Will it take some actual fighting?
How will we bring an end to Corporate Rule of our Govt.?
|by Anonymous||reply 203||01/28/2013|
Everyone is afraid to say
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/07/2011|
It can start by voting for Democrats who will be much more amenable to curbing corporate power. Repubs only increase it, including Repub Supreme Court nominees and now judges.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/07/2011|
Give one example Charlie of a recent event when the Dems tried to control it.
It has been my experience that they are as much in the pocket of big business as everyone else.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/07/2011|
R2..both parties are controlled by big buisness capitalism. Explotation happens under both.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/07/2011|
Our two-party system: On one hand, we have the Smoke Party. On the other, we have the Mirrors Party.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/07/2011|
#1. The Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) intervened to stop Boeing from recklessly and illegally punishing its unionized, high skill Washington State workers. The business press and the Republicans reacted strongly both in media and in Congress.
[Full story at link below]
#2. From the NYT (May 24, 2011):
[quote]With oil prices climbing again this year, President Obama has asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to set up a working group to look into fraud in oil and gas markets and %E2%80%9Csafeguard against unlawful consumer harm.%E2%80%9D
[quote]In the case filed Tuesday, the defendants %E2%80%94 James T. Dyer of Australia, Nicholas J. Wildgoose of Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., and three related companies, Parnon Energy of California, Arcadia Petroleum of Britain and Arcadia Energy, a Swiss company %E2%80%94 have told regulators they deny they manipulated the market.
[quote]If the United States proves the claims, the defendants may give up $50 million in profits that were believed to be made as a result of the manipulation and also pay a penalty of up to $150 million.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/07/2011|
R3 is either blind, oblivious, or just plain ignorant.%0D %0D Talk about false equivalencies. Yes, there are Democrats who are in the pockets of corporations. Either specific ones, or in general. But they're not the majority, and they're certainly not EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM, as is the case for Republicans. %0D %0D You're an idiot.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/07/2011|
Utilizing the second Amendment is the only way which will work. First we will have to wait for the government to go bankrupt and the Pentagon to rust.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/07/2011|
It will end when the corporations collapse under the unsustainable weight of their own greed and incompetence.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/07/2011|
[quote]If the United States proves the claims, the defendants may give up $50 million in profits that were believed to be made as a result of the manipulation and also pay a penalty of up to $150 million.
Oh yeah, like that will ever happen.
Keep in mind it's not just gas prices that are going up. And why is this? Because of escalating inflation that is the result of the Federal Reserve printing shitloads of currency. Gee, what do you suppose the chances are that Obama will bravely take on the boys at the Fed?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/07/2011|
And yet how odd that the "escalating inflation" that you have all figured out ONLY affects gas prices? Maybe you should read a newspaper once in a while R10.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/07/2011|
[quote]It will end when the corporations collapse under the unsustainable weight of their own greed and incompetence.%0D %0D Unfortunately, by that time, we'll be mostly dead or dying.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/07/2011|
Wrong, R10. Gas prices are up due to speculation. Not currency inflation.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/07/2011|
Um... try reading my post again, R11.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/07/2011|
Augh! I think I sprained my eye muscles from rolling my eyes so damn hard at R11 and R13.
Really, I'd love to know where you guys live because evidently, they are the only places left in which prices are not going up due to inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/07/2011|
R15, are you TRYING to be a moron? Or are you just doing an uncanny immitation of one?%0D %0D Perhaps you should just read more Krugman articles and columns, so you could get your head back out of your ass.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/07/2011|
This is all going to get much, much worse. Days like today will be the glory days, looked upon with favor, in the future.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/07/2011|
What do you mean, r17?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/07/2011|
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
The banks and the FED will keep creating credit, much of it used to fund their own excesses, and unless it is stopped the second propostion is in force. If we rely on these corporpolitical parasites to rein in their own behavior, then the inevitable outcome is "final and total catastrophe" in the debt/credit monetary system.
QE1&2(&3 soon) are just the injection of more debt/credit into the system in a futile attempt to keep artificially valued assets at unsustainable highs. The end result of all this money creation, once it finally moves into the banking system, will be much higher inflation in consumables- gas, energy, food- while still having low net inflation because consumer durables, like housing, lawn equipment, cars are dropping in price because of over production. Capital equipment purchases are difficult to amortize properly in a highly uncertain market. The spiral of weaker dollar, higher prices, stagnant wages continues...until it doesn't.
That's the problem- once the fresh injections eventually end, these new price calculations take effect, and things get worse. Eventually, the market will reject any more credit/debt money creation...and corporate rule of government will be over, and it will be the least of your problems. Like will this $300 get me dinner for the night or enough gas to get out of town.
Anyone care to point out any flaws in this reasoning?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/07/2011|
Off with their heads!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/07/2011|
Not going to happen. Never has. Anywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/07/2011|
Oh, dear, more from the Inappropriate Use of Capital Letters troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||06/07/2011|
This is the best question that's ever been asked here. I don't know the answer and I fear that the people are too beaten down to act.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/07/2011|
Wow, R3, R4, R8, R9 all seem to agree that it's a corporotacracy, unlikely to reform from within while the gravy train runs. Did you know they can't be prosecuted for insider trading, are exempt from blind trust requirements, and return about 6% more than the average trader---BOTH parties?
R10 you are 100% correct, but Keynesians are too blinded by dogma to understand.
R17&18, when you say much worse, you ain't kiddin. Worldwide hyperinflation in currency coupled with a wipeout of much paper wealth, extreme devaluation of assets, broken contracts and chains of title that would destroy the legal system and bankrupt every country, and virtually every bank liquidated.
I'm being extreme of course, but these are extraordinary times. The real rate of unemployment, the top to bottom (so far) in housing, the wage stagnation- all are worse than the 30s. In the 30s though, not EVERY country was so intricately interdependent. Collapse in one country could start a chain reaction due to the complex and highly, highly leveraged debt systems in place, and soon many, many nations are suddenly finding themselves in a credit catastrophe phase.
I think, once that happens, Keynes will finally be revealed as the charlatan he was, and Bernanke and Krugman as the living puppets of his lunacy.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||06/07/2011|
R22, is the habitrail stuck again?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/07/2011|
Bump before bed.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/07/2011|
Looks like the revolution wont start on DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/08/2011|
Here's a start. Stop indulging yourselves with debit and credit cards. Pay cash. Every time you swipe that fucking card you give the banks more money, you raise the price of consumer goods and you hand over personal information about your whereabouts and your habits. %0D %0D They control us with computers. If there were no computers, businesses would have to be staffed and operated locally. Social Security numbers could not be used to automatically build an electronic dossier on your life. Everything you read would not be supplied and recorded by a corporate conglomerate. Smart phones are small GPS units which give away your presence every moment of the day. %0D %0D Good luck freeing yourselves from this kind of control.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/08/2011|
For R3 and R6:
We understand the "try" part. We need more in the "succeed" area. No one is in the mood, any longer, to give the Democratic Party an "E" for effort and leave it at that.
We also understand that the Democratic Party has decent people in it. Where else are you going to go if you want to run for office and you have a sense of empathy, combined with political skills and ambition?
Because there are more decent Democratic people than Republicans is not a sufficient reason to support it.
We understand that the bankers, hedge fund managers and insurance company investors don't own every Democratic Party functionary as they do in the Republican Party. They don't have to. All they have to do is own enough of them. That they have done for years.
The S.E.C. is going after Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., and three related companies, Parnon Energy of California, Arcadia Petroleum. Good for them. It's still a feel good story that changes nothing.
These are investment vehicles for the extremely rich so the rich can invest (read manipulate) prices of goods the rest of us have to use every day in order to live: oil, sugar, flour, etc.
The S.E.C. action means that these three companies got caught breaking the rules as to how they do their manipulating. To this industry as a whole, this sort of action and resulting fine is a cost of doing business, nothing more.
Even criminal action, in the extremely rare occasions it happens, does not put the industry itself out of business.
Does anyone really expect any Democratic administration to make it permanently impossible for the rich to speculate on the commodities that we have to have to live? You think any candidate would even run on such a platform.
Do you think any Democratic candidate would even bring up the subject of commodity manipulation that Goldman Sachs does? (see link)
How can anyone think this will happen when Obama, the best liberal hope in a generation, went straight to Wall street for his economic advisors -- which is where they will return as soon as they can?
See link for the way the super rich play with our necessities so they can buy bigger yachts.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/08/2011|
You've got to get rid of the republicans first. Allowing them to dismantle public unions was an enormous tactical mistake by the democrats. The answer used to be a simple general strike, but now republicans will simply fire anyone in the public sector who does so. So it's up to the private sector and they're much more vulnerable to threats from their employers. It's just so damn sad. We could have changed the world by simply doing nothing for a few days. We've made the job so much tougher by electing so many blatant corpratists and allowing them to stack the courts.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/08/2011|
R19 made a pretty good call.%0D %0D Because of the Yuan and the Euro, I don't think hyperinflation will be that signifianct outside the USA. It is the US currency that is in peril. The drop in US global buying power will impact others, but not as much as the USA, which imports much more. Also when money becomes worthless, it is the resource rich countries that survive better (Canada, Brazil etc.) Expect fresh food (in winter) swaps for Oil between Canada and the USA.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||06/08/2011|
[quote]Because there are more decent Democratic people than Republicans is not a sufficient reason to support it.%0D %0D Doing everything possible to get Republicans out of power and keep them out is sufficient (and necessary) reason.%0D %0D Once we get them out, and they see how they are punished for their behavior, we can then deal with the Democrats.%0D %0D But you have to get rid of the devil before you can deal with the clueless or spoiled brat. There really is a HUGE difference here.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/08/2011|
Corporations only control the government because corporations have all the money. Simply voting won't change where the money goes.
