Why am I having visions of trussed up CEOs, huddled in the backs of horse-drawn carts, weeping and wailing, their Rolex watches and diamond tie-studs ripped off, headed for a rendezvous with Madame Guillotine?

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:27:37 AM

  (0+)

Wishful thinking, Mac. Now that they've got all our money, it will be us that will be marched into oblivion. No more for them to steal, we, then, become the expendable "useless eaters" Kissinger, they and their kind distain.  

by Robert Arend (24 articles, 30 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 240 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:28:47 AM

  (0+)

Come on, think up a better future than that!

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM

  (0+)

people dont relaize what or how important the soviet takover of georgia was --it is the turning point in the world theater---they could not have done this without european [especially germany]permission ----the soviets did not like america messing around with former soviet states--against treaties-----germany will soon be head of the european union and a german will be prez--heck they even have a flag and anthem all picked out---their alliance is now with russia--or face no natural gas from their giant reserves---this is why condi rice said yesterday that the soviets are using oil and gas as a weapon---all we had going for america was are banking and investment companies-now we have squat---and germany as well as europe know this--its the end of america as we know it as the monies of the world will be invested elseware through other systems,other currencies--it was all we had and now is lost---and the gov with a bail out will in fact be subsidizing other countries money who invested through these countries---i will have to pay taxes for foriegn investors ---wow- bad enough paying for my own stupid countries investors-----we hav no tec industries that are not surpassed by other countries--we have no oil--our steel industry was given away long ago--as well as untold jobs from traitor companies who out sorce--what do we have left  to compete with--what is left----now watch how germany and russia move---herbert armstrong predicted this decades ago --go read --cause it gets a lot worse---i didnt even mention iran and russian packs that they made---our future is a shocker .

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:11:01 PM

  (0+)

  The "ordinary people" have the actual goods. The "rich" have the exchange medium called "money" whereby this wealth is exchanged. Hoarding up the means of exchange can buy a few castles and yachts and jets but after that one soul in one body does not have a use for more money except as it buys influence. And the influence is at the moment being used for hurt. You might almost say the "rich" have "negative-money" if they use if for negative influence. 

  Many boobs in slightly lower influence-position are going along with this and so we have boobs on the boob tube talking "negative-money". God how boring. 

  The talk and the influence and the money itself is getting to be abstraction upon abstraction that more and more is resembling nothing at all or abstraction losing any touch with the actual wealth, the actual wealth the abstractions are symbols of exchange for. 

  I think I will get back to work with my own personal wealth. My chickens, and my soon-to-be raised bed gardens, are far more interesting. They could keep me alive while the world gets abstracted/distracted.  

  This "useless eater" may keep eating.  :-)

by Theresa Paulfranz (23 articles, 1 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 326 comments [35 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 8:40:32 AM

  (0+)

I've been sharpening my knitting needles for 8 years. 

by grassroots (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 42 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:05:17 PM

  (0+)

Well the street is eating this up.  Rallys today will make up most of the loss from monday and tuesday.  Our government will buy bad debt with our great grandchildrens money -so far to the tune of $10,000 for every man woman and child in america just for the bailouts already officialy anounced.  Add another 500billion as is speculated for this savings and loan style bailout that has the street all hot and bothered and it becomes $15,000 debt for every breathing human in the US.  Meanwhile the most significant fallout from such actions is not being discussed.  Federal bond credit rating is falling.  The US bonds sold everyday to foriegn entities to keep our government working are becoming less and less attractive to buy.  As these bonds are no longer purchased weird sh*t starts happening.  The army doesn't get paid, mail trucks run out of gas, cops stop showing up to work, schools get shuttered.  But there is a bizzar bright side that is for the time being saving us from this fate - foreign investors are already t*ts deep in increasingly useless USA bond paper so if they stop buying all their current holdings evaporate completely.  How long can this last?  That's a good question.

by erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:38:58 AM

  (0+)

Since when has this government in it's recent past given a damn about we the people? We don't matter anymore. Companies matter. Its a government for the corporations, by the corporations and these latest moves more than proved that in spades.

You're right when you say they have money for gamblers and crooks but none for the people. They have money for wars but not for the people. We the people don't matter.

This was the perfect robbery. The crooks steal, we bail, and they walk away with golden parachutes as we get golden showers. Talk about trickle-down ...

I don't even know how we can call ourselves a republic anymore. We resemble more a socialist or communist state now than anything else.

