt.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

and then there are your made up quotes. when did obama threaten to hold back ss if the debt ceiling is not raised? yes he might have warned that might happen, not the same thing. i'll agree that marx wasn't a great family man, that doesn't mean you or anybody gets to put words to him.

---

Yes, Obama said the SS checks might not go out if he didn't get his way. Why?

THE MONEY IS THERE - or so Democrats have been telling us all along as they sneered at anyone saying Social Security might have problems.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling does not harm existing Social Security payments, if the politicians have been truthful in telling us that SS is funded for a long time to come.

Obama's words were a threat of action he might take, not a statement of something that would be a consequence caused by failing to raise the debt ceiling.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley

WTF??

your understanding of how social security works is simplistic. it is really an insurance program that is underfunded by premiums. you describe it more as an annuity which has been paid for. if the debt ceiling is not raised it will be interesting to see what the fed chooses not to pay. this will become more with time. the federal government does lots and pays for even more through state and local governments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Yes, Obama said the SS checks might not go out if he didn't get his way. Why?

THE MONEY IS THERE - or so Democrats have been telling us all along as they sneered at anyone saying Social Security might have problems.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling does not harm existing Social Security payments, if the politicians have been truthful in telling us that SS is funded for a long time to come.

Obama's words were a threat of action he might take, not a statement of something that would be a consequence caused by failing to raise the debt ceiling.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley

WTF??

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

your understanding of how social security works is simplistic. it is really an insurance program that is underfunded by premiums. you describe it more as an annuity which has been paid for. if the debt ceiling is not raised it will be interesting to see what the fed chooses not to pay. this will become more with time. the federal government does lots and pays for even more through state and local governments.

---

I'm familiar with how it really works. I'm simply pointing out that the sneering Democrats have ridiculed anyone claiming it is not "fully funded". There is NO reason for Obama to make the threat he did - unless he's calling his Party liars.

Current tax revenues will provide our military, social security, medicare and other key functions. No problem there.

I propose this: Do not raise the debt ceiling. Instead, make an accounting of the current tax revenues and ONLY allow expenditure of that amount of money. Certain things are prerequisites: Interest on the Debt, Military, Post Office, Coast Guard and Social Security. All else is open for haggling but the Congress and President get NO paychecks until they have worked out how to spend only what is coming in from current tax revenues.

If it takes them six months, they don't get back pay when they get it all worked out.

I think the first thing to cut is their fat pensions for life. Let them pay into Social Security like the rest of us!

This Amendment came out of the Aether & I received it:

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Money and Credit – Congress Asserts Power To Coin Money, and Emit Bills of Credit


[SECTION 1.] The Congress hereby asserts the power, granted in this Constitution, to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof. - And further, to emit non-interest-bearing bills of credit directly through the Treasury Department [on the Credit, and in the Name of the People.]

[SECTION 2.] The U.S. Congress hereby authorizes the Treasury to issue a sufficient quantity of Fiat “dollars” to purchase back the capital stock of the Federal Reserve Bank from the private owners, by eminent domain.

[SECTION 3.] The Federal Reserve Bank shall henceforth cease to exist as a private institution. All of the records, and the creative function of Credit-creation that were formerly vested in and granted to the Federal Reserve Bank, by the United States Congress, shall be transferred to the U.S. Congress, and the Augean Stables of the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank shall be cleaned out, and Subjected to the most minute Public Examination. A New Institution, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” of the United States of America, shall henceforth function as a Sub-Treasury Central Bank of issue.

[SECTION 4.] The U.S. Congress does also hereby authorize the U.S. Treasury to recall, by eminent domain, all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities, constituting the “National Debt,” and to Convert them by Fiat, into a new species of dollar-denominated, and non-interest-bearing credit instrument, to be termed "National Credit Receipts." All U.S Securities owned by individual persons shall be redeemed, at face value, in credit, on the books of the Common-Wealth Central Bank. However; all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities originally purchased from the Federal Open Market Committee by Banking Corporations at bond-auctions, shall be discounted to seven percent of their “value” and be accounted as balances on the Books, and by the Credit, of the Common-Wealth Central Bank of the United States of America.

[SECTION 5.] The U.S. Treasury, and the Common-Wealth Central Bank of the United States of America [as the fountainhead of Credit Creation in the nation] shall henceforth Issue as Money only non-interest-bearing, fiat Treasury Notes, and Mint Coins of pure Specie, stamped with their weight and fineness. The books, accounts and records of the Treasury shall continually be open to public scrutiny. The Congress, in order to promote the General Welfare, shall find creative – and equitable - ways to invest and spread the new National Wealth. There shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.

[SECTION 6.] Each of the State Treasury departments, of each of the fifty States, are also hereby empowered, by the same creative principle [formerly given by charter to banks] to create Credit within their own jurisdictions, in the form of checks, signed by the State comptrollers, in accordance with appropriations made by the State legislatures, for the purpose of maintaining State institutions, infrastructure, and salaries.

[SECTION 7.] In accordance with the provisions of this Article, all banks and financial institutions in America shall receive new charters from the Treasury. The U.S. Treasury and the Sub-Treasury Common-Wealth Central Bank {and the State Treasuries} shall henceforth have the unique and sole power within the nation to create Credit – a function formerly granted by the government [ and thus erroneously delegated ] only to Banks. Henceforth private banks may charge interest, to service accounts.

[SECTION 8.] In Sum, this Article defines, and enhances the powers granted to Congress and the Treasury, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of this Constitution. Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, Clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create
[a limited amount of ] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States.

* * *


Why We Need Amendment XVIII, Now

Amendment XVIII does several things that are timely:

Amendment XXVIII Re-Asserts the Constitutional principle that Congress – the Representatives of We, the People - should control, and be the ultimate Arbiter over the Creation of Money and Credit.

Amendment XXVIII Nationalizes the private ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, and subsumes the creative functions of that institution into the Treasury Department, creating one new entity, “The Treasury of Commonwealth” - to be established and dedicated to the Interest of the People – not Wall Street.

Amendment XXVIII Nationalizes the National Debt, and transforms, by Congressional Fiat, the old, fictional, fraudulent “National Debt,” held by prime banks in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities, into an actual National Blessing {Alexander Hamilton’s words} in the form of trillions of Dollars of “Common-Wealth” to be deposited in the New “Treasury of Common-Wealth,” by recalling, and transforming the U.S. Treasury Bonds, by Fiat, into a new, dollar-denominated credit instrument: the “National Credit-Receipt.” – Henceforth to be the Common property of all United States Citizens.

Amendment XXVIII offers a gradual approach, whereby Treasury Bonds held by foreign Banks shall still be paid off as they come due - provided that the Central Banks of the other nations shall re-organize themselves after this new, Federalized, American model. And - this is critical - Amendment XXVIII also asserts that “… there shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.”


Amendment XXVIII opens, once again, the Treasury Mints to the free coinage of silver and gold. The new Commodity Money coins shall be stamped with their weight and fineness, not denominated in terms of “Dollars.”

Borrowing a page from the Articles of Confederation, Amendment XXVIII grants, once again, the State Governments the power to create Credit within their own jurisdictions. This will be of great help to the infrastructure and to Health, Education, and Welfare within the fifty states. It will serve the Interest of the People, but displease the banking elites and their minions.

Since State governments are empowered to grant charters to State Banks, which enable these Banks to create Credit, States also should be empowered to Create, with the stroke of a pen, sufficient Credit within their own jurisdictions to assist Human needs.

If Amendment XXVIII intended only to restore a lawful system of Constitutional money - with Fiat Treasury Bills replacing the interest-bearing debts known as "Federal Reserve Notes," then indeed, no Amendment would be necessary. The Constitution already provides Congress with the power to issue such notes as interest-free money. And the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision in the 1880's, ruled that the issuance of such notes comes within the Powers of Congress as writ in of Article I, Section 8, clause 5, of the Constitution.

However, Amendment XVIII is more ambitious than to do just that. An elegant solution, Amendment XVIII, also nationalizes the National Debt; transforms the Treasury Department into The Treasury of Common-wealth; fills the coffers of this new institution with trillions of "dollars" of Credit; and establishes a new specie of credit-instrument, a dollar-denominated "nation credit receipt" the aggregate sum of which shall be the Common property of all American citizens - not just the small elite who are fortunate to inherit the right stock in the right {Wall Street money-market } banks.

Amendment XXVIII merges the Federal Reserve Bank into the Treasury Department, and Subsumes the creative, credit-creation function of the Fed into the new "Common-Wealth" Treasury. Henceforth, the Treasury shall not be compelled to issue interest-bearing Treasury Securities to "back" all of the paper "dollars" that the Fed currently issues. Instead, the Treasury shall issue non-interest-bearing Treasury notes, as Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were able, for a short time, to do.

Amendment XXVIII also grants the fifty States the power to create credit within their own sovereign jurisdictions, to meet their crushing deficit burdens, instead of having to float endless bond issues and borrow more "money" at interest from banks and investors of the bond-holding class. The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the Revolutionary Continental Convention of 1777, allowed the States this power - and it should be restored to the several States, in order for there to be a healthy society in North America.

Thus, Clause 9 reads: "Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create [ a limited amount of ] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States."


Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans,

Sleepy Hollow,
Hood Mountain,
New, New Caledonia

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I'm familiar with how it really works. I'm simply pointing out that the sneering Democrats have ridiculed anyone claiming it is not "fully funded". There is NO reason for Obama to make the threat he did - unless he's calling his Party liars.

Current tax revenues will provide our military, social security, medicare and other key functions. No problem there.

I propose this: Do not raise the debt ceiling. Instead, make an accounting of the current tax revenues and ONLY allow expenditure of that amount of money. Certain things are prerequisites: Interest on the Debt, Military, Post Office, Coast Guard and Social Security. All else is open for haggling but the Congress and President get NO paychecks until they have worked out how to spend only what is coming in from current tax revenues.

If it takes them six months, they don't get back pay when they get it all worked out.

I think the first thing to cut is their fat pensions for life. Let them pay into Social Security like the rest of us!

---

https://www.snopes.com/politics/soci...y/pensions.asp

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

https://www.snopes.com/politics/soci...y/pensions.asp

---

My mistake - they do pay into Social Security. They just don't depend on it for retirement like the working stiffs they are robbing.

This from Wikipedia: "The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year."

I still say their fat pensions are on the chopping block along with everything else - except the critical functions of government. They seem all to happy to indenture unborn children with a debt burden that may never be paid - and are demanding we raise the debt limit even more. NO!



This poor kid may be in more than twice that debt - because over 50% of her countrymen will be paying no taxes, her burden is far, far greater than the "per capita" division.

Poor kid.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

My mistake - they do pay into Social Security...

This poor kid may be in more than twice that debt - because over 50% of her countrymen will be paying no taxes, her burden is far, far greater than the "per capita" division.

Poor kid.

---

This is an obscene lie.

Everybody pays myriad kinds of taxes, and the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all.

If over 50% of the people paid no taxes, there'd be no deductions on their paychecks, no sales tax at the register, no tax at the gas pump, no tax on their telephone service, electric bills, gas bills, fishing licenses, bridge crossings, etc etc etc.

Yes, some of us know what you really mean, and some of us know that most of your contributions here are, wittingly or not, simply parroted corporate-apologist talking points and rhetorical devices. Tedious and ubiquitous, they're being efficiently used in all the media to suppress the last vestiges of resistance to the corporate looting of our dying nation.

I'll let George Carlin have the last word on the subject...

https://youtu.be/wV1lZMTCqf8

"I still say their fat pensions are on the chopping block along with everything else - except the critical functions of government. They seem all to happy to indenture unborn children with a debt burden that may never be paid - and are demanding we raise the debt limit even more. NO!"...

Totally disagree of course!...We need to make good on our debts already accumulated...
From what I hear, NOT raising the debt ceiling will hurt us economically even more...
We've been in a fragile recovery...This blocking of raising the debt ceiling is creating even more fragility...and is risking higher interest rates, and loss of investments, and pensions - Again!...
(Do agree they shouldn't get a dime though, 'till they straighten things out a bit better)....

Debt ceiling and your money: Now it's getting personal

With less than a week to go before the nation's borrowing limit must be lifted, the debate over the debt ceiling rages on, with your money hanging in the balance.
Even though the possibility of a default seems unlikely, credit agencies have warned that they will downgrade the nation's credit rating if Washington cannot hammer out a debt deal soon.

https://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pf/...pact/index.htm
---------

Global markets are already responding to the threat of default, the gridlock and the irrational claims of the critics who have enough power to stymie a deal. Heard last night the dollar has been dropping. And the Wall Street stats are looking quite grim. I'm no fan of the system, but at present, it's what we all depend on, this is no joke, folks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Global markets are already responding to the threat of default, the gridlock and the irrational claims of the critics who have enough power to stymie a deal. Heard last night the dollar has been dropping. And the Wall Street stats are looking quite grim. I'm no fan of the system, but at present, it's what we all depend on, this is no joke, folks.

---

The windfall Wall St and the banksters will get when Obama guts SS and Medicare will more than make up for the bad press from this necessary theater. The public wouldn't accept the theft of SS for anything less. Poor, naive people all over the country will now defend Obama's actions, because, after all, those unreasonable republicans gave the democrats no choice but to abandon the people and fatten up the fat cats yet again.

If we REALLY had leadership in Washington, they'd rescind the insane 'bailouts' and throw the people responsible for the economic meltdown in jail. Instead, they're surrounding Obama in the White House as his 'economic advisors' and most waccos, like most americans, haven't a clue.

Poorly stated on my part. I should have clarified that as income tax. And, as you pointed out, there are myriad other tax breaks as well as handouts to the lower earning percentile to offset their burden at the expense of others.

A new analysis from the U.S. Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) found that 51 percent of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax in 2009.

The report was unveiled during a hearing Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee on the distribution of tax benefits and burdens in the U.S. tax code.

According to the analysis, 51 percent of all households — including filers and non-filers — had either zero or negative income tax liability for tax year 2009, and 30 percent of tax units made money off the income tax system that tax year.

How did things look for 2010?

https://www.gobankingrates.com/tax/4...-income-taxes/

As millions of Americans wrap up tax preparations for 2010, nearly half will discover (or have already found out) that they owe no Federal income taxes for last year. According to a new estimate released by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, roughly 45 percent of households will end up owing nothing in Federal income tax and some will even have money paid to them by the government. ... Of the 69 million who don’t owe income taxes, 5 million make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million.

Huh.

I don't think it's a lie. Just a missing word. "Income" tax.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

If we REALLY had leadership in Washington, they'd rescind the insane 'bailouts' and throw the people responsible for the economic meltdown in jail. Instead, they're surrounding Obama in the White House as his 'economic advisors' and most waccos, like most americans, haven't a clue.

---

Horrible, but true. A coterie of crooks took control of our nation and pillaged enormous amounts of our money. The crime has been accomplished.

Rahm Emanuel on Board of Freddie Mac (Obama made him Chief of Staff)
Misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002
https://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blo...others-on.html

Franklin Raines holds patent for carbon trading, stands to make millions from Obama Cap 'n Trade
Engaged in fraudulent accounting at Fannie Mae to pocket $90 million in bonuses
https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=168077

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers
Barak Obama and John Kerry are number two and three
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/200...d-freddie.html

Obama is cutting them in on the next big scam, the carbon trading scheme he and his buddies have been cooking up for years while positioning themselves to pocket a cut of the cash flow.

Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration
Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
https://www.examiner.com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining

Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Scheme He Is Now Pushing Through Congress
On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
Paula DiPerna, President of CCX International, was President of Joyce Foundation at the time
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2214213/posts

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

Q: To Whom Do We Owe IT;
This so-called "Debt?" ?

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Clancy wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

The windfall Wall St and the banksters will get when Obama guts SS and Medicare will more than make up for the bad press from this necessary theater. The public wouldn't accept the theft of SS for anything less. Poor, naive people all over the country will now defend Obama's actions, because, after all, those unreasonable republicans gave the democrats no choice but to abandon the people and fatten up the fat cats yet again.

If we REALLY had leadership in Washington, they'd rescind the insane 'bailouts' and throw the people responsible for the economic meltdown in jail. Instead, they're surrounding Obama in the White House as his 'economic advisors' and most waccos, like most americans, haven't a clue.

---

That's just it: Obama is their Asset, their Steppin' Fetchit,' high brown, House Negro, like Brother Malcolm warned us about. Ha! I thought I could never get the courage to say that, kids, and now that it's out, on my monitor, and I can reflect 0n the slight courage it took to push my fingers to write it, I can say, honestly, to you-all, that as an old Oaktowner I've got a perfect right to say it; I've paid my dues; and I love Black Folks - or whatever they prefer to be called these days - "African-Americans." I'll say it again, and up the ante:

'Bama has got no loyalty to the people who believed his smooth Chi-town politician rhetoric about "Change" and "Hope" and voted for him. He's a House Negro, who sold out long ago; probably back when he was a grad student at Columbia. He just got taken downtown in a big limozine, and they showed him how nice They had it; and then he was told that he could even make PRES, If he played his cards right and sold his soul, to THEM, Inc.,. Yeah, they took that boy downtown a long time ago.

Tragedy of this is that we'se all just Field Negroes to them - and useless eaters on ye olde Global Plantation, to THEM, Inc., Now. And this heah Crisis, Planned for decades, is all about "Culling the useless eaters" from off the face of the Earth, Chilluns. It is that Serious. And 'Bama ain't nothing but their tool - just as W was. There's just been a Shift from one tack - Neo-Conservatism - back to the old, governing Centrism of the Rockefeller Center. O well. Don't say I didn't warn you. I have longtemps holden my peace.

Now, to deal with this little error in your conceptual path, dear lynn:

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
Totally disagree of course!...We need to make good on our debts already accumulated...
From what I hear, NOT raising the debt ceiling will hurt us economically even more...
We've been in a fragile recovery...This blocking of raising the debt ceiling is creating even more fragility...and is risking higher interest rates, and loss of investments, and pensions - Again!...
(Do agree they shouldn't get a dime though, 'till they straighten things out a bit better)....

Debt ceiling and your money: Now it's getting personal

With less than a week to go before the nation's borrowing limit must be lifted, the debate over the debt ceiling rages on, with your money hanging in the balance.
Even though the possibility of a default seems unlikely, credit agencies have warned that they will downgrade the nation's credit rating if Washington cannot hammer out a debt deal soon.

---

Do you really know that any of these assertions are true - besides the fact that Bernacke is shouting "Mush!" - Lynn? I mean, just because they proceed from CNN, is that any reason to invest in the certainty of these particular Wall Street sanctioned pontifications ?

CNN is just a News-outlet tailored for Democrats; to do their thinking for them. Fox is tailored for so-called "Republicans;" - just one more example of the controlled dialectic. There are many voices saying many things, to many variously scattered & strewn, & targeted folks, all across the political spectrum, just now, honey - and the net effect is to cause Chaos, Confusion and dismay. This is about to become a Panic. In a `media-governed society, there must be many voices out there, each competing for a sector of the electorate - or the expectorate, as we may actually, only be.

Personally, I really must disagree with your statement: "We need to make good on our debts already accumulated..." Why must needs we "...make good on our debts already accumulated..." ?

This is not a legitimate Debt, this Fourteen Trillion {14,000,000,000,000} + {plus} dollars that is "owed." Do you have any idea by Whom -=- and to Whom, this "Debt" was incurred? Do you have any cogent Idea of What it is that is "Owed," =OR= in What Medium it has its "being?" =OR= Why it is that We, the People, owe this "Debt?" =OR= to Whom we owe it? =OR= Where? or How this so-called "Debt" was incurred? =OR= Why =OR=IF= it should even be considered a Legitimate Debt?

And furthermore, Do you have any Idea of the Locations, or the Repositories, where this "Debt" is Safe-housed? Look into it, and get back to us with a Theory, in accordance with the Journalistic Who, What, When, Where, How & Why of It, before you serve us warmed-over platitudes from CNN about how we "must."

The National Debt, is not something that we "Owe to Ourselves" as that witty and genteel Hudson Squire, Wall Street Broker, and Father Christmas, Franklin D. Roosevelt, informed the body politic in America early on in His Reign. = And which has ever since been the self- deluding mantra of liberal Democrats whenever nagging doubts intrude into their minds on the Subject and they wonder: "What if...?"

When in Doubt, Democrats, just Repeat the Mantra : "We owe it to Ourselves... We owe it to Ourselves... We owe it to Ourselves... We owe it to Ourselves..."

Indeed we do not owe it to ourselves. Unless of course you happen to be in that small Set of jolly blue-bloods who are co-incidentally, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, members of both Sets; i.e., the Public Sector, the "We" who owe and also to the much smaller Set of the owning class, the bond- holders, i.e., the "Ourselves," to whom the current Fourteen Thousand Plus, Billion Dollars, is now "owed."

Then indeed, one could say, truly:"We Owe it to Ourselves." Otherwise, it is a Lie. It was a brilliant "in joke"at the time, and I'm sure that Franklin D. and the old boys must have had a good laugh about it back at the Men's Club. It was a funny joke to the old boys sitting in their Lounge Chairs at the Men's Club. Problem is, it is now no longer funny, to us here in 2011; We, who sit in the before-math of some new Global Holocaust of the We-uns, the Plebeses.

And Now, that the gig is up,
I suggest that we just Cash in on the old man's false assurance & promise,
and Recall the Debt, and Nationalize It. That is All = Just Refuse to Pay
the Bankers and their Stockholders, the Bond-holders = the Cretins
who sit in their Lounge Chairs in Men's Clubs;
One more Red Cent !! It is Blood-Money
that made all their Wars Possible !!
- This endless F---in' Keynesian Float!!
Just Say No!!
Just Say No!!
Just Say No!!

I say End it !!! Repudiate the Debt. Let the General Public Repudiate and End the Debt. It was Created by Government Fiat, falsely farmed out to Banksters who fraudulently formed a falsely Labeled "Central Bank," which was designed from the Jump to squeeze the lifeblood and the sweat out of the Masses. I refer to the Federal Reserve Bank.

Cashier it! Nationalize the Damned thing! Turn it into a Museum, and let the People see, in it's entrails, the Murdered millions of both World Wars! Let it be a Chamber of horrors and as a Holocaust Museum unto U.S., the poor, lost, benighted sold-down-the-River Slaves to the damned Norte Americano Debt-dollah! --- Bought for us by the bought and paid for politicians who sold us down the River back in 1913.

Such fictions, which Objectively, are nothing but Fraud, elegantly shod and adorned, can also be repudiated by Fiat, and acknowledged by U.S., & the current crop of politico-criminales to be the Fraud they most certainly were and Are. Such Fictions as the "Federal Reserve Bank," and its fraudulently created "Debt" may always be reversed by Collective Fiat, better known in the Old Days as the Will of the Masses. Los Peublos Unidos Jamas Seran Vencidos! The "Debt" is just so much Hocus Pocus, kids !!! - And Words Rule = Thoughts Rule! Wake Up! Pay No Attention to the Man behind the Curtain !

Los Peublos Unidos Jamas Seran Vencidos!
Los Peublos Unidos Jamas Seran Vencidos!
Los Peublos Unidos Jamas Seran Vencidos!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

That's just it: Obama is their Asset...

---

You are correct, but color has nothing to do with it.

Every president, Dem or GOP, since Ronald Reagan has been little more than a spokesperson for the moneyed elite. Here's a brief but shocking clip of Reagan publicly taking orders from his literal corporate master...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL...ature=youtu.be

Yo !

Of course Color has nothing to do with it. The Man's Color - and the hype that his handlers invoked & ladled out about the Legacy of Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln - was merely the means by which the Wall Street Derivitives-Market Bankers got away with the Heist - and have been able to pacify and dupe so many Liberals, until Now.

Well Wake up, Sheeples !! You are being fleeced !!

The buying of the Presidency goes back way further than Ronnie baby. I would submit that it goes back to the post-Civil War era, at least. Ever since the critical year of 1877, when there was almost a second Revolution, and there was a whole lot of Armory - building, in a big hurry {as shelters for the rich folks where they could secure their stocks, bonds, debentures, jewels & other moveables from the perceived wrath of potential Jacobin Mobs} the "bi-partisan party bosses" have been meeting in "smoke-filled rooms" in the ball-room sized Drawing Room of some damned Men's Club in Mid-town Manhattan, in the Spring of every election year, "to decide who will win, place, and show in the coming Primary and Fall elections, and where the patronage will go." { Edith Fleischer Liggett's words, in The Mid-West American, Rochester, Minnesota, 1934.}

I have that on the word of honor from my newspaper reporter grandmother, Edith Fleischer Liggett, who covered City Hall, and Tammany Hall, beginning at the age of Sixteen, from her roost, first at the Brooklyn Eagle - and then from the New York Call, in old Manhattan itself.

Its called a Duopoly. And its been going on ever since the Compromise of '77 worked so well that it became a new arrangement, a must for the efficient functioning of the American System. Ever since the Compromise of 1877, the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party have been functioning as "the two wings of the same bird of prey." {Walter W. Liggett's spoken words, in a rousing speech in which the famous journalist and two-time amateur boxing champion of the Great State of Minnesota {1915-1916} spoke of the potential Farmer-Labor Alternative Future: It was a future that was possible, and beneficent - but instead, we got World War Two and all the nightmares that have followed - all financed by the Federal Reserve Banksters. The speech was given in the context of a Farmer-Labor Chataqua, in the Town Square of Rochester, Minnesota, on May Day, in 1934.

And I, who am merely the bearer of a family tradition, am only left alone alone to tell thee.

Mark Walter Evans
www.paleoprogressives.org

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

Q: To Whom Do We Owe IT;

---

Thank you very much for the Lindbergh document.

It is so hard to tell what is true from reports of who done what, I don't have the mind to hold all of it together and compare it, but this document rings very clearly as high on the scale of plausible.

I like so much the reference to "capital having no weight but what labor gives it" that the direction is from there to do anything about it all.

The complexity of everything has left such a doldrum of futility of who and what to believe in that the idea of a chart of what a natural system of order would require someone to have a decent life compared to todays artificial costs that have captured everything would be a great tool to have to begin awakening people who have become mired in the weariness of the daily slog to simply make ends meet.

Talking and talking and talking is not the way, believing in politcal change is not the way, we must have a new economy and start it right here in Sonoma County as a model.