You have to get the money out of politics. Presidential campaigns now have to raise hundreds of millions in order to be viable.
Obama might slap corporations on the wrist here and there, but he's still appointing corporate people to government jobs so they can oversee themselves. It's still immensely flawed.
Throughout history somebody always has to rule government. It's either the military, corporations, a single ruling family, religious leaders, etc. Pick your poison. Commoners (we the people) never rule, never have, never will.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/08/2011|
I could give you thousands of differences between the Dems and the Repubs when it comes to corporate coziness- you are correct, both parties are in bed- the Repubs about 100 times more and actively giving more power- the Dems have attempted in the last 5 years a lot to curb corporate influence on K street and by act of Congress always to be stopped by, you guessed it...%0D %0D So START by voting Dem and then focus on voting for Dems that are with you on this issue. You will not find one Repub so inclined. If you seriously want to follow just how different they are, follow Andy Tobias' blog/column on line.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/08/2011|
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/08/2011|
Corporations are neither good nor evil. Labor unions are neither good nor evil. What is causing the problem is the complete lack of balance in favor of corporate interests who seem only to think short term profits instead of long term growth. %0D %0D It will require laws and regulatory policies that redistribute wealth. Yes. That includes higher taxes on people who can afford it. I have no problem with them raising the cap to $1Million, but for fuck's sake do something.%0D %0D We need more regulation of financial services, and we need to revise NAFTA. We must re-establish a manufacturing base. We need to strengthen Labor and we need to establish price controls. %0D %0D Leaving the economy to limp along, hoping it will eventually correct itself with the few band aids they put in place won't work. There is too much conflict of interest and too much corruption in our government. There isn't a lot of time left to fix things from inside the system, but they really better try.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||06/08/2011|
Corporations can certainly be evil. When they lay you off after 20 years of service because they want to cut pension costs, it's evil. When they gang up on small mom and pop shops or farmers in the name of profits and control, it's evil. When they abandon quality products in exchange for cheap shit that breaks so struggling families have to keep buying the same things in the name of making stockholders richer, it's evil. And on it goes. Corporations tend to be evil more than they tend to be neutral.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/08/2011|
For R15 and the others like him:%0D %0D In his otherwise dispiriting speech %E2%80%94 faltering recovery? Not my department %E2%80%94 Ben Bernanke makes an interesting point: never mind core inflation, basically the acceleration in headline inflation is all about just one good, gasoline. Take out gas prices, and inflation was only 1.2 percent over the past year.%0D %0D This raises the question, how often do we see gas price rises on the scale we%E2%80%99ve experienced lately? So here%E2%80%99s a chart; I start in 1985 so that the energy crises of the 70s and early 80s don%E2%80%99t make more recent swings invisible:%0D %0D (see link for graph)%0D %0D The answer is, they happen all the time.But somehow this one %E2%80%94 unlike the five comparable price spikes that have taken place recently %E2%80%94 is all the Fed%E2%80%99s fault, and is an omen of runaway inflation. %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/08/2011|
Corporations are evil entities.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||06/08/2011|
And by the way, historically, this is not the first time that corporate and banking interests have had so much power. It was really FDR who broke their power ( a Dem) and it was Reagan who began and made the biggest push to restore it. I see a glimmering of the American people beginning to realize that the Right is a combination of corporate cronyism and social conservatism... and realizing that the corporate cronyism is what they better pay close attention to. Most people are middle class or lower and realizing it is not in their interest to vote for those who are diminishing their lives and abbetting (short term only) the rich- particularly the very rich. I say short term because even the very rich are going to be squeezed if the middle class gets clobbered. The middle class is always the shoulders on which a great nation stands.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||06/08/2011|
R31- the yuan and euro and yen are all just as fragile as the dollar. All of these currencies have been in "a race to the bottom" for years. They've inflated their own currencies to keep exports high, held interest rate levels at unnatural lows, and bailed out banks and companies when things went bad. The US is not alone in profligate behavior.
Speaking of the euro, I have no doubt that Greece will reintroduce the drachma at some point in the near future, and the mark, franc, lira, etc. will soon follow. Germans are vehemently opposed to giving more money to the PIIGS, and at some point it cause the collapse of Merkel's cabal. Greece, like the US, is fundamentally insolvent. Even if taxes were raised to 95% over 100k it wouldn't make up for the structural problem of overspending and overextending. Bankruptcy, default, restructuring- that is the only solution since neither democrats nor republicans have any incentive, insight or incentive to actually fix the problem.
The people that have chimed in with cosmetic or symbolic changes, like higher taxes or electing more democrats, or laid the blame solely at the feet of the republicans, have no idea how fundamentally broken the credit/debt system is and will be the ones who bitch and moan when they get caught in the rain.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||06/08/2011|
The military was paid for by the general public. It should be used to seize assets of the wealthiest and the Corporations. What we need is a leader brave enough to do this.
We have the power, but not the leadership.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||06/08/2011|
Now there's a good idea. And when the assets are "seized" and presumably redistributed equitably (I wanna see that one happen... are gays left out? How about recent immigrants? how do you give money to people who have never had it and have no skills to manage it? a gov't training programs? etc.) What will you do about the destroyed corporations that like it or not are the basis for the continuation of the economy? Not to mention the trillions in equity wealth wiped out as a result of seized assets no longer representing the corporation (equity/stock). And what about tax free municiple bonds? Who will pay back the gov't loan? Who assumes the debt of all loans when the instument of the loans have been dismantled? %0D %0D I think you need to think this through Mr Military Dictator. %0D %0D I suggest more equitable tax laws- corporate and individual. I suggest universal health care (get rid of the word insurance). I suggest laws limiting the ability of corporations to give money to politicians- massive K street reform.%0D %0D All this can happen if you vote for progressive Democrats and independents. It is up to you. Vote, vote, vote. (The numbers suggest that only about 40% of you do.)
|by Anonymous||reply 43||06/08/2011|
It's simple! a fricking 10% flat tax on everyone, that way everyone pays their fair share and no one gets out of it...no deals, no tax breaks. %0D %0D As for putting healtcare in the hands of our government...that still is a very scary prospect to me. Sorry, I don't want to be denied a transplant because the amount it would cost isn't worth my lifetime span value.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||06/08/2011|
[quote]It's simple! a fricking 10% flat tax on everyone, that way everyone pays their fair share and no one gets out of it...no deals, no tax breaks.
Somebody who makes 200 a week (say a part time worker) has to pay 20 dollars which is a few meals.
Someone who makes 200 million pays 20 million and gives up no meals.
I don't see the equality. A flat tax on everyone isn't fair, it burdens the poor and allows billionaires to not pay their fair share. The rich need to pay more than the poor, that's just the way it should be.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||06/08/2011|
By having our own Bastille Day with automated guillotines. Think of the coal we could save burning their bodies to generate green electricity. We shouldn't have to behaad more than 15 million, but the energy savings and carbon savings would be tremendous.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||06/08/2011|
Agree with R45%0D %0D %0D [quote]As for putting healtcare in the hands of our government...that still is a very scary prospect to me. Sorry, I don't want to be denied a transplant because the amount it would cost isn't worth my lifetime span value.%0D %0D %0D So you trust the insurance companies instead? For profit insurance companies? Good luck with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||06/08/2011|
If you put a 10% on "the rich" they would pay their fair share...and a lot more than they are currently paying. I would be willing to give a break or forgive taxes on people of a certain income. %0D %0D What do you want from "the rich" to pay 100% of their earnings? %0D %0D And I believe there needs to be changes in healthcare, but at least I can get that transplant now with my current insurance, whereas with the government they can take my money "for insurance" and tell me I can't have the surgery I need. Happens in England and Canada all the time. Heck they are currently stealing my money for Social Security and telling me it won't be there for me when the time comes that I need it. I should have been allowed to keep and personally invest for my future. I would have a better chance at seeing it returned that with the good ole government right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||06/08/2011|
[quote]What do you want from "the rich" to pay 100% of their earnings?