I've been at the point that I can't help but believe the opposite of whatever these traitors say.

They say small government - it gets bigger.

They say they don't want war - we get wars.

They say they want to protect our boarders - we get open boarders.

They say capitalism - we get socialism.

There will come a time when this Ponzi scheme will fall, and I too believe that out of the chaos that ensues a better way can be found. But I also believe that prolonging this inevitable collapse will only make the pain increase when that fall comes. And when that fall comes we can only hope that it takes our now totally corrupt government down with it and the one that emerges will take the people into account first - as it should be and as of now it's does not.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:42:50 AM

  (0+)

EVERYTHING Republicans claim they stand for is absolutely false. It's ironic that the party preaching smaller government, and "pick yourself up by your bootstraps and don't ask for government handouts" will have been the party that spent this country into what will result as a Socialist Bureaucracy.

by grassroots (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 42 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:16:05 PM

  (0+)

"We, the people" get no say in this, even though our future & money hang in the balance. Literally overnight, Wall Street has commanded its stooges in Washington to complete the looting of the public till. There is no one in Washington looking out for our interests. Instead, both parties function as paid agents of the predators, graciously proffering the contents of our Treasury to their masters while smiling solicitously, "Come right in & help yourself, boys!"

If the Democrats were a real political party -- which they're not -- they would be defending the interests of the population, instead of helping the well-heeled crooks to loot the till & then to escape scot-free. They would be demanding that the funds needed to fix the system should be drawn heavily from the Wall St swindlers who created the toxic debt mess in the first place. This should entail seizing the ill-gotten gains of the many who have profited obscenely through what amounts to unimpeded plundering without oversight.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM

  (0+)

Everything they do is a lie, and everything they have "reasted" to was created BY them in order to profit from it.

This is my take on it at my site.  I really like the artwork. :)

by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM

  (0+)

The reason that people can't afford health care in this country is because there already exists a morass of corporate welfare, which has existed for several years.  If the government would stop bailing their friends out, we wouldn't keep having more failures (borne of moral hazard) and even more bailouts.

If the government would not continue to scratch the backs of their wealthy rich buddies, to include the pharmaceutical companies and large hospital chains, far more people would be able to afford health care.

There is an increasing divide between rich and poor, and this corporate welfare you speak of is now beginning to increase exponentially.

The only possible way to solve this problem is to begin the process of getting rid of all the shysters in Washington--from both the Republican and Democrat parties.

by Frank Staheli (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM

  (0+)

I disagree with your view because the trillion dollars spent to rescue and stablize the finanacial market is well spent.  It certainly is far better spent than the same amount of money spent for killing and maiming innocent people and for wantonly destroying another nation.  This money spent to stablize the market will rescue millions and millions of small savers and small investors and, indirectly, save the jobs of millions of workers who cannot afford losing their jobs.  Sure, it will also rescue greedy CEOs and fund managers who are at least partially responsible for the current mess.  But we cannot punish millions of innocent people just to punish the guilty.  That would be like killing a million innocent Iraqui civilians just to capture Sadam Hussein, as Bush/Cheney did.  If we want, we can separately deal with the issue of how to punish those who contributed to the current financial mess and how to make them accountable for their action, including making them pay back their undeserved financial gains.  This would not be easy because they will be protected under their contractual rights.  But even those issues must be openly discussed for possible solutions, at least for the future, if not, for the present.  In any event, we cannot watch a ship sink just because it is a pirate ship when we know that there are hundreds of innocent prisoners on board on that ship. 

Your motivation, your frustration, your anger are all understandable.  But we must be cool and first try to protect the millions of small people who are helpless in the face of a huge impending financail and economic collapse. 

by Nathan Nahm (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments [60 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM

  (0+)

What makes you think pouring more money down the same sinkhole, reenabling the same parasites who caused the original problem, is going to save the economy? This will like only destabilize things more. This is a freight train to economic catastrophe, period.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:53:48 PM

  (0+)

that taxes were for "the little people", George W. Bush belives that taxpayers are suckers just begging to be fleeced. He hasn't yet seen any evidence to the contrary.

Since he sold the taxpayers in Texas a bill of goods that got them to pay for a baseball stadium that Dubya collected on when sold, he has had the understanding that taxpayers are suckers. Then, he sold us a bill of goods that proper regulation of financial markets, including derivatives, and the companies that hawk them, is far to onerous an imposition for them to suffer. Now we as the suckers get to pick up the tab. I guess it's our fault for allowing them to do the wrong thing.

