1
1
1
Kucinich questions preparation of testimony preceded the Treasury Departments subversion of the bailout act. Kashkari responds with ambiguous, unqualified claims of accomplishment and dedication"- what he cares about, etc.. Kucinich replies that Paulson appears to have gutted the act and sent signals to banks that the foreclosure crisis isn't something the bailout is necessarily even concerned about. Kucinich asks, "Hello, are we in a different universe here?"- How do you reconcile the policy reversals?:
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) questions Kashkari that banks receiving the bailout funds are actually using them to buy other banks:
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) questions Kashkari about whatever techniques may be successful at arresting foreclosures. Kashkari responds he is passionate about doing so. But of course, all this could be arrested immediately by transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™. He CLAIMS to be looking for comprehensive solutions. Dodd reminds him every day of delay means another 10,000 foreclosures. Kashkari claims to understand the sense of urgency. But of course, we could stop all the foreclosures if he weren't *more passionate* about exploitation:
RESPONSE TO INFOWARS PAGE (NOT PUBLISHED BY INFOWARS HOURS AFTER POSTED)
While to his credit, Mr. Kucinich exercises a serious posture, no one here is getting at the meat of the matter.
The reason there is a "crisis"- is the imposed system inherently multiplies debt by ever escalating increments of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt. The crisis therefore is comprises of *inevitable* conditions, produce by a system which from its inception was intended to exploit the people as much as possible. While of course that process serves the people in no way whatsoever (because we who produce our production are the real creditors [being as we accept paper/whatever] can issue our own promises to pay without cost to extrinsic parties who produce nothing [the privatized "monetary"- system]), its fault is that the underlying process, so long as it exists, is both irreversible and inevitably terminal.
How so?
So long as we maintain a circulation subject to this intended "privatization"- of the people's debts to each other (which merely imposes an extrinsic party as if they are the creditor), whatever we pay to the usurpers in the way of principal and interest must be re-borrowed as subsequent sums of debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest. So long as we maintain a circulation then, this process is irreversible; and, characteristically then, the inherent, irreversible multiplication indeed escalates by ever greater increments of ever greater sums of periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.
So, what are the questions we need to be asking?