Nope. But about 75% would be fair & equitable.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||06/08/2011|
No it does not happen in England and Canada all the time R48. Clearly you believe the lies your are told. Both Great Britain and Canada have better morbidity and mortality data for cancer diagnoses than in the US- far better. That means they get better care. And by the way, any time you want to pay yourself in either country, you can- as in the US which is what most people do these days anyway (have to do) because they are increasingly denied by fee for service insurance. My Dad who is wealthy paid for my cousins bone marrow transplant because his (private) insurance would not. He is alive and in remission.%0D %0D You really do not know what you are talking about.%0D %0D R48 "good ole gov't" Medicare in the US has a 3% overhead cost. The average insurance company in the US has a 25% cost. In UK and Canada are both closer to 3%. And they have universal medical record systems so all care and records are in one place accessible by all caregivers anywhere in their nations. Good ole gov't care is much more efficient, right now than private insurance- in spades which is why when Obama tried at first to expand Medicare as the option the private insurance industry spent half a bil in a month on K street and killed it. They could not compete. So much for capitalism. You just got lied to and obfuscated.%0D %0D I am faculty at a major medical school and teaching hospital in NYC.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||06/08/2011|
[quote]And I believe there needs to be changes in healthcare, but at least I can get that transplant now with my current insurance,
Don't be so sure. From link:
The issue of claims surfaced recently in California. The state Nurses Association issued a press release saying that data it obtained from the Web site of the state's Department of Managed Health Care showed that in just the first half of 2009, California's six largest HMOs had rejected more than 31 million claims -- 21 percent of those they had received.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||06/08/2011|
Okay and what would be considered "rich" to you? Because currently my mom would be considered "rich" making $250 year. She reinvests money in her company, provides jobs, gives to charity. She is a small business owner who has worked hard to get ahead, so why should she be forced to give 75% of that to redistribution of wealth?%0D %0D As for r50, I am sorry but I can't agree. Medicare and Medicaide are going broke. The only way they are efficient is by reducing/eliminating services. They can't provide for the people they currently have. If these programs can't work, how can you possibly dream of providing for an entire nation? I already said enough about Social Security...the Government has not managed one program successfully thus far. And that is my personal opinion. I am sure others disagree and that's what this Nation is all about.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||06/08/2011|
1. All US debt is eliminated. Personal, Government and Corporate. You become owner of your residence, whether you rent it or own it. All financed possessions (Cars, TV) become the title holders possessions. Companies become owners of their physical locations within the USA. Real Estate holders lose out. Banks lose out.
2. The US dollar is permanently fixed to the gold standard again.
3. All hedge funds, futures and any other bet on risk, packaged into a financial instrument, is wiped. If you hold these you lose it all. All these instruments are prohibited in the future.
4. All Government debt is also defaulted on. China and Japan have prospered at the expense of the USA, time to even the score. T-Bills %E2%80%93 zeroed out.
5. All US Corporations who employ more people outside of the USA, than inside of the USA are considered foreign Corporations and will not have their debt wiped.
6. After the wealth is transferred, the market will be allowed to value stocks. Trading would be halted for about 6 months while the financial redistribution was happening.
7. 10 day window on all stock trades. You can only trade a security once in a 10 day period, after the market is opened up again.
8. All assets seized from private citizens owning more than $100 Million in assets. Foreign countries who protect these types, will be banned from any trade with the USA. Private Corporations will be considered personal assets of their holders. Values set on previous historical averages, so Corporations could not artificially deflate their stock.
9. All Corporate Bonds, stock options zeroed out.
10. Most banking, finance and real estate companies would be left with negative values and would be bankrupt. The new banking system would be Government controlled for a few years, while the country adjusted.
From this day on: a 17% flat tax would be collected by only the Federal Government, from all Corporations and Citizens earning money. The money would be redistributed to the state and municipal governments, which would have the option of adding a higher percentage of flat tax for their use. Any tax deductions, at any level, would be prohibited by Federal Law. If you don't like the state or municipal add ons, move.
I'm sure a missed a few things, but this basic methodology would work.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||06/08/2011|
And what about those who live at or below the poverty level, R53, especially the working poor?
How are they to survive if more of the money they earn is taken in taxes?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||06/08/2011|
R53 I like and agree with your flat tax, but how would stealing property work? If someone lives in a house that a family member owns, it's all the sudden their property? And what about apartment and office buildings? I just see this as being a very sticky situation. What about vacation homes? Some people would just be lucky enough to own two? How would this all work out, do you have any ideas? Just curious.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||06/08/2011|
flat tax sucks
|by Anonymous||reply 56||06/08/2011|
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious%E2%80%94makes you so sick at heart%E2%80%94that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 57||06/08/2011|
Some of your ideas are great, r53.%0D %0D Why hasn't Obama called for a Foreclosure Amnesty voiding all foreclosures and restructuring all loans? It is the right thing to do.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||06/08/2011|
I think many of us are there 57 but we still don't have that leader that will initiate the charge.%0D %0D Many of us thought Obama or Hillary would be that person.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/08/2011|
R53, your ideas are stupid, distructive, and would result in disaster worse than any we're currently heading towards. Ugh. Even worse, it's just mental masturbation since nothing even remotely like that would ever, COULD ever, be implemented.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 60||06/08/2011|
Thank you, R53. Bravo.
You seem intelligent. I like that. You cute?
1- if you rent, no dice. If your bank can't show title, you walk.
2 - Amen!
3,4 - quibbles, but 99% right.
5 - corporations are fictional entities created by government fiat. In order for society to function, entities must have a conscience. And consciousness.
6 - except for limited instances (see 1) agree.
7&8 - I have a BIG problem.
No one should be able to limit the financial products a 100% PRIVATE bank (no gov/bank love) provides. No FED.
As for 8, a portion should be zeroed out, but foreign holdings are no longer a part of the US state it resides. Individuals will bid on former corporate assets and each state will rule on assets inside each state.
9 - most of those bonds and stocks are held by individuals, in aggregate, in their retirement. Punishing them, in a desperate and dangerous environment like the one you propose, is BAD.
10 - I 100000% disagree. Dissolve the US. Return ALL functions, save the citizen controlled Navy and an intrastate citizen court system. The banks will be divided by state. Assets, like the Grand Canyon and the interstate system and the post office et al, are divvied amongst their respective states. Shared resources mean shared responsibilities.
The banks CANNOT be under federal control...how do you think we got here?
Other than that, despite the deep left-libertarian-leaning origins of your post, I want to rip your clothes off and do bad things to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||06/08/2011|
r60, defaulting on our loans is now in the realm of the possible and it would not hur us one bit.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||06/08/2011|
Wow, I'm so turned on by the poster at R53 I'm fapping my F5.
R62, while default is our only way out, it WILL hurt. Like a fat 10 incher.
After a while though, with all those future liabilities off our backs, we will enjoy it.
Unfortunately, millions will die in the interim. Buzz kill.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||06/08/2011|
[quote][R60], defaulting on our loans is now in the realm of the possible and it would not hur us one bit.%0D %0D You're clueless and wrong.%0D %0D And anyone who says "go back to the gold standard" pretty much loses all credibility. Such stunning ignorance.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 64||06/08/2011|
They're able to do it right in Germany.%0D %0D See link
|by Anonymous||reply 65||06/08/2011|
Talk is cheap R64. People who poopoo ideas on the internet without offering their own are what we call the fangirls.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||06/09/2011|
R66, the economy is bigger than all the gold ever mined. How the fuck do you pin it to a gold standard? How would you ever manage to grow the economy to match growing populations if everything was pinned to and limited by the amount of gold a country had?%0D %0D Why the fuck do you think gold has any more intrinsic value than paper currency? If you were hungry, could you eat it? Nope. Sorry, gold is just as arbitrary as anything else you choose. It's not magic, nor is it any form of panacea.%0D %0D Grow up.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 67||06/09/2011|
Listen to Sen. Bernie Sanders. This is how it can be done.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||06/10/2011|
Talk is cheap.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||06/11/2011|
This guy nails it: Greg Keeler via Alexander Cockburn and Counterpunch.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||06/11/2011|
The guy above sees it clearly, but he's none too entertaining. %0D %0D Here. Ethel Merman gets to the point.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||06/11/2011|
The guy with the guitar gets it, as does Ethel.
What you guys aren't seeing is that none of the corporations could have grown to their current size without help of the government. They are regulated, but they also have the laws( they wrote them!) on their side.
Government, unbridled by restraint, uses that symbiotic relationship to grow in size, scope and power at the same time.
Big government = big corporation.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||06/11/2011|
These guys get it too.
The corporations make profits because we work for them.
What happens if we stop working for them until we get what we deserve? -- our own government to represent us and not the rich?
|by Anonymous||reply 73||06/11/2011|
[quote]What happens if we stop working for them
They've already insured that 25% of Americans are out of work by a fun little ploy called H1-B
|by Anonymous||reply 74||06/11/2011|
For those of you who might have missed it, H1-B lets employees use foreign workers in specialty occupations.
I hope he isn't serious. Idiocy is more flattering than bigotry.
It is very difficult to get such a status and it applies in very limited situations to people who have to establish their education, qualifications, licensing, etc. It is limited to the employment with the employer who sponsors the person.
As of the 2008 census, there were nine million unemployed people in the United States according to the government figures, and those you can take with a grain of salt, the figure is surely half again as large.
There are 85,000 HB-1 visas made available every year. Even if every such immigrant took a job that an American could fill, unlikely given the guidelines, that would account for less than 1 percent of the unemployment.
Most complaints about immigrants are racist because immigrants are not real human beings, you know, like the rest of us citizens, many of them being brown and black.
When someone comes up with bullshit like this, assume he is a bigot until he explains where he is coming from.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||06/11/2011|
They want Americans to stop working for them. This gives them their excuse to move all jobs overseas.
What American need to do is STOP BUYING FROM THEM. GO LOCAL! SAVE YOUR COUNTRY!
|by Anonymous||reply 76||06/11/2011|
[quote]They've already insured that 25% of Americans are out of work by a fun little ploy called H1-B%0D %0D Oh Dear.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 77||06/11/2011|
I noticed that.