Just imagine what John (the lobbyists favorite deregulator) McCain is waiting in line to bring us. I imagine he'll intend to fire everyone that he can't legally fire, when it's his turn to loot trillions. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, since his buddies won't be able to bring themselves to pay taxes on all the taxpayer funds that they are looting.

It's an ownership society, my fellow suckers, and you had better believe that they own our asses now.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM

  (0+)

The problem was that there WAS oversight...  Those big corporations KNEW there was a bailout when they failed, which is pretty much why they failed so completely!

We had legislators raking in tons of cash to make sure that those nets stayed in place, and it is absurd to believe otherwise.

 Some people NEED to be in JAIL now....  (many are members of the CONgress...)

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:02:50 PM

  (0+)

It seems that your view is based on the funadamental political and economic philosophy that government should allow failing companies fail because such companies deserve to die in a free market, for the greatest market efficiency.  This is essentially the conservative, laissez-faire economic view championed by Milton Friedman of the Chicago School and espoused by the Republican Party, which assert that the less government intervention in economic affairs, the better for national economy. 

But you must understand that this laissez-faire policy is precisely what has brought the current financial mess, by a spectacular failure by Bush/Cheney administration in regulating the financial market.  Morally, it would be fitting to let the greedy suffer their wrongdoing which caused the mess.  But wait!  If we let all these currently failing financial institutions go under, do you think that their CEOs and managers will be punished?  But that would be a naive view. 

In point of fact, I am pretty sure that those who reaped huge financial gains during the heydays will be the least affected by the failure of their institutions because they had already reaped all their profits and excessive bonuses and, in many case, have already left those institutions.  They will be laughing happy, smug laughs, counting their money, when they see their beloved institutions (because they gave them so much) go under. 

What needs to be done is to rescue those millions of small investors and ordinary workers from an impending disaster by stablizing the financial market and the economy, and then to establish a proper government oversight mechanism that will prevent recurrence of similar financial melt-down in the future.  As part of this new mechanism, ways of dealing with those individuals who indirectly contribute to creating a serious finacial chaos should be devised. 

But right now is time to focus on the immediate disaster more than on anything else.  

by Nathan Nahm (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments [60 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:04:15 PM

  (0+)

If they were forced to fly without a government bail out safety net, it would have been in their best interest NOT to die as a company.

 That is my point...  The current issue was caused by government entities ensuring that the quasi government mortgage company, no matter how far out on that limb, would be buttressed with Tax Dollars, and if they could not buy it with that, they would buy it by borrowing from other nations..

and if our credit sucked too bad to get a loan, we would simply print more money.

We have quite a few politicians in DC, RIGHT NOW, who should be in JAIL..  One sitting in the white house, one who WANTS to be sitting in the white house along with his economic advisor who was a former CEO of the bailee!

Talk about the incestuous nature of DC Politics! MR M mentioned The Producers, and he is pretty spot on with his analogy to this case....  Only instead of Zero, we have Mudd!  LOL

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:47:31 PM

  (0+)

Get 1,000 people each buying 100% of a production than make sure it fails and the top 1% walk off with the money.

Only this time the thieves aren't even walking off, now they're sticking around to strip the theater of it's seats, stage of it's drapes, props and fixtures.

Some of you think that by allowing these thieves to remain around to bring the theater down to frame is a good idea.

It's not. They're not going to rebuild the theater.

They're going to bring in the police next to keep us out of what remains of it.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:19:19 PM

  (0+)

What Bernanke is doing right now is not what the laissez-faire economist would do; it is the exact opposite of it.  So, to the extent that the Republican Party has espoused the laissez-faire economic philosophy and have chanted, as their mantra, "the less government activity, the better," "deregulation, deregulation, , , ,!", and the like, for all these years, the current bailout plan is inconsistent with that philosophy. 

But that does not mean that progressives should condemn what Bernanke is doing.  Because the laissez-faire economic philosophy is intellectually suspect and its application to the real world extremely dangerous, as we can see in this financial crisis, what the progressives must do is demand an appropriate government oversight mechanism that will protect ordinary people and the national economy as a whole, rather than enrich a small number of scoudrels at the expense of everyone else. 