It could be fun, it could be theater, it could be engineering and could save some drowning people.

How much should one work in a day to supply the comforts of liberty... how does one arrive at that figure not in terms of today's formulas.

The natural working out of bad design is inescapable, there is only damage control, What will save the homeless will save you when calamity finally arrives full born.

Todays homeless are of a new class of people that you cannot presume your sense of righteousness that they live that way because they want to, to look at them more as the ones who could find no direction to believe in would be closer to the truth, as well as those who's lives collapsed through the natural outcome of an inflated market.

It had to fall.

So what to do here with the creativity, the wisdom available to become island communities to keep the moneys here. How about everyone start wearing tailored clothing created by jobs made locally by unemployed people,

What example of a frontier community can we be so we have something in place to provide for all of us here when it really gets to where its going...

We're Spiraling Into Unrecoverable Debt and What Do They Do?

Some things haven't changed.

..."Do you really know that any of these assertions are true - besides the fact that Bernacke is shouting "Mush!" - Lynn? I mean, just because they proceed from CNN, is that any reason to invest in the certainty of these particular Wall Street sanctioned pontifications?"...
--------

No, I don't know anything...I'm really, really stupid, okay?...
There, you happy now?
I suuppooooose I could attempt to be glad that your own preachy, pontificating post didn't go on even looooooonger...
And if you think you have some kind of 'courage' because you typed and posted some claptrap on a board...Maybe you could try and get over yourself a little, or a lot.

Better yet, I hope you are supportin' some people who became homeless in the '08 'crash'...And if things crash again will support some more homeless people.

People (like you and me) get eaten' up and spat out every day no matter what we think, and so far I just keep knockin' on wood...So, don't 'preach' to me about 'the system', and how Obama is a 'stepin' fetchit'...

Maybe, you should go hang out with the LaRouche (Obama is Hilter) culties, and yak with them...

In Response to Lynn

Dear Lynn:

Please do not take my post so personally. I mean no harm, nor any disparagement of you. Remember the Four Agreements? In no way do I mean to criticize you, personally - or your intelligence – only the tendency, which is very common among Americans of all political, and sociological persuasions, to let Media Outlets, like CNN, do our thinking for us.

Obviously, for you to have initiated this thread in the first place shows that you are awake, and also that you care – both of which are good things. And people like you and me do get eaten up and spat out every day, by the powers-that-be; that is so true. See, we have a commonality. Let us rejoice in that.

Now, to address the issue of my coming out critically on the issue of what our president, Barack Obama, has been doing, during his Term, you wrote:

Quote:

---

“And if you think you have some kind of 'courage' because you typed and posted some claptrap on a board...Maybe you could try and get over yourself a little, or a lot.”

---

And then at the end, you wrote, almost as an afterthought:

Quote:

---

“Maybe, you should go hang out with the LaRouche (Obama is Hilter) culties, and yak with them...”

---

I submit, that there is a contradiction inherent between these two thoughts – and it is a little remarkable that both statements came from the same mind; at the same sitting. So I ask you – does it take any courage to come out critically against Barack Obama, and what he is doing?

Yes, Obviously. Because when one does “come out” in this manner, one runs the risk of being typecast as either a “right-winger,” a LaRouche cultist, or a racist. Do I have to protest that I am none of the Above? Evidently, I must.

Let me just say that I was, for years, a registered member of the Peace & Freedom Party. I switched in ’92 just before the primary, after I heard Jerry Brown speak at Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa. I wanted to vote for him in the primary. I ended up voting for Clinton in November of 1992.

That was the last time I ever voted for any presidential candidate at all... Since then, I have basically followed the old Anarchist aphorism, “Don’t Vote; It Only Encourages Them.”

My late mother, on the other, hand, and my brother and sister were all early and enthusiastic supporters of Barack Obama. My sister Heather spent a lot of her own money, carpooling from L.A. up to Las Vegas, Nevada, during the ’08 campaign, to canvas door to door for Barack, and to register undecided voters as Democrats, to put the Man in.

I admired her zeal at the time, though I found that I was, somehow, immune to the thrill that the Man projected. As the oldest child, who was closest to our old grandmother, I always remembered what Edith Fleischer Liggett told me, as a child, about her experiences as a reporter in the teens and twenties with regard to Tammany Hall, and how the Democrat Party and the Republican Party have been in cahoots ever since the Compromise of 1877.

After the election of 2008, I also, along with my siblings, held a certain amount of “hope” that somehow there would be “Change,” as was promised in the campaign. As I wrote, I have, for a long time, held my peace. But alas, what we have received is just a continuation of the same, unconstitutional, undeclared Wars – in Iraq & Afghanistan - that were pursued under W. Plus new Wars, in Libya, and elsewhere in Africa – all of which add, incredibly, to the National Debt.

It was very clever of Them {the Presidium of the Trialateral Commission} to put a high brown person of color in the white house presidential slot after W, in order to co-opt the Liberal sector of the electorate in America.

Furthermore, I assert that it is both reasonable and legitimate to state that Barack Obama is a kind of “Steppin’ Fetchit” who serves and waits on the lily white Masters of the Global Plantation. He is the very model of the sort of House Negro, with the powdered white wig, buckled shoes, and gabardine knee britches whom you might expect to open the front door when calling on the Gentry at some fine Town House in St. James Square in 1720, in old London Town.

To tar me with the LaRouche brush, Dear Lynn, is a bit of a low blow – but I’ll take my own words about The Four Agreements, to heart, and not take it personally. Bless you.

Mark Walter Evans

By the way I like this:

Quote:

---

“Better yet, I hope you are supportin' some people who became homeless in the '08 'crash'...And if things crash again will support some more homeless people.”

---

Actually I do, upon occasion. Any takers? I'll be glad to interview any worthy candidates who are willing to rough it, and live in the mountains.

Another Sort of Steppin' Fetchit :

The Rockefeller/Morgan-Funded Preacher
of Scofield Bible "Dispensationalism"

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

We're Spiraling Into Unrecoverable Debt and What Do They Do?

Some things haven't changed.

---

Yes, they change to the worst when it comes to spending on empire -- trillions for the US military, for invasions and occupations of other nations for their resources and cheap labor, paid for by tax payers. Would that have anything to do with the deficit?! Yes, let's cut social programs, education, health care to pay for US WMDs. An evil policy! And the rich get richer from the hard labor and suffering of others. You paint a dreadful picture with your right wing ideology (idiocy). Where is your humanity?

Listen to reason, understand compassion.

Bernie Sanders: The American People are Angry
https://www.youtube.com/user/Senator.../2/If_1T4Os270

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

We're Spiraling Into Unrecoverable Debt and What Do They Do?

Some things haven't changed.

---

hey, did the stuff they were warning us about ever happen? I missed it...

I would like to see a theater piece of what someone can do with the money of the price of a nuclear bomb? As a challenge to Pentagon funding ~~~~

How much money do they spend making work for idle soldiers?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

How much money do they spend making work for idle soldiers?

---

When I was in the Army ('69-'71), my MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) was Artillery Fire Direction Center. I "fought the war" in Fort Sill, Oklahoma and Fort Riley, Kansas, where we spent day after day, month after month firing expensive artillery shells ($200+ each) at imaginary targets in empty, pock-marked fields, at tremendous expense to the taxpayer and no constructive purpose whatsoever. When not doing that, they'd march us down to the motor pool where we'd check the oil and tires on trucks that weren't being driven, day after day after day. Your tax dollars at work!

In Fort Riley, my buddy Dan Nash, freshly back from Vietnam, told me about how tax money was spent there. His company was preparing for an Inspector General inspection. They had two huge vehicles of a type that pulls tanks out of the mud when they get stuck. These vehicles cost at least $100,000 each (in 1969!)--maybe lots more, I'm not sure. On paper, they were only authorized to have one such vehicle in that company, so to avoid getting into trouble with the Inspector General for having the extra vehicle, the Commanding Officer detailed a bunch of PFCs with entrenching tools (i.e., shovels) to dig a big hole and bury one of the two vehicles. Then they built an enlisted mens' club on top of it. Again, our tax dollars at work!

Military expenditures are one of the things that folks like "Speak2Truth" apparently think we should spend our money on while cutting funding for education, health care, etc.

Quote:

---

It's political war...
The 'extreme right wing' is not willing to raise the debt ceiling...Apparently, they could care less if the whole country tanks, and we all croak on the sidewalk...

---

So now that the debt ceiling has been raised, and the stock market has plummeted, our AAA rating has been down-graded, do you still believe that our economy would have been worse off if we hadn't raised the debt ceiling and lived within our previous purse?

someguy..."So now that the debt ceiling has been raised, and the stock market has plummeted, our AAA rating has been down-graded, do you still believe that our economy would have been worse off if we hadn't raised the debt ceiling and lived within our previous purse?"...
--------------------

Of course no-one has a crystal ball...But, yes...Some stated several days before that the damage was already done...
I still wish Obama would have given the finger to the Repubs. at least 2 weeks ago if not sooner and invoked the 14th and let people's heads explode over whether that was 'constitutional' or not (some said yes, some thought no)...But, I figured he wouldn't do it...That's not who he is, that's not what he does...

I still think those (whatever political persuasion) who thought it was okay to NOT raise the debt ceiling are absolutely out of their freakin' minds...Along with it not being Constitutional...
Of course all the major countries of the world started freakin' out...

I mean hey, you call up everyone and say you ain't gonna' pay what you owe...Hahahahaha! See how they like it...

The 'tea-baggers' ALWAYS yack about being strict Constitutionalists, and why the Dems. didn't hang them with this regarding the debt ceiling is beyond me...Maybe because they don't care about the Constitution either...I don't know...

Most of all I blame the 'liberal', 'progressive', 'moderates' - the whiny, wimpy complainers who couldn't get off their butts and vote in November...All they could do was complain about Obama, and not gettin' their own way after not even 2yrs!!...All the while the 'we hate Social Security tea-partiers' were angry and getting organized to vote!!...
No-wonder why 'liberals', 'progressives' have a spoiled brat reputation...'Cause so many of 'em are whiny and wimpy as hell...

The Repubs. WHOLE agenda is to make things worse...block anything half decent that Obama might even try to do...And people couldn't even get off their butts to vote against THAT?!!...
I wish the dead founding fathers, women, labor rights/civil rights activists, would come back just to haunt those lazy asses!!...Whoever they are!!
I was one of those people 'screamin' not to let more of these 'market as god', kill SS, and medicare jerks in the gov't...But, I'm just another nobody who's got nothin'...

I don't care how bad it is next year, or how much those people who voted for Obama hate him now...The other alternative is much worse in my book, and we are in political/economic war...If people who don't want to see complete Corporate control can't get off their butts and stand up for themselves, or at least for someone and get involved and vote...Then maybe this country is doomed...

And that reminds me...Voting day in Wisconsin is coming up this next Tuesday!...And there's some good people running against the Walker agenda!...They always need a dime!...

Thanks for asking...I went ahead and vented a little...:)

Lynn,

I was totally with you in your first four paragraphs (and we know now rare that is...) and I'm down with your penultimate.

But, your attack on the wishy washy corporate liberals? First, I'm no fan of Liberalism. So agreed that "they" talk out of both sides of their mouths. But rallying the troops to back The Obaminator (a term of respect, admiration and snark, of mine)?

First, he's no Liberal, or Progressive. Second, if the only viable choice is between the Dems or the Tea Party. Well, you do the math.

I once had a Prof., who I respected, who said that all of the wars in the 20th C. were initiated by Liberals. It had an impact.

And I repeat, President Obama is no Liberal. He's a neo, Straussian (IMHO) beholden to his Corporate fundraisers. Most, if not all, of his appointments and policies show that very clearly. He's clearly a smart guy. The question is, how much difference does that make?

He took a big hit today, because of the S&P's downgrade from AAA to AA+. Time will tell.

The discussion tonight on Charley Reptile was state of the art. Anderson 360 laid it out as well. The debate is between competing Capitalist interests. And clearly, based upon their consensus, the Tea Party is made up of Anarchist (negative definition) Wreckers.

Remember what Malcolm said after JFK was offed? "Chickens come home to roost." Caused a lot of ruckus. Doesn't mean he was clueless.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

I mean hey, you call up everyone and say you ain't gonna' pay what you owe...Hahahahaha! See how they like it...

---

Im going to offer an alternative that maybe you and some others here haven't thought of... Did you ever think that maybe we could still be paying off what we owe, and not go more into debt? That doesn't mean that we have to cut SS or medicare, simply that we could freeze spending at what it is/was. Its pretty simple, but nobody seems to even consider it. I guess the mainstream media is at fault as well as the mainstream political parties for hyping this issue up to make people think that we need to go more in debt to pay off our debt, and/or that we need to cut SS and medicare right now to pay off our debt. Both are BS points of view.

i have yet to see the math on this tea talking point. when i do it in my head from my own memory it doesn't add up. and it doesn't take into consideration paying increased interest on the debt. has anybody done a serious consideration of this possibility or is it just partisan bs?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Im going to offer an alternative that maybe you and some others here haven't thought of... Did you ever think that maybe we could still be paying off what we owe, and not go more into debt? That doesn't mean that we have to cut SS or medicare, simply that we could freeze spending at what it is/was. Its pretty simple, but nobody seems to even consider it. I guess the mainstream media is at fault as well as the mainstream political parties for hyping this issue up to make people think that we need to go more in debt to pay off our debt, and/or that we need to cut SS and medicare right now to pay off our debt. Both are BS points of view.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

i have yet to see the math on this tea talking point. when i do it in my head from my own memory it doesn't add up. and it doesn't take into consideration paying increased interest on the debt. has anybody done a serious consideration of this possibility or is it just partisan bs?

---

On the other hand, we could always cut some spending... Military perhaps. Maybe some frivolous federal programs. I just don't see how going more in debt helps to pay off the debt.

Dixon, I appreciate that you mentioned waste in military spending. Surely it is abundant in education spending, health care fraud, the Post Office and everything else run by Government, which can simply seize our dollars to keep funding the fraud and waste. Government is not obligated to run on any real budget - when they invariably waste more, they invariably raise our debt limit to indebt us to China. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could eliminate government inefficiency, waste and fraud? We can't - which is why we don't want Government taking over more and more of our society.

However, military spending is a matter of national survival. China is using OUR money to accelerate its military technology development and can now kill our aircraft carriers with weapons against which we have no defense. Their ICBM nuclear missiles benefited greatly from US-supplied guidance systems.

Think about this: The world has not fallen to Islamist aggression because US military might turned it back. The Middle East is not owned by Saddam because US military might stopped his blitzkrieg. The world is not enslaved to Communists because US military might has repeatedly put a stop to their aggressive rampages. Every time we stop these oppressive conquerors, we hand control back to the people of the nations we have rescued.

Do you think that, as of today, the Communists and Islamists have given up, so nations of the world will not rely on US military might to rescue them tomorrow?

What happens if China or the Islamists become capable of effectively thwarting US military dominance? What becomes of our world when THEY become dominant?

Some of you might be okay with watching the rest of the world be conquered and subjugated under Communist tyranny or murderous Islam (not a slam, Barry - just try being "gay", "liberal" or a woman who dresses in style and dates guys in the Muslim lands, government-sanctioned death usually ensues). However, the USA would not be safe either. Even today, China is taking ownership of the USA and Islam is securing its strength inside our borders. When either feels ready to challenge us on the global stage, we'll be fighting for our survival abroad and on US soil. They make no secret of their intentions - the only question is "when".

Spend whatever it takes to ensure the US military is prepared to defend us and our interests against whatever can be thrown at us. That is the MANDATE of the US Constitution. All else is available for budget cuts - and you would be hard pressed to find Constitutional permission to do just about any of it anyway.

Just about every mainstream economist/expert says that cutting spending under current stagnant conditions of no growth and massive unemployment, is a recipe for intensified disaster.

The much vaunted FDR cutback in '37? is often mentioned. Whatever kind of fiscal conservative or fiscal liberal one is, the time to cut is when money is circulating and taxes and fees are coming in. Cutting now doesn't just cut spending, it cuts jobs and cuts confidence. It puts the brakes on economic activity, whether just maintaining current flows or stimulating growth.

This is a low demand side recession. Structurally shifting a post-industrial economy to service industries with consumption being the economic driver, the work of over forty years of capital pursuing the highest return on investment. That won't be turned around or adjusted for, anytime soon.

And to make a shift to a steady state, or slow controlled growth economy, will require spending. Can current spending be juggled around? Or do new sources of revenue have to be "found".

With political/ideological gridlock preventing any real effective decisions, all the discussion of spending vs. cutting, debt vs.deficit (they really are not the same, but the "conservatives" talk as if they are), revenue vs. hobbling the "job creators" only serves to sustain the gridlock and prevents action. (The job creators line is a total crock by the way, the "job creators", i.e. the extremely wealthy, have plenty of moolah, and they're not spending it on employing Americans, they're holding on to it, or investing it where labor is cheap and pliable, or they're sinking it into tangibles, real estate, etc.).

And the debate talks about America as if we're a stand alone economy, other than the fact that China owns a big chunk of our Treasury bonds. But so do lots of other countries and lots of other foreign corporations. It's a global economy. What happens here, effects everywhere else, and vice versa.

Retail solutions, tinkering at the margins, will not cut it. That's what the S&P dude was saying last night on CNN, they downgraded because of the political crap that is preventing a reasonable economic policy. Plus they'd already said last March that if a plan to adjust the debt to spending and to GDP ratios was not agreed on, they would downgrade.

And since we're one of, if not the, biggest economic forces on the planet, and a major source for others to float their own debt by buying ours, how we balance spending with income is a global issue.

If history is prologue, I predict that this most recent crisis of overproduction, will precipitate a further plunge in investor confidence and an economic crisis of even greater global proportion. It won't be the first time, but the process has already been going on since '08 (if not '01).

The right wing fringies wail about the FED, but I never see them acknowledging why the FED was established. To create a financial entity that can borrow, when no one else is willing to, to smooth out, not prevent, the extreme fluctuations in capital markets that had been going on for decades. The crashes of 1877, 1898 (? I think sometime around then).

No, it didn't stop the 1928 Crash, but market controls on speculation did not exist then. And then Hoover's response, the standard conservative "we're spending too much, nothing is coming in, the debt is ballooning, cut back!!!", further depressed the economy, on a global scale by the way. Weimar? Hitler? WWII??

The only response in a downturn that has shown any results in bringing major economies back, has been Keynesian pump priming, via government investment in infrastructure, education, research, jobs. It worked in the early thirties (and then FDR listened to the paranoid conservatives and pulled back, with disastrous results), it worked in WWII, it worked in Japan and Western Europe (eventually) via The Marshall Plan and whatever the Japanese version was. It worked in the sixties with the space program and the arms race and massive investment in education, secondary and higher, it worked in the late eighties and nineties with tech and the internet (plus the dot.com bubble, the funding of a consumer service economy with borrowed equity on residential real estate), and when those speculative bubbles busted, we've seen the results.

Nothing has replaced the last bubble of mortgage credit debt swaps. The derivatives market that crashed three years ago..

The world, which is now universally capitalist since the mid-eighties in China and the late eighties in the post Soviet Union countries (I celebrated the fall of the wall, do not think I am mourning the passing of one-party military dictatorships with State Capitalist economies, I oppose the political systems of those which still exist) in that global capitalist economy, growth is funded by deficit spending. Either by governments, or investors who have confidence in their investments, or at least think they're savvy enough to pull out of speculative finance markets before the herd does.

That's the reality of the "Free Market" economy. (Everyone knows already that there ain't no such thing as the Free Market, never has been, never will be. All markets are chartered, warranted, sanctioned, subsidized, regulated, monopolized or some combination of all that. It's a theoretical, ideological construct. Not something that exists in the real world. Markets? Yeah. Free? Only for those raking it in and who are able to call the shots.)

So, all the conservative blather about, we can't spend more than we make! It's not that simple, sometimes, often, for people to have something to spend, first they need a job, that pays a living wage or better. And others have to borrow to create the situation where that's possible.

Micro-economic analysis does not make for Macro-economic understanding or policy.

Unless one has a microencephalitic condition, then it might seem like they're the same.

A central factor that I haven't mentioned above, and tends not to get discussed in the mainstream debate, is resource depletion and limitations. Which drive up the cost of essential ingredients for our industrial/post-industrial economy. Oil being the central, primary resource that is dwindling and as a result going up in price. I know Peak Oil gets discussed/debated here in Waccovia, but how much have you heard about it in the national debate?

I link the price rise of barrels of sweet, light crude to the downturns of '01 and '08. It was going up last spring and early summer. Some blamed the "Arab Spring" and the Libya intervention, some said it was just manipulation to rake it in for the summer driving season. Whatever the case the price of oil drives markets and affects investor confidence and outlook.

Other major limited resources are clean water, arable land, the damage to agricultural ecosystems from climate change / global warming. Then there are the Rare Earth Minerals that the one booming industry going (other than oil and food and weapons and slaves and gems and gold and ....) depends on.

These are factors which are clearly having an effect, and have at least since the Oil Crises of the mid to late seventies. Yeah, I know those were man-made, not natural restrictions, OPEC was holding the west hostage for a bigger cut and possibly as a move in the Cold War. (And the real nutbars probably link it to the conspiracy to impose a global Caliphate and shove Shariah down the throats of humanity. Crap, I haven't heard that one, and now I've given them the idea!! Oops... Can I get a cut of Glenn Beck's residuals now?)

Whatever the source of rising prices for essential resources. The price increases have a core effect on the economy. Guess what China has been buying up at inflated prices for the last decade or two? Guess why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and initiated the war throughout Asia and the Western Pacific?

Waking Up Homeless


(by Mark Walter Evans)

- North Coast Xpress, December, 1994 -

The U.S. Congress has once again eased itself out of the annual budget crisis by raising the Debt ceiling. This means that the U.S. Treasury Department must print more interest-bearing bonds to borrow more credit-money from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, in order to finance the expensive operations of the Federal Government.

Despite much hoopla and Demo-Repub pie throwing that highlighted the supposed "differences" between the two major capitalist parties, the Republican-controlled Congress raised the Debt-ceiling while imposing a "balanced budget" in seven years upon the Democrat Clinton. This was to avert a more serious crisis; however the ultimate crisis can only be postponed.

In case you have not noticed, this crisis keeps returning every year, and every year the Debt spirals upward because the problem is inherent within the System itself. The present government of the United States is a bankrupt entity and no amount of borrowing or raising the Debt-ceiling up to the stars can hide that fact or prevent the inevitable breakdown. The real question is:

What can the people do when the ultimate budget-crisis occurs? The question itself may reveal a certain degree of political naivete, I know. It is very probable that the people, as a whole, can effect no positive changes in the System or alter the agenda that the capitalist class, and the international bankers and cartelists have already planned.

The Capitalists Have An Agenda

And they have a highly refined game plan; they also have already studied the problem of the Crisis of Capitalism for years. Once, long ago, the American people themselves had a little strength. During the period of the Popular Front, for all its flaws, radical historians and academics in the United States devoted themselves to studying the causes of the American Revolution and to vindicating it from a Marxist perspective. By all accounts, there were genuine economic reasons for the colonists to rebel from Mother England.

From the standpoint of an Institutional analysis, also, there were key institutions located in the City of London that exerted an oppressive influence upon the inhabitants of the Colonies in North America. These institutions, which included the Bank of England, the London Board of Trade, the British East India Company, and the Crown itself, were analyzed in detail by Marxist academics in the 1930s. (*Several articles to this effect are included in the chapbook " The Causes of the American Revolution," in the series Problems in American Civilization, published by D.C. Heath and Company, Boston, 1950.)

Today, many of the wires of the global capitalist system are still pulled from across the Atlantic. Much of the pull for Debt-collection originates in Europe, as well, since many of the bondholders (stockholders in the banks holding the interest-bearing bonds which comprise the "debt") reside there. Today however, the institutional apparatus for the economic rendering of America's internal economy in the service of Debt-collection is far more entrenched, and the oppression itself far more internalized than it ever was during the time that America was an overt colony of Britain, oppressed by bad king George.

Today, the institutions that directly oppress the American people fiscally are located in New York City and Washington, D.C. - in particular, the Federal Reserve Bank and its collection-agency, the Internal Revenue Service.

It is important to remember that the money taken in annually by the I.R.S. only services the interest on the National Debt. Today, if the I.R.S. audits you, you are made to feel that it is your personal failure that you have failed your lawful duty to pay your reasonable share of taxes that you personally, have sinned and fallen short of the American Dream. Seen in this light, the song and dance that the Demo-Repubs do every year is ludicrous and hypocritical. Democrats pose as "friends of the people" and oppose the further slashing of social programs by the Republicans, who pose as "fiscal conservatives."

Meanwhile, the Democrats mortgage the future to the bond-holding class through Keynesian deficit financing while feigning to adhere to the last vestiges of their false specie of New Deal "socialism." The Republicans, also, serve the interests of the bond-holding class, who must receive their pound of flesh out of the budget and whose interest-payments must be delivered on time, no matter how many people starve, go without medical care, go without decent educations, and are ultimately sent to prisons or work-camps because the policy-makers see no other future for them. So much for "taxes"!

This vicious strong-arm, debt-collection austerity is erroneously marketed to the American people as "The Republican Revolution." It is a far cry from the Republicanism of Abraham Lincoln, who during the Civil War authorized the issuance of 440 million dollars' worth of Debt-free Fiat currency backed neither by Gold nor by Bonds, but by the credit and faith of the collective People of the United States.

In March of 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court, in spite of heavy pressure to the contrary from Wall Street, ruled that these Notes, popularly termed "Lincoln Greenbacks," could lawfully be issued and re-issued by the Treasury Department under a broad interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the Constitution.

The Root Of The Dilemma

In part the confusion over this issue began back in 1787 when the founding fathers met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution. They decided, quite deliberately, to abridge the Articles of Confederation, (written in 1777) and deny to both the Federal Government and to the various States the power to emit "bills of credit" (paper currency); powers which were formerly vested in both the State and Federal governments under the Articles of Confederation. This was perhaps the most important single deed of the Convention. Both John Fiske in The Critical Period in American History, and Charles Beard in An Economic Interpretation of The American Constitution, address this issue - from different sides of the coin, so to speak. The Continental Congress of 1777 had been a revolutionary body. In a certain sense, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a counter-revolution.