How about "assured?"
Anything except insured.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||06/11/2011|
Strikes and layoffs aren't the same things just because both times the workplace shuts.
It's one thing if the owner of the enterprise decides he can do without his domestic workforce.
It is something else entirely if the workers in vital industries say, "Fuck this," and walk off the job.
You can't outsource railroads, trucking, mass transportation, sanitation, government support staff, delivery services, etc.
One thing you never hear discussed is what happens if the army goes on strike. You never hear about in the press because it is very sensitive stuff.
As the Vietnam War wound down, you heard a little bit about it, whispers out of Washington that got published only in the alternative press, when fragging got really bad: How reliable are the armed forces? How far does this country want to push the army, especially the National Guard, in wars over seas?
There are a lot of policy wonks lying awake at night thinking about what happens if 250,000 minority members come back from combat to inner-city Detroit and find no jobs and no future -- those people know how to fight.
What happens if the armed forces go on strike?
|by Anonymous||reply 79||06/11/2011|
To make real social changes, in other words to get rid of the corporations, these are the two groups you look to -- the young, particularly the campuses, and the more militant workers -- so the union activists, more or less.
If those two groups stand together and move together, many affiliated and sympathetic people will join -- the liberal/left pressure groups with individual causes such as the environment, buy local, gay and lesbian rights, the Greens, education reform etc.
You don't really expect the armed forces to join in, but they have to stand neutral -- as they did when Mubarak got ousted.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||06/11/2011|
You seem to get half of the issue, and miss the bigger picture. Here's a quote, not directed at you 100%~~~
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a %E2%80%98dismal science.%E2%80%99 But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." %E2%80%94 -Murray N. Rothbard
I get it- you are very, very politically aware. You see the injustices heaped on the US and the world, and sometimes BY the US on the rest, and you want to fix it.
We are fundamentally economic people. We all have different needs, wants, and requirements. We all seek a path to meeting those. When we let the government dictates so many of those wants and needs, it creates chaos- the current turmoil is just the beginning.
As I said earlier, governance and corporatism grow and evolve malignantly because they are symbiotic parasitic institutions that feed on the productive, while making EVERYONE poorer in the process.
Ford, BoA, Haliburton, Boeing- just to name a few- could never have become the major players they are if it hadn't been for government access and later sanction.
Think about that the next time you want "more government control" of the economy.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||06/11/2011|
[quote]What happens if the armed forces go on strike?
But that did happen after Vietnam. The boys came home to Detroit and were too pissed off to take the guff their fathers did in the auto plants. So GM went abroad and got Iraqis and other Muslim groups to come and work on their lines.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||06/11/2011|
17% flat tax on every person and Corporation. No exceptions. No deductions.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||06/11/2011|
Anyone watch "Need to Know" on PBS? According to the interview at my link, the super rich will suck the rest of us dry.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||06/11/2011|
St. Bartholomew's Day as a solution for the rich is looking more and more attractive.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||06/11/2011|
There has to be a coordinating body, call it what you will, we usually refer it as Washington, that will arbitrate differences between competing sectors of the economy with the force of law behind it.
Every country, every society, everywhere at any time has required this arbitrating body. The more complex society gets, meaning the more complexity there is in the way products get produced and used, the more essential the need for a coordinating committee -- an executive committee.
To imagine any other situation, some sort of formless free-for-all is pointless, an absolute waste of time. You might as well set out to do brain surgery by reading the entrails of a chicken.
The question is, who is going to control that committee? Should we have a committee who takes into consideration all of our interests or one dominated by a clique who looks out for the rich first.
Politics in this country started, even before the Revolution, as a committee of the powerful and rich to guarantee land speculation and industrial development. Letting rich and powerful remain in charge of the economy when society has changed so much will lead only to perpetual misery.
If I am responding to another poster, I try, I really do try, to formulate what he says in the most beneficial way possible to him -- to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't do that for you. I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/11/2011|
RPT is a libertarian moron extremist, and is massively full of shit, and should take his own advice about having strong opinions based in ignorance.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 87||06/11/2011|
Please. As people say to me all the time, "Edit."
A libertarian moron is redundancy.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||06/11/2011|
You could redistribute the nation's wealth absolutely equally and in twenty years 90% of the current underclass would be the underclass again.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||06/11/2011|
Wealth redistribution is not the only issue, It isn't even the most important issue. The real issue is who makes decisions.
To redistribute the wealth, power has to shift to those who create it, and it has to shift permanently with no possibility of the power going back.
As an example, if workers in the health industry controlled that industry, a committee of doctors, nurses, and aides could determine city-wide use of resources for hospitals, drug treatment clinics, family planning services, ambulances, inoculations, etc.
They could coordinate public health planning a thousand times easier than the for-profit abortion of a system we have now.
In terms of maintaining the equal distribution of wealth, there are a variety of methods. Some jobs would and should pay more than others depending on what was required -- unpleasant tasks, odd hours, time away from home, etc.
Wages would be a question that the workers' national committee for a particular industry would take up on a national level in conjunction with union representatives from the locals.
One thing that would stop wealth from gathering back into a few hands -- there could be a limit on what people who make decisions of public policy can make -- if you make more than the average income plus 25% you don't get to to sit on government committees.
Call it an affirmative action program to get poor people into politics.
Other countries that have moved towards socialism, for example democratic-socialism in Europe, the disparity of wealth is much less than under the free-wheeling, anything goes, capitalism such as we have here.
Last I saw, the earth was not opening up and swallowing the British and the French.
What does happen is that with basic industry still in private hands, the British and European working class has to be ready, and it usually is, to hit the bricks when pensions, wages, and social benefits are threatened.
The right of unions to strike has to remain a viable threat long-term under socialism. That's the best long-term assurance of no return to wealth hoarding.
So progress is possible. Why do you think it isn't? Poor people are genetically inclined to waste money?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||06/11/2011|
Good lord, are you really that stupid R90? Guess that would put you first in line for the Handicapper General job.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||06/11/2011|
Ah yes, substantive criticism. It rarely appears, and it is good to see it once again.
You prefer a system in which people born to the purple, say the Murdoch children, get to determine the wages and working conditions of millions?
Because you can have billionaires making the decisions or you can spread the responsibility around. It's going to be one or the other.
Meanwhile we can see who you want to run your life.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||06/12/2011|
I just found this from Mike Lux, which pretty much sums it up.
Speaking of the March 21, 2010 March for America, a Washington, D.C. demonstration for immigrant rights he challenged people to stand with the powerless and fight privilege.
"It takes some courage to walk away from big money contributions, and from DC conventional wisdom. But at the end of the day, looking at both history and our future, this shouldn't be too hard a choice.
"Given how I was raised, it's the most obvious choice in the world for me. I am on the side of the immigrants marching that day because I was taught that I would be judged by whether I welcomed the stranger and gave aid to those who had less than me.
I am on the side of the health care reformers because I was taught to take care of the sick and hurt and those in need. I was taught that kindness is better than cruelty, that generosity is better than selfishness, that love is better than hate. I was taught to believe this country is a beloved community, where we all respect each other and look out for each other.
It's easy to be on the other side of a movement that spits on people, calls others derogatory names, and throws rocks through windows. It's easy to be on the other side of the movement whose leaders are cheered when they make fun of people and talk about "the lions eating the weak." And it's easy to be on the other side of the big money that runs ads that plays to people's fears.
Which side are you on? This should be a very easy choice."
|by Anonymous||reply 93||06/12/2011|
What R33 said, and the rest of you should pay attention to him. Corporations will always have too much sway in American public policy until sweeping campaign finance reform is put into effect. Campaign reform, in fact, would do it. No more two-year campaigns for higher office.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||06/12/2011|
Roland, you said-
There has to be a coordinating body, call it what you will, we usually refer it as Washington
Why? Are you not an intelligent living creature with free will? Why do you need someone to tell you how to live? As long as you harm no one, and interact with them with respect and honesty, and know that you will face a sanction only if you violate these principles, then you are free. When DC passes arbitrary laws that harm you more than help, and make you pay for the privilege, it distorts and corrupts society further. That you can't imagine the benefits of liberty is the end result of 12+ years of public school brainwashing.
---- , that will arbitrate differences between competing sectors of the economy with the force of law behind it.
If you think the government can do anything to help one sector without indirectly harming another sector, then your understanding of economics is flawed. Every tax dollar spent is a dollar that has been taken from some taxpayer, where it can be put to use efficiently and productively, and misused to do things the market can do better while providing services and products that are shoddy and prone to failure. Government, lacking a profit motive, insensitive to market signals and immune from market forces (in that it usually doesn't go out of business) cannot produce any good (roads, power plants) or service (garbage pickup, water and electricity, safety) without excessive expense, massive waste and corrupting graft.
Every country, every society, everywhere at any time has required this arbitrating body.
No, they haven't. You massively overestimate the size, scope and power of governments prior to the 20th century. Even the colonies of Rome were mostly free of government oversight. It was only 100 years ago that government started to grow so massive, and only metastasized in the last 40 years.
The more complex society gets, meaning the more complexity there is in the way products get produced and used, the more essential the need for a coordinating committee -- an executive committee.