In any case, appointing Bernanke will be recorded in history as the only thing Bush ever did as president which was good.  Even though he was appointed by Bush, we should not condemn what Bernanke is doing just for that reason.  In point of fact, I doubt that Bush really understands either the real magnitude of what is unfolding right now or the economic significance of what Bernanke is really trying to do. 

But no matter.  If Bernanke succeeds in stablizing the financial market, everyone will be saved from a potentially far bigger disaster.  Again, the issue of how to make those individuals who contributed to this mess accountable is an issue that is gravely important and therefore should be dealt with separately and in its own right.   

by Nathan Nahm (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments [60 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:44:51 PM

  (0+)

During the Savings and Loan debacle, the S&L's were allowed to fail.  The assets and liabilities were taken into receivership and the loans were absorbed into health companies.

This is worse - these mega financial institutions should be allowed to fail, take the good and bad loans into receivership and reform the financial markets.  

The taxpayers (the people) are getting stuck with all of worthless debt allowing these companies to emerge with the cream of the crop loans.  It's disgusting.

Sorely disappointed in this Congress, (the President's a failure) and do not see any sensible leadership out of the Presidential contenders.

Why is it that "free markets" are such a great thing when profits are rolling in but the moment their are costs or expenses corporate owners cry uncle and steal from the taxpayers?

Where is the handcuffed parade of corporate thieves?

They should all be stripped of their stolen wealth and be forced to live forever penniless.  

Yes they have stolen our wealth - but they can't keep it unless we let them.  The bastards can't rebuild without us.  Time to dismantle this run amuck people stealing machine and create something new that benefits more of us.

The scum at the top need to have their loot returned to the people. 

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:48:54 PM

  (0+)

They did it, and they will continue to do it.  Nor, should anyone be suprised that the did.  Congress is a corporate subsidiary and will do whatever is necessary to save its corporate masters.

This is only the begining.  Now you are starting to hear rumblings from the Right that bailing out the idiots is costing so much that we can no longer afford Medicaid or Medicare.   However, it is essential that we maintain our trillion-dollar-a-year defense establishment which will increasingly be used to defend our corporate lords and masters from an outraged public.

by Case Wagenvoord (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 13 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:23:56 PM

  (0+)

my home state of California has been in a state of depression for at least 5 years now. Tent cities and the rise of the homeless has been steadily and visibly on the rise. Now we are seeing this trend from Portland Oregon to Atlanta Georgia and finally some major media is reporting it. As for Bush and these loans, let me say right off the bat that Bush is not making the decisions anymore(if he ever did!). Wall Street is! Also it isn't so much about bailing out FM and FM that is the problem though they certainly have gone about it the wrong way. it's about bailing out AIG that is the biggest problem. This is what will set a precedent to bailing out more private corporations in the future. It will embolden them to take greater risks knowing full well the national treasury will bail them out. It will also mean we will have to perpetually bail out AIG because not only are we paying for its defaults, we have inherited all of their active shaky investments. We should never have bailed out AIG! I believe we should have bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac however, but not the way they have been bailed out. First of all, we only bought up 80% of their stock and it is still 20% privatized. We should have bought up all of it's stock and kicked Wall Street out entirely, restoring these once prestigious and necessary institutions to their original government controlled origins and to their original purpose, to provide low mortgage rates to working people, period! If we allow this AIG bailout to perpetuate it will ruin us entirely as a nation. We will never be able to repay the vast debt and we will quickly run ourselves into a hole that will eventually cause government activities to collapse entirely. We need an immediate bank holiday to examine all of the dealings of these large financial institutions. We must resort to immediate regulating practices that were only instilled upon banks onto these other financial institutions. Will it hurt doing this? Yes it will! But it will kill us if we don't!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:06:58 PM

  (0+)

...is that the climate is less pleasant here.  Besides, DSS would probably take your kids away from you if you tried to shelter them in a tent.

by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:09:15 AM

  (0+)

But don't forget about those subway dwellers either. The only reason there are no tent cities in NYC is because of city ordinances that don't allow them. Most communities it seems gentrify and bus out the homeless or drive them into obscurity. They enhance the facade to hide the reality from those of us who are still lucky enough to have a job and a roof over our heads. They've been doing that since the 80's. But today the numbers are simply too big to hide.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM

  (0+)

Melt Up, Melt Down it’s the same Story of Stuff, Robert Singer

Kevin G. Hall in the McClatchy Newspapers writes:
Why would the government bail out a company like AIG but let Lehman Brothers file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection?
Kevin answer: Speaking frankly, the world can do without another investment firm. If an investment bank fails, any remaining investment bank can hire more people and take their jobs. AIG is not an investment bank. As a principal insurer, it insures consumers, it insures businesses and it insures business ventures, so it's not just that your corner store needs insurance.
The best analogy I've been able to come up with is to use an automaker. When you think about putting an automaker out of business, you put tire makers out of business, you put seat makers out of business, you put all sorts of things out of business. It's the same thing with AIG. There are tentacles. They're just so connected to so many other parts of the economy that the government deemed it more dangerous and potentially more expensive to the economy to have it fail than to give them this loan.