Thomas Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention because he was the Ambassador to France at the time. Jefferson held a fundamentally different conception of the ideal Commonwealth and the Treasury thereof than his noted adversary Hamilton, whose policies prevailed both at the Convention and in the administration under Washington. In 1791, the year that also witnessed the birth of the bond-market on Wall Street, Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, created the first privately owned Central Bank, the Bank of the United States.

Jefferson wrote late in life that his deepest regret about the Constitution was that Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, did not specifically empower the Federal Government to print paper currency as money. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

There Is A Solution

Actually, the solution to the annual budget crisis is so simple that any schoolchild could think of it. Indeed, many have. The solution is for both the State and the Federal governments to be empowered to issue currency and to write checks against no funds (cash on hand, or gold in the vault) as they were empowered to do under the Articles of Confederation and as the {money market} Federal Reserve Bank of New York is now empowered to do. There is no law that states that the government must issue interest-bearing bonds to sell to banks in order to borrow "credit-money" created by private banks. According to the Supreme Court decision of March 1884 (unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Gray), the Federal Government can issue, and re-issue debt-free currency.

It was the Federal Government, in the first place, that granted charters to the commercial banks, allowing them to create Credit-Money by multiplying their deposits. If banks are empowered by the government to create money, then the power to create money originates in the collective power of the people. The problem is that the people as a whole are collectively unconscious of their power as a mass because they have been kept ignorant.

The contradiction is that this Congress, in the current Empire-phase of American development, has even less will than the Congress of 1791 to serve the real interests of the people or to buck the bankers and capitalists who seem to hold the real reins of power.

It is the energy and labor of the People, taxed by the State that has fed the leisure class who for generations has lived off the interest generated by the bonds, which "back" the National Debt. Most people would agree, if they truly understood the issue, that it is not fair for a class of people who merely inherited the right stock in the right banks, to collect this enormous expanding annual dividend from the midst of the Federal budget. It is this Class, not the so-called "Welfare-cheaters" on the bottom of the social pile, who constitute the greatest specie of leech upon the body politic. And until more Americans wake up to this realization, more Americans will continue to wake up homeless.

- Mark Walter Evans -


"There is none so ignorant as he/she who will not see { learn, study, read, etc.}"


Hey!
Educate
Yourselves!

Homework :
Download,
Read:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

someguy..."So now that the debt ceiling has been raised, and the stock market has plummeted, our AAA rating has been down-graded, do you still believe that our economy would have been worse off if we hadn't raised the debt ceiling and lived within our previous purse?"...
--------------------

Of course no-one has a crystal ball...But, yes...Some stated several days before that the damage was already done...
I still wish Obama would have given the finger to the Repubs. at least 2 weeks ago if not sooner and invoked the 14th and let people's heads explode over whether that was 'constitutional' or not (some said yes, some thought no)...But, I figured he wouldn't do it...That's not who he is, that's not what he does...

I still think those (whatever political persuasion) who thought it was okay to NOT raise the debt ceiling are absolutely out of their freakin' minds...Along with it not being Constitutional...
Of course all the major countries of the world started freakin' out...

I mean hey, you call up everyone and say you ain't gonna' pay what you owe...Hahahahaha! See how they like it...

The 'tea-baggers' ALWAYS yack about being strict Constitutionalists, and why the Dems. didn't hang them with this regarding the debt ceiling is beyond me...Maybe because they don't care about the Constitution either...I don't know...

Most of all I blame the 'liberal', 'progressive', 'moderates' - the whiny, wimpy complainers who couldn't get off their butts and vote in November...All they could do was complain about Obama, and not gettin' their own way after not even 2yrs!!...All the while the 'we hate Social Security tea-partiers' were angry and getting organized to vote!!...
No-wonder why 'liberals', 'progressives' have a spoiled brat reputation...'Cause so many of 'em are whiny and wimpy as hell...

The Repubs. WHOLE agenda is to make things worse...block anything half decent that Obama might even try to do...And people couldn't even get off their butts to vote against THAT?!!...
I wish the dead founding fathers, women, labor rights/civil rights activists, would come back just to haunt those lazy asses!!...Whoever they are!!
I was one of those people 'screamin' not to let more of these 'market as god', kill SS, and medicare jerks in the gov't...But, I'm just another nobody who's got nothin'...

I don't care how bad it is next year, or how much those people who voted for Obama hate him now...The other alternative is much worse in my book, and we are in political/economic war...If people who don't want to see complete Corporate control can't get off their butts and stand up for themselves, or at least for someone and get involved and vote...Then maybe this country is doomed...

And that reminds me...Voting day in Wisconsin is coming up this next Tuesday!...And there's some good people running against the Walker agenda!...They always need a dime!...

Thanks for asking...I went ahead and vented a little...:)

---

Yep, I feel like Peter Finch in Network: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" So, what power do we the people have? It's at the ballot box and it's time to wipe the slate clean. Woolsey retiring? Good thing because as an incumbent I'd vote her out. Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Reid adios. Boehner, McConnell, Paul, Bachman tootaloo. Throw the whole lot out and maybe the politicians will listen to the people. The trouble is the incumbents are so easily reelected and a 25% approval rating seems to be not much of an impediment. What do you do when the entire national gene pool is on the slippery dumbing down slope and the body public is so goddamn stupid they keep reelecting the same tired corrupt ideologues?

Scales On the Eyes

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png "Mad " Miles wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
The right wing fringies wail about the FED, but I never see them acknowledging why the FED was established. To create a financial entity that can borrow, when no one else is willing to, to smooth out, not prevent, the extreme fluctuations in capital markets that had been going on for decades. The crashes of 1877, 1898 (? I think sometime around then).

No, it didn't stop the 1928 Crash, but market controls on speculation did not exist then. And then Hoover's response, the standard conservative "we're spending too much, nothing is coming in, the debt is ballooning, cut back!!!", further depressed the economy, on a global scale by the way. Weimar? Hitler? WWII??

---

The Cover story of why the Fed was established - and the Reality of what was created are two different things. Furthermore, the FED was not created to borrow for us - it "Creates" Bank Credit and demand deposits out of thin air, and puts Us in hock to its wonderful stockholders in the process... It is "We the People" who must {because of the Federal Reserve System,} do the borrowing - from the FED. To let you in on a little secret; which is no Secret at all: the "National Debt" is the Property and Corporate Asset of the Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Fact: The National Debt was only One {1} Billion Dollars in 1913; the Year that the legislation that "Created" the FED was passed.

Fact: By 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt came in, it stood at about Eighteen {18} Billion.

Fact: By 1940, when World War Two had begun, it had reached Fifty {50} Billion Dollars.

Fact: By the time World War Two was over, and F.D.R. died, the National Debt had risen to Two Hundred and Fifty {250} Billion dollars.

Question: Do you begin to see a pattern here? The growth of the National Debt from 1933- to 1945, was all done by "Keynesian Deficit Spending." That is what made all this "growth" possible: the phenomenon that economists refer to as "the float." Regarding John Meynard Keynes, himself - a little factoid: He was on the Board of Directors of the Bank of England. So his "Cover" as a so-called "Socialist Economist" was pretty much hogwash.

Actually, the Old Left always knew that the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, in 1914, represented a kind of bloodless financial coup by Wall Street over Constitutional money. That is the reason that Jerry Voorhis and Robert LaFollette Jr., two prominent old leftists with political clout on the Hill - who both wanted to Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank - were booted out of office in 1946, by the instrumentality of two young Mob Lawyers fresh from the Navy and the South Pacific - Richard M. Nixon & Joe McCarthy - both of whom were financed by Big Money. Here is what Jerry Voorhis, a bona fide Old Leftist, wrote about the Federal Reserve:

Jerry Voorhis On The Federal Reserve:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS:

"Congress shall have power to Coin money and regulate the value thereof."
Congress does no such thing, which is the heart of our trouble. Private banks
coin our money and regulate its value. In doing so they take from the government
and people of the United States a large chunk of their sovereignty, a large chunk
of the taxing power, and the key to a prosperous economy without inflation.
For example, in testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee
of the House of Representatives in 1935, Marriner Eccles,
then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board itself, said:

"In purchasing offerings of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole
creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of
Government bonds as they are offered - and you have to consider the banking
system as a whole as a unit - the banks credit the deposit account of the
Treasury with a billion dollars. They debit their Government bond account a
billion dollars; or they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."

Mr. Eccles' statement is exactly as true today as when he made it.
Here is how it works : The private banking system of our country creates
our money in the form of demand deposits on the banks' books.
The reason it is able to do this is because no bank is required
to have in its vault anything like the amount of money
which its depositors think they have in the banks.

Banks are only required by the Federal Reserve System,
which the banks are sure they own, to have in their vaults
anywhere from $1 to $1.50 for every $10 of demand deposits on their books.
That is for every $1 or $1.50 which people - or the government -
deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air
and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits.
It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1
or a little more in reserve to back it up.

This is, of course, the "fractional reserve system" of banking.
It is more or less controlled by the Federal Reserve System,
whose only stock is held by the private banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Not a single share of such stock is held by the government
or people of the United States, although if "national sovereignty"
means anything at all, these banks of issue should be the property
of the nation.

But what actually happens when our government engages in deficit financing?
The obvious way the government can get more buying power into the people's
hands is by itself putting more money into the stream of commerce than it takes
out in taxes. The tragedy of the situation is that, up to date, the only way our
government has enabled itself to spend more money than it takes in has been
by forcing this sovereign nation to borrow its own credit from private sources.

This has been true, despite the fact that if deficit financing accomplishes its
purpose at all it will increase production and trade, enhance tax revenues,
and broaden the base of government credit.

To the extent that government bonds are sold for cash to individuals,
or institutional purchasers other than banks,
the government is taking out of circulation approximately as many dollars
as it will put back in when it spends the money.

To accomplish its purpose, deficit financing must result in the creation
of new money, and the use of it to increase mass buying power.
Only if this happens will there be any stimulation of idle plants
to go back into production, or more employment.

Under these circumstances what ought to happen is that the credit
of this great nation should be drawn upon directly by the government,
not that it should go more deeply into debt.

For the credit of this or any nation is squarely based upon and derived from
the production of wealth by the nation plus the power of the government to tax.
A nation like the United States thus possesses an almost unlimited amount of credit.
Otherwise it could not possibly have persuaded investors to buy $480 billion
of government securities.

By whatever percentage it can be anticipated that production and hence potential
tax revenues will increase as a result of deficit spending, by that same amount
the credit of the nation and its government will be increased.
This same percentage of the volume of money previously in circulation should appear
on the books of the Treasury as a credit entry to be drawn upon just like tax revenues.
To do that would he nothing more than rational and proper bookkeeping.
It would also be morally right bookkeeping.
And it would make some sense of Mr. Nixon's
"Full employment budget" idea.

But this is not what happens at all. Instead the sovereign government
of the United States goes hat in hand to the private banking system
and asks it to create the new money that the economy needs.
The government gives - the word is used advisedly -
it gives to the banking system, including the Federal Reserve banks,
government bonds, the debt of all the people.
Interest-bearing bonds, that is,
bonds bearing as high an interest rate under today's regime
as the banks decide to demand. Else they won't buy the bonds.

The banks "buy" the bonds with newly created
demand deposit entries on their books - nothing more.
It is fountain-pen money and considerably more inflationary
than would be the same amount of dollar bills created by the government.
The deposits the banks create with which to own the people's debt
are backed by nothing except the bonds themselves!

In other words, they are backed by the credit of the American people.
What the government has "borrowed" from the banks,
what the people must for years pay interest on,
is nothing more nor less than the credit of the nation,
which obviously the nation possessed in the first
place or the bonds themselves would be no good!

At long last, a few years ago the Federal Reserve made tacit acknowledgment
of these facts. As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members
of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman
as well as by other competent monetary experts,
the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable
part of its earnings from interest on government securities.
This was done without public notice and few people,
even today, {1973} know that is being done.

It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks
were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation's money,
but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit -
which no true national bank of issue could conceivably,
or with any show of justice, dare to do.

But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that.
For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment
of the people's money.

When the commercial banks create money, as they do when they acquire government
bonds, they levy a tax on every person in the United States. This is so because
every new dollar that is created makes every dollar previously in existence worth
somewhat less than it was worth before. This is the very heart of inflation.
It is also taxation without representation with a vengeance. Until this system is
changed, our debt will continue to skyrocket without limit and the fixing of debt
limits by the Congress will continue to be an exercise in utter futility.

More, Including
a Progressive Solution...

And, as far as the Fed not stopping the Crash of 1929, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

https://www.worststockmarketcrashes....crash-of-1929/

John Kenneth Galbraith, a Keynesian Economist himself, and many other serious academics have, over the years, attributed the Crash of 1929 to the policies of the Federal Reserve Bank, itself :

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/bierman.crash

https://www.google.com/search?q=1929...fe=images&tbs=

Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans
www.paleoprogressives.org

Miles..."And I repeat, President Obama is no Liberal. He's a neo, Straussian (IMHO) beholden to his Corporate fundraisers. Most, if not all, of his appointments and policies show that very clearly. He's clearly a smart guy. The question is, how much difference does that make?"...

Of course Obama is a corporatist guy...I never stated he wasn't..
The 'righties' see him as 'liberal', and the tea-party' types really do think he's a socialist (and/or marxist).
I mean my god...This is the crazy schizophrenic weirdness in the political/economic realm in our country right now...He's a Corporatist hack and a socialist/marxist, 3rd world dictator, and Muslim.
Sh*t, my head is splitting!...:)
Definitions these days are useless as far as public dialogue goes...Just depends on what one's vantage point is.
And in the midst of all this hating Obama from all sides, he's tryin' to get re-elected!
Holy Moly...I sure don't envy him!...

Obama is still a much better choice as far as I'm concerned, (so, I'm a baby murderer socialist for that, or a corporatist supporting hack)....:hmmm:..And I'm thinking Supreme Court, and Congress...and look what just happened with Women's family planning...NEVER would ANY Repub. these days EVER do such a thing...
And he gave Elizabeth Warren a place...Thank goodness!!!...
There are still a few important differences where some things are concerned...And I really wish 'lefties' or who-ever would recognize that...
The new 'extreme righties' are hell bent on destroying SS (or privatizing it), medicare, the education system, the EPA etc...They are convinced this is a good thing...I'm convinced it's a crazy ideology...
I agree with them there are serious problems in this Gov't that can be absolutely despicable, and deplorable as we all know - I share those sentiments with them, but their 'solutions' scare the begeezus out of me...
I'm kind of a 'moderate' type...any kind of 'extremism' scares the cr*p out of me...So, Obama is kind of the more sane one in the room as far as I'm concerned...I think he'd be fine putting some good regulations for Corporations in place...but, as we know the Wall Street brats and their lobbyists have too much power right now...and the extremists don't want any regulations at all...He's trying to balance on a tightrope as far as I can see...
------------
someguy...."Im going to offer an alternative that maybe you and some others here haven't thought of... Did you ever think that maybe we could still be paying off what we owe, and not go more into debt? That doesn't mean that we have to cut SS or medicare, simply that we could freeze spending at what it is/was. Its pretty simple, but nobody seems to even consider it."...

I totally agree that we can't keep going more into this debt - people are right about that...How we deal with it though is what's at issue...
The rightie 'extremists' don't want any taxes raised at all...
In my opinion...We all need to pay some more through taxes if we want to cut down on the debt, and cut some major stuff back...Sacrificing isn't fun, and the battle is about how we are to do that, what to cut etc...
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Yep, I feel like Peter Finch in Network: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" So, what power do we the people have?...Throw the whole lot out and maybe the politicians will listen to the people. The trouble is the incumbents are so easily reelected and a 25% approval rating seems to be not much of an impediment. What do you do when the entire national gene pool is on the slippery dumbing down slope and the body public is so goddamn stupid they keep reelecting the same tired corrupt ideologues?"...

Well, I'm not one of those 'throw all the bums out' types - cut my nose off to spite my face...There's decent people there, and I want them to stay there...
You ask...What kind of power do 'we the people' have?...Don't you know the answer to that question?...
Look what about 58 new people in Congress just did...They got the whole worlds attention!...That's what a whole lot of organized anger and one election can do...I already went on my rant about that...
Seems we just aren't dealing with the bottom line problems of corruption in the first place...Need to have the right regulations in place on Wall Street, and change the citizens united decision somehow...

P.S. If you haven't watched the Frontline documentary 'The Warning" I highly recomend it...We were warned about the derivitives market - one major mess that was coming down the pike...but of course the Wall Street 'greeders' slammed that down!...
And...socially, and politically speaking...I think both 'libs', and 'conservatives' have very important valid criticisms of each other, and good things to contribute).
----------
Suggested listening...
Show on KGO w/ Lynn Jimenez...Sunday, August 7th 1pm. - 4pm.
Talking about the debt ceiling thingy...And interesting author who researched 800 yrs. of economic history...
Program will be archived at their website for a week...

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
And...socially, and politically speaking...I think both 'libs', and 'conservatives' have very important valid criticisms of each other, and good things to contribute).

---

Bravo. Yes. Wisdom.

Truth Transcends Party Politics.

Jerry Voorhis On The Solution
To The Federal Reserve/Debt
Quandry
:

What ought to be done?

Banks should lend existing money. But, as the Constitution clearly requires, the money (or credit) of the nation should never be created by any private agency, but by an agency of the nation itself. It is the duty of Congress to provide for this by a carefully drawn statute.

The stock in Federal Reserve Banks should be purchased by the government from their present private bank owners. The Federal Reserve should then become our national bank of issue. It should create reserve Bank Credit as it does now. But that credit should be credited to the United States Treasury, not charged against it and the people as debt. As much such new credit should be created each year as is needed to keep our economy running at or near capacity - and no more than that. A stable price level could result.

Then and only then can we expect to overcome recessions, to put our people to work, and do this without the artifice of inflation and the ever-increasing debt which are incapable under the present monetary system of ever being paid off.

=Jerry Voorhis, The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon, 1973=

How To Nationalize Credit :

Congress [could] provide for governmental purchase of the capital stock of the 12 central Federal Reserve Banks from the member banks which now own it. This would cost $144,000,000 in round figures, and would correct the present anomalous situation of a privately owned bank of issue. The Federal Reserve Banks could then create money in the form of "Federal Reserve Bank credit" entries on their books just as they do now. A "National Credit Central banks' books in favor of the United States Treasury. To such an account would be credited each year such amounts of newly created "Reserve Bank credit" as would provide the increased purchasing power needed to maintain economic balance and a stable price level.

The Treasury would draw checks against their account and pay them out to those to whom the government owed money, thus getting it into the purchasing power stream. In this way the whole nation would derive the benefit from the creation of the additional supply of money which its own growth had made necessary. No interest bearing debt would be incurred, but only a bookkeeping transaction between two public agencies. Should inflation threaten so that it was desirable to reduce the volume of money in circulation, the process could be reversed and the Treasury could transfer a portion of its tax revenues to the central banks for cancellation and retirement of the requisite amount of money to restore stability.

= Jerry Voorhis, Beyond Victory, 1944 =

Amendment XXVIII & Apologia

Latest Draft:

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Money and Credit – Congress Asserts Power To Coin Money, and Emit Bills of Credit

[SECTION 1.] The Congress hereby asserts the power, granted in this Constitution, to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof. - And further, to emit non-interest-bearing bills of credit directly through the Treasury Department on the Credit, and in the Name of the People.

[SECTION 2.] The U.S. Congress hereby authorizes the U.S. Treasury to issue a sufficient quantity of Fiat “dollars” to purchase back the capital stock of the Federal Reserve Bank from the private owners, by eminent domain.

[SECTION 3.] The Federal Reserve Bank shall henceforth cease to exist as a private and public institution. All of the books, documents and records of the Federal Reserve Bank, and of the U.S. Treasury Department shall be transferred to the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank shall be made Subject to the most minute Congressional and e-Public Examination. A New Institution, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” of the United States of America, shall henceforth function as a Sub-Treasury Central Bank of issue.

[SECTION 4.] The U.S. Congress does also hereby authorize the U.S. Treasury to recall, by eminent domain, all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities, constituting the “National Debt,” and to Convert them by Fiat, into a new species of dollar-denominated, and non-interest-bearing credit instrument, to be termed "National Credit Receipts." All U.S Securities owned by individual persons shall be redeemed, at face value, in credit, on the books of the Common-Wealth Central Bank. However; all outstanding U.S. Treasury Securities originally purchased from the Federal Open Market Committee by Banking Corporations at Treasury bond-auctions, shall be discounted to seven percent of their “value” and be accounted as balances on the Books, and by the Credit, of the Common-Wealth Central Bank of the United States of America.

[SECTION 5.] The U.S. Treasury, and the Common-Wealth Central Bank of the United States of America [as the fountainhead of Credit Creation in the nation] shall henceforth Issue as Money only non-interest-bearing, fiat Treasury Notes, and Mint Coins of pure Specie, stamped with their weight and fineness. The books, accounts and records of the Treasury shall continually be open to public scrutiny. The Congress, in order to promote the General Welfare, shall find creative – and equitable - ways to invest and spread the new National Wealth. There shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.

[SECTION 6.] Each of the State Treasury departments, of each of the fifty States, are also hereby empowered, by the same creative principle [formerly given by charter to banks] to create Credit within their own jurisdictions, in the form of checks, signed by the State comptrollers, in accordance with appropriations made by the State legislatures, for the purpose of maintaining State institutions, infrastructure, and salaries.

[SECTION 7.] In accordance with the provisions of this Article, all banks and financial institutions in America shall receive new charters from the Treasury. The U.S. Treasury and the Sub-Treasury Common-Wealth Central Bank {and the State Treasuries} shall henceforth have the unique and sole power within the nation to create Credit – a function formerly granted by the government [ and thus erroneously delegated ] only to Banks. Henceforth private banks may charge interest, to service accounts.

[SECTION 8.] In Sum, this Article defines, and enhances the powers granted to Congress and the Treasury, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of this Constitution. Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, Clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create
[a limited amount of] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States.

Apologia

Why We Need Amendment XVIII, Now


Amendment XVIII does several things that are timely:

Amendment XXVIII Re-Asserts the Constitutional principle that Congress – the Representatives of We, the People - should control, and be the ultimate Arbiter over the Creation of Money and Credit.

Amendment XXVIII Nationalizes the private ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, and subsumes the creative functions of that institution into the Treasury Department, creating a Sub-Treasury “Common-Wealth Central Bank” - to be established and dedicated to the Interest of the People – not Wall Street.

Amendment XXVIII Authorizes Congress to recall the National Debt, and transforms, by Congressional Fiat, the fraudulent “National Debt,” held by prime banks in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities, into an actual National Blessing in the form of trillions of Dollars of “Common-Wealth” to be deposited in the New “Common-Wealth, Central Bank” by recalling, and transforming the U.S. Treasury Bonds, by Fiat, into a new, non-interest-bearing, dollar-denominated credit instrument: the “National Credit-Receipt.”

Amendment XXVIII cleans out the Augean Stables of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank, and opens the Books, Documents, and Records of those Institutions to the minutest Public Scrutiny. Amendment XXVIII also asserts “…there shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.”

Amendment XXVIII opens, once again, the Treasury Mints to the free coinage of silver and gold. The new Commodity Money coins shall be stamped with their weight and fineness, not denominated in terms of “Dollars.”

Borrowing a page from the Articles of Confederation, Amendment XXVIII grants, once again, to the State Governments the power to create Credit within their own jurisdictions. This will be of great help to the infrastructure and to Health, Education, and Welfare within the fifty states. And it will serve the Interest of the People; though it displease the banking elites and their minions.

Since State governments are empowered to grant charters to State Banks, which enable these Banks to create Credit, States also should be empowered to Create, with the stroke of a pen, sufficient Credit within their own jurisdictions to assist Human needs.

If Amendment XXVIII intended only to restore a lawful system of Constitutional money - with Fiat Treasury Bills replacing the interest-bearing debts known as "Federal Reserve Notes," then indeed, no Amendment would be necessary. The Constitution already provides Congress with the power to issue such notes as interest-free money. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that: “Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.” {A broad interpretation of Article I, Section 8, clause 5, of the Constitution.}

An elegant solution, Amendment XVIII, also Nationalizes the National Debt; and transforms the Treasury Department into a Treasury of Common-wealth; and fills the coffers of this new institution with several trillions of "dollars" of Credit & establishes a new specie of credit-instrument, a dollar-denominated "National Credit Receipt" to be just as serviceable as “Dollars” on the international market.

Amendment XVIII makes a distinction between the U.S. Savings Bonds that were purchased by Ma and Pa bond investors and those U.S. Treasury Securities that were purchased by the Prime Banks at Bond Auctions held under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve’s Window on Wall Street. Commercial Banks have always utilized the “multiplier” of the fractional reserve system to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities at cents on the dollar.

In recognition of this Fact - that such transactions are, and have always been, from the beginning, Fraudulent - AMENDMENT XVIII renders the outstanding “Debt” that is “owed” to the Prime Banks of this – and every other Nation - at a mere 7% [Seven per cent] of the face value of such Fraudulent, Banker-secured paper “Debt.”

This reduction of the Debt to a Sum that is payable in Credit, on the Books of the new Sub- Treasury Central Bank-of-Issue, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” is, in Reality, exceedingly fair and Just, in recognition of the Fraud that has been committed by the Community of International bankers, in foisting the former system upon the unsuspecting Public.

Thus, AMENDMENT XVIII allows a large amount of Credit to be created on the books of the new Common-Wealth Central Bank - as compensation for that portion of the investment of the Banks in the National Debt, that might actually be deemed ‘legitimate.” This gives the Prime Banks some Credit - but no Stock - in the new Institution.

The aggregate effect of these Reforms is to establish an Institution that benefits All Americans - and not just the small elite who were fortunate to inherit the right stock in certain Wall Street Money Market Banks.

Amendment XXVIII dissolves the Federal Reserve Bank into the United States Treasury Department, and subsumes the creative, credit-creation function of the Federal Reserve into the new Sub-Treasury "Common-Wealth Central Bank." Henceforth, the Treasury shall not be compelled to issue interest-bearing Treasury Securities to "back" all of the paper "dollars" that the Federal Reserve currently issues. Instead, the Treasury shall issue non-interest-bearing Treasury notes, as Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were able, for a short time, to do.