Have you ever tried to chair a committee with differing interests and objectives? It's impossible. An intelligent and free people don't need haughty experts to run their lives. If you disagree, well, maybe that means you aren't smart enough to run your own life.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||06/12/2011|
Campaign reform won't work. It cannot work.
To get campaign reform to work you would have to pass legislation to reform the campaign laws -- laws written, negotiated and passed by legislators whose careers turn on the right kind of campaign laws -- the right kind meaning the kind of campaign laws that keep them and their ilk in office and their lobbyist happy.
In any case, Citizens v. United has made the whole issue constitutional. That was the whole point of the decision -- the Supreme Court wanted to make campaign reform impossible short of a constitutional amendment, in other words to reform campaign law will require getting two-thirds of the states to go along.
Good luck on doing that. It is almost impossible to organize an industry doing a nation-wide campaign, and that is an issue that can energize the public in the right circumstances -- see Cesar Chavez and the UFW.
Conducting a nation-wide campaign for a constitutional amendment to reform campaign laws when the average person can't get emotional on the issue? Not going to happen.
To do that you would have to confront an vicious opposition directed by politicians who control a process which is rooted in cronyism and payoffs.
Anybody notice news item that apparently Bloomberg pulled Weiner aside when Weiner was going to run for mayor and told him that he would use his billions to crush Weiner -- including bringing out some of the sex stuff? Weiner capitulated.
If you challenge the entrenched politicians to a battle over how elections are conducted nation-wide, you will run into opposition just like that in every locality against every spokesman who stands up for voting rights.
The campaign for voting reform always was a diversion from more effective tactics. Now that avenue of change is stone-cold dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||06/12/2011|
You explain why campaign laws will never be reformed, but miss the bigger picture of why it matters.
Government is power. If big corps can lobby and write the laws that protect them from competetiors, then the big corps have power.
Solution? Simple- limit the size, scope and power of government, get rid of the laws that protect the banks, insurance, pharma, agro, aero, et al, and force these companies to compete in a true free market where they have to survive by serving the customers, not by government fiat.
Few of the top 500 corps in the world could survive without government help. That help takes from the poor to transfer to the rich. In a competitive market, these large companies would be forced to downsize and split companies into separate entities in order to survive.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||06/12/2011|
Roland, I wish you were running for POTUS in 2012. I'd vote for you in a heartbeat. %0D %0D As it stands I will most likely be writing in Bernie Sanders. %0D %0D I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama or most of the current Dems who are Dems in name only and govern in some cases to the right or Reagan and W. %0D %0D Obama is going to throw the poor and Medicaid and food stamps under the bus before the 2012 election and he will do the same to the middle class, workers, Medicare and SS after the election. %0D %0D If Obama wins in 2012 he will never mention gay or women's rights again, other than to take something away.%0D %0D No matter which side wins without a major revolution by the people, the other 98% of us losing the we are each other's enemy mentality that has been drummed into the head of the dumbed down Americans since Reagan, all sticking together and probably a general strike America will become hell on earth for all but the top 2%. The poor elderly and children, sick and disabled will lay dead and dying on our nations streets. Education for all the rich will end. Crime will become so rampant that only those rich enough to live and hide behind a gated and guarded community will have even a little safety. %0D %0D Since most Americans in the past 3 decades have been so dumbed down and turned into non caring, selfish, greedy, non caring people who's only interest is getting a new electronic piece of garbage and reality TV I have very little hope of the only thing that can save us and that is as I said above, for us to join together, middle class and poor, union and non union, straight and gay, men and women, all races and religions to fight the real enemy, Corporate America and the top 2% and the politicians they own on both sides from the WH on down.%0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 98||06/12/2011|
President -- there's an image for you.
High school seniors learn American history from Howard Zinn, biology from Charles Darwin, and religion from Stephen Hawking.
May Day is a national holiday and people are taught why the rest of the world celebrates it.
A college diploma depends on your having organized a strike and a boycott.
Ed Sadlowski sent to the Senate for confirmation for the first Supreme Court vacancy.
A union for every worker and every worker in a union.
Think I can get the one percent to coalesce behind me as their candidate?
Damn. Guess I will have to continue to advocate outside the system for action outside the system.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||06/12/2011|
[quote]religion from Stephen Hawking
Why not Martin Luther King, Jr.?
|by Anonymous||reply 100||06/12/2011|
Read about Bolivia and Evo Morales. Take some sociology courses and social movements. Or read more books and get informed. Mother Jones.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||06/12/2011|
How about looking at your consumption patterns? Read John Robbins' "Diet for a New America" - it's actually very very revolutionary and talks about corporate control of America.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||06/12/2011|
Read THE FOOD REVOLUTION.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||06/12/2011|
Why not MLK?
Given his occupation I am going to take a wild guess and say he believed in God, just a hunch you know.
Martin Luther King demanded economic and social justice. He understood that a strong union movement is essential for working class emancipation. He was assassinated leading a strike.
He understood that action in the streets outside the system was essential for working people to achieve permanent gains. He brought forward the best elements in the Christian progressive movement to join with the broader left.
I want Martin Luther King to be there to teach social activism, a required series of courses starting in, oh, say, the third grade and lasting through college -- teaching young people how citizens acting together can move mountains.
Theology itself as a subject doesn't belong in the schools either directly, so teachers can opine on the existence of God, or indirectly when born-agains try to slip it in through intelligent design in the biology course.
I was mentioning some of my heroes, exaggerating -- "As long as we are daydreaming . . . ."
|by Anonymous||reply 104||06/12/2011|
[quote]I was mentioning some of my heroes, exaggerating -- "As long as we are daydreaming . . . ."
I understand that, of course.
It's my opinion, however, that the people cannot succeed against the powers that be without some spirituality.
I'm not saying that religion must be part of a movement in order for it to succeed. At best, I would hope for balance. At least, I would hope to not be excluded from a group based on my religious/spiritual beliefs.
I only bring this up because it seems like for some it's "cool" to be anti-theist.
There's a growing group of liberal spiritualists... not New Agers so much, but definitely New Thought. People who read Eckart Tolle & Marianne Williamson.
"Old Negro Spiritual" hymns kept the civil rights movement going in its darkest days. We have to nurture the human heart through art, music, love, compassion...and spirituality soothes us like nothing else. We must harness that power...for hope. To love life. To want to live, progress, & grow. It's not just all about economics, finance, laws, government, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||06/12/2011|
This goes out to you:
We want bread, yes but roses too.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||06/12/2011|
Start with your consumption patterns, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||06/12/2011|
To change this society completely will take a fighting organization that will look beyond what an individual believes about where this universe came from, where it is going, and whether people have souls.
What is important is what the individual wants this society to become and how to get from here to there.
A new society must have a guarantee of freedom of religion for everyone of every faith, but it also must ensure freedom from religion. The "from" is crucial.
We are not going to let the Southern Baptists decide what marriage means, e.g. If they want to believe two men who get married are sinners, fine, let them say so in their church but not in the statehouse.
As far as art, music, philosophy, theology, etc., is it possible to imagine any system more repressive than the one we have now? Music and art don't turn a profit so there is no space for them in our lives.
To enjoy all the finer things in life takes money, and the corporations won't unlock the vaults to let our children learn to paint, compose music, learn to dance, throw a pot, or write a sonnet.
Can you imagine a boss letting a worker get at the company profits so he get a stipend to study Hegel for a year?
You want your son to climb up a tree, cut the soles off his shoes, and learn to play the flute, you better work overtime to make the money to pay for it. If the bosses can't see how to make a buck out of it, they ain't going to pay for it.
The figures for the Walton family are really obscene -- there are three children with controlling interest who take home something like 10 billion dollars a piece each year because they pay their workers shit.
Try to imagine a family who depends on working at WalMart to pay the bills. You think that family is going to have piano lessons for Johnny and have Susie go to college to study Shakespeare?
But suppose we did this. Suppose we took five billion a year away from each of those Walton children who do absolutely nothing productive and never have. We leave them with a billion each a year.
Take the rest of the money -- fifteen billion each year, year after year, and start building art academies in neighborhoods all across the country.
Hire teachers, custodians, librarians, whatever the places need to be really excellent resources. Fill them up with the best instruments and supplies. Put in nice rehearsal rooms and a small and a large auditorium.
You think the WalMart employees wouldn't get a kick out of seeing their children learn painting and art up the street for free -- the same place where you could go hear free concerts on Saturday night and free movies every evening?
Now think what else we could do if we move on to the Koch brothers, the Murdoch clan, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, etc.
Why do we work for them? Why can't their wealth work for us for a change? Where is that written down as some rule?
If that rule didn't come down with Moses from that mountain on that piece of stone, that means men made up that rule.
Well, if men made up that rule, then men and women, in solidarity, can change that rule.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||06/12/2011|
New York Times: Obama Seeks to Win Back Wall St. Cash
Here are some of the people mentioned in the article.
A couple of the others are very rich, but owning a hedge fund keeps the pesky public from seeing how much you have stolen.
James G. Dinan paid $21 million for the Fifth Avenue apartment of its former chief executive, L. Dennis Kozlowski. It came with hand-painted wallpaper. No word on whether Dinan redecorated.
Paul Tudor Jones has a net worth of USD 3.3 billion according to Forbes.
William M. Daley (hizzoner's son!) got $15 million in salary, bonuses and pension distributions from banking giant JP Morgan Chase.