Story of Stuff answer: Lehman will not affect shopping, AIG will!

Number of employees AIG = 116,00, Number of employees Lehman = 25,000
The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars, cost of bailout 85 billion.

Do the Math and Read my September 14, 2008 OpEdNews article
"Give Us the ANWAR and Keep Shopping"-They Found They Can't Have Both


And watch a 20-minute documentary www.storyofstuff.com that lays this all out in a manner that even a child could understand and shows the path to saving the planet is no more complicated than controlling our addiction to all that "stuff."

by Robert Singer (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 138 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:07:01 PM

  (0+)

it is far to late to save the planet from global warming--the monies just spent on the gulf war could have and would have set up every home with solar or wind power for free and the people would have tons of money for an incredible market which  would have been spent on energy--but the anti-christs [ anti-christ in the bible means alternative savior]--money and greed are their alternative savior--its biblical and profits have explained these things in prophecy--herbert armstrong wrote of these things --go read--even global warming is mentioned in the bible--its  one of the reasons for justification--it is written that we would poison and destroy the whole earth if god did not stop it--the north was chem trailed all summer with dimming agents to stop the ice loss--in a pathetic attemp to control mother earths weather--our atmosphere is now a plasma --so its to late --the big flu is comming- watch

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:58:05 AM

  (0+)

The merger of corporate and government interests in furtherance of private control of the means of production while spreading financial and human losses among the masses is not socialism, but is the beginning of fascism.  Calling it socialism only hurts the progressive cause because in the very near future we will need to distinguish for the masses the difference between national socialism and real socialism.  One is a mask behind which fascism hides its ugly face, while the other is a solution to capitalism in crisis.  One only futher benefits the owning class while the other eliminates the owning class entirely. 

It is my fervent hope that with the ownership class having superceded national boundaries; that is, having become multi-national, that America can transistion to socialism from the ground up without the necessity of harming or taking away the property of the ruling class without fair compensation.  But we can make no such plans when progressives are so ignorant on the subject that they think socializing losses is the same thing as socialism.  

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:14:50 PM

  (0+)

When they impose the costs on the people for the payback, no money for infrastructure, health care, education, we will be a developing country with the crooks on top and the rest of us poor.

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM

  (0+)

are not socialism. They are corporate socialism which is an entirely different animal and has been the philosophy of the neocons since Bush first got into office. We never were a nanny state for the poor. That was always bullshit. In fact we have perpetually been a nanny state to corporations who have always realized a thousand times the amounts in corporate welfare that the poor have ever gotten from social welfare. These bailouts amount to profits for the elite who have always either skirted around or coerced the law to steal our tax dollars. Today and thanks to Bush they don't even need to play the game anymore. Bush is now directly pumping our money to them in huge, unprecedented heaps.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   This article is right on the money, so to speak. Helping the people who pay the taxes with adequate health care is "socialism" and bad. Bailing the corporations,who do not pay taxes, or very little, out of the calamity caused by their obscene profit obsession is really socialism but it's somehow good. It is not labeled that way because it gives our taxpayer's money to the wealthy and powerful,the Rebpublicans and their cronies. Just remember,the Republicans chose McCain and Palin to lead their party for good reason. Do you really expect that they were chosen to CHANGE this great feeding trough for the wealthy and help the little guy? No Republican, especially not McCain, is asking "WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?" They don't dare!

by stinpol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:33:22 PM

  (0+)

In fact, 100 conservative congress members have sent a letter to Bush demanding that he stop socializing the cost of failure while allowing all sorts of profit schemes to proliferate.