Significantly, Amendment XXVIII also grants the fifty States the power to create credit within their own sovereign jurisdictions, to meet their crushing deficit burdens, instead of having to float endless bond issues and borrow more "money" at interest from banks and investors of the bond-holding class. The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the revolutionary Continental Congress of 1777, allowed the States this power - and it should be restored to the several States, in order for there to be a healthy society in North America.

Thus, Clause 9 reads: "Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create [a limited amount of] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States."

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans,
Hood Mountain,
California

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

You are correct, but color has nothing to do with it.

Every president, Dem or GOP, since Ronald Reagan has been little more than a spokesperson for the moneyed elite. Here's a brief but shocking clip of Reagan publicly taking orders from his literal corporate master...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL...ature=youtu.be

---

I sure do remember that Ronald Reagan line item veto bunch of BS.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

Of course Color has nothing to do with it. The Man's Color - and the hype that his handlers invoked & ladled out about the Legacy of Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln - was merely the means by which the Wall Street Derivitives-Market Bankers got away with the Heist - and have been able to pacify and dupe so many Liberals, until Now.

---

I agree with all but one part of that statement; The, "until Now". Unfortunately, too many are still duped.:santa1:

"I agree with all but one part of that statement; The, "until Now". Unfortunately, too many are still duped."...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh boy, we've got more armchair psycho-therapists on board...
More Obama sucks posts...For the millionth, upteenth time...
How original...

So, what are you whiners going to do?...
Continue to whine, p*ss and moan about Obama...
And let someone like Bachmann, or Perry get voted in?...
Yep, that's one of my greatest fears right now...

At least Obama, is running his *ss around the country right now...
He's at least workin' for it a little bit...

Excerpts from:

The Key to World Peace - and Plenty,

by

Elsa Peters Morse

Money is defined as the sum total of currency and demand deposits. Money as such is a social instrument - a basic utility. It is the medium for easily exchanging goods and services and storing the value of wealth.

Therefore, to have a sound economy, money must be issued - and its value controlled by the government for the general welfare of the nation, and its people. Money should not, as now, be issued as debt against the collateral of private and public wealth by private business institutions at interest for their private profits.

Few people understand how a dollar bill is issued into circulation as debt. Nor have they been informed how the billions of dollars of the national debt are set up on the books of the private banks under capitalism as a loan to the nation at no financial cost to the banks and yet drawing interest.

This is how a dollar bill is issued: When Mr. Small-Smith goes to the bank to borrow $100, he puts up his cow, or car, or wages as collateral. Then the bank makes a double entry in his account - a debit for $100 and a credit-deposit for $100. Mr. Small-Smith signs on the dotted line that he will pay back the amount of the $100 loan, with interest or forfeit his collateral. Then the bank gives Small-Smith a checkbook and he is ready to draw out his loan or $100 deposit - in one dollar bills or ten dollar bills, as he wishes.

The banking system keeps bills on hand for such transactions they are printed at the Treasury at the cost of less than 1 cent per bill - whether in dollar or thousand-dollar denomination. A similar transaction takes place when Mr. Great-Trust goes to the bank to borrow a million dollars or when the government borrows a billion dollars.

The money of modern capitalist civilization is created as debt-credit on the books of the institutions that have the concession of issue. In the process, debt is created, credit is created, and checks and paper bills are put into circulation as money.

U.S. Senate Document No. 23

United States Senate Document #23, 1939, by Robert L. Owen, former Chairman of the committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate,
reveals the facts on the issuing of money under capitalism:

The Constitution of the United States gave the Congress the broad power
exclusively to create money. It is of the greatest importance to note that the failure of the Congress to exercise this sovereign power led to the creation of money by privately owned individual banks acting in cooperation with their borrowers.

The modern use of the word "money" was clearly stated by the Honorable
Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve Bank System, before the Banking and Currency Committee of the
House of Representatives:

"The banks can create and destroy money. Bank credit is money; it is the money we do most of our business with, not with that currency which we usually think of as money. In purchasing offers of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered - and
you have to consider the banking system as a whole, as a unit - the banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a billion dollars. They debit their Government account a billion dollars, or they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.

"Take note that debt and credit are interchangeable terms in that double- entry book keeping system. The failure of the Congress of the United States to create the money required by the people for the transaction of a greatly expanding volume of business naturally caused the people to resort to the
manufacturing of money through the banks by loans.

"The people were compelled, of course, to pay for such accommodation, or creation of credit, by the banks ... [the people were fraudulently betrayed into using this system of issuing money.] Six percent interest was established in most States as a legal rate of interest for loans . . . Thus the credit money built up by this checking system was based on debt, subject to interest [profit] and compound interest. This made the system hazardous.

"In the United States the banks were permitted, on an average, prior to the Bank Act of 1935, to make loans to an extent of 10 times as great as the currency [gold] which they have available in vault or reserves held for them by other banks. As a consequence, the banks made loans against mortgages, on cattle and horses, houses, the hypothecation of stocks, goods, and on those assets deemed bankable assets. But usually the bank took security in excess of the amount of the loan."

Robert Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, Georgia, testified:

"If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on commercial banks.

"Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit... When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible - but there it is. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."

The 1930-1934 Depression - USA

In 1932 during the Great Depression, every bank in the U.S. was closed, but one, because there was not enough gold to redeem the paper notes in
circulation. To prevent a nationwide run on the banks and cause national
economic collapse - the collapse of capitalism - the government gave the
order to stop redeeming paper money in gold. Then the gold notes were
exchanged for new notes reading "redeemable in lawful money" (or other
paper notes) - and not as formerly "redeemable in gold."

The gold was then buried in Fort Knox and the money of the U.S. became
based on all commodities, instead of one commodity, gold.

The system of pump-priming the economy through debt, otherwise known as
credit expansion, is technically called deficit financing. Deficit financing through government spending or borrowing by increasing the public debt is now necessary to subsidize the whole profit system economy - the economy of the entire capitalist world.

The profit in interest charges, in the issuing of the nation's money as public or private debt, creates another gap between cost and prices, this time the production of money. And this gap is bridged by debt and more debt - a disastrous spiral.

Deficit-Financing

In the United States, the Federal Reserve Banks and their affiliated banks are privately owned and operated. It is a banking cartel. It is not the property of the United States government, as many people believe.

This private banking system, taken as a whole, has the concession of issuing the nation's debt-credit money at interest to its stockholders. - And the banks and associated loan corporations have the privilege of issuing debt-credit money to private corporations and private individuals - at interest-profit to their stockholders. This is true in every capitalist country of the world.

It is important for all people to understand the system of the private issuing of the nation's money under capitalism - as debt - and its overall effect on the economy.

To illustrate again: when a capitalist government spends $80,000,000 for eighty $1,000,000 missiles, government bonds are issued at the Treasury for this amount and are "given" to the banking system as a whole to create a credit demand deposit for the government, for this amount on the books of the bank. Then the government proceeds to issue checks against this account for the labor and materials, which go into the construction of the missiles.

Suppose the bonds draw 2.5 % interest and run for 40 years. By the time they are due, the people will have been taxed and will have paid the bankers (or the private holders of the bonds) $80,000,000 in interest, for which they have done nothing but make a bookkeeping entry.

So the 80 missiles cost the people $160,000,000 - one half for the missiles and one half for interest profit to the bankers. So it is with all public improvements - roads, dams, houses, schools and with wars or military expenses - all are financed by bond issues carrying the interest profit toll.

The servicing of the public debt, or the paying of the interest charge, (profit to the banks or other bond holders) on the capitalist nation's state, city or county bonds - is reflected in higher and higher tax rates as the debt load deepens. The injections of debt-credit money are steadily increasing throughout the entire capitalist world.

All money should be issued directly by the nation - by the government - and not run through the books of the banks as a dole to the bankers and a debt to the people, thus throttling the overall economy through the toll of interest in the debt-profit system of loaning money.

As long as capitalism exists, it is obvious the debt can never be paid off, for then there would be no money in circulation. And any attempt to reduce it will bring a corresponding drop in the national prosperity. To get rid of debt the people must get rid of the profit system.

Deficit financing keeps capitalism running - but with mounting problems.
Capitalism's financial techniques are now based on a cycle of capital expansion with rising debt and inflation, with the ratio of debt tending
to increase.

As the injections of debt-credit money increase to astronomical figures,
inflation takes place, and the economy becomes increasingly unstable bringing economic insecurity to all. This intensifies the struggle between the wage earners to cover the high prices to life and their employers - the profit-takers - to keep up profits, causing every-rising inflation.

In spite of the growing instability of the capitalist economy, capitalist nations continue to attempt to keep the profit system running. But no matter whether they struggle to survive through a military program, cold-war economic tactics, foreign aid, East-West trade, or the welfare state with or without market controls - the debt problem will deepen.

To have a sound economy both goods and services and money should be issued and their value controlled by the government for the general welfare of the nation and its people.

- Elsa Peters Morse, "The Key to World Peace - and Plenty,"
Summit Press, San Francisco, 1960 -

Quote:

---

Deficit financing keeps capitalism running - but with mounting problems.
Capitalism's financial techniques are now based on a cycle of capital expansion with rising debt and inflation, with the ratio of debt tending to increase.

---

This is where the posting falls apart. It is not the capitalist system that is indebting us, it is the unlawful printing of our currency by a private corporation that receives interest back on the mere printing of paper. Additionally, it is the seizure of our assets by politicians to use at their whim.

The capitalist system produces great prosperity for the whole people because goods become inexpensive and the expenses are borne by those who implement the services.

When Abraham Lincoln restored true, lawful capitalism and control of our currency, the enemies of free capitalism (and US prosperity) had something to say about it:

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - London Times

Look at who is working to indebt us: the Federal Reserve in collusion with our own politicians. Now you know who the enemies of your prosperity truly are.

Capitalism frees you to prosper and live in abundance.

They're actively taking that away from you, your employer and your nation. They're actively FORCING upon us the last stage of this progression...

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Well, We Disagree...

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

(Quoting Elsa Peters Morse:)


"Deficit financing keeps capitalism running - but with mounting problems. Capitalism's financial techniques are now based on a cycle of capital expansion with rising debt and inflation, with the ratio of debt tending to increase."

---

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Speak2Truth wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

This is where the posting falls apart. It is not the capitalist system that is indebting us, it is the unlawful printing of our currency by a private corporation that receives interest back on the mere printing of paper. Additionally, it is the seizure of our assets by politicians to use at their whim.

The capitalist system produces great prosperity for the whole people because goods become inexpensive and the expenses are borne by those who implement the services.

---

O yes, it is the Capitalist System that is making Bond-slaves of us. And that is precisely the Heart of the Issue. The so-called "Capitalist System" has been in place since 1694 in the English-speaking world; ever since the establishment of the Bank of England.

To say the "capitalist system produces great prosperity for the whole people because goods become inexpensive and the expenses are borne by those who implement the services." is a most amazing statement. This might have been true at one time - when there was actually competition among many competing businesses for a piece of the Action. As recently as the early days in Silicon Valley, there was still a fair amount of this still happening; perhaps because it was a new, growth industry. But it is not often the case in today's world, when so many fields are ruled by Monopolies and Cartels.

Let us make a distinction, Vik Man, between the form of Capitalism that you favor - which is entrepreneurial, petit-bourgeois Private Enterprise, and the Beast that is Capitalism, in Reality. Most of us agree on this, really: the Family Farm, Ma & Pa Greasy Spoon Diners, Entrepreneurs, Inventors, Small Manufacturing Concerns, and the whole host & variety of Small businesses, that are commonly termed "private enterprise," are a Good thing. It is what used to be called "Americana" back in the old days before the Civil War. Since then, there has been an on-going War between Monopoly Cartel Capitalism & Finance Capitalism, on one hand, and, on the other - "Private Enterprise" - the paradigm of which you are so fond.

The Monopoly Cartels, working in tandem with the Wall Street and Philadelphia banks, interlocking with the Railroads, began waging a winning war on small holders and the forces of private enterprise during the Civil War. The big engines of Industrial Capitalism in America were consolidated during the Civil War. Railroads, Steel, and Industry were a prominent part of this combination at the time. The whole pile interlocked with five or six major Wall Street Banks. It still does. These Banks were termed the Money Trust, in a book written in 1913 by the elder Lindbergh, the congressman from Little Falls, Minnesota.

We must make distinctions here, Vik Man. Even as one can not categorize all "leftists" as fellow travelers - or dupes - of the "Communists," neither can one lump together all forms of Capitalism in one pile, and pronounce the whole stinking pile to be somehow, Sacred.

Nor have all forms of "left" Radicalism in America always intended the disruption of American Society or the breaking of the Middle Class. Populist Socialism - a Mid-western phenomenon, organized in the 'teens, 'twenties, and 'thirties of the last century a prolonged effort to save the Family Farm. The Non-Partisan League in the Dakotas, and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota opposed the depredations of Banker, & Cartel Capitalism.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Speak2Truth wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
When Abraham Lincoln restored true, lawful capitalism and control of our currency, the enemies of free capitalism (and US prosperity) had something to say about it:

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
- The London Times

---

Actually, the thing that Lincoln did, during the Civil War - printing 449 million dollars worth of Fiat, non-interest-bearing "Greenback Dollars" - was Radical, and Revolutionary. No previous president had ever done it - although Jefferson, at the end of the War of 1812 had written, in a letter to his friend James Madison, that it ought to be done. It was an epiphany that Jefferson had late in life; when it was too late for either either himself - or Madison - to implement.

For Lincoln to have done this, under the financial stress of the Civil War, was contrary to the whole course of his early career as a politician - for Lincoln began his political career, in 1830, as a "Henry Clay Whig." Henry Clay was an advocate of the Second Bank of the United States - which was a privately owned Joint-Stock Bank, like the Bank of England, or the Federal Reserve Bank.

For you to aver : "Lincoln restored true, lawful capitalism and control of our currency..."is really an amazing statement, Vik Man, and I can say, truly, that I've never heard it put that way before. If you think that dirigist, government "control of our currency" is the proper definition of "true, lawful capitalism," then I am somewhat bewildered as to how to proceed. On the one hand I could commend you and say,"Would that all people would think like you." On the other hand, I know a little about how the Real World actually works.

And in Reality, Capitalism - by definition - means a privately-owned joint-stock Central Bank; like the Bank of England, or the Federal Reserve Bank.

Now the quote from the London Times, from the 1860's, is good, Speak2Truth, and should get more circulation.To the best of my knowledge, the first time that quotation was included in a book was in the seminal work by Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Sr., "Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust."

Congressman Lindbergh, from Minnesota, and his colleague and ally, the Senator from Wisconsin, Robert LaFollette, Sr., were both excommunicated from the Republican Party during World War One, for the heresy of being against the War. In this, they resemble our contemporary, John Jenkel, of Graton. The books of the elder Lindbergh - all of them - were seized and burned, and the plates destroyed, under the orders of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, in the Spring of 1918.

Mark Walter Evans

Wow, you're covering a lot of ground there! :wink:

Awright...

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchangeof wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively orstate-owned means of wealth.

Yes, it's important to make distinctions. Capitalism can thrive quite nicely without all the other institutions that have been built by money-lenders to bleed away the gains produced by the capitalists. It was a change to capitalism and away from that other system that rescued the Jamestown colony from starvation and death, resulting in that colony's still-remembered Thanksgiving Feast.

Capitalism is freedom from bond-slavery, from others seizing the gains of one's own efforts.

What you're complaining about is not Capitalism - it is what has been DONE TO us to take away Capitalism.

The Federal Reserve is not Capitalism - it is a whole different scheme altogether. Government playing favorites in the corporate world, seizing the assets of some to hand to others, perhaps driving American oil drillers out of the Gulf to invite Brazil to come take our oil... that's not Capitalism.

The rivalry between Apple and Microsoft was Capitalism up until the point the government FORCED Microsoft to bail out Apple because of Apple's failed business practices.

Socialists are rather easy to define. Socialism is: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Once a person or group of people assumes the authority to control another person's stuff... they're not Capitalists, they're Socialists. And they deserve a swift kick in the arse while being shoved forcefully out the door.

hate to be picky s-no-t, but you have confused pilgrims and the virginia company, an example of english proto capitalism. your other definitions are equally all your own. get together with your wording, or just be in your own teareality. plenty of company there, here you read silly!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Wow, you're covering a lot of ground there! :wink:

Awright...

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchangeof wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively orstate-owned means of wealth.

Yes, it's important to make distinctions. Capitalism can thrive quite nicely without all the other institutions that have been built by money-lenders to bleed away the gains produced by the capitalists. It was a change to capitalism and away from that other system that rescued the Jamestown colony from starvation and death, resulting in that colony's still-remembered Thanksgiving Feast.

Capitalism is freedom from bond-slavery, from others seizing the gains of one's own efforts.

What you're complaining about is not Capitalism - it is what has been DONE TO us to take away Capitalism.

The Federal Reserve is not Capitalism - it is a whole different scheme altogether. Government playing favorites in the corporate world, seizing the assets of some to hand to others, perhaps driving American oil drillers out of the Gulf to invite Brazil to come take our oil... that's not Capitalism.

The rivalry between Apple and Microsoft was Capitalism up until the point the government FORCED Microsoft to bail out Apple because of Apple's failed business practices.

Socialists are rather easy to define. Socialism is: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Once a person or group of people assumes the authority to control another person's stuff... they're not Capitalists, they're Socialists. And they deserve a swift kick in the arse while being shoved forcefully out the door.

---

In Sum...

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Q: To Whom Do We Owe IT;
This so-called "Debt?" ?

---

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Waking Up Homeless


(by Mark Walter Evans)

- North Coast Xpress, December, 1994 -

The U.S. Congress has once again eased itself out of the annual budget crisis by raising the Debt ceiling. This means that the U.S. Treasury Department must print more interest-bearing bonds to borrow more credit-money from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, in order to finance the expensive operations of the Federal Government.

Despite much hoopla and Demo-Repub pie throwing that highlighted the supposed "differences" between the two major capitalist parties, the Republican-controlled Congress raised the Debt-ceiling while imposing a "balanced budget" in seven years upon the Democrat Clinton. This was to avert a more serious crisis; however the ultimate crisis can only be postponed.

In case you have not noticed, this crisis keeps returning every year, and every year the Debt spirals upward because the problem is inherent within the System itself. The present government of the United States is a bankrupt entity and no amount of borrowing or raising the Debt-ceiling up to the stars can hide that fact or prevent the inevitable breakdown. The real question is:

What can the people do when the ultimate budget-crisis occurs? The question itself may reveal a certain degree of political naivete, I know. It is very probable that the people, as a whole, can effect no positive changes in the System or alter the agenda that the capitalist class, and the international bankers and cartelists have already planned.

---

The Cover story of why the Fed was established - and the Reality of what was created are two different things. Furthermore, the FED was not created to borrow for us - it "Creates" Bank Credit and demand deposits out of thin air, and puts Us in hock to its wonderful stockholders in the process... It is "We the People" who must {because of the Federal Reserve System,} do the borrowing - from the FED. To let you in on a little secret; which is no Secret at all: the "National Debt" is the Property and Corporate Asset of the Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Fact: The National Debt was only One {1} Billion Dollars in 1913; the Year that the legislation that "Created" the FED was passed.

Fact: By 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt came in, it stood at about Eighteen {18} Billion.

Fact: By 1940, when World War Two had begun, it had reached Fifty {50} Billion Dollars.

Fact: By the time World War Two was over, and F.D.R. died, the National Debt had risen to Two Hundred and Fifty {250} Billion dollars.

Question: Do you begin to see a pattern here? The growth of the National Debt from 1933- to 1945, was all done by "Keynesian Deficit Spending." That is what made all this "growth" possible: the phenomenon that economists refer to as "the float." Regarding John Meynard Keynes, himself - a little factoid: He was on the Board of Directors of the Bank of England. So his "Cover" as a so-called "Socialist Economist" was pretty much hogwash.

Actually, the Old Left always knew that the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, in 1914, represented a kind of bloodless financial coup by Wall Street over Constitutional money. That is the reason that Jerry Voorhis and Robert LaFollette Jr., two prominent old leftists with political clout on the Hill - who both wanted to Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank - were booted out of office in 1946, by the instrumentality of two young Mob Lawyers fresh from the Navy and the South Pacific - Richard M. Nixon & Joe McCarthy - both of whom were financed by Big Money. Here is what Jerry Voorhis, a bona fide Old Leftist, wrote about the Federal Reserve:

Jerry Voorhis On The Federal Reserve:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS:



"Congress shall have power to Coin money and regulate the value thereof."
Congress does no such thing, which is the heart of our trouble. Private banks
coin our money and regulate its value. In doing so they take from the government
and people of the United States a large chunk of their sovereignty, a large chunk
of the taxing power, and the key to a prosperous economy without inflation.
For example, in testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee
of the House of Representatives in 1935, Marriner Eccles,
then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board itself, said:

"In purchasing offerings of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole
creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of
Government bonds as they are offered - and you have to consider the banking
system as a whole as a unit - the banks credit the deposit account of the
Treasury with a billion dollars. They debit their Government bond account a
billion dollars; or they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."

Mr. Eccles' statement is exactly as true today as when he made it.
Here is how it works : The private banking system of our country creates
our money in the form of demand deposits on the banks' books.
The reason it is able to do this is because no bank is required
to have in its vault anything like the amount of money
which its depositors think they have in the banks.

Banks are only required by the Federal Reserve System,
which the banks are sure they own, to have in their vaults
anywhere from $1 to $1.50 for every $10 of demand deposits on their books.
That is for every $1 or $1.50 which people - or the government -
deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air
and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits.
It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1
or a little more in reserve to back it up.

This is, of course, the "fractional reserve system" of banking.
It is more or less controlled by the Federal Reserve System,
whose only stock is held by the private banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Not a single share of such stock is held by the government
or people of the United States, although if "national sovereignty"
means anything at all, these banks of issue should be the property
of the nation.

But what actually happens when our government engages in deficit financing?
The obvious way the government can get more buying power into the people's
hands is by itself putting more money into the stream of commerce than it takes
out in taxes. The tragedy of the situation is that, up to date, the only way our
government has enabled itself to spend more money than it takes in has been
by forcing this sovereign nation to borrow its own credit from private sources.

This has been true, despite the fact that if deficit financing accomplishes its
purpose at all it will increase production and trade, enhance tax revenues,
and broaden the base of government credit.

To the extent that government bonds are sold for cash to individuals,
or institutional purchasers other than banks,
the government is taking out of circulation approximately as many dollars
as it will put back in when it spends the money.

To accomplish its purpose, deficit financing must result in the creation
of new money, and the use of it to increase mass buying power.
Only if this happens will there be any stimulation of idle plants
to go back into production, or more employment.

Under these circumstances what ought to happen is that the credit
of this great nation should be drawn upon directly by the government,
not that it should go more deeply into debt.

For the credit of this or any nation is squarely based upon and derived from
the production of wealth by the nation plus the power of the government to tax.
A nation like the United States thus possesses an almost unlimited amount of credit.
Otherwise it could not possibly have persuaded investors to buy $480 billion
of government securities.

By whatever percentage it can be anticipated that production and hence potential
tax revenues will increase as a result of deficit spending, by that same amount
the credit of the nation and its government will be increased.
This same percentage of the volume of money previously in circulation should appear
on the books of the Treasury as a credit entry to be drawn upon just like tax revenues.
To do that would he nothing more than rational and proper bookkeeping.
It would also be morally right bookkeeping.
And it would make some sense of Mr. Nixon's
"Full employment budget" idea.

But this is not what happens at all. Instead the sovereign government
of the United States goes hat in hand to the private banking system
and asks it to create the new money that the economy needs.
The government gives - the word is used advisedly -
it gives to the banking system, including the Federal Reserve banks,
government bonds, the debt of all the people.
Interest-bearing bonds, that is,
bonds bearing as high an interest rate under today's regime
as the banks decide to demand. Else they won't buy the bonds.

The banks "buy" the bonds with newly created
demand deposit entries on their books - nothing more.
It is fountain-pen money and considerably more inflationary
than would be the same amount of dollar bills created by the government.
The deposits the banks create with which to own the people's debt
are backed by nothing except the bonds themselves!

In other words, they are backed by the credit of the American people.
What the government has "borrowed" from the banks,
what the people must for years pay interest on,
is nothing more nor less than the credit of the nation,
which obviously the nation possessed in the first
place or the bonds themselves would be no good!

At long last, a few years ago the Federal Reserve made tacit acknowledgment
of these facts. As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members
of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman
as well as by other competent monetary experts,
the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable
part of its earnings from interest on government securities.
This was done without public notice and few people,
even today, {1973} know that is being done.

It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks
were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation's money,
but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit -
which no true national bank of issue could conceivably,
or with any show of justice, dare to do.

But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that.
For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment
of the people's money.

When the commercial banks create money, as they do when they acquire government
bonds, they levy a tax on every person in the United States. This is so because
every new dollar that is created makes every dollar previously in existence worth
somewhat less than it was worth before. This is the very heart of inflation.
It is also taxation without representation with a vengeance. Until this system is
changed, our debt will continue to skyrocket without limit and the fixing of debt
limits by the Congress will continue to be an exercise in utter futility.

More, Including
a Progressive Solution...

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Jerry Voorhis On The Solution
To The Federal Reserve/Debt
Quandry
:

What ought to be done?

---

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
Amendment XXVIII & Apologia

---

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Excerpts from:

The Key to World Peace - and Plenty,

by

Elsa Peters Morse

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

hate to be picky s-no-t, but you have confused pilgrims and the virginia company, an example of english proto capitalism. your other definitions are equally all your own. get together with your wording, or just be in your own teareality. plenty of company there, here you read silly!

---

I don't think so.

The people sent to the Jamestown colony lived under enforced Socialism. That's why they starved. The Governor, having observed the destructive force of collectivism, changed things for the better by instituting Capitalism, which was the private, rather than collective, ownership of the product of labor. Here's more...

Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8236

Collectivism created starvation in Jamestown. Switch to Capitalism saved the colony, producing prosperity.
https://steeplemedia.com/blogs/son_o...iled-once.aspx

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tired sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God.
...
For this community [so far it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for others men's wives and children without recompense ... that was thought injustice.