Lenard B. Tessler, a managing director at Cerberus Capital, said Cerebus made two billion dollars when the government bailed out Chrysler. As he stated to Wall Street Journal -- "In essence they paid us to take the company."
Hamilton E. James, has a net worth of $1.5 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
Do you think we will see Obama walking a picket line in his second term? Or would he rather have lunch with these bastards.
Do you think he will look to the AFL-CIO rank and file for advisors or to Wall Street?
|by Anonymous||reply 109||06/13/2011|
Ironic considering it was millions of little donations from voters that made Obama the President against the big Corporation donors of his competitors.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||06/13/2011|
It is worse than that.
The nickels and dimes helped get him elected, no doubt.
During the campaign the Obama campaign let the public think that nickels and dimes would get regular people a seat at the table. That's one way they built this image of popular support -- bandwagon manipulation.
Remember how aghast the Beltway pundits were when they heard the Democrats bragging: "Look how regular people support us! People by the thousands are sending in donations of ten dollars."
Cokie Roberts was afraid that meant Obama would listen to people who could afford to give only $10.
She didn't have much to be afraid of.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||06/13/2011|
RPT is so tedious, that i'm sure not even he believes his shit.
what was his old name before he was banned for some crazy racist meltdown? E?
|by Anonymous||reply 112||06/13/2011|
If the world continues on the current path (and nothing makes me think TPTB can or will change direction until forced by a collapsing world economy) then corporate rule will be gone by the time the 20s roll around. The Internet has exposed their plans, their prevarications, and their ignorance on economic matters.
The People have gotten tired of banks ruling the world, and using government power to enforce their powers.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/24/2012|
I read an article today that states it thus-
A world of 7 billion people cannot be ruled effectively or for very long by a shadowy group of 7,000 people that control the majority of their wealth in light of the new powers unleashed by the Internet. They are like the Vatican during the first century after Gutenberg trying to stop the publication of books critical of their crimes. The turmoil and unpheaval we see in the world today is a final attempt to bring the majority back under control by charging them for two different poisons- the "left" and the "right"- while the enlightened minority has already drank the prophylactic, "liberty", and can offer it to anyone for free.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/27/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 115||09/01/2012|
r115 thinks small.
Bitch, they've got weather modification/warfare up and running, they just live-tested a sonic forcefield in Detroit with no cover story because they don't give a shit.
Population control is about to enter an all new realm of awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||09/01/2012|
The 2nd Amendment was written to take back control from a corrupted government.
This is the answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||09/02/2012|
R118, you are a dissident. Your IP address has been sent to Langley.
Since Obama signed the latest NDAA (which allows for assassination of US citizens, on US soil, without trial) and Bush signed the PATRIOT Act (which allows for all forms of domestic spying) I suspect you will find yourself in a psych ward (best case) or coffin soon.
People who are too stupid to see that corporations control the government (and vice versa) deserve their shackles.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||09/02/2012|
The one thing the masses have today is the internet, providing it is kept free, which is going to be hard.
As long a people are stealing music, software and movies, the Corporations have moral authority for control of the internet. Only if we can find a way to stop the theft, can we ever eliminate this argument and stop the Corporations controlling everything online.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||09/03/2012|
We could all vote for people that want to end such corporate rule.
But we won't
|by Anonymous||reply 120||09/03/2012|
We need a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will not attempt to redefine Free Speech a la Citizens United. That would be a good start.
The entire "undo influence" argument ought to trump the "corporations are people" argument. And BTW: The false equivalency if citing labor union activism, which corporations have been trying to mute for years, is bullshit.
The other thing corporations do, when they destroy or weaken labor unions, is eliminate opportunities for a more educated electorate. There is a direct parallel between lower vote turnouts, stupid voters, and weak labor unions.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||09/03/2012|
R7 is correct. The only way to have ANY chance of ending corporate control of our government is to vote for the Democrats. No Republican will EVER do anything to end it. Most Democrats will.
I am floored by people who obsess over saying there is no difference between the two parties. Incredible blindness.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||09/03/2012|
What will end corporate rule is exactly what ends all empires--they'll collapse under their own weight.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||09/03/2012|
The US empire has too much debt, too many enemies, too little domestic support (it's broad, but shallow as soon as the "panem et circenses" runs out) and nowhere to turn.
People that think that voting for Obamney or Robama will change anything are part of the problem. Just wait until their SS check doesn't cover rent, or their SNAP card barely covers a week of food.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||09/25/2012|
Wheel Barrels full of worthless US Dollars - welcome to your future.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||09/26/2012|
Most of the people here believe that the government will protect them, when the truth is that they are the cause of inflation. Printing money means each dollar is worth less. That destroys incentive to save. Keeping interest rates at near zero is great for the government but destroys the savings of everyone else.
If you invest in a CD at 2% and inflation is 5% then you are losing 3% a year in real value, even if the nominal amount increases. Once the trillions Bernanke printed to save the big banks enter the economy (and the only reason they aren't is the IOER program he created in 2008) the dollar will rapidly lose value and prices will soar.
Too bad 95% of the posters here are too brainwashed or ignorant to see that.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||09/26/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 127||09/27/2012|
The 2nd Amendment is the answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||09/28/2012|
The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in America’s airspace by the decade’s end. As Russia Today notes, given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast. All drones will be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet above our heads. Have no fear though, since the "Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety" program is for your own protection, we are sure Janet Napolitano would suggest.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||10/09/2012|
The USA has to ban all Corporate Political contributions. It is the only way to re-start American democracy. Until this happens, National elections are nothing more than Nation Theater.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||10/10/2012|
R129, you sound like a problem in yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||10/10/2012|
If the Corporations can corrupt the Supreme Court enough to bypass Corporate Copyright limitations and allow unlimited political contributions from non-voters, then there is no legal solution to curb their power available.
The curb on the insane level US Corporate power abuse, has to come from another route.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||10/10/2012|
[quote]Will it take some actual fighting?
What are you going to fight with? Your Prada purse?
|by Anonymous||reply 133||10/10/2012|
The internet is the new weapon of choice in the 21st century.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||10/10/2012|
Until then, the parasites will keep sucking us dry.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||12/24/2012|
Feel free to personally secede any time you like, R136. You won't be missed.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||12/24/2012|
Don't be naive R137
If I could secede (without paying millions) I would.
Why show your utter ignorance by posting something so inane?
|by Anonymous||reply 137||12/24/2012|
LOL... Because I'm making fun of you, R138. I'm laughing at you. Next time, I'll spell it out for you since you lack the capacity to understand such things.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||12/24/2012|
So, you think that the American revolution was a mistake, R139?
|by Anonymous||reply 139||12/25/2012|
ROFL.... That's why I love our little conversations, R140. You just love to make shit up and utter such lovely little gems as that instead of, oh, I don't know, actually reading what I write and responding to that. Thanks for confirming yet again that it would be a mistake to take you seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||12/25/2012|
R141, unless you are using multiple accounts, you didn't write anything.
Was seceding from the UK a good thing?
If, why would allowing Texas, or NH, or SC to secede from the USSA be bad?
Those are simple questions.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||12/26/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 142||12/26/2012|
[quote]unless you are using multiple accounts, you didn't write anything.
ROFL.... I use multiple computers, idiot, not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because it varies which computer I'm on when I'm addressing your rantings. If you're ever in doubt, just ask.
In any case, *nobody* wrote, "So, you think that the American revolution was a mistake." That's why we love you: you can't actually muster a coherent argument so you basically have to make shit up.
[quote]Those are simple questions.
Simple and irrelevant, moron. Oh, and you can personally secede from the U.S., of course. Whether you choose to pay the price or not is entirely up to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||12/26/2012|
We need root and branch reform.
1. Company CEO pay capped. 2. A worker representative, voted by all employees, on the board of directors. With veto power over executive compensation. 3. No corporation may own shares in any other corporation, except as a custodian where the end beneficiary is recorded as the owner. 4. No individual may own shares on behalf of any other individual, except as a custodian where the end beneficiary is recorded as the owner. 5. All shareholdings in every company, partnership, and corporation are public information available for FREE to everyone. 6. Corporations should be taxed on gross profit, not net profit, with extremely detailed and limiting requirements about what cost of product or service can be deducted. No administrative costs or pay can be deducted. 7. Political contributions by corporations will be legally banned for all time and any laws referring to them as persons repealed. Persons die, corporations do not, case closed. 8. No corporation or individual may hold derivatives of any kind in any amount without being licensed and tested to make sure they understand them. Remember, this is not just people who trade them, but people who hold them. The balance sheet of every company will report derivatives positions and risks. 9. Public trading of common stock shares shall cease when 20% of shares in any company have changed hands in one day. 10. Pension funds, mutual funds, and trusts will not be permitted to invest more than 80% of assets in common shares or derivatives. They must also keep detailed computer records with real time data on each individual's holdings available at all times, which will be shared with the corporation for ownership reporting. 11. Trading in any shares will be halted automatically when there is an imbalance of 5 to 1 between sell and buy orders - in either direction. 12. Derivatives based on speculation about financial "products" and share price volatility will be banned. 13. Every corporation with more than 1,000 employees must have a staff of at least five to do forward planning. 14. No company may pay fees greater than 10% of gross profit to any consulting firm, or more than 50% to all consulting firms in the year after the gross profit is announced. 15. Temporary help agencies are abolished. They can offer services, but not bodies. 16. Breaking the anti-discrimination laws will result in criminal prosecution and felony convictions of human resources personnel as well as mandatory jail time and permanent ban from human resources employment
|by Anonymous||reply 144||12/26/2012|
Why should there be a price?
|by Anonymous||reply 145||12/26/2012|
Public corporations will be required to pay dividends equal to 1% of sales on a ten year average. Any company which fails to do so will have its corporate charter revoked.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||12/26/2012|
Any bank which does not have 10% of its assets in business loans, or which has more than 25% of its assets secured by real estate will lose its banking charter and be liquidated.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||12/26/2012|
No bank can operate in the United States without 80% American owners.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||12/26/2012|
[quote]Why should there be a price?