These are hard-core, free-market conservatives who hate to see socialism in any form, even if it bails out their own kind. You can criticize their philosophy of naked capitalism, but you have to give them credit. And you have to deplore ALL the Democrats who are now leading the charge to siphon money from US to keep the capitalists from the financial ruin they so richly deserve.

by Deano (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:42:11 PM

  (0+)

There are two problems -- too little government regulation and too much ineffective government.  Paulson and others in the Bush administration don't want government regulation of business and the results of having little or no regulation are reflected in the current crisis.  When business does what it wants, they steal the public blind and all the while tell everyone how free markets are wonderful.  Combine lax or no regulation and ineffective government, and you have the makings of a serious disaster (which is what we are experiencing now). 

The next administration will likely enforce more strict business regulations to prevent a re-occurrence of this lax regulation.  However, all it takes is a future President who doesn't really understand why it is important for government to regulate business or a President who feels business regulation is just hurting economic growth and we end-up right back where we are now. 

The second problem (ineffective government) is a harder to solve.  Power is the currency of trade in Washington, and power is largely a by-product of our inefficient government, or at least a government favoring inefficiency.  Members of Congress trade votes, influence and power to get bills written, language inserted, regulations altered and funding passed that provides constituents or donors with a favor.  Those constituents or donors in turn support that member of Congress for re-election.  The more power, the more accomplishments and the more favors one does, the more money one can raise. Trading power to influence Congressional actions is the antithesis of having an efficient government where all Congressional actions are based on the common goal to enhance the efficient and effective functioning of our society.  

The general public needs to get more involved, actively funding individuals for Congressional office who represent the general and not special interests.  I doubt ineffective government is going away any time soon simply because most people don’t understand the basis of the problem.  For many the problem is just “government is too big, we need to shrink the size of government”.  That thinking is what ultimately leads to a re-occurrence of the first problem.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:56:26 PM

  (0+)

Paulson fixed the de-regulation of investment banks problem by de-regulating commercial banks.  Done under the guise that these banks would be able to help out their counterparts, but isn't that fix already in? 

Speaking of wealthy welfare, I heard a news "opinionist" ask if there weren't some weathy people out there who would pitch in to save the AIG since they were the beneficiaries of the current crisis... no-one ponied up.

WE ARE BEING SET UP...  IT'S AN OWNERSHIP SOCIETY... YEAH, THEY WANT TO OWN US... AND THEY WILL TOO.

We got a call from our investment broker some 6 months ago... one of our funds looked shaky, he wanted to know where we'd like to move it.  I said into a savings account (cash... hopefully) and leave it.  So far, it's the only thing on our portfolio pulling down any return.   It started a battle this morning, but I won, or we'll see, but I convinced my husband to yank our stocks/mutual funds.  My logic:  Consider that Bear Stearns traded like business as usual on Friday and went for pennies on the dollar on Monday... this being Friday - gotta figure this isn't going to shake out good.   We are not spring chickens... We can't just start over.  Congress not only doesn't seem to care, we are past that... they don't care.

Wall Street doesn't want a rush of pull-outs so you get a bunch of bull about the strength and/or resiliency of the market and wow... a 368 -give me a break.  Surge this Wall Street - Burn Beranke - Impeach Bush !!  

I still do my daily google search of IMPEACH BUSH with current date... today's results were 238 - c'mon... who's bull sh*tting who?

by bucketslogg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 259 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:33:00 PM

  (0+)

FDR did the same thing with the Finance Reconstruction Corporation which was really a front for the Fed given it's creation was the idea of one of the Fed Governors and it's offices set up in various Fed banks with Fed employees working for the Fed and FRC.  Money was loaned to various troubled banks and industries and shares purchased in these companies.

Anyways, AIG was too big to fail, and it's alliances/involvement with Kissinger, the CIA and the drug trade likely means we will simply privatize some of government services in the not too distant future (social security, intelligence, etc) now that we own 79.9% of them.

Louis McFadden gave an interesting speech in 1932 on the Fed, international bankers and it's actions during and after the Great Depression (these bankers had weekly shipments of Gold going to Germany before FDR took us off the gold standard and confiscated everyones gold in 1933, and then depreciated the dollar against gold making gold more valuable).   Of course, he then suffered 2 attempts on his life, lost his next election before dying in 1936 (natural cause or not, who knows).  Those who challenge these guys get Spitzerized or worse (think JFK and Lincoln).

The fascism or whatever kind of -ism you want to call today goes back at least 75 years, or 95 years if you start from the date the Fed was established.  Today it is more blatant as they have no fear of the people any longer, their control is near total.  Also, those drugs they give you in your water, food and on the streets have been very effective in the de-evolution of Americans who are now a docile, dumbed down resource consuming beast. who is easily entertained but no longer knows how to think, which the 2008 election clearly proves. 