This is the real problem with seizing the fruit of a man's labor to redistribute to others - it destroys incentive. That's just human nature. It takes away the incentive to produce in abundance, a quality best nurtured by simply leaving a man in control of what he produces and leaving him free to sell or barter to others. That's what ultimately saved Jamestown:

Dale's most important reform was to institute private property. He allotted every man three acres of land and freed them to work for themselves. And then, the Virginia historian Matthew Page Andrews wrote, "As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans – an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention."

John Rolfe, the husband of Pocahontas, said that once private property was instituted, men could engage in "gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and comfort." The Jamestown colony became a success, and people from all over Europe flocked to America.

This was an example to the Founders of the USA, among many other examples, that inspired them to prohibit collectivism and ensure protection of private property Rights.

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

both these sites are political with revisionist history containing very little actual information about the first two english colonies. no wonder you confuse jamestown and pilgrims. your definitions of capitalism and socialism are superficial, essentially meaningless. the knowledge base you use to make your points is so limited that i'm not sure you can understand the other people writing with you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I don't think so.

The people sent to the Jamestown colony lived under enforced Socialism. That's why they starved. The Governor, having observed the destructive force of collectivism, changed things for the better by instituting Capitalism, which was the private, rather than collective, ownership of the product of labor. Here's more...

Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8236

Collectivism created starvation in Jamestown. Switch to Capitalism saved the colony, producing prosperity.
https://steeplemedia.com/blogs/son_o...iled-once.aspx

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tired sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God.
...
For this community [so far it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for others men's wives and children without recompense ... that was thought injustice.

This is the real problem with seizing the fruit of a man's labor to redistribute to others - it destroys incentive. That's just human nature. It takes away the incentive to produce in abundance, a quality best nurtured by simply leaving a man in control of what he produces and leaving him free to sell or barter to others. That's what ultimately saved Jamestown:

Dale's most important reform was to institute private property. He allotted every man three acres of land and freed them to work for themselves. And then, the Virginia historian Matthew Page Andrews wrote, "As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans – an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention."

John Rolfe, the husband of Pocahontas, said that once private property was instituted, men could engage in "gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and comfort." The Jamestown colony became a success, and people from all over Europe flocked to America.

This was an example to the Founders of the USA, among many other examples, that inspired them to prohibit collectivism and ensure protection of private property Rights.

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I don't think so.

The people sent to the Jamestown colony lived under enforced Socialism. That's why they starved. The Governor, having observed the destructive force of collectivism, changed things for the better by instituting Capitalism, which was the private, rather than collective, ownership of the product of labor. Here's more...

Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America

---

America was quite fine for the past 10,000 years before the creeping crud settled , America was ruined when the Europeans arrived.

Tribal Society is the best way to grow Children.

Forget the details gents. There is, and never has been, a truely free society nor a truely socialist society. The simple evidence of life around us clearly supports the notion that individuals left to their own peaceful pursuits will benefit others (as well themselves) to a far greater degree than any government forced "system" ever could, and it's so obvious that is not even debatable (IMO)

A socialist system can only be "successful" to the extent that they allow, or turn a blind eye to the natural capitalist actions of human beings. I am in the great "socialist" experiment that is Vietnam at this very minute as I type this and there is wonderful private, free market activity all around propping up the morally bankrupt regime even as the gov't takes credit for it all- LOL!!!

That said, I completely support voluntary socialism. Let's all take care of each other because we like each other!

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Shake wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Forget the details gents. There is, and never has been, a truely free society nor a truely socialist society. The simple evidence of life around us clearly supports the notion that individuals left to their own peaceful pursuits will benefit others (as well themselves) to a far greater degree than any government forced "system" ever could, and it's so obvious that is not even debatable (IMO)

A socialist system can only be "successful" to the extent that they allow, or turn a blind eye to the natural capitalist actions of human beings. I am in the great "socialist" experiment that is Vietnam at this very minute as I type this and there is wonderful private, free market activity all around propping up the morally bankrupt regime even as the gov't takes credit for it all- LOL!!!

That said, I completely support voluntary socialism. Let's all take care of each other because we like each other!

---

I love this. It reminds me of this:



Populist Socialism Reconsidered


( Revised, by the Author; from 1992)

The late Max Scherr, editor of the Berkeley Barb, holding court in the Mediterraneum coffee house in the '60s, used to maintain that there were roughly eight different kinds of Socialism in the American political experience. He maintained that even the John Birch Society held positions that were, unconsciously, Socialist. While Max was pontificating to the Capuchino Brigade, the Black Panther Party was receiving the brunt of the F.B.I. Co-Intel-Pro operation attacks during the late 'Sixties and early 'Seventies.

But the form of Socialism in America that historically received the most deadly treatment of any Third Party movement in American history - even to the suppression of their literature* and subsequent history - was the Movement which grew out of the Non-Partisan League, in North Dakota, which crossed the state line and morphed into the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota. This is ironic, because the League was not an armed movement.

The Non-Partisan League, like Jazz, was a purely American accident. As Jazz was a melding of Cajun (Acadian, Scotch-Irish, and French) fiddle music with Afro-American field hollers and African thumb-harp music in the melting pot of Louisiana at the mouth of the Mississippi River, so the League was a product, in the upper Mississippi Valley, of the miscegenation of an indigenous American; Jeffersonian radicalism descended from the American Revolution, with the first wave of socialist ideas from Europe that penetrated North America, blowing into the Mid-west around the 1880s.

In the Prairie Socialism of the Non-Partisan League and the Farmer-Labor Party, traditional, western, Jacksonian Concerns about the Control of Credit and Money, that had remained in the terrain of the Prairie states, as concerns inherited from the times of the Whigs and the Jacobins, surfaced. In the Farmer-Labor Ideology, the two radical American political traditions of the nineteenth century - Jeffersonian Radicalism, and Lincoln Greenback Radicalism merged together - and then, mingled again with the "Class-Consciousness" found in the social doctrines of German Social-Democrats, and English Fabian-Socialists, whose organizers crossed the Atlantic, and spread their teachings in America beginning in the 'eighties of the nineteenth century. This marriage produced a unique hybrid, known, academically, by the name, "Populist-Socialism."

This was before the term "Socialism" had become such a dirty word to the Masses in America. It was Lenin and Stalin, and their co-workers, who accomplished that.

The League, first organized in 1915 in North Dakota by several socialist organizers who had left the Socialist Party because it did not adequately address the needs of the farmers, organized quietly and almost unnoticed for several months. Formulating a Five-Point Platform, the League, as a "non-party" Party, vowed to support any candidate of any party who would support their Platform and to work against any candidate who would deny or oppose their Platform.

The Platform, which called for State-owned grain elevators, a State Bank, and State-owned hail and fire insurance companies (for the spring wheat) was clearly the reflection of the agrarian concerns of the farmers of North Dakota. It was also the most Revolutionary and Radical State Platform that has ever been formulated, drafted, and effectively enacted into Law - and into Realization - in the whole course of all American history.

From inauspicious beginnings in the mind of single individual, a failed flax farmer named A.C. Townley, "with an idea and a Ford," in the sub-zero tundra of North Dakota in the winter of 1915, the Non-Partisan League grew and organized, and quickly became a force.

A marvelous book, entitled Political Prairie-Fire, by Robert Morlan, published by the Minnesota Historical Society, is must reading for all organizers who would learn the secrets of the amazing growth of this movement. The black and white art film "NORTHERN LIGHTS" also takes you there.

What is Socialism?

The root of the word Socialism comes from the Latin Socius, meaning 'friend' and 'neighbor,' and derives from the time before the Roman Republic (until roughly 75O B.C.) when the people of Latvium, living in extended families, were a classless society of Yeomen. They were farmers who helped each other in time of need. Thus, primitive, grassroots Socialism, does contains within itself the spiritual principle of loving your neighbor as yourself, which is the essence of all true religion.

Authentic, local Socialism is something that individual people participate in; not wait for a Lenin or a Stalin to impose upon them. It is voluntary. Thus, it resembles the scene in the film "WITNESS" where the Amish farmers get together to raise a Barn in a single day. The principle at work here is called Mutual Aid.

Authentic Socialism would entail a return to an egalitarian society, where the social, cultural, and institutional mechanisms that perpetuate inequality, oppression & chauvinism, have been eliminated from the systemic functioning of human institutions. Populist Socialism believes, intrinsically, both in private enterprise, and in land tenure vested in families. It was a movement whose roots grew out of American soil, having its base amongst farmers, who were passionately concerned with retaining their farms, and passing them on to their children.

As the Commentary on the 1934 Farmer-Labor Party Platform, stated, "Farmer-Labor Platform Seeks not "Confiscation" but "Redistribution" - the argument being made that every nuclear family should have some acreage - a Family Farm - to sustain themselves on. {Four Acres of arable Land, per couple, is actually doable in the Present, balancing the current population of the Earth with the available Land on the Planet.}

Authentic, Ideal Socialism, is not Bolshevism, Stalinism, Nazism, or Maoism - which are all undeniably evil movements which called themselves "Socialist," and which actively practiced mass-murder on folks who wouldn't march lock-step with their programs. All of these movements contributed to the Negation of Freedom and Dignity, and murdered scores of millions of souls in the Twentieth Century.

Each of those evil forms of 'Socialism' were sponsored by the Masters of Capital, on both sides of "the pond." The owners of the cartel monopolies always continued to do plenty of business with the dictators who managed these evil slave plantations which were set up by the capitalists - both to exploit the industry and raw materials, human & mineral, of the nations in which these experimental "systems" were established, as cultures in so many Petrie dishes, and - ultimately, to discredit the Idea of Socialism, itself. It was an elegant solution, indeed.

Today, the chief economic institutions that perpetuate the inequities of the class system are these same Multi-national Cartels: Industrial, Pharmaceutical, and substance: Grain, Oil, Diamonds, Steel, Gold, Silver, Nickel, Copper, Tin, Tungsten, et cetera... But especially the Banking Cartels, which have appropriated unto themselves the power to create Credit out of thin air.

The Central Banks in the West function as fronts for rich and powerful families who own the controlling stock - the "Class A" stock - of Prime Banks. The Prime Banks in England and America serve as the Capital pool for the World Bank, and the I.M.F.

Since the control of Credit has been privatized, the U.S. Government perpetuates a System where a few families are allowed to pass on to their heirs Bank-Stock that collects tidy dividends from the international debt of every nation.

To the Non-Partisan Leaguers, and the early Farmer-Laborites, the obvious first step towards achieving the "Cooperative Commonwealth," the concept popularized in Edward Bellamy's book Looking Backward, was to nationalize Credit, and create a Public Central Bank, open and accountable to the People. These folks envisioned a Treasury of Common Wealth so open to the People, that a Town Hall meeting could be held in the inner sanctum.

This same vision could possibly become the seed for a potential, non-violent, Gandhian, Town Hall, Reform movement in America, in the Present, with the twin aims of Monetary Reform and Land Reform.

During the First World War, League candidates, Robert LaFollette, Sr., and Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., along with Eugene Debs, took a principled stand against American involvement in the war and braved rotten eggs and tomatoes, and sometimes bullets and imprisonment, as well as tarring and feathering.

[ This is the kind of fervor and courage that we need to be inspired with today, after years of BushLeague Fascism, and its continuance, in Obama administration Neo-Liberal Fascism, and post-Neo-Con Empire-building madness.]

The elder Lindbergh was considered the chief economic theoretician of the League and of the early Farmer-Labor Party, which, by 1932, had grown to become the largest radical-left third party ever to appear in American history, let alone the 20th century. It was fully 15% of the entire electorate, at the height of the Movement, in 1934-5.

In the election of 1916, the League captured control of the Republican Party in North Dakota, elected the legislature, and elected their candidate as governor in North Dakota. In a single session of the State Legislature, they enacted all five planks of the Platform of "State Socialism," including the foundation of the State-owned Bank of North Dakota, which continues to this day. The New York Times wrote in 1918, in genuine trepidation, of "Bolshevism on the Prairie."

Today the times have changed. Many of the issues have changed, though some remain. The Private Banking industry still lends fictitious "Credit" to people, hypothecated on Real Estate as collateral. Agribusiness, International Finance, and the Grain Cartels are certainly still around and have virtually eliminated the Family Farm and the small farmers, who were the basic interest group who organized the League and were fully half of the Farmer-Labor Party.

Crucial lessons may yet be gleaned both from the amazing organizational acuity - and the
subsequent pitfalls of this movement.

Could a five-point platform today, as the basis for non-violent, revolutionary political change on a national and global level, address the pressing needs all the common people in North America - and indeed all the people of the World? Could such a Movement take state power in the United States today?

That is the Question.

The following five-point program could be a possible Agenda for a Coast-to-Coast Non-Partisan League in the present:

1. The Government, of the People, for the People, and by the People, should issue sufficient non-interest bearing U.S. notes to purchase back the capital stock of the Federal Reserve Bank from its current private owners. In agreement with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, henceforth the Government of the People should control its own credit and cease issuing interest-bearing notes, bonds, and securities. Pension-fund, and Ma and Pa and holders of U.S. Savings bonds should be paid off in full, but no bank or trust company holding securities against the U.S. Government debt shall be paid more than Seven Per Cent in full, on the bonded indebtedness of the face value of the U.S. Treasury Certificates they were holding, when the Debt-Repudiation finally takes place.

It must take place, Citizens ! We must Force it on Congress, if it is the Last thing we do.

2. The American People should move for immediate legislation to cancel All fictitious International "Debt" owed by any nation - including this nation - to the Prime Banks of the First World. And to Declare, Collectively, in chanting, resonant Unison, that the Year 2012 shall be, not only the Day of Reckoning: but also, the Year of Jubilee - for the release of all nations from the bondage of debt to the international commercial banks.

3. We should also move to take decisive steps to dismantle the military budget & press towards immediate peace-time conversion of the industrial sector towards the pressing needs of our own decaying infrastructure and millions of homeless citizens, needy families and also, increasing numbers of newly-needy elderly.

4. The People must consider and address the issue of Land Reform, and Move, to Liberate the millions of acres that were fraudulently given to the Railroad corporations in violation of the Homestead Act of 1862, as well as the additional millions of acres that were swindled by the timber barons by fraud, - again, in violation of the Homestead Act of 1862 - which theft, is described in the book, Looters of the Public Domain, by Steven D. Puter.

These lands should be made available for Homesteading to every American who wants a Homestead. A just and reasonable Portion is Four Acres per Couple. Furthermore, we should endeavor to provide Just Compensation - in land, not money - for lands stolen from all the tribes of Native Americans.

5. The People must begin the painful process of learning how to live on the earth in a manner that does not destroy it. We must learn again the ancient rhythms of seed-time and of harvest. We must strive to create a sustainable civilization upon the earth, in the World-After-Oil. This last point is both a turning inward, and a return to ancestral patterns that existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the automobile. It is a point that can only be done by each and every individual him or herself. It is, nevertheless, highly political. UN-Agenda21 does not want us to live in rural areas. We, the People, however, must Insist that We Must. Thus, Land Reform, the Slogan being "Four Acres and a Tax-break" is the Genuine Arena of the Authentic Revolution, in the Present.

- Mark Walter Evans -


- Published in the North Coast Xpress, 1992 -
and amended, August, 2011

Creative Commons @ Mark Walter Evans, 2007.

* Footnote:

During the period from Labor Day of 1934, until the end of 1935, a schism developed within the Farmer-Labor Party itself that became known as the Townley-Liggett Revolt. During the Winter of 1935=1936, the protagonist, Walter W. Liggett, was killed with a machine-gun, in Minneapolis. I wrote about this history in a trilogy of articles, An Old Triangle, Down the Hall of Mirrors, and Putting it all Together.

[ The first of which was published in the North Coast Xpress in April of 1997. Subsequently, Michael Parenti, who, ironically, is on the Board of Directors of Project Censored, was instrumental in causing the Editor, Doret Kollerer, to not publish the two subsequent articles in her (then) bi-monthly,the North Coast Xpress. Subsequently, in the Spring of 2007, this author encountered a very high incidence of hacking - and next-day removal of these articles whenever this one {me-uns} attempted to post this Trilogy of articles on Indymedia websites around the Country. Notably, on the Indymedia websites in New York City, Minneapolis/Twin Cities, & Washington, D.C.]

From the Calverton Papers, at the 42nd Street library, Marda Liggett Woodbury found a letter to V.F. "George" Calverton from Edith Liggett dated Feb 3, 1936, stating:

"...Incidentally, A.C. Townley warned me about this being run over. He said there isn't a Chinaman's chance of my being shot - but he showed me a long list of anti-Olson Farmer-Laborites who in the past six months have strangely happened to be run over or have their cars wrecked or thrown in the ditch by state Highway department cars..."

To my knowledge, no one has ever recorded this aspect of the Townley-Liggett revolt in any book, except Stopping the Presses, the book my mother wrote. And I, who am merely the bearer of a family tradition, am left alone to tell you of this "long list" of unsolved highway murders; incidents of a hit-and-run nature; and incidents of cars being driven by old "Wheel-horses" (of the Non-Partisan League days who were among the activists in the Insurgency,) being made to run off the road into embankments of snow, or being made to skid, while crossing frozen, brittle iron bridges, by Minnesota State Highway Trucks, being driven by governor Floyd B. Olson's own apparatchiks; his left-cover Corpos.

There was not only a bloody purge of an Insurgent Revolt in the Farmer-Labor Party, but there was also the suppression of the History & literature of - and about - this Insurgency. My grandfather's newspaper, "The Mid-West American" was also purged out of the Library of Congress. At least, when I finally arrived there, in the Spring of '86, it had been removed. It was Absent - and there was No Record of it ever having been there.

The Mid-West American, was essentially the primary Journalism within the Insurgency known as the Townley-Liggett Revolt. The Editor, Walter W. Liggett, stated repeatedly, that he sent his weekly newspaper to every member of Congress, and every Senator - at his own expense, in frank and coin. I'm sure he did not omit to send a copy every week to the Library of Congress itself.

The run of the Insurgency was, essentially, from Labor Day in '34, until the time of my grandfather's Assassination on December 9, 1935. He had been one of the founders of the Movement that began as the Non-Partisan League; (1915 to 1922) that developed into the Farmer- Labor Party of Minnesota.]

- Mark Walter Evans

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

...5. The People must begin the painful process of learning how to live on the earth in a manner that does not destroy it. We must learn again the ancient rhythms of seed-time and of harvest. We must strive to create a sustainable civilization upon the earth, in the World-After-Oil. This last point is both a turning inward, and a return to ancestral patterns that existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the automobile. It is a point that can only be done by each and every individual him or herself. It is, nevertheless, highly political. UN-Agenda21 does not want us to live in rural ares. We, however, Insist that We Must.

- Mark Walter Evans -


- Published in the North Coast Xpress, 1992 -

Creative Commons @ Mark Walter Evans, 2007.

---

some "info" (links) RE: UN-Agenda21 with a local twist covered in one of the links:
THE NORTH BAY BOHEMIAN NEWSPAPER DID A SMEAR ARTICLE ON ROSA KOIRE ON JUNE 15, 2011

Post-sustainability: the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism.

"Here's something you may not have heard of yet:
A one trillion dollar federal program to enable local governments to purchase vacant residential, commercial, and industrial properties from banks and demolish them. Why?": (https://www.democratsagainstunagenda...1-and-you.html)



SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.
:thinking::thinking:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

both these sites are political with revisionist history containing very little actual information about the first two english colonies. no wonder you confuse jamestown and pilgrims. your definitions of capitalism and socialism are superficial, essentially meaningless. the knowledge base you use to make your points is so limited that i'm not sure you can understand the other people writing with you.

---

See, it's nice of you to say all that but what I did is present the FACTS regarding what happened at the Jamestown colony. I am using words according to their definitions, which can be quite easily found at Dictionary.com

Voluntary communal living is not Socialism. By definition. If I share some stuff with whomever I choose, that's a good thing, so long as it is voluntary, and it reflects true Christianity. If you read up on how Jesus prescribed people should live among one another you'll find it is just that - being good and helpful to one another and sharing with those less fortunate.

Unfortunately, Socialism is something shaped by the likes of scum like Karl Marx, who was most interested in fomenting a violent revolution to overthrow existing systems in order to build a communal control of goods - with himself in charge of those goods. He proposed this enforced seizure and redistribution of goods, this Socialism, because he absolutely hated to work. He just wanted to get his hands on other people's stuff. He was a moocher angrily disappointed that "marrying up" did not result in his Mother-in-law's wealth flowing down.

I appreciate the historical information provided by Iolchan. It's good stuff. However, I am using the word "Socialism" as it is defined and practiced. It is State control over the means of production and distribution of wealth, essentially using force to compel people to hand over their goods to bureaucratic masters who can then divvy up the spoils as they see fit. That brought ruin and starvation to Jamestown. Capitalism, in which the laborer actually owns the product of his labor, produced prosperity.

Let's not try to put a warm, fuzzy glow around Socialism by confusing it with "voluntary sharing". It isn't.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

3. We should also move to take decisive steps to dismantle the military budget & press towards immediate peace-time conversion of the industrial sector towards the pressing needs of our own decaying infrastructure and millions of homeless citizens, needy families and also, increasing numbers of newly-needy elderly.

---

Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who do not.

What if this idea was set in stone 100 years ago? Which flag would fly over our capitol today - the NAZI or Japanese?

Do we imagine that ambitious conquerors are a thing of the past - while ignoring Islamist Iran's weapons transfers to nations south of our border and hostile invaders crossing our own borders to seize control of US soil?

This notion must be rejected outright for it assumes the world has become safe for a prosperous and DEFENSELESS USA. No chance.

The rest of the ideas are interesting - especially removing land from Federal control. Give The People access to harvest the minerals and resources and make productive use of the land.

As to the idea of living with nature... do we really have few enough humans to be able to do that? Or, would the human population have to be pared down considerably to fulfill the vision of the Georgia Guidestones?

https://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE

Really, who is going to handle the job of getting humanity down to that number? Ambitious Leftists have murdered over a hundred million humans in the past century yet failed to murder enough to accomplish this vision - people invariably ended up fighting for their own Right to Life.

It makes sense that people should be educated into limiting their own population, voluntarily, to prevent the Easter Island disaster from being repeated on a global scale. Do you see ANY likelihood the entire planet's population can be convinced of the necessity of this? I say no. Therefore, that goal requires mass murder. Are you prepared to pull the trigger on innocent men, women and children to fulfill that grand "living with nature" vision? I'm not.

I have a Natural Right to use whatever force is necessary to defend my person and my property against those who would threaten either. So do you. If you feel it is worth killing people to achieve that grand vision, you could volunteer to take personal action to get one person closer to the goals of that human population reduction.

one of your silly political citation's compares indentured servitude to socialism. the other compares religious refugees and their effort to live by their belief to socialism. yes i understand the one dictionary definition of socialism you cited. the meaning of this word has been expanded by the political hashing you seem so fond of. you can call any modern mainstream usa pol you want a socialist, and this is another meaning of the word. i have no interest in arguing the meaning of words. when someone like you plays with the meaning of words to count political coup i get irritated. because you are silly, you make no sense, and you want us to take you seriously! a new word i just learned; idiocracy!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

See, it's nice of you to say all that but what I did is present the FACTS regarding what happened at the Jamestown colony. I am using words according to their definitions, which can be quite easily found at Dictionary.com

Voluntary communal living is not Socialism. By definition. If I share some stuff with whomever I choose, that's a good thing, so long as it is voluntary, and it reflects true Christianity. If you read up on how Jesus prescribed people should live among one another you'll find it is just that - being good and helpful to one another and sharing with those less fortunate.

Unfortunately, Socialism is something shaped by the likes of scum like Karl Marx, who was most interested in fomenting a violent revolution to overthrow existing systems in order to build a communal control of goods - with himself in charge of those goods. He proposed this enforced seizure and redistribution of goods, this Socialism, because he absolutely hated to work. He just wanted to get his hands on other people's stuff. He was a moocher angrily disappointed that "marrying up" did not result in his Mother-in-law's wealth flowing down.

I appreciate the historical information provided by Iolchan. It's good stuff. However, I am using the word "Socialism" as it is defined and practiced. It is State control over the means of production and distribution of wealth, essentially using force to compel people to hand over their goods to bureaucratic masters who can then divvy up the spoils as they see fit. That brought ruin and starvation to Jamestown. Capitalism, in which the laborer actually owns the product of his labor, produced prosperity.

Let's not try to put a warm, fuzzy glow around Socialism by confusing it with "voluntary sharing". It isn't.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

one of your silly political citation's compares indentured servitude to socialism. the other compares religious refugees and their effort to live by their belief to socialism. yes i understand the one dictionary definition of socialism you cited. the meaning of this word has been expanded by the political hashing you seem so fond of. you can call any modern mainstream usa pol you want a socialist, and this is another meaning of the word. i have no interest in arguing the meaning of words. when someone like you plays with the meaning of words to count political coup i get irritated. because you are silly, you make no sense, and you want us to take you seriously! a new word i just learned; idiocracy!

---

Socialism, by definition, vests control over the means of production and the product of labor in the State. It is enforced. The key word there is "control", which is not voluntary "giving". "Control" means power to compel and that power rests in the hands of the Ruling Elite. That's Socialism.

"Charity" and "Sharing" have their own definitions.

The folks at Jamestown were compelled to live under Socialism, as you can learn from the writings of the Jamestown Governors. You can also learn from their writings how the harm done by enforced collectivism was reversed by instituting private ownership of property and the product of labor.

Again, it is a FACT that the Founders of the USA had learned from the horrible consequences of enforced collectivism. They ensured the US Government was chained and bound and given no permission to take wealth from some to redistribute to others like Fannie Mae or GM or folks who are turning in their "clunkers" to get a new car...

you read more and more like a libertarian. i self describe as an anarchist (of which there are many types). i have a soft spot for libertarians, so close yet so far away from the reality of this day. the question is, how do we move from what is to a world of choice, freedom, and responsibility, and what role does the state have in this journey?

every day we make choices that create the world, very few are political. the most common is how we listen (to often not at all), and learn (truly there is no end to this)! i have checked out your facts and found them to be modern rumor created for a political agenda. i see this a lot from all points of the political spectrum. these are the chains which bind us to the tyranny of government.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Socialism, by definition, vests control over the means of production and the product of labor in the State. It is enforced. The key word there is "control", which is not voluntary "giving". "Control" means power to compel and that power rests in the hands of the Ruling Elite. That's Socialism.