Because you accepted the benefits of the social contract and you will have to pay the price if you no longer wish to contribute. This isn't rocket science.
If you really meant what you said, you have alternatives. That you don't take them is your personal choice but don't expect any sympathy.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||12/26/2012|
What site did that come from? It's incomprehensible and moronic.
1. In that case, all writers, artists and performers should be capped at a certain wage. Why should Gaga or Beiber earn millions?
2. And this worker should be shot if the board members offer to fly him to Bermuda, or offer his cousin a job, or offer to pay for his friend to go to school- because this worker would NEVER allow his vote to be corrupted by the promise of a high paying job for his son after graduation, or for a new house for his aunt.
3. Agreed. Corporations are not people, and would not exist in a free market. But we have nothing resembling a free market- every company is subject to thousands of rules, reputations and taxes. That's NOT free market.
4. Why? Who cares?
6. The net vs gross is due to the various tax loopholes these big corporations have been able to write into the tax code by offering Senator Boxer's son a position at Goldman Sachs, or Representative Pelosi's cousin a job as VP at GM. Until the tax code is the same for everyone- meaning every person pays the same- then this shit will continue.
8. You should see how JPM and BNYM are using the trillions they got from the Federal Reserve to hedge and trade. It would make you sick. Maybe eliminating the Federal Reserve would be better?
10. Meh. No prob.
12. Banned by whom, and on which actors? If I want to create a deriviative based on my belief that ACME is going bankrupt, or going to dominate like Amazon, why should it be any of your business?
13. The USSR called, and they want their 5 year plan back.
15. Fuck you. That's how I make my living, and how my employees make their living. If I can do it cheaper and better than internal HR, why ban it? It saves companies money, making it better for all.
R16. So, if you are lazy, or ignorant, or obnoxious, and I decide not to hire you and you claim "discrimination" then I should go to jail?
You really are stupid, and need to read economicpolicyjournal.com to learn how the world really works.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||12/26/2012|
When did I sign a contract! Show me my signature!
Oh, you mean that socialist contract you have in your head. That explains it. Moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||12/26/2012|
[quote]When did I sign a contract! Show me my signature!
ROFL.... When you chose as an adult to accept the benefits of living in the U.S.
[quote]Oh, you mean that socialist contract you have in your head. That explains it. Moron.
LOL... Yup, I knew the concept was beyond you. Not that it matters, since you have the power to leave anytime you want.
You won't, of course, since you're a coward and don't really believe the drivel you're spouting. Instead, you'll continue to fool yourself as to just how much of a rebel you are by ranting here and moaning when the TSA frisks you. Oh, well, actually, that exists only in your own mind, too, come to think of it. Sucks to be you.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||12/26/2012|
i really hate freeper/librtarians. stupid, angry and not reality-based- th e lot of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||12/26/2012|
And yet, R154, we are able to point out specific problems with your complete lack of economic knowledge.
You hate what you fear. I'm not angry with you for your ignorance, just sad that you cannot see how the world really works.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||12/26/2012|
Show me the contract. Where did I sign it?
Does the fact that someone who has lived in Canada for their whole life, who just happened to be born in the US, mean they should pay US taxes?
|by Anonymous||reply 155||12/26/2012|
[quote]Why should there be a price?
Because there is no such thing as a free lunch.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||12/26/2012|
What r40 said but also keeping an eye out for the media pushing fear of the "others" on the population. Not allowing them to push our fear buttons is important.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||12/26/2012|
So, if you happen to be born in the US, but never live here, you should have to pay? From the NYTimes-
•Roy, 37, a lifelong Canadian resident and citizen whose dual-national mother fears the U.S. tax authorities will target the modest savings account the Canadian government provides him as a developmentally disabled adult;
•Jonathan, 34, a teacher whose American parents migrated to Canada 39 years ago. He considers himself 100 percent Canadian — a maple leaf is tattooed on his back — and believed until last year that he did not need to file a U.S. return. Tax advisers now tell him he must file eight years’ returns, at a cost in fees and fines in the thousands, lest an eventual U.S. inheritance be jeopardized;
•The teenage children of Peter Hallworth, a Briton married to a Swede living in Malmo, Sweden; the children were born in the United States but lived there only as infants. Mr. Hallworth, having heard horror stories, now expects to urge his children, when they reach adulthood, to renounce the U.S. citizenship that up to now he had treasured.
“It’s a great shame that I’m being forced to take an action because of an illogical tax law for a country which I’ve loved living in and I respect very much,” Mr. Hallworth said in a phone interview.
Almost every new tax law sows confusion and dismay, but new U.S. regulations — and much tougher enforcement — are catching some Americans in legal nets designed to snare terrorists, money-launderers or wealthy tax-evaders. Many Americans overseas — not just the rich — have had to pay thousands of dollars in fees for tax accountants or Internal Revenue Service fines.
The increased pressure has produced results. The numbers of Americans filing the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR, soared from 276,386 in 2009 to 618,134 in 2011 (failure to file, the IRS warns, “subjects a person to a prison term of up to 10 years and criminal penalties of up to $500,000”).
A growing number of Americans living abroad are renouncing once-valued U.S. passports. Some 1,780 people gave up U.S. nationality last year, eight times the 2008 level and the largest number in more than a decade.
Virginia La Torre Jeker has worked abroad as a tax attorney since 1986, and in Dubai since 2001. She said the pain among American clients is high — 9 on a 10-point scale — and that her Middle Eastern clients had always treasured U.S. passports that made travel much easier than Lebanese, Pakistani or Jordanian documents. Now, “they’re lining up to get rid of the U.S. passport.”
Over the past decade, the I.R.S. and Treasury Department have stiffened penalties for failure to file and demanded more expansive filings on foreign holdings. To bring non-filers back in the fold, the I.R.S. has offered modified amnesties.
In 2001, the agency had only 13 agents in its international operations unit, and none specifically targeting what it calls “global high wealth.” By 2011, there were 71 for global high wealth — and 856 for international operations, up from 259 just a year before.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||12/26/2012|
So, R157, if you were born in the USSR and they demanded 100% of your foreign earnings, that would be okay?
Didn't you sign a "social contract"?
|by Anonymous||reply 159||12/26/2012|
[quote]her Middle Eastern clients had always treasured U.S. passports that made travel much easier than Lebanese, Pakistani or Jordanian documents. Now, “they’re lining up to get rid of the U.S. passport.”
My heart bleeds.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||12/26/2012|
R161- racist fucker. Go back to Freeperville.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||12/26/2012|
1. It is more important to cap CEO pay than artist pay because CEOs are in a position to loot their own companies. "Stars" and artists are not.
2 It doesn't happen that way in Germany, where a similar provision has always existed.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||12/26/2012|
The reason for 3. and 4. is that right now complex corporate structures are used to hide ownership, avoid taxes, and prevent Joe Q. Public from knowing who really owns America. The Saudi royal family is said to have over $2 trillion in holdings in this nation. But nobody can see it. The information asymmetries caused by all this nonsense is economically indefensible and has corrupted the entire system, as well as making corporate governance impossible. CEOs can loot with impunity when they don't even know whom they report to.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||12/26/2012|
[quote]And yet, [R154], we are able to point out specific problems with your complete lack of economic knowledge.
No, actually, you can't, of course. As we've seen over and over again, the reverse is true. You always get your ass handed to you on these threads because you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.
[quote]You hate what you fear. I'm not angry with you for your ignorance, just sad that you cannot see how the world really works.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... We're not angry with you, either, but we're not wasting any time on pity since your ignorance is entirely self-inflicted. Instead, we'll continue laughing at you.
[quote]Show me the contract. Where did I sign it?
ROFL.... This really is beyond you, isn't it? Feel free to leave any time you want. It is within your power to do so.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||12/27/2012|
Funny, R165 will never respond to the questions posed, just rant and rave.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||12/27/2012|
Should people that have never lived in the USA pay taxes to the US government?
|by Anonymous||reply 166||12/27/2012|
Corporations are government fictional entities.
Libertarians think that corporations should be abolished, mostly for the reasons you point out. But, that would destroy the big banks and corps so our rulers would rather kill us all than allow that.
|by Anonymous||reply 167||12/27/2012|
I notice the coward at R153 cannot explain his position once I pointed out that the US government is going after people that never lived in the US.
So, like the mafia, we should pay for US "protection" of the world? Hitler would be proud.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||12/27/2012|
How did I accept the terms of any contract I am not party to?