They have shipped the jobs requiring intelligence and knowledge of science and mathematics that created things of value overseas.  Even if we were to attempt to bring back our manufacturing economy, we would probably have to import the workers. 

They really have no use for most of you any longer, especially those who can not pay back your loans and credit card bills, which will be most of you once they bring back the double digit interest rates which will destroy whats left of the real economy.     

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:40:15 PM

  (0+)

Tonight I was listening to Jim Cramer who hosts a stock program on CNBC (General Electric) called MAD Money. Cramer is a very smart man and knows his stocks however, he went over the edge by calling Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's bail out "a good move" and compared it to that of (FDR) Franklin D. Roosevelt's new deal. In fact, Cramer went even further by stating that what Paulson did averted a depression and might even have exceeded FDR! All part of that "new (fuzzy) math?"

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:17:03 PM

  (0+)

He is exactly right.  What Paulson did is no different than FDR.  That does not mean it is right.

There is a myth out there about FDR that is pervasive .   The fascism you see today has FDR to thank.  But people think FDR looked out for the little guy and is a hero.  The man was tied to Wall Street.  What he did in Haiti as Asst Secretary of Navy was no diferent than Bush in Iraq.

The war powers act of 1917 as amended in 1933 allowed these powers to be extended for domestic issues at home, and has evolved to todays mess.  

The NRA was a fascist program that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1935.  FDR then tried to get power to clean out the justices who voted against it.   The social programs were largely a bone tossed to the people.

The FCC was created so as to control radio news broadcasts.  Those who broadcast programs against his polices were threatened with license revocation.

He confiscated our gold while the money powers were shipping theirs to Germany and Switzerland and then devalued the dollar so those still holding gold abroad made a killing.

He provided subsidies to the farmers to destroy food and not grow crops rather than allow it to be sold at prices which did not provide a satisfactory profits for the big farmers, as this would hurt the markets.  He did lift  prohibition, which was all about protecting  Big Oil from ethanol being used as a fuel (most people do not know this), to help minimize the pain. 

But these policies meant we had to import the corn and other foods.  Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional in 1936.  Nobody knows how many people died due to starvation,  but our population growth had ground to a halt in the North East (slight increase) and Midwest (decline) and overall growth was the lowest in our history.

FDR was an admirer of Mussolinis economic system as were most on Wall Street.  Him and his ilk believed converting Capitalism to Fascism and then Fascism to Communism, violent revolution, as we saw in Russia with the Bolshevik revolution would be avoided. 

The man lied his way into the White House, kind of like Bush.

FIRST plank: "We advocate the immediate and drastic reduction in governmental expenditure by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of government."

SECOND plank: "We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Executive estimates within revenue." 

THIRD plank: "We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the states make it impossible for them to provide for their needs." States?.

FOURTH plank  "WE favor unemployment and old-age insurance under state laws."   State laws?.

 FIFTH plank: "We promise the enactment of every constitutional measure that will aid the farmers to receive for their basic farm commodities prices in excess of cost."  Supreme Court did not agree with the measures.

SIXTH  plank--"We advocate strengthening and impartial enforcement of  the anti-trust laws."  Then what was the NRA, also ruled unconstitutional. 

SEVENTH plank "We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest."  NRA?

He did pretty much the opposite of what he said he would.  Unlike Bush, he did not have a 9/11 event to excuse his change in thinking. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:05:54 AM

  (0+)

What Paulson did does not in any way resemble what FDR did. FDR did not bail out private corporations with tax dollars. Roosevelt acted responsibly. Paulson the opposite. Roosevelt gave us workman's comp, unemployment insurance, social security and the WPA. He raised taxes on the rich. The only thing Paulson gave us is a deeper hole to dig out of. Also Roosevelt acted on the long term where Paulson went for the short fix which only amount to a stall to the inevitable.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM

  (0+)

They wouldn't dare.

They wouldn't have done any of it without your permission and consent.

The problem is that when you consented, you didn't know what you were consenting to. 

When you voted in 2000 and 2002 and 2004 and 2006, you had no way to know what the results of the rigged elections would be (for the first few years you may not even have known that the elections were rigged), you didn't know who the people you were voting for really were (did you know that Joe Lieberman was a neo-con when you voted for him?), and you probably didn't even understand that what you were consenting to was their right to do whatever they wanted during their term in office, since you have no way to hold them accountable other than waiting until their term is up and trying to vote them out in the next rigged election.