"Charity" and "Sharing" have their own definitions.

The folks at Jamestown were compelled to live under Socialism, as you can learn from the writings of the Jamestown Governors. You can also learn from their writings how the harm done by enforced collectivism was reversed by instituting private ownership of property and the product of labor.

Again, it is a FACT that the Founders of the USA had learned from the horrible consequences of enforced collectivism. They ensured the US Government was chained and bound and given no permission to take wealth from some to redistribute to others like Fannie Mae or GM or folks who are turning in their "clunkers" to get a new car...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

you read more and more like a libertarian.

---

I suppose I am rather Liberal, in the original sense of the word. I believe in individual Liberty and the idea that we only delegate very limited duties to Government to take care of certain needs, like common defense, that we cannot handle as individuals. In other words, I'm an American.

Quote:

---

i self describe as an anarchist (of which there are many types)

---

I would love to discuss that with you. I don't really understand Anarchists. Could you explain what you mean by it?

Quote:

---

how do we move from what is to a world of choice, freedom, and responsibility, and what role does the state have in this journey?

---

Step One is simply to restore our nation's obedience to the US Constitution. It was created specifically to protect our choice, freedom and personal responsibility as mature adults in control of our own lives. It gave very limited power to Politicians and forbade them from going beyond those limits. Freedom is possible - it was written into Law by the people who created this nation. It is a duty of The People to enforce that Law.

Quote:

---

i have checked out your facts and found them to be modern rumor created for a political agenda.

---

I have repeatedly seen people on this forum make such claims yet they studiously avoid actually presenting evidence to support such claims. I'm waiting...

evidence isn't needed for the obvious. the cato institute? comparing a proto capitalist 15th century company using indentured servents to populate the first colony in the new world to socialism? the list goes on and on. pointing out the poor quality of your sources is evidence enough, then actually mentioning the silly reasoning i am going beyond what is needed.

anarchists believe that we don't need collective power over authority to be in a beautiful and just world. people who think (NOT), like you are why this is an effective, temporary strategy in a complex world. my political belief encourages me to hope and my realistic assessment and understanding encourages me to participate.

i think the us constitution is cool and you write about it like it is a fixed dead document! thank the goddess this is not true! one thing that i believe is true is that change happens. our nations laws have changed a lot. while we might agree that this has not always been "good", overall the change has been effective in keeping up with citizen wishes. including the current legislative mega committee to guide federal debt/budget decisions. will it work? probably not yet it is a good show:)

enjoys the comments, hoping for the best...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I suppose I am rather Liberal, in the original sense of the word. I believe in individual Liberty and the idea that we only delegate very limited duties to Government to take care of certain needs, like common defense, that we cannot handle as individuals. In other words, I'm an American.



I would love to discuss that with you. I don't really understand Anarchists. Could you explain what you mean by it?



Step One is simply to restore our nation's obedience to the US Constitution. It was created specifically to protect our choice, freedom and personal responsibility as mature adults in control of our own lives. It gave very limited power to Politicians and forbade them from going beyond those limits. Freedom is possible - it was written into Law by the people who created this nation. It is a duty of The People to enforce that Law.



I have repeatedly seen people on this forum make such claims yet they studiously avoid actually presenting evidence to support such claims. I'm waiting...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

evidence isn't needed for the obvious.

---

Of course not. You need merely make a claim and assert it is obvious. No evidence is needed whatsoever.

LOL!! :wink:

Quote:

---

anarchists believe that we don't need collective power over authority to be in a beautiful and just world. people who think (NOT), like you are why this is an effective, temporary strategy in a complex world. my political belief encourages me to hope and my realistic assessment and understanding encourages me to participate.

---

Okay, let's test how realistic the notion is.

Look around you. When there is no authority to impose consequences for wrongdoing, do people become righteous, respectful of others, keep agreements, keep their hands off others' property, treat other as equals...

Is our legal system and police force mere busy-making for a problem that does not exist because humans can live together in peace and harmony when there is no externally imposed consequence for wronging another?

How do Anarchists handle issues like the common defense against aggressors and invaders? Do they have a system of laws to deal with accusations of wrongdoing by one person against another - or are there no wrongdoers in that peaceful and beautiful world?

Quote:

---

i think the us constitution is cool and you write about it like it is a fixed dead document!

---

A very poor choice of words.

Laws restraining wrongdoing against other people are never "dead". So long as humans are capable of mischief, laws that restrain them are wise, contemporary and must be upheld.

If you truly despise Individual Rights, you might be okay with politicians freely ignoring the Constitution after SWEARING to uphold and defend it as a condition of their employment. In that case, you ally yourself with the lawless, with the people who are LEAST trustworthy in a position of power, the people MOST likely to do harm!

perhaps you suffer from some kind of political autism or something. frustrating writing with someone who can't understand the political agenda of the web sites you present as factual information. this is only the beginning of what you don't seem to understand. i hope you keep doing your own research, please look beyond partisan propaganda.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Of course not. You need merely make a claim and assert it is obvious. No evidence is needed whatsoever.

LOL!! :wink:


Okay, let's test how realistic the notion is.

Look around you. When there is no authority to impose consequences for wrongdoing, do people become righteous, respectful of others, keep agreements, keep their hands off others' property, treat other as equals...

Is our legal system and police force mere busy-making for a problem that does not exist because humans can live together in peace and harmony when there is no externally imposed consequence for wronging another?

How do Anarchists handle issues like the common defense against aggressors and invaders? Do they have a system of laws to deal with accusations of wrongdoing by one person against another - or are there no wrongdoers in that peaceful and beautiful world?

A very poor choice of words.

Laws restraining wrongdoing against other people are never "dead". So long as humans are capable of mischief, laws that restrain them are wise, contemporary and must be upheld.

If you truly despise Individual Rights, you might be okay with politicians freely ignoring the Constitution after SWEARING to uphold and defend it as a condition of their employment. In that case, you ally yourself with the lawless, with the people who are LEAST trustworthy in a position of power, the people MOST likely to do harm!

---

L :Yinyangv: :Yinyangv: K :

Even the Monetarists & followers of Milton Friedman
Know that We don't have to "Borrow Money"

:

Can Congress Issue Debt Free Money?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that:

"Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals."

Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman describes some of the history of the battle leading up to this historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"During the Civil War, Congress authorized greenbacks and made them a legal tender for all debts public and private. After the Civil War, in the first of the famous greenback cases, the Supreme Court declared the issuance of greenbacks unconstitutional. One 'fascinating aspect of this decision is that it was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury when the first greenbacks were issued. Not only did he not disqualify himself, but in his capacity as Chief Justice convicted himself of having been responsible for an unconstitutional action in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury.'

"Subsequently an enlarged and reconstituted Court reversed the first decision by a majority of five to four, affirming that making greenbacks a legal tender was constitutional, with Chief Justice Chase as one of the dissenting justices.

"It is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. The best arrangement currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. This is a particularly difficult amendment to draft because it is so closely linked to the particular institutional structure. One version would be:

"Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.’

"It might be desirable to include a provision that two-thirds of each House of Congress, or some similar qualified majority, can waive the requirement in case of a declaration of war, the suspension to terminate annually unless renewed.

"A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is clearly not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it."

* * *

Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press (N.Y. 1960, 1992), pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co. (San Diego 1980, 1990), pgs. 307-308.

* * *


"The two major parties are the two wings of the same bird of prey."

- Walter W. Liggett, in a Speech at a Farmer-Labor Chautauqua in Rochester, Minnesota, May 1, 1934 -

[This was originally posted by ubaru. It was reposted by Moderator due to system difficulties. Click for more info.]

I just came upon this long thread and have read some of it. I don't know if anyone mentioned Obomba's big lie. See below.

From Ron Paul's weekly update July 18th 2011

Debt Ceiling Drama

The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.


First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable. In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks. Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away. The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008. The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally. Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government's policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of "bracket creep." This is a default. Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn't count.


Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable. For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes. But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough. The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household. A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip. This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.


Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out. In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays. The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere. It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing. This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.

We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes. We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem. We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home. We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery. And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work.





“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” - Adolf Hitler

Business as usual.

Let's make it unusual!!!



Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb


Liz :waccosun:

[INDENT][This was originally posted by ubaru. It was reposted by Moderator due to system difficulties. Click for more info.]

This is Ron Paul's weekly update the following week:

July 25, 2011The Pesky Neighbor and the Debt Ceiling
Imagine you had a pesky neighbor who somehow took out a mortgage on his house in your name and by some legal trickery you were obligated to pay for it. Imagine watching this neighbor throw drunken parties, buy expensive cars, add more rooms to the house, and hire dozens of people to wait on him hand and foot. Imagine that he also managed to take out several credit cards in your name. One by one, he would max them out and then use your good name and credit to obtain another credit card, then another and then another. Each time, this neighbor would claim that he needed the new credit card to pay interest on the other maxed out credit cards. If he defaulted on those cards, your credit score would be hurt and when you wanted to buy something for yourself, it would be more difficult to get a loan and the interest you paid would be higher. Imagine that you mulled this over, and time after time, said nothing as he filled out more credit applications so he would not have to default on the other debt taken out in your name. Meanwhile, another shiny new Mercedes appears in his driveway. At what point do you think you might get tired of this game? And, even though you are left with no really good options, do you think you might eventually tell him to go ahead and default, just stop spending your money!

This analogy demonstrates the position we are in with our government and the debt ceiling. The government has run up a huge debt in the name of the American people, who are sick and tired of being on the hook for it. There are no really good options left. Defaulting on a portion of the debt may not be without costs, but it is better than handing the government yet another credit card.
The government is using the usual scare tactics to strong-arm the people into going along with more spending. Remember the rhetoric surrounding the big bailout of October 2008? We were told, not that this would be calamitous for the banks, but for the people, who would continue to experience massive job losses and foreclosures. We were told that the economy would sink into a deep recession if this money was not handed out to too-big-to-fail corporate cronies. So, after much hand-wringing, leaders from both parties, against unprecedented public outcry, agreed to shower money on the banks and increase the debt. The banks learned nothing, except that Washington will come to their rescue, no matter what. The people, however, continued to lose their jobs and houses anyway, and here we are, still in a deep recession.


When you read the above example, your first reaction might have been to dismiss the neighbor's debt as illegitimate and in no way your responsibility or your problem. You would be right. No fair-minded legal system would hold you responsible for such a debt, and would instead cart your thieving neighbor off to jail. Yet Congress can impose liabilities on you, your children, and grandchildren without your consent, and even without your knowledge. This is another example of government holding itself above the law. Much like the TSA claims the right to molest us, yet arrested a woman who turned the tables last week, stealing somehow becomes legitimate when the government does it.


We supposedly live in a nation of laws. For once, government needs to heed the law regarding the debt ceiling.

Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

[This was originally posted by lynn. It was reposted by Moderator due to system difficulties. Click for more info.]

...'restore America now' my a*s!!...

I WISH TO GOD YOU WERE KIDDING!!
Paul is NOT a viable candidate...Won't ever happen...
And anyway...No freakin' way would I EVER vote for Ron Pau!!...

You want to hand the election win off to someone like right wing/corporate kiss-ass freakzoid Perry???

Do you know what happened tonight at the Repub. show???
Do you know what that sick audience applauded???

If sicko nutcase Perry gets elected, I'm gonna' blame the nutbaggers, Ron Paul groupies like you, and lazy bummed so called 'progressives', and anyone else who couldn't stop whining long enough to vote...

Do you even know what Paul says he would like to do if elected? He's freakin' nuts...
He might be right on about a couple things...But hey, so was Hitler!...
Any murderous freak can be right about something, but that sure doesn't mean you should vote for 'em...

This is class war among other things...So please, get a clue...If you don't vote for Obama, then I hope you're happy if Perry get's in, and really shoves most of us, and this country up to where the sun don't shine...
--------------

Obama '2012

[This was originally posted by someguy. It was reposted by Moderator due to system difficulties. Click for more info.]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

[COLOR=blue]
Any murderous freak can be right about something, but that sure doesn't mean you should vote for 'em...

This is class war among other things...So please, get a clue...If you don't vote for Obama, then I hope you're happy if Perry get's in, and really shoves most of us, and this country up to where the sun don't shine...
--------------

Obama '2012

---

Murderous freak = Obama for sure. If you vote for him you are complicit in several wars, and the death of many thousands.

Funny that you hate Rick Perry so much.... He was a democrat, still acts like a democrat (raised taxes twice in Texas), and was Al Gore's campaign manager for Texas when Al Gore ran for president. :wink:

Oh and it seems to me like Obama has murdered more people that Rick Perry.....

[Hi Crew - There were a lot of posts to this thread that were made during the period after the last backup was taken. I'm sorry but we can't repost all of them separately. Here's the full text of all the post, sans links and formatting. Sorry about that, but it's the best we can do and stay sane. - Barry]

For the Ron Paul cult: https://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152...me_caution_--_

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following 2 members have expressed gratitude to zenekar for this post:

Dixon, Hotspring 44

09-08-2011 12:19 PM TopTop #74
zenekar

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Murderous freak = Obama for sure. If you vote for him you are complicit in several wars, and the death of many thousands.

Funny that you hate Rick Perry so much.... He was a democrat, still acts like a democrat (raised taxes twice in Texas), and was Al Gore's campaign manager for Texas when Al Gore ran for president.

Oh and it seems to me like Obama has murdered more people that Rick Perry.....

Yes, Rick Perry is an angel of compassion: https://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe..._death_penalty

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to zenekar for this post:

Hotspring 44

09-08-2011 01:08 PM TopTop #75
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

You pro Ron Paul-re's, are obviously too young and inexperienced to know much about Ralph Nader because he was locked out of the debates in 1991 - for the 1992 election cycles and again shut out of debates in 2008 election cycle as are all non corporate and non billionaire 3rd party presidential candidates just like Ron Paul would have been if he didn’t cave-in and register as a republican from Libertarian Party:
After over a year of campaigning as the Libertarian Party nominee, Paul received very little media coverage, and was excluded from Presidential debates.


BTW, here is what Ralph Nader said about the bail out in 2008: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7aC7CyOP0Q
Think about it.

An article (excerpt) by Ralph Nader about Obama's Week leadership in regards to republicans and the debt ceiling:
The headlines came quickly after President Obama concluded the deficit-debt deal with the Republicans Sunday evening. There were few shades of gray. The New York Times editorial was titled "To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal: Democrats won almost nothing they wanted except avoiding default."

It was truly, as the Times pointed out, "a political environment laced with lunacy." But don't blame it all on the Republican "mad dogs" on Capitol Hill playing chicken with the economic plight of the American people and its wobbling economy. It was President Obama who surrendered.

In one of the most inept episodes of Presidential-Congressional relations, Mr. Obama managed to give the Republicans more than they expected and leave the Democrats with less than the Republicans offered. The Republicans never expected Mr. Obama to give in entirely on tax increases on the wealthy, on the reviled oil industry giants and other corporate tax escapees. The Republicans even agreed to $800 billion in new revenue over ten years. Obama fumbled the ball day after day, and with the August 2 debt ceiling deadline looming, he fell to the extortionists. Unlike Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II, who routinely expected and got debt ceilings raised without conditions.

The rest of the article: https://www.nader.org/index.php?/arch....html#extended

Ralph Nader: Obama Is a Political Coward - Democracy NOW!

Ralph Nader's Solution to Debt Crisis - Democracy NOW!


Ralph Nader: Corporate socialism runs US government

Ron Paul’s anti tax coupled with a republican congress would ultimately maintain (the) status quo of the "corporate socialism" that already exists and would ultimately lead to; more homeless women & children, more starving, unemployed, homeless people, repeals of worker safety laws, Social Security being dismantled, and more homeless elderly with virtually no chance of employment what so ever with the minimizing of and eventual dismantlement of the food stamp program (FDA) etc, etc, etc.

Of course, Rick Perry would do even more harm than Ron Paul.
Rick Perry as president would = a modern day form of GOVERNMENT sponsored McCarthyism that would end up becoming more anti worker, and more so in favor of BIG BUSINESS over everyone else.

The "Republican"/"Libertarian" theme is a cloaked form of what would amount to a BAIL OUT OF BIG BUSINESS in the form as tax exemptions while starving all moneys that now go for protections that we have which have a direct affect on maintaining our well being and health in hard times....

...There would be likely an immediate suspension or outright repeals of many of, if not all the current provisions to the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, also, no more meaningful or enforced federal worker safety laws (DRILL, BABY, DRILL; to hell with worker safety on the offshore drilling rigs and refineries, allow (the) "free market" to "control" FRACing and get rid of EPA.
Who cares about surface and Well water, the gulf coast environment, or California coast ether for that matter?
We "need" gas!... ...To hell with the environmental protections, FULL SPEED AHEAD, DRILL, BABY, DRILL!... ...Pipe the shale sludge in over pristine land!... ...Let the "Free Market" control the future oil spills from the ruptured pipeline with "corporate socialism"!)...

...Also, a comeback of other harmful things like “allowable levels” of a plethora of toxins: pesticide drift, for (as) example... ...going into your child’s school and your work place which could very well be (you) in the field, on the “farm” working in the cold, wet inclement winter, or 100+ degrees F in the shade but you would be doing back breaking farm labor in the baking hot sun for less than $2.00 per hour and be required during harvest time to work up to 16 hours a day 6 days a week and "only" 8 hours on Sunday, but only if you go to church, with NO workman’s comp because farm labor is exempt or voluntary at best.
Either Ron Paul or Rick Perry would do away with federal minimum wage because otherwise, the corporate agriculture “owners” could not make enough “profits” (the "free market" requires it) ...

...Also, no Social Security or any other federally funded whatsoever; social safety net to depend on WHEN your back goes out or you get Injured, or end up with Cancer from the well known causes of exposure to pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, too much exposure to the direct sunlight and other carcinogens that are all prevalent in corporate, monoculture “farms” and other workplace sources that would become exempt or unfairly minimize their liability exposure from EPA rules or "Class Action Lawsuits" which would all be eliminated, if not sooner, then later, by either Ron Paul or Rick Perry.

Oh, some of (or at least 1 anyway) Ron Paul-re's here stated in other threads; that they only eat food from so-called “healthy” sources; should consider, the very definite possibility of, pollen drift from multinational bank owned or any other corporate (Monsanto, etc.), controlled, GMO monoculture crops devastating the ability to have any truly organic food crops available to you that you all claim to choose for yourselves to eat...

...Then consider also because of the (distorted) interpretations both Paul and Perry have expressed regarding civil rights and States rights; the likely possibility that California would have an influx of people that could easily compare to the historic dust bowl times of when, people from the mid west migrated to California for farm labor jobs which would mean more competition and scarcity of openings for those future “coveted” farm labor and, these days, any other low wage jobs with California’s comparatively higher standards of worker protections, state minimum wage, and other state mandated safety nets that Paul or Perry would do away with on the federal level...

...If they don't get sent to prison labor camps for vagrancy or other discriminatory, prejudice based "laws" like being out on the streets or not "obeying" some sort of "curfew" {predicated on false pretext} (because they have become homeless; because they lost their social safety net) in those increasingly Jim Crow like States that pass or uphold outdated, or wrongful discriminatory laws that are based on prejudice and/or merely attack the symptoms and appearances instead of doing the work of dealing with the root causes, (which may indeed actually be the politicians own lack of ability, willingness, laziness, incompetent and/or they have been bought-off or manipulated by the larger "corporate interests".).

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to Hotspring 44 for this post:

Dixon

09-08-2011 01:18 PM TopTop #76
someguy's Avatar
someguy

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote zenekar wrote: View Post
Yes, Rick Perry is an angel of compassion: https://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe..._death_penalty
No he's not.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-08-2011 01:28 PM TopTop #77
Dixon's Avatar
Dixon
Deity
Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Murderous freak = Obama for sure. If you vote for him you are complicit in several wars, and the death of many thousands.
Yup, Obama's a murderous freak. That was clear since before he was elected. This reflects the fact that, in an imperialistic, extremely militarized, war-based economy with strong fascist tendencies, being a murderous freak is a requirement for the job of President. Even when we're not "at war", every President, Democrat or Republican, supports murder and oppression all over the world through various covert operations and through our client states, such as Israel and Indonesia, and our blood-spattered friendly dictators, who help us vampirize their own countries at horrendous cost to their people. I say this not to defend Obama, but to put his murderousness in perspective. And if you think Rick Perry would be less murderous--well, that's just laughable.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following 4 members have expressed gratitude to Dixon for this post:

bill shearer, Hotspring 44, Iolchan, Sara S

09-08-2011 02:30 PM TopTop #78
Iolchan's Avatar
Iolchan
Supporting Member
Re: Debt Ceiling...Action


Yo!

Attila, {aka zenekar,} You referred us to the link:

zenekar wrote:
For the Ron Paul cult: https://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152...me_caution_--_
I opened up the link and found an article by Adele M. Stan, AlterNet's Washington bureau chief. In it, she wrote:

"Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda."
Throughout the whole article Adele Stan offers no supporting evidence of this allegation regarding Dennis Kucinich - that he is "the GOP's very own;" i.e. that he belongs to the GOP - it remains just an allegation. Just wondering, Attila: Are you advocating Adele Stan's position on Kucinich?

I am aware that Kucinich's wife is a Massey - an old Anglo-Norman family with close historic ties to the House of Lords, & the City of London. But where is the evidence that Kucinich has sold his soul to the G.O.P.? In my opinion Kucinich seems to be one of the few progressive Democrats still in the field; in spite of his marriage contract with a person of dubious {albeit, illustrious} lineage.

Just wondering. Care to comment?

Cheers,
Mark

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-08-2011 04:33 PM TopTop #79
rossmen

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

seems to me the writer was comparing paul's situation in the gop to kucinich's place in the democratic party, an outlier who is mostly ignored by his party. they both have a place here on wacco!

Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post

Yo!

Attila, {aka zenekar,} You referred us to the link:

I opened up the link and found an article by Adele M. Stan, AlterNet's Washington bureau chief. In it, she wrote:

Throughout the whole article Adele Stan offers no supporting evidence of this allegation regarding Dennis Kucinich - that he is "the GOP's very own;" i.e. that he belongs to the GOP - it remains just an allegation. Just wondering, Attila: Are you advocating Adele Stan's position on Kucinich?

I am aware that Kucinich's wife is a Massey - an old Anglo-Norman family with close historic ties to the House of Lords, & the City of London. But where is the evidence that Kucinich has sold his soul to the G.O.P.? In my opinion Kucinich seems to be one of the few progressive Democrats still in the field; in spite of his marriage contract with a person of dubious {albeit, illustrious} lineage.

Just wondering. Care to comment?

Cheers,
Mark

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to rossmen for this post:

Hotspring 44

09-08-2011 04:35 PM TopTop #80
someguy's Avatar
someguy

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote Dixon wrote: View Post
Yup, Obama's a murderous freak. That was clear since before he was elected. This reflects the fact that, in an imperialistic, extremely militarized, war-based economy with strong fascist tendencies, being a murderous freak is a requirement for the job of President. Even when we're not "at war", every President, Democrat or Republican, supports murder and oppression all over the world through various covert operations and through our client states, such as Israel and Indonesia, and our blood-spattered friendly dictators, who help us vampirize their own countries at horrendous cost to their people. I say this not to defend Obama, but to put his murderousness in perspective. And if you think Rick Perry would be less murderous--well, that's just laughable.
And yet liberals still want to give more power and responsibility to the federal government. Does that seem like a good idea to anyone who can actually see the government for these traits?

BTW I agree that Rick Perry would be more murderous, that is why I am voting for Ron Paul, the only anti-war, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist candidate we have to vote for. I hope all lovers of peace would do the same.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to someguy for this post:

ubaru

09-08-2011 04:52 PM TopTop #81
zenekar

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote rossmen wrote: View Post
seems to me the writer was comparing paul's situation in the gop to kucinich's place in the democratic party, an outlier who is mostly ignored by his party. they both have a place here on wacco!
That seems to be a reasonable explanation. I doubt that Kucinich buys into much of Ron Paul's ideology.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to zenekar for this post:

Hotspring 44

09-08-2011 05:16 PM TopTop #82
zenekar

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
And yet liberals still want to give more power and responsibility to the federal government. Does that seem like a good idea to anyone who can actually see the government for these traits?

BTW I agree that Rick Perry would be more murderous, that is why I am voting for Ron Paul, the only anti-war, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist candidate we have to vote for. I hope all lovers of peace would do the same.

The power is in the hands of private interest of the elite ruling class and corporations that pull the strings of government. Ron Paul may appear anti war but he's for privatizing most, if not all, government institutions (in a democracy government represents the people, not the dictates of corporations). Lovers of peace? Giving free reign to corporations to loot resources around the world will not bring about peace. Fascism: eliminating women's choice.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following 3 members have expressed gratitude to zenekar for this post:

anathstryx, Dixon, Hotspring 44

09-08-2011 05:57 PM TopTop #83
someguy's Avatar
someguy

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote zenekar wrote: View Post
The power is in the hands of private interest of the elite ruling class and corporations that pull the strings of government. Ron Paul may appear anti war but he's for privatizing most, if not all, government institutions (in a democracy government represents the people, not the dictates of corporations). Lovers of peace? Giving free reign to corporations to loot resources around the world will not bring about peace. Fascism: eliminating women's choice.
You might call a women's choice to kill her unborn baby fascism, others call it what it is: murder. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or guilty, there is always a higher truth to all of these issues. Women already have the right to choose. Tell me, who is forcing women to have an unplanned pregnancy? Protecting life is not fascism, it is humane, natural, sane, compassionate, and peaceful.

And if you think that Ron Paul is giving free reign to corporations to loot resources around the world, you might be thinking of neo-liberals such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama instead. Check in with yourself on that.

Why wouldn't you want to get rid of the governments influence on our lives if their power is as you say "in the hands of private interest of the elite ruling class and corporations "? Who wants to give those people and institutions more power? I'll tell you who, Obama, Perry, Romney, Bauchmann, and all their wonderful supporters... But not Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who wants to strip that power from the corporate and elite puppet-masters and give the power to the people.