Your muddled socialist thinking is making me dizzy. How can someone be so stupid, and continue to argue from such a simply disproven position?
|by Anonymous||reply 169||12/27/2012|
[quote]will never respond to the questions posed, just rant and rave.
Just following your example, dear.
[quote]Your muddled socialist thinking is making me dizzy. How can someone be so stupid, and continue to argue from such a simply disproven position?
ROFL.... And yet, you haven't been able to "disprove" it. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
You can leave anytime, dear. It's quite revealing that you haven't, and won't.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||12/27/2012|
I guess we could simply vote the people out of office. No, that is too much like right
|by Anonymous||reply 171||12/27/2012|
This is the only genuine argument to support the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately the wrong people have all the guns.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||12/28/2012|
Explain why people that have never lived in the US must pay US taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||12/28/2012|
The Corporations have totally perverted the Supreme Court, so there is no way of legally banning them from financing (bribing) politicians.
We need to get these NRA nutcases out of the schools and into the boardrooms of America.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||12/28/2012|
Yes, the SCOTUS is totally in the pocket of the big banks/corps/pharma/agribiz and expecting them to throw Bush, or Clinton, or Obama in jail for war crimes...not gonna happen.
But, if we don't have guns then when Jeb Bush becomes Hitler V2.0 we will have no way of stopping him from killing the dissidents. That's the thing socialists/ communists don't understand- the 4 biggest mass murders of the 20th century- Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia- ALL occurred shortly after total disarmament of the people.
Want my guns- take them from my cold, dead hands.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||12/28/2012|
That's simply not true R176.
Arms had never been so widespread in all those countries, when the killing started.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||12/28/2012|
America has over 200 million guns and yet that hasn't prevented military and corporate and banking dictatorship, has it? You are such a fucking moron, words cannot describe your idiocy.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||12/28/2012|
Don't bother, R177. He never has lived in the real world and he's not going to start now.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||12/28/2012|
Don't be a douche, R179. All 4 of those countries MADE SURE, by offering rewards to tattletales and scaring the gun owners, that there would be NO resistance once they decided to kill dissidents.
Are you saying that it can't happen here? What a fool.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||12/28/2012|
When you join "the real world" let us know.
Have you got a sign in your yard that says "GUN FREE ZONE"? If not, why? Is it because it INVITES criminals to rob your stupid trick ass?
|by Anonymous||reply 180||12/28/2012|
Then stop posting such idiotic drivel, R180, and return to the real world. Until then, we'll continue pointing out the unreality and stupidity of your proposals, not to mention your total ignorance of history and economics.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||12/28/2012|
[quote]When you join "the real world" let us know.
Right back at you, sweetheart.
[quote]Have you got a sign in your yard that says "GUN FREE ZONE"? If not, why? Is it because it INVITES criminals to rob your stupid trick ass?
|by Anonymous||reply 182||12/28/2012|
Vote all Republicans out, pass massive tax increases on the wealthy including the buffet rule and the robin hood financial transaction tax, and a one time wind-fall hoarding tax to force the wealthy to spend and invest the piles of cash they're sitting on... restore campaign finance rules, repeal Citizens United, require public financing of all elections, return to paper-and-pencil ballots, and the problem will take care of itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||12/28/2012|
Look at how well it worked out in the USSR.
|by Anonymous||reply 184||12/28/2012|
R185, if the USSR had ever been in our position now, and had ever tried any of that... you might have a point. But instead you're just engaging in irrational hyperbole and non-sequiturs.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||12/28/2012|
You're right, R186- the USSA is far better at propaganda and populace control than the USSR ever was. The majority here have enough "bread and circuses"...I mean "McD's and iPhones" to worry about how the top .1% are raping them. They don't care about domestic spying, drones, waterboarding, etc.
When it crashes...hope you're ready.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||12/28/2012|
We should be, R187; you've been predicting the "crash" for years. I'm getting a little impatient sitting here in my fallout shelter.
|by Anonymous||reply 187||12/28/2012|
Fallout shelter? Why? Unless you live in a major metro area, and have enough gold, food, water and lead to last a few months it should be no problem.
Once TSHTF and people get desperate, most of the morons that think "this will never happen, the government will always take care of us" will be dead and smart people will be able to rebuild a normal society.
If you think the government will protect you...look at Sandy, and imagine it as a nationwide issue. The government is incompetnet at everything.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||12/28/2012|
[quote]Once TSHTF and people get desperate, most of the morons that think "this will never happen, the government will always take care of us" will be dead and smart people will be able to rebuild a normal society.
ROFL.... See what I mean? How can you have a rational discussion with a troll like this? Of course, he's been writing shit like this for years, blissfully unaware that all of his economic predictions have utterly failed and that his every post here confirms he's either a troll or a nutcase (or both, of course).
I love, by the way, how stockpiling gold is supposed to be effective in some way during this predicted economic and societal collapse. It doesn't seem to occur to this idiot that in such a collapse, gold is just as worthless as paper.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||12/28/2012|
If...no, WHEN, the system falls apart (due to the unpayable debt) the people that have gold will have the power to sell 1/2 gram (at $500/g) for anything they want.
I always keep a few pre-1963 quarters in my pocket. When I eat out, I ask my waiter if he wants 6-10 of these quarters as his tip, or the normal 25%. Over the last few months I've noticed that more of them want the quarters, maybe one of ten, because they know they are worth twice as much as the tip. When I get a waiter smart enough to take them, I always ask for them each new time I come...and I always carry enough for a 40% tip. The last guy, at MARKT on 6th, sat with us for 30 minutes asking why I offered such a valuable tip. He got it.
A quarter is worth $6. 10 of them...$60. My fave server at Ben & Jacks (on fifth) always grabs me when I come in because he knows the coins are worth more than his tips. They are almost all from former communist countiries, and they know what currency collapse looks like.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||12/28/2012|
Capitalism run by corporations kills.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||12/28/2012|
Yes, R192. But those corps have power because they suck up to the government.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||12/28/2012|
You will never convince them. They think communism or socialism or fascism just needs "the right people". Ask the Albanians, or Croatians. That's why so many good restaurants here in NYC are run by them- they understand how evil communism and socialism and fascism really are, and worry about how quickly our country is changing.
I had a conversation with a guy from Croatia, who brought his whole family (as many as he could) about the election, and what was happening. He owns a few semi- successful restaurants in NYC. They moved 15 years ago, and have done well, but the last 3-5 years have been shitty.
I told him to sell, get the money, and get out. He bought my dinner all summer...and now he's closed. All 3 locations. I tried to call, and (due to the IRS regs, which I warned him about) I doubt I will ever see him again.
I know the hometown, and I know that when I go to Italy next spring I will take a boat and end up looking him up across the sea.
|by Anonymous||reply 193||12/28/2012|
[quote]If...no, WHEN, the system falls apart (due to the unpayable debt) the people that have gold will have the power to sell 1/2 gram (at $500/g) for anything they want.
ROFL.... See what I mean? Dear heart, in the kind of total collapse you've been predicting for years, gold will be totally worthless. You won't be able to buy a damn thing with it since it has no intrinsic value.
Of course, out here in the real world, that collapse will not happen, gold peaked more than a year ago, and the economy is slowly recovering. You should join us here someday.
[quote]I always keep a few pre-1963 quarters in my pocket.
Uh-huh, right. Just like you moan when you're "felt up" by the TSA screeners. You do lead a rich life. Too bad that so much of it is imaginary.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||12/29/2012|
A big part of the problem we are experiencing today is that we were too complacent early on. For instance, at the time the Warren Commission Report investigating Pres. Kennedy's assassination came out, the citizens of this country should have called for an investigation by people outside of the DC "I'll-watch-your ass-if-you-watch-mine" culture.
|by Anonymous||reply 195||12/29/2012|
I'm buying stock in a company that aims to bring down corporate rule of the government.
|by Anonymous||reply 196||12/29/2012|
If you REALLY want to go down the rabbit hole, read the article at the link
He shows how deep the ties between the escalation in Viet Nam and Nixon, Reagan and Iran/Contra, Clinton and Mena, and Bush as the head of the CIA all lead to the deep connections between Obama's mom, dad and stepdad and Geithner's dad as CIA assets in the 70s, and finally lead to the current corrupt system.
The resources are freely available for scrutiny and deeply researched, supported by info released via FOIA suits.
But the people that think the government would NEVER do something so corrupt...they would not believe it if you showed a film of GWBush killing Kennedy himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||12/29/2012|
LOL.... You really don't know the difference between fantasy and reality, do you? You just unquestioningly swallow everything you read, regardless of whether it even remotely makes sense. Hilarious!
|by Anonymous||reply 198||12/30/2012|
Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.
But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.
It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||01/12/2013|
You have to first accept the fact that the Corporations WILL NOT COOPERATE in improving things.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||01/13/2013|
R200, once again you have failed to link to the original article or to give credit (or, in this case, blame) to the appropriate individual.
It's telling that you copied this bit of drivel verbatim and unquestioningly. Tell me, does it never occur to you to actually *think* about what you're posting here? Or to review history to see if what they are predicting has ever come to pass?
|by Anonymous||reply 201||01/13/2013|
Allow all the states to secede and become sovereign states.
Allow each state to choose what will be considered money.
Revoke all bank and corporate charters.
Withdraw all US troops and close all overseas bases.
That will be a start.
|by Anonymous||reply 202||01/28/2013|