Whats so bad about eliminating the income tax? Don't you want more money to live? I certainly could use it. Don't you want to stop paying for wars, and a government you know very well is corrupt? I do.

Whats so bad about deregulation? Every time a regulation gets passed, its written by the corporate and elite puppeteers and their companies have all the loopholes built in... But there's no loophole built in for the working class, or small business... We all get stuck having to drown in regulations while the big players/controllers are exempt. How about we wipe the slate clean, rid ourselves of these burdens, and give ourselves a chance at success, because with regulations up the ying yang like we have now do nothing but widen the gap between the rich and poor. And hey, if we so feel a regulation is necessary, why not let the local governments take charge on that. We knows whats best for ourselves, and no one size fits all solution is ever going to truly fix a problem.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to someguy for this post:

Allorrah Be

09-08-2011 06:25 PM TopTop #84
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
And yet liberals still want to give more power and responsibility to the federal government.
That's not the way I see it.
Of course, "the government" (officials) should follow the same rules "it" requires the rest of us to "follow".

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
BTW I agree that Rick Perry would be more murderous, that is why I am voting for Ron Paul, the only anti-war, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist candidate we have to vote for. I hope all lovers of peace would do the same.
I knew that Obama was (and still is) a "politician" in Nov 2008, that is 1 of the reasons why I voted for Ralph Nader.
RE: the "debt ceiling":


Confessions of a GOP Operative Who Left "the Cult": 3 Things Everyone Must Know About the Lunatic-Filled Republican Party
Former GOPer: "If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté."
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.

To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West.

The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill.

A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.
It is NOT TRUE that
"Ron Paul, the only anti-war, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist candidate we have to vote for"
Excuse me, but, I do mean to rain on your parade; Ralph Nader has been a presidential candidate more times than RP... ...True fact.
RP I think is somewhat of a religious and prejudiced (even though he may be in denial of it doesn't mean he is not) that is more of a "my way or the highway" kind of person that has closer ties to the Christian Reconstructionism end of the political spectrum than the truly freedom end of the political spectrum. There seems to me to be a duality... meaning:
"4. n.Theology a. The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil."
...in his persona which I think has a potential to be dangerous because people that strongly favor a particular fundamentalist religious system having a duality at it's core, coupled with the quest for political power has the potential to wreak havoc in a mixed religion and non-religious society of people living together in the same geographical areas like the USA. There is a Bill of Rights as amended into the Constitution for very good reasons.

RP would voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964; he said because of the (private) "property rights element".

He (RP) is in a state of denial to believe there is not or would not be racial and other discrimination today if there were never a Civil Rights Act of 1964... ...E gads!

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-08-2011 08:19 PM TopTop #85
ubaru's Avatar
ubaru
Supporting member
Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Ron Paul’s anti tax coupled with a republican congress would ultimately maintain (the) status quo of the "corporate socialism" that already exists and would ultimately lead to; more homeless women & children, more starving, unemployed, homeless people, repeals of worker safety laws, Social Security being dismantled, and more homeless elderly with virtually no chance of employment what so ever with the minimizing of and eventual dismantlement of the food stamp program (FDA) etc, etc, etc.
Uh Hotspring, you're leaving out of the equation how much money would be available if the empire building troops were brought home. That alone would radically change our economy and everyone's for the better. RADICALLY!!

I don't understand you Ron Paul haters. Every time he talks he's the only one that dares talk about what matters. He talks straight. He knows his history. It brings him incredible integrity. The rest seem like, well....the rest.

When you guys quote critics of Ron or think of him as a lunatic fringe, that's EXACTLY what the ruling elite and THEIR media would like to have you believe. They either paint him as fringe lunatic, take his words out of context, or when he's just done something great like tied the debate at Ames, Iowa, with Michelle Bachmann, they have a media blackout on him. If Michelle hadn't been on home turf, he'd have won the debate. They are FREAKED OUT that he's doing so well. And he IS doing really well if you tune in to the grass roots sources of info. That should be reason enough to sift the chaff from the wheat when you read something about him.

They put elite, Perry into the race after seeing that Ron is a real threat to the whole corporate power structure. But Perry didn't even show up to debate at Iowa. And Ron is doing REALLY well if you tune in to the grass roots sources of info. That should be reason enough to sift the chaff from the wheat when you read something about him.

Consider his words when you read them. Are you even reading them before you reply? Why do you trust what others say about him (the ruling elite) over your own thoughts about what he is saying? Keep your mind open, if you can, and just listen.

I have an open mind and I'll listen to the strangest people sometimes. Lindsey Williams is a Baptist preacher and spent years rubbing shoulders with the Big Oil guys as their Chaplin in Prudhoe Bay Alaska, where, incidentally, they discovered an oil field bigger than all of Saudia Arabia's. They're keeping it secret. From them he learned that the price of oil was to be manipulated in the summer to fall of 2008 from $143 to $50 a barrel as an act of economic warfare on the Arab nations. It went to $32. I certainly don't agree with Baptist preachers but I took $1,000 and turned it into $33,000 in 2 months on that advice. So consider listening to folks who you wouldn't necessarily agree with, because some of them have the right piece of information at the right time.



Right after 12:25 minutes into this video it hits me again. Ron's got rock solid integrity based on the basics like upholding Habeous Corpus which brought humanity out of the dark ages in the 1500's. Post 9/11 politics has thrown that out for terrorists, and now they're applying it to people like you and me. TSA in the airports anyone? SWAT teams are raiding farmers, a man who didn't pay his student loan, and just about anybody now. Activists like you and me, all war veterans, and Constitutionalists have been reclassified as terrorists. We're at the point of having to think twice before criticizing the state. (If you're not aware of this yet, you soon will be). To me Fascism is the biggest issue, it cannot coexist with the Constitution, and Ron Paul is the only one who can stop it at the Presidential level. If we don't get Ron, we get the Gestapo. That's what his motto is about.

Liz


Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-08-2011 09:29 PM TopTop #86
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
...Tell me, who is forcing women to have an unplanned pregnancy?
Any fertile male rapists, and also those that would use the law to prevent a woman from birth control or circumvent or prevent a woman to an emergency visit to the hospital for a preventative "morning after" pregnancy preventative pill or other treatment before actual development of fetus (pre-fetus {before viability} stage after insemination).

Don't forget that there are some circumstances where the life of the mother going to even 1st trimester would have a high likelihood of death to both the mother and the fetus which in some cases has major likelihood of fetal death anyway. Sad, difficult, heart wrenching, but true and a real situation for some unfortunate women's'.

Who is supposed to make the choice under those dire circumstances?
Wouldn't government (law/s) forcing the mother to her death in such dire circumstances be "murder too?
What about the woman?... ...doesn't, or shouldn't she have a say-so in a situation like that?
Why should anyone else but the woman and her family with her input if she is concuss under circumstances like that be making the decision?
At some point, in a siduation like rape and in ones like I described it is a matter of privacy verses someone else's morality. That is where I think that so-called "Pro-Choice" is a privacy matter and not a place for government invasion.


Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Protecting life is not fascism, it is humane, natural, sane, compassionate, and peaceful.
No matter what your morality is, intentionally shooting a doctor dead that happens to preform abortions is still 1st degree murder, but, some would (and have) called it justifiable. I don't.

Why does the so-called compassion from the RW seem to abruptly end when the single mother and her children live in abject poverty and need financial help and ask the government for assistance with nutritional food, safe shelter, heat in the winter, safe, and quality schools in all neighborhoods, urban, suburban and rural alike?

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
And if you think that Ron Paul is giving free reign to corporations to loot resources around the world, you might be thinking of neo-liberals such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama instead. Check in with yourself on that.
I have.
The country went broke in large part because the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest at a critical time and, yes, the republican sponsored bill that Bill Clinton signed that repealed the Glass Steagall Act of 1932: with no safeguards to replace it with a more modern protection; (yes "regulation") in it's place was a horribly bad decision for sure.
The argument for preserving Glass–Steagall (as written in 1987):

1- Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit (that is to say, lending) and the use of credit (that is to say, investing) by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act.

2- Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3- Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4- Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).
...and just look at what happened!
Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Why wouldn't you want to get rid of the governments influence on our lives if their power is as you say "in the hands of private interest of the elite ruling class and corporations "? Who wants to give those people and institutions more power? I'll tell you who, Obama, Perry, Romney, Bauchmann, and all their wonderful supporters... But not Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who wants to strip that power from the corporate and elite puppet-masters and give the power to the people.
NOT "the only" one; Ralph Nader is there too!
Ralph Nader also wants to put the shysters in jail and recover as much of the lost, no; STOLEN dollars and property from the fraudulent scammers that now own the R & D political parties.
If anyone here thinks I am, or have been endorsing Obama, you have mistaken my viewpoints for something they are not.

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Whats so bad about eliminating the income tax?
If there is none of; corporate profit, Import, Capitol gains, Wall Street Transaction taxes or fees of some sort, without a cleaning of the "Fractional Reserve" system first, the country will have a 2nd violent Civil War and go totally broke for real.
It would be extremely dangerous to put the country through a situation of a virtual no revenues input overnight. There has to be a viable structure (plan) to make such a radical change, particularly without recovering or otherwise compensating for the STOLEN revenue ($ trillions) before the changes take affect.

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Don't you want more money to live?
Yes, but with a "living wage, I don't expect more exemptions for the most wealthy will do much if anything to accomplish that.

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
...Don't you want to stop paying for wars, and a government you know very well is corrupt? I do.
So do I, but I would rather the people realize that and tell our government to just stop waring, otherwise the war will keep going on at the expense of the poorest first, working it's way up the ladder until the privileged (super rich) get pinched for some bucks instead of reaping the spoils of war like they do now.
Unfortunately, the majority of voters still believe the wars are a necessary ("evil"), we are in the minority on that at this point in time. BTW more "Liberals" holding office believe the "wars" need to end now than "Conservatives" holding office do.

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Whats so bad about deregulation?
It depends on what gets "deregulated", For example:
1- The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1932 was in essence "deregulation".
2- What about the "regulation" that makes ingredients in food containers on the labels?... ...Maybe you are not allergic to anything but some people are so allergic to some foods that eating the wrong food can kill them... ...So, is it OK with you to deregulate that?
3- Is it alright with you that a large corporate entity can depose of toxins into the environment without some sort of regulations; IE: enforceable laws?...
...If you think it is corrupt now, just think what it would be like for small businesses to compete if the big business were the so-called "watch dogs". Their stooges would make the corruption of today look infantile in comparison.
4- I want to have drinking water that is not toxic. Do away with regulations and forget about that altogether.
5- I don't want a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood.
6- I don't want to not have a choice to eat GMO food or not. Food container labeling regulations are the only way to even have a reasonable chance for that "free choice".
Whats wrong with having real and truthful information requirements for food containers?
7- I want my and your automobile tires to be within minimum specifications and be labeled truthfully and accurately.
8- I don't want to have overloaded semi tractor trailers on the highways being commonplace and being a unnecessary danger on the road
8- I would want the anesthesia in the oral surgeons office to be what it says it is on the label and the anesthesiologist to be competent.
9- I expect the law enforcement officers to be properly trained using a reasonable standardized training and tests; (in other words, Regulated using laws that establish minimum requirements).
10- I don't want to have any airplane pilots that are not qualified to fly the aircraft they are flying over my head.
11- Government regulations also regulate the government itself and the holders of office.
I think the real intent of the RW's that are in office now is that what thy really want is for themselves to be deregulated so thy can screw us even harder with their ideology's.
12- there is more but I have said enough for now on that.

Quote someguy wrote: View Post
Every time a regulation gets passed, its written by the corporate and elite puppeteers and their companies have all the loopholes built in... But there's no loophole built in for the working class, or small business... We all get stuck having to drown in regulations while the big players/controllers are exempt. How about we wipe the slate clean, rid ourselves of these burdens, and give ourselves a chance at success, because with regulations up the ying yang like we have now do nothing but widen the gap between the rich and poor. And hey, if we so feel a regulation is necessary, why not let the local governments take charge on that. We knows whats best for ourselves, and no one size fits all solution is ever going to truly fix a problem.
The U.S. Constitution was a "one size fits all" that was a good start, wasn't it?

Leaving all laws up to the local yokels is a recipe for horrible injustices to the minority class without basic human and social rights. The poor would get run out of town and would become too heavy a load on other places that are more humanistic. That would be unjust and has the potential to be used as a form of a precursor of a takeover and insurrection in a "culture war"... ...Looks good on paper but is too generalized the way you presented it; IOW, bad idea as stated; IMHO.

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following member has expressed gratitude to Hotspring 44 for this post:

Dixon

09-08-2011 10:26 PM TopTop #87
ubaru's Avatar
ubaru
Supporting member
Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

I just want to report that my smart meter activism has gotten enough "attention" from invisible data collectors that when I go to access my hotmail address book, it says:

This profile is temporarily unavailable

You may have posted content to your Profile (often unintentionally) that violates our Code of Conduct. Check your Hotmail inbox or the inbox associated with your Windows Live ID for messages from support.

If you are still not sure why your Profile is unavailable, please contact Windows Live support for additional assistance.

There are no message of "support" in my inbox.

I had just gotten off the phone with 3 other players, and it may be that my phone is tapped. All phones have microphones built in, landlines included.

I wrote in another post that we are past the crossroads and knee deep in Fascism and it's up to us to determine how much of a stranglehold it gets. Fascism has just crossed my threshold and has gone into my computer and confiscated all the contacts in my address book so that it's harder for me to work against it.

You know, the last thing on my mind right now is abortion.

Who's going to vote for Ron Paul with me, because THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH!!!

Liz

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-08-2011 11:30 PM TopTop #88
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
Uh Hotspring, you're leaving out of the equation how much money would be available if the empire building troops were brought home. That alone would radically change our economy and everyone's for the better. RADICALLY!!
No I haven't at all. It has been you and someguy that have left out Ralph Nader as if he doesn't even exist who has said the same thing.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
I don't understand you Ron Paul haters. Every time he talks he's the only one that dares talk about what matters. He talks straight. He knows his history. It brings him incredible integrity. The rest seem like, well....the rest.
First of all, I can't make it any clearer than to say; I DON'T "hate Ron Paul". Please I would appreciate it if you wouldn't confuse my genuine concerns and stated disagreements on the issues with hatred. That is an incorrect assessment of my meaning and statements herein.

To the best of my knowledge, Ralph Nader has not had to reverse anything he said that I am aware of. Ron Paul on the other-hand had a little credibility gap or at least he was not ready for the question on what would he have done otherwise to mitigate the said "property rights issue" on the Chris Mathews show regarding the civil rights act of 1964 as I have covered in a previous post.
Ralph Nader is ready for "Hard Ball" questions because he has gotten used to people trying to trip him up with curve ball questions because he has it covered.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
When you guys quote critics of Ron or think of him as a lunatic fringe, that's EXACTLY what the ruling elite and THEIR media would like to have you believe.
Same happens with Ralph Nader; I can only say as a piece of advise is; get use to it it is part of politics and the situation surrounding them. Besides the Tea Partier's (BTW, I am not referring to Paul) for the most part are "lunatics" IMHO.
I never said Paul was a "lunatic".
Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
They either paint him as fringe lunatic, take his words out of context, or when he's just done something great like tied the debate at Ames, Iowa, with Michelle Bachmann, they have a media blackout on him.
Hay wait a minute, I mentioned the so-called media "blackout" of RP in a previous post, the same one where RP said in his own words that he would have voted against the civil rights act of 1964 because of the "property rights issue".. He said that; I am not "putting words in his mouth" so, please don't confuse me with others that do.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
If Michelle hadn't been on home turf, he'd have won the debate. They are FREAKED OUT that he's doing so well. And he IS doing really well if you tune in to the grass roots sources of info. That should be reason enough to sift the chaff from the wheat when you read something about him.
Michelle and Perry are aggressive RWer's and they are preaching to their base in those places.
Of course Paul is going to be subject to their wrath; you might as well get used to it, it's not going away any time soon.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
IThey put elite, Perry into the race after seeing that Ron is a real threat to the whole corporate power structure. But Perry didn't even show up to debate at Iowa. And Ron is doing REALLY well if you tune in to the grass roots sources of info. That should be reason enough to sift the chaff from the wheat when you read something about him.
I do even better than that, I listen to and read quotes and go to Paul's website and separate the "wheat from the chaff" more effectively that way.

I just don't believe that doing away with Social Security is a good idea at all. It seems to me that Paul instead of revising it, he wants to get rid of it and call it welfare. That is one of the places, but not the only one where he looses my potential vote.
Perry, on the other hand, thinks Social Security is unconstitutional and a "ponzi scheme" which is lunacy as far as I am concerned.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
Consider his words when you read them. Are you even reading them before you reply? Why do you trust what others say about him (the ruling elite) over your own thoughts about what he is saying? Keep your mind open, if you can, and just listen.
As I have stated, to the waccobb board, I have read and listened to Paul, and I just disagree with him on some important to me issues, plane and simple.
Just because I don't have the same viewpoint as you do does not mean I am parroting others opinions.

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post



Right after 12:25 minutes into this video it hits me again.
OK I watched it, thanks for the "12:25 minutes" info, I do agree with him on that; I never stated that I didn't, it's not new news to me.
Too bad the Tea Party and the other Republicans don't agree with him, as is all too clear in that video.
As far as I can tell, he doesn't have much of a chance for wining the primary based on that scene.

Just admit that the majority of the Republicans running for presidential office of today are quasi-fascist at best or they are the real deal neo-fascists.

Last edited by Hotspring 44; 09-08-2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason: HTML correction/s

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
Remove All

The following 2 members have expressed gratitude to Hotspring 44 for this post:

"Mad" Miles, Dixon

09-08-2011 11:42 PM TopTop #89
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

Quote ubaru wrote: View Post
I just want to report that my smart meter activism has gotten enough "attention" from invisible data collectors that when I go to access my hotmail address book, it says:

This profile is temporarily unavailable

You may have posted content to your Profile (often unintentionally) that violates our Code of Conduct. Check your Hotmail inbox or the inbox associated with your Windows Live ID for messages from support.

If you are still not sure why your Profile is unavailable, please contact Windows Live support for additional assistance.

There are no message of "support" in my inbox.

I had just gotten off the phone with 3 other players, and it may be that my phone is tapped. All phones have microphones built in, landlines included.

I wrote in another post that we are past the crossroads and knee deep in Fascism and it's up to us to determine how much of a stranglehold it gets. Fascism has just crossed my threshold and has gone into my computer and confiscated all the contacts in my address book so that it's harder for me to work against it.

You know, the last thing on my mind right now is abortion.

Who's going to vote for Ron Paul with me, because THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH!!!

Liz

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-09-2011 01:18 AM TopTop #90
Hotspring 44's Avatar
Hotspring 44

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action

FYI, for those that believe that Social Security and medicare are the largest debit drivers, here is some info about the misleading media situation that we have been and are still in:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showth...533#post140533

Edit PostEdit Delete Post Email Reply Privately Reply publicly Reply Publicly Express your gratitude for this post!
09-09-2011 05:57 AM TopTop #91
lynn

Re: Debt Ceiling...Action


lolchan..."That was the last time I ever voted for any presidential candidate at all... Since then, I have basically followed the old Anarchist aphorism, “Don’t Vote; It Only Encourages Them.”
..."To tar me with the LaRouche brush, Dear Lynn, is a bit of a low blow – but I’ll take my own words about The Four Agreements, to heart, and not take it personally. Bless you."...


Nice to know you encourage tyranny.
And all those Corporatists who like it when people don't show up to vote, give you a big fat wet kiss right now!...
I think you should trade places with someone who is living under tyranny right now, who can't vote...I'm sure they would appreciate it...
Nice to know all those women, and others who struggled and died to get the vote doesn't mean anything to you...
My statements were not 'taring' you with 'LaRouche'...you misunderstood my meaning...
And yes, I think it's really silly to think of Obama as a 'stepin-fetchit'...
He knew exactly what he was getting into...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's a diferent take than the typical idea on 'stepin'-fetchit'....

..."The way they make it sound, it's like black people are permanently harmed by Stepin Fetchit," Walker says. "And I don't agree with that — I don't think it's a bad character. I think it's a funny character." Walker points out that the Fetchit character is actually a subversive trickster — he never got around to fetching anything.
"The lazy man character that [Perry] played was based on something that had come from slavery," Watkins says. "It was called 'putting on old massa' — break the tools, break the hoe, do anything to postpone the work that was to be done."
Finally, the white characters would become exasperated and do the work themselves. "And blacks understood it perfectly, and laughed heartily at it," Watkins says. For his part, Perry was laughing all the way to the bank. By the mid-1930s, he was a millionaire with a fleet of luxury cars and expensive suits."...
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5245089

===========================================================================

someguy - Murderous freak = Obama for sure. If you vote for him you are complicit in several wars, and the death of many thousands.
---------------
And we've basically had a war economy since WW2...
I'm going to assume you are homeless and penniless, and some kind of 'breatharian' since you must never buy anything like food with U.S. mint money...

...BTW I agree that Rick Perry would be more murderous, that is why I am voting for Ron Paul, the only anti-war, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist candidate we have to vote for. I hope all lovers of peace would do the same.'...


Another way of stating you will be happy to allow Perry (or who-ever they nominate - and no, it won't be Paul) to get voted in...

===================================

Hotspring...." "

Maybe it's something in the water??...

..."Just admit that the majority of the Republicans running for presidential office of today are quasi-fascist at best or they are the real deal neo-fascists."

***The term 'fascist' has been gettin' thrown around way to casually for yrs. now...I wish people would stop it...It's inappropriate...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

OBAMA '2012

Quote:

---

Maybe it's something in the water??...

---

Psycho-cotic/active ingredients in the “Tea” perhaps?

Quote:

---

The term 'fascist' has been gettin' thrown around way to casually for yrs. now...I wish people would stop it...It's inappropriate...

---

Yo, lynn,
In my case; here in this discussion, I disagree because the way I used the word "fascist" is correct and is quite ‘appropriate’ and I do believe what I stated has a reasonable basis in fact.

When I used the word "fascist", I meant it as:

Quote:

---

"2. n (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any person regarded as having right-wing authoritarian views"

---

Of course if you either do not except that definition; (1) I think that it is on you to at least explain why the definition as stated above is incorrect regarding why the actual meaning of what I said is (so) “inappropriate”, (if that is what you were referring to: my use of the word “fascist”), or, (2) if you believe that Rick Perry doesn't have or has not expressed "Right-wing authoritarian views" that is one thing where we may have an honest disagreement where we can have differing views on that, which could be a worthy topic to discuss; otherwise, the discussion of the usage of certain types of "buzz words" (?) and the role they play in the realm of semantics (spin?) should probably be a thread of it’s own.

It’s interesting that our language has single words which have differing connotations depending on the context and intent of the person using them.

There is a natural tendency for people to sometimes misinterpret the intended meaning of the actual statement someone makes.

There are many ways we can misinterpret a particular statement that someone made even though the statement if interpreted as was meant would otherwise make (more contextual) sense; of course, weather we agree with a statement as it was intended or not, is another matter.

Semantics can be cumbersome at times, that is for sure.
Sometimes the best we can do in some cases is to make an honest attempt to understand what was actually meant.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

[Hi Crew - There were a lot of posts to this thread that were made during the period after the last backup was taken. I'm sorry but we can't repost all of them separately. Here's the full text of all the post, sans links and formatting. Sorry, about that, but its the best we can do and stay sane. - Barry]

---

Thanks Barry, Alexia and others (?).
Staying "sane" is a good thing.:waccosun:Big Smile

iolchan..."I don’t encourage tyranny at all - anywhere. I am especially opposed to economic tyranny...
I am living under tyranny. Right Now. Here, in America."...

I figured someone would say that sooner or later...
There's been tyranny for god-knows how long...This is the world...Full of injustice, and horrible things sometimes...
Nothing new...We are all a part of it, whether we like it or not...
And most of us probably know at least one person who currently lives here, wants to live here, who came from another country. Because as far as 'tyranny' goes...This is a pretty mild form of it...Tons of people living in other countries still want to come here...For good reason...
We've still got the right to vote, and other things - and I'm sick of people whining, and being passive nit-wits...
I sure know I do not want to live in a country where I can't vote!...

That 'anarchist aphorism' (posted earlier) is bullshit...
Jehovah's witnesses, and other religious people don't vote either, because they are waiting for the second coming of Christ, or God to come save the world...
Those that love to abuse power, don't want people to vote...They don't give a crap why anyone doesn't vote, and when people don't, that gives them even more advantage.


"There are only two jurisdictions in the entire Western Hemisphere where the Excel Model, Sun-Mar toilet is not allowed; and Sonoma County is one of them. Fact.
"Friends of mine who are paralegals informed me"...

Well, don't know why that toilet is banned, but if it's for no good reason...That really sucks...and sounds like people should keep trying to change that law, and get rid of it...
Okay, so I understand at least one reason why you don't vote...

"The Bankers who hired O’Bama to do their dirty work are the real racists. They continually refer to Arabs as “sand-niggers” and goodness only knows what they say about Obama behind his back. He is their footservant, and he can be replaced."...

I'm sure the Arabs have plenty of laughs at what they call us Americans, and other people too. The Arabs have so much money dripping out of their ears, and laughing while walking to the bank for decades now, I doubt if they even give much of a crud who calls them 'sand-niggers'...
And I know some of their extremists wouldn't mind blowing me up just because I'm an American...The only ones I feel bad for are those women who feel, and are oppressed...
(not sure why you brought up the Arabs, but, oh well)...

And I don't give a damn if people think Obama is some 'footservant'...This is the country and government we have right now - and it's darn better than most...
It still makes a difference who our President is...And if Perry or someone like him is the other one coming down the pike, we should work our damn butts off to try and stop that.

If it doesn't matter to people who gets appointed to the SCOTUS, who is our Rep., or if public schools disappear, and labour is even more demeaned, and women's choices are ruined, that old people will lose Social Security, and more leaders don't care if you die because you can't afford health care...
Then fine...sit on your duff, be a lazy fool, and keep whining away while the extreme, right-winger- nutcase corporatists keep taking over...

"O.K. Lynn, I concede it may have been a little silly to put it that way – but it isn’t racist."

I wasn't thinking it was racist...Just silly...

..."then Obama is worse than you could possibly imagine. So I ask you, why are you still supporting him after the Budget betrayal? – in 2012, no less?"...

(Oh man...Can't any of you left-winger idealists, get off your - "I won't vote, or support anyone who doesn't fit into my perfect sense of justice" mode?
NO-ONE is going to fit into your perfect little box!...Every single politician who becomes president will probably lie about something, change their minds, and disappoint you greatly if you have much of any expectations about him/her.)

Okay, let me attempt to make this perfectly clear...AGAIN!...

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT A WHACKJOB,
NASTY (EXTREME right-winger-corporatist-kiss ass, anti-social security, GO AHEAD AND DIE IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE) Repub. LIKE RICK PERRY TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!

Next to Rick Perry and the others, Obama is a SAINT!

Clear enough?
---------------------------------------------------------

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!

Reply to Lynn

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.pngiolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
"That was the last time I ever voted for any presidential candidate at all... Since then, I have basically followed the old Anarchist aphorism, “Don’t Vote; It Only Encourages Them.”

..."To tar me with the LaRouche brush, Dear Lynn, is a bit of a low blow – but I’ll take my own words about The Four Agreements, to heart, and not take it personally. Bless you."...

---

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.pnglynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
Nice to know you encourage tyranny.

---

I don’t encourage tyranny at all - anywhere. I am especially opposed to economic tyranny - to the palpably horrible tyranny of Wall Street and the City of London; the multinational Corporations that reside in Basel, Geneva & Zurich; to the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and to their fiscal agent on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Money Lords are the authentic tyrants, and they are the ones who select who will win, place, and show, in the rigged elections for “Republicans” & “Democrats” in this duopoly of theirs.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
And all those Corporatists who like it when people don't show up to vote, give you a big fat wet kiss right now!...

---

The reason I no longer vote is simple: In the Year 2003, The Permit and Resource Management Department of Sonoma County sent me a “boilerplate letter” essentially threatening to come down my right-of-way with a D-6 Bulldozer, and tear down my hand-crafted Cottage in the hills; All because I did not have a Septic System hooked up to the toilet. Instead, I have a Sun-Mar Excel model, state-of--the-art non-flush composting toilet, which is the appropriate technology for this land.

There are only two jurisdictions in the entire Western Hemisphere where the Excel Model, Sun-Mar toilet is not allowed; and Sonoma County is one of them. Fact.

Friends of mine who are paralegals informed me that I would stand a better chance of not losing my house – and land - to the State, if I went down to the Voter Registrar’s office, and read myself off the lists of Registered Voters. So I did. I am now a non-resident alien. I am not a “resident” of the State of California. Instead, I am a Sovereign Soul who dwells on the Earth, and I acknowledge, I am only passing through. I have hope of a better city - one not made with hands.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
I think you should trade places with someone who is living under tyranny right now, who can't vote...I'm sure they would appreciate it...

---

I am living under tyranny. Right Now. Here, in America.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
Nice to know all those women, and others who struggled and died to get the vote doesn't mean anything to you...

---

It so happens I come from three generations of Feminists on my maternal side. My great-grandmother, Ida Fleischer, was an activist as a Suffragette. She got arrested, more than once. Throughout, She had the complete support of her husband, Charlie Fleischer. Edith Fleischer , my grandmother, joined the Flatbush chapter of the Young People’s Socialist League in 1914, when she was thirteen, and very pro-actively organized and marched for Woman’s Suffrage throughout her teens, until it came about, in 1919. My mother, Marda Liggett Woodbury, was a member of the League for Women Voters, for many, many decades. I honor and revere their Memory.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
My statements were not 'taring' you with 'LaRouche'...you misunderstood my meaning...

---

Actually, Lynn you did say :

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Maybe, you should go hang out with the LaRouche (Obama is Hilter) culties, and yak with them...

---

What was I to do with that? So I iterate: I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the U.S. Labor Party, nor of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. However I do not hate or despise ol’ Lyn Marcus, either. I don’t hate anyone - including O’Bama. In fact, I pray for him. Things would be very much more dreadful if some “lone [right wing] nut” took it in hand to shoot the Man. Civil War = Race War, in the streets.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
And yes, I think it's really silly to think of Obama as a 'stepin-fetchit'...

---

O.K. Lynn, I concede; to say that O’Bama is a “Steppin- fetchit” may not be le mot juste. And it may have been a little “silly” to put it that way – but it isn’t racist. The Bankers who hired O’Bama to do their dirty work are the real racists. They continually refer to Arabs as “sand-niggers” and goodness only knows what they say about Obama behind his back. He is their foot-servant, and he can be replaced.

Obama is a Chicago politician who got elected by invoking the Legacy of Martin Luther King, Junior, but in practice, he has shown himself to be a Warmonger of the first order. He is the lackey and servant of the Bankers and the Bond-holding Class. There, is that better?

I confess, I am just a little angry at this calculated and cynical betrayal of the American people. I loved Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a Mentsh.

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png lynn wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
He knew exactly what he was getting into...

---

Did he? If he actually did know what he was getting into, and what he would actually have to do, in order to please his Masters, and stay alive – and not get smoked, like John Fitzgerald Kennedy, {who was not filling in the dots the way he was supposed to do} - then Obama is worse than you could possibly imagine. So I ask you, why are you still supporting him after the Budget betrayal ? – in 2012, no less?

As I wrote on another thread :

The President has not Surrendered. He is only following Orders = Orders which come from the folks at the top of the Pyramid, the Men@Rockefeller Center, who hang in the snazzzy Men's Club in the closed Quarters at the top of Bankers' Trust @ 16 Wall Street, kids. Those are the Men who hired 'Bama to do his Job on the American People. In this respect the recent installment of the "Debt-ceiling Crisis" was a charade and a farce. It is Theatre. Not the sort of Play we go to enjoy at Shakespeare in the Park, but Theatre none-the-less.

The so-called "hard right," the "tea party" folks, who sleep in their offices in the Congress Building, are not the Power Elite, kids. They are not the ones pulling the strings behind Debt-Collection. The tea party folks are simply, vestigially, trying to Remember a moment when the Grand Old Republican Party stood for "balanced budgets." This in itself is not bad. -- And most of the Tea-partiers were not reading from a prepared Script; one they did not write, the way 'Bama continually does.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1313427763

No, this is not "political war" - It is Class War - and the main players are not the ones who get to be seen on prime-time network Television. The main action was behind the Scenes, kids: among Los Ricos; the Bond-holders, who were supposed to get their Quarterly dividends on the first of July. Their checks were late, and they were Pissed !

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...2&d=1313428046

- Mark Walter Evans -

Don't know if that 'lolchan' post above is an accidental repost, or what?
I 'got' all that other stuff 'lolchan'....I don't have time to respond to everything...
And no, I don't think Obama just 'follows orders'...Disagree with you bigtime on that...
========================

To Barry and moderators -

What? You guys and gals want to stay sane??

What are you, NUTS?

Big Smile
-------------------------------

Obama 2012

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

To Barry and moderators -

What? You guys and gals want to stay sane??

What are you, NUTS?

Big Smile
-------------------------------

---

It's too late...:crazysmile:...:lalalala:

This August 8th weekly update from Ron Paul is also pertinent to this thread:

Super Congress A Gift to K Street

The Super Congress created by the recent debt ceiling increase deal is a typical example of something nefarious attached to a bigger bill that is rushed through Congress without giving Members ample opportunity to consider the full ramifications. This commission may turn into an early Christmas present for the well-heeled lobbyists of K Street. This is because the commission presents a huge opportunity for lobbying firms to sneak their client's pet projects and issues into whatever legislation is created by the commission. The fact that automatic cuts to defense are named if the committee deadlocks simply signals to the military industrial complex to bring their A game to the lobbying effort.

One red flag I am constantly aware of in my position as a Congressman is that highly complex and convoluted legislation frequently has dangerous provisions hidden in the fine print. Elaborate legislative packages force lawmakers to take the bad with the good, and often if they refuse, they are accused of voting against the positive provision - never mind the blatant Constitutional violations in the bill, the spending, the waste, and the unchecked expansion of government. I don't usually have to read too much of a bill like that before encountering something unconstitutional, or simply unwise. Then I have to vote no.

That doesn't seem to be the case with a majority of legislators, unfortunately. In order to ram through one special interest's favorable treatment or giveaway, a certain amount of horse-trading is done. The end result is mammoth bills with myriads of unrelated provisions that favor those with the best lobbyists at the expense of everyone else.

The creation of a 12 member committee to preside over $1.5 trillion in spending decisions, and the exclusion of the rest of Congress also means lobbying firms can focus their efforts on an anointed few, which is certainly more manageable for them than having to deal with the entire Congress. Every cut considered will, of course, have a recipient on the other end whose livelihood is being threatened. The probable outcome is that any cuts realized will be more a function of lobbying prowess than the merits or demerits of the actual programs on the chopping block.

Make no mistake - I am enthusiastically for cutting government spending. The goal should be to eventually reduce government down to the size and scope of its constitutional limitations. However, the process of getting there must also be constitutional. Concentrating such special authority to fast track legislation affecting so many special interests to a small, select committee is nothing more than an unprecedented power grab. Only fears of an impending catastrophe could have motivated Members to allow this legislation to be rushed through Congress. The founding fathers had strong feelings about taxation without representation and under no circumstances would they have felt excluding 98% of Congress from fiscal decisions was appropriate.

I see nothing good coming out of this Super Congress. I suspect it will be highly vulnerable to corruption and special interests. No benefit can come from such careless disregard of the Founders' design.


Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

And the fallout as described by Ron Paul in his August 15th, 2011 weekly update:

S&P States the Obvious

Politicians did not get much time to pat themselves on the back for supposedly rescuing the economy with the debt limit deal last week. The ink was barely dry when Standard & Poor's downgraded the US debt ratings anyway, roiling world financial markets. Anyone who has taken an honest look at the government's fiscal situation, taken into account how Washington works and the direction it is going would have a very difficult time arguing with S&P's decision, although a strong case can be made that this was too incremental a downgrade and that it took far too long for S&P to admit the obvious.

Nonetheless, the administration nitpicked over a $2 trillion "mistake". S&P rejoined with the fact that $2 trillion here or there hardly makes a difference in the time frame under discussion. That, if nothing else, should tell you the magnitude of the problem. $2 trillion has become a drop in the bucket.

S&P cited Congress's inability to act like grownups and make necessary, meaningful cuts, which is true. I must take issue however, with their suggestion that tax increases are part of the answer. Taking capital out of the private sector, where it can create real value in the form of new jobs and products, and instead giving it to Washington to waste and squander is not the solution. Tax increases may seem penny-wise to some, but in reality they would be very pound-foolish. The government currently takes in $2.2 trillion in taxes per year, which is far too much already. It spends $3.7 trillion, which is ridiculous and criminal. The problem is runaway government spending, not the American people having too much money.

And yet we can't even have a serious discussion about bringing our troops home and ending our expensive occupations around the world – things the president used to claim to favor!

Even without this downgrade, major investors are waking up to what lies down the road for the United States in fiscal terms. China is showing more signs of losing its taste for our debt. Others are following suit. What we are about to see is the end of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. When that happens, we will no longer be in a position to have pretend debates about things we probably should spend a little bit less on - we will be forced to implement serious spending cuts as our sources of credit dry up. Of course, we can try to postpone the day of reckoning by printing more money but the resulting “inflation tax” will be far worse than a reduction in government benefits.

Hyperinflation devastates the middle class. After Weimar Germany hyper-inflated their currency in the 1920s, an entire life savings couldn't buy a postage stamp. The bank wouldn't even send customers a check for all the money they had saved their whole lives. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on or the stamp to send it. This is what is meant when it is said that the middle class gets wiped out. The pieces for this to happen here are all falling into place, and have been since 1971. The only way to avoid that sort of chaos now is for Congress to immediately reduce federal spending and take the Constitution seriously again. The welfare/warfare state will end either way, but winding it down responsibly is a far better way to do it.



Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

Ron Paul would do away with Social Security. This is the action of a sane Senator who understands that his job is to represents the people's interest in Congress:

Sanders Introduces Bill to Strengthen Social Security
https://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/...-b2734cf38bdbs

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:

Ron Paul would do away with Social Security. This is the action of a sane Senator who understands that his job is to represents the people's interest in Congress:

Sanders Introduces Bill to Strengthen Social Security
https://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/...-b2734cf38bdbs

---

Thanks zenekar .

Raise the "cap" (!!), that is what I have been saying here on waccobb for quite some time now.

The Ron Paul enthusiasts here seem to (for the most part) fit into 1 of 2 categories; 1- younger "voter" that seemingly has no personal reference to Social Security as a benefit for them...
...They think of it as either insolvent, unsustainable, or an outright scam that they will never receive any benefits from by the time they are too old to work competitively enough to either get or hold on to a “job”...


...They seem to have little or no clue to the real possibility that they could become disabled and that they may not have any other adequate means of financial support...


...They give the appearance of thinking they are invincible and therefore need not any social safety net and are willing (itching) to have government yank that right out from under the ones that do (or will) need and use the safety net of Social Security.

2- Older (45+ years), collage educated, self employed, privately insured, professional, individuals that don't think that the money they have been required by law to put into Social Security was as good of an investment as they could have made with the same money if only they didn't have to pay into SS; which BTW may or may not be true, but that is not the point of Social Security to compete with "possibilities", no, SS is a social safety net contract with the people not to be intermingled with speculation like it is somehow supposed to be compared to the boom / bust cycles of the so-called "free market" and Wall Street.

It would simply be wrong to make such an argument why someone shouldn't pay into or have an opt-out option to paying into Social Security.

In the simplest of terms, if it weren't for the Bush tax cuts and the 2 unnecessary wars there would not be a need for such high numbers to go to as far as the amount of $trillions "debt ceiling" is concerned.

Blaming the huge majority of the amount of debt on the poor, sick, disabled, "Liberals", and "Progressives", is essentially, the serial assailant blaming the victims and those who resist the assault.

Note: I found this story on : beforeitsnews.com

China’s Central Bank to ‘liquidate’ U.S. Treasuries; NOT
U.S. Dollars, Seeking a More Stable Currency, Like Gold

https://survivingglobalrecession.fil...pg?w=460&h=287

The debt markets have been warned.


A key rate setter-for China’s central bank let slip – or was it a slip? – that Beijing aims to run down its portfolio of US debt as soon as safely possible.


“The incremental parts of our of our foreign reserve holdings should be invested in physical assets,” said Li Daokui at the World Economic Forum in the very rainy city of Dalian – former Port Arthur from Russian colonial days.


“We would like to buy stakes in Boeing, Intel, and Apple, and maybe we should invest in these types of companies in a proactive way.”


“Once the US Treasury market stabilizes we can liquidate more of our holdings of Treasuries,” he said.


To my knowledge, this is the first time that a top adviser to China’s central bank has uttered the word “liquidate”. Until now the policy has been to diversify slowly by investing the fresh $200bn accumulated each quarter into other currencies and assets – chiefly AAA euro debt from Germany, France and the hard core.


We don’t know how much US debt is held by SAFE (State Administration of Foreign Exchange), the bank’s FX arm. The figure is thought to be over $2.2 trillion.


The Chinese are clearly vexed with Washington, viewing the Fed’s QE as a stealth default on US debt. Mr Li came close to calling America a basket case, saying the picture is far worse than when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher took over in the early 1980s.


Mr Li, one of three outside academics on China’s MPC, described the debt deals on Capitol Hill as “just trying to by time”, saying it will not be enough to stop America’s “debt dynamic” turning dangerous.


Fair enough, but let us be clear: the reason China has accumulated the equivalent of 6pc of global GDP in reserves (like the US in the 1920s) is because it has held down its currency to gain market share. As Michael Pettis from Beijing University points out tirelessly, the mercantilist policy hollows out US industries and forces America to choose between debt bubbles or unemployment – or, of course, protectionism, though we are not there yet.


Until it abandons that core policy, it has to keep buying foreign assets and lots of dollars. The euro can absorb only so much – 800bn euros so far – before Europeans realize (the French already realize) that Chinese bond purchases are double edged, and the yen the Swissie can’t absorb anything at all. (The governments are intervening to stop it). Besides, China has the same misgivings about euro debt as it does about dollar debt. Perhaps more so after Euroland’s long-running soap opera.


So what Li Daokui said is not bad for the dollar as such. He said there is “$10 trillion” waiting to be invested in the US, if America will open its doors.


It is bad for bonds – or will be. The money will go into strategic land purchases all over the world, until the backlash erupts in earnest. It will go into equities, until Capitol Hill has a heart attack. It will go anywhere but debt.


Yet another reason to be careful of 10-year Treasuries and Bonds below 2pc yields. There is a big seller out there, just itching to let go...

For full story:

https://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/1107/145/Chinas_Central_Bank_to_liquidate_U.S._Treasuries_NOT_U.S._Dollars,_Seeking_a_More_Stable_Currency_Like_Gold.html

From: the BBC World News,19 September 2011

Obama plans taxes and spending cuts to reduce deficit

President Obama's call for tax increases will face opposition from Republicans in Congress

President Barack Obama is to unveil plans to cut the US deficit by more than $3tn (£1.9tn) in the next decade.

A White House official said his proposals include an overhaul of the tax code that would raise $1.5tn.

The official said the president would not agree to cuts in health care for the elderly if there were no provisions for rich Americans to pay more tax.

Republicans in Congress have already said they will not agree to any plans to increase taxes.

Mr Obama's plans will be submitted to a congressional deficit-reduction "super-committee" already considering how to cut $1.5tn from the budget deficit.

The committee faces a November deadline to find savings and is not obliged to accept the president's ideas.

The president is scheduled to announce his long-term deficit reduction plan at the White House at 10:30 (14:30 GMT) on Monday.

The proposals being unveiled on Monday are a mix of cuts to spending and tax code changes that would increase rates on the rich.

They include nearly $250bn in cuts to Medicare spending - the healthcare programme for the elderly.

But those cuts will depend on the approval of his plans to raise new tax revenue from high-earners and corporations, reports say.

"He will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share," Reuters news agency quoted an Obama administration official as saying.

The $3tn figure includes an estimated $1tn of savings over the next decade from the expected withdrawal of military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Closing loopholes
Over the weekend officials provided journalists with a preview of what the president's plan includes.

On Saturday, officials said Mr Obama wanted a "Buffett Rule" that would see Americans who earn more than $1m pay the same share of tax as those who earn less.

The proposal refers to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, who has complained that he and his wealthy peers pay relatively less tax than the people who work for them.

Many high-income Americans benefit from tax loopholes that see earnings on investment taxed at lower rates than wages.

But its unclear how much such a rule would increase revenues, as the administration will not give specific details on how it would be implemented, calling it one of the guiding principles of tax code reform.

Republicans roundly criticized the president's plans, with Paul Ryan, who chairs the House of Representatives budget committee, describing them as "class warfare."

"It is disappointing the president has nothing but a fresh slogan for the same job killing small-business tax hikes opposed by bipartisan majorities in Congress," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Last week Mr Boehner said any tax increases were "off the table".

The US economy has been growing only slowly while the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high, above 9%. Facing an election next year, Mr Obama has had a battle in Congress over how to reduce the ballooning deficit while the economy remains stagnant.

Ratings agency Standard and Poor's cut the US AAA rating in August after the country went to the brink of a default over an extended battle in Congress over raising the government's debt limit.

Quote:

---

From: the BBC World News,19 September 2011

---

off topic - but a web safety issue: the link is to a potential link-hijacker (it's meant to be "www.bbc.co.uk" but it's "www.Bbbc.co.ok", which mirrors it, and is registered out of the Virgin Islands). If you use a browser plugin like WOT it'll help spot these for you. Also, check (usually at the lower-left of your browser) where a link will take you by mousing over it before clicking it.

Why Obama's Fix Won't Work

Conspicuously absent from Obama's proposed "fixes" to the Budget / deficit mess, without a doubt, will be any attempt to de-fund outlandish, un-Constitutional, Imperialist Wars on behalf of the Oil Cartels, Haliburton Corporation, and Brown & Root. Also outside the box of the Democratic proposals, intended entirely for purposes of electioneering in the 2012 Campaign for President - for which Obama is already on the march - will be any move to assert the power of Congress to issue debt-free money, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court Decision, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884, which ruled :

"Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals."

Neither will the Democrat who currently occupies the White House be likely to endorse or promote AMENDMENT XXVIII, which could fix the deep systemic economic mess we find ourselves in. Most of the professional politicians of the Democratic Party, like the politicians of the Republican Party, are committed to a policy of serving the Corporate masters of Wall Street, who underwrote, financed, and filled their campaign chests with the big bucks.

Thus, both parties are committed to perpetuating the present monetary system, whereby money is issued by a private Corporation - the Federal Reserve Bank, and returns enormous, phenomenal, quarterly dividends for the lucky few who just happened to inherit the right stock in the right banks - the money-market, Prime Banks, of Wall Street. Both wings of the duopoly work for the Rockefeller Center. Together, they function as a controlling dialectic over politics in America. Both establishment "schools" of Economics - Keynesian and Monetarist, work symbiotically, also, in a controlled dialectic over the field of Money.

Why We Need Amendment XVIII, Now

Amendment XVIII does several things that are timely:

Amendment XXVIII Re-Asserts the Constitutional principle that Congress – the Representatives of We, the People - should control, and be the ultimate Arbiter over the Creation of Money and Credit.

Amendment XXVIII Nationalizes the private ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, and subsumes the creative functions of that institution into the Treasury Department, creating a Sub-Treasury “Common-Wealth Central Bank” - to be established and dedicated to the Interest of the People – not Wall Street.

Amendment XXVIII Authorizes Congress to recall the National Debt, and transforms, by Congressional Fiat, the fraudulent “National Debt,” held by prime banks in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities, into an actual National Blessing {Alexander Hamilton’s words} in the form of trillions of Dollars of “Common-Wealth” to be deposited in the New “Common-Wealth, Central Bank” by recalling, and transforming the U.S. Treasury Bonds, by Fiat, into a new, non-interest-bearing, dollar-denominated credit instrument: the “National Credit-Receipt.”

Amendment XXVIII cleans out the Augean Stables of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank, and opens the Books, Documents, and Records of those Institutions to the minutest Public Scrutiny. Amendment XXVIII also asserts “…there shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.”

Amendment XXVIII opens, once again, the Treasury Mints to the free coinage of silver and gold. The new Commodity Money coins shall be stamped with their weight and fineness, not denominated in terms of “dollars.” This one reform will vastly enhance the money-supply of the nation, and also allow folks who prefer to deal in "hard money" an additional supply of Money to do business with. The current token "copper-sandwich coins" shall remain in circulation, to make small change for dollar-denominated business transactions with the new Fiat Dollars; but the "value" of the New, solid, Specie coins shall be allowed to fluctuate, according to the Market.

Borrowing a page from the Articles of Confederation, Amendment XXVIII grants, once again, to the State Governments the power to create Credit within their own jurisdictions. This will be of great help to the infrastructure and to Health, Education, and Welfare within the fifty states. And it will serve the Interest of the People; though it displease the banking elites and their minions.

Since State governments are empowered to grant charters to State Banks, which enable these Banks to create Credit, States also should be empowered to Create, with the stroke of a pen, sufficient Credit within their own jurisdictions to assist Human needs.

If Amendment XXVIII intended only to restore a lawful system of Constitutional money - with Fiat Treasury Bills replacing the interest-bearing debts known as "Federal Reserve Notes," then indeed, no Amendment would be necessary. The Constitution already provides Congress with the power to issue such notes as interest-free money. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that: “Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.” {A broad interpretation of Article I, Section 8, clause 5, of the Constitution.}

An elegant solution, Amendment XVIII, also Nationalizes the National Debt; and transforms the Treasury Department into a Treasury of Common-wealth; and fills the coffers of this new institution with several trillions of "dollars" of Credit & establishes a new specie of credit-instrument, a dollar-denominated "National Credit Receipt" to be just as serviceable as “Dollars” on the international market.

Amendment XVIII makes a distinction between the U.S. Savings Bonds that were purchased by Ma and Pa bond investors and those U.S. Treasury Securities that were purchased by the Prime Banks at Bond Auctions held under the auspices of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve’s Window on Wall Street. Commercial Banks have always utilized the “multiplier” of the fractional reserve system to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities at cents on the dollar.

In recognition of this Fact - that such transactions are, and have always been, from the beginning, Fraudulent - AMENDMENT XVIII renders the outstanding “Debt” that is “owed” to the Prime Banks of this – and every other Nation - at a mere 7% [Seven per cent] of the face value of such Fraudulent, Banker-secured paper “Debt.”

This reduction of the Debt to a Sum that is payable in Credit, on the Books of the new Sub-Treasury Central Bank-of-Issue, the “Common-Wealth Central Bank” is, in Reality, exceedingly fair and Just, in recognition of the Fraud that has been committed by the Community of International bankers, in foisting the former system upon the unsuspecting Public.

Thus, AMENDMENT XVIII allows a large amount of Credit to be created on the books of the new Common-Wealth Central Bank - as compensation for that portion of the investment of the Banks in the National Debt, that might actually be deemed ‘legitimate.” This gives the Prime Banks some interest - but no stock - in the new Institution.

The aggregate effect of these Reforms is to establish an Institution that benefits All Americans - and not just the small elite who were fortunate to inherit the right stock in certain Wall Street Money Market Banks.

Amendment XXVIII dissolves the Federal Reserve Bank into the Treasury Department, and subsumes the creative, credit-creation function of the Federal Reserve into the new Sub-Treasury "Common-Wealth Central Bank." Henceforth, the Treasury shall not be compelled to issue interest-bearing Treasury Securities to "back" all of the paper "dollars" that the Federal Reserve currently issues. Instead, the Treasury shall issue non-interest-bearing Treasury notes, as Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were able, for a short time, to do.

Significantly, Amendment XXVIII also grants the fifty States the power to create credit within their own sovereign jurisdictions, to meet their crushing deficit burdens, instead of having to float endless bond issues and borrow more "money" at interest from banks and investors of the bond-holding class. The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the revolutionary Continental Congress of 1777, allowed the States this power - and it should be restored to the several States, in order for there to be a healthy society in North America.

Thus, Clause 9 reads: "Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create [a limited amount of] non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check-book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the States."

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans,
Hood Mountain,
California,
Summer, 2011

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Amendment XXVIII & Apologia

---