When you voted for the Democrats (in the first years I did also, so I'm just as much at fault as you -- I only stopped voting last year), you probably expected them to OPPOSE the Republicans. They only do that during election campaigns and then not very strongly or very well.

But strange as it may seem, Rob, they don't dare do anything without your consent. And they're counting on your consent in November for them to keep right on doing what they've been doing.

Of course Obama has committed to maintaining a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, even though the Iraqis don't want us there, so that presence can only be maintained through military force. And since he is committed to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, he'll have to replace them with private military contractors (mercenaries like Aegis, Triple Canopy, Blackwater, etc.) that are MORE expensive than U.S. troops. And he's going to expand the war in Afghanistan, so all in all, the defense budget will increase under an Obama presidency. Granted, he's the lesser evil, so it might increase more under a McCain presidency, but it will still increase. 

Of course in order to increase the defense budget, Obama will probably have to do a lot of things that he might not want to do, and not do a lot of things that he might want to do, but that's politics for ya, eh?

But NOTHING will be done without your consent, Rob. Unless you grant your mandate, delegate your power, and give your consent on November 4th, the government will not be able to claim to be a democratically elected government with the support of people like you, and it will not be able to continue its agenda with your full permission. 

It might take a little while for them to stop. They'll install whoever the voting machines or the Electoral College or Congress or the Supreme Court says is the "winner," but unless they can get out the vote, that "winner" will have no claim to legitimacy. And other countries won't subsidize an illegitimate government the way they will a democratically elected government.

Did you ever read my essay, Consensual Political Intercourse, Rob?

Without your consent, they don't dare do anything. Are you going to give them your consent again the way you did in 2000 and 2004?

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:27:53 PM

  (0+)

I know somebody's going to ask what the alternative is.

It is called self-governance, otherwise known as government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

You see, the framers believed that only the wealthy elite were capable of good governance. They didn't trust ordinary people to rule, so our Constitution didn't invest us with the power over government that the Declaration of Independence says is our inalienable right.

I believe that the framers were wrong.

I live in a low-income senior building. There is a very mixed demographic here. Some people were wealthy and successful when they were younger, but had business set-backs, extraordinary medical costs, a stolen pension plan, failed investments, or some other event that caused them to have to forfeit their prosperity. Many were ordinary working class people. We have some retired schoolteachers. We have some legal immigrants who worked hard all their lives but never made much money. And we have some f***-ups like me who never were successful. I'm only alive through the astonishing grace of some deity that I, as an atheist, don't even believe in, not because I was ever wealthy or prosperous.

But we all have two things in common. We pay our rent every month. And we manage to live within our means, however modest those means may be.

So I figure that anyone in my building could do a better job of governance than the folks in D.C. right now. I think you could too. I'm not afraid of what would happen if the wealthy elites were no longer in power and ordinary people took over the reins of government. I know a lot of ordinary people and they're quite competent, thank you.

But just to be certain that we didn't mess things us, we'd have checks and balances, so nobody could do things unless most everyone else agreed, and we'd have honest elections to verify that agreement. Every city and town in the country right now has election reform activist groups who have been studying hard for years and can tell you exactly how to run an honest election. Ask Rady Ananda, Joan Brunwasser, and some of the other election reform activists here on opednews. We know how to do it.

Now, since our goverment doesn't know how to lead and will not follow, all we have to do it tell it to get the hell out of the way.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:43:02 PM

  (0+)

Of course they dire. And they are going to keep doing it.

It's your money dummy!

So what are you going to do about it? Half of the American population of 150m have been screwed to bits by the Bush government and his buddies Wall Street mafia and corporate elites. And there is not a single person, NOT ONE, who dares to do anything about. A bunch of cowards and zombies. All the complains about the 'defeatist' French are so much hyprocricy. The French were screwed less by King Louis IV and they did something about it. And they did it well, with style, for the history books!

America - the land of TV zombies, bankrupt cowards, and emerging fascist state.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM

  (0+)

Did you happen to see this story & video?

VIDEO: Incredible Documentary Footage of Mass Arrest in St. Paul

Do you know about America's Homeland Security industry? It is a multi-billion dollar growth industry that was put in place by an illegitimate government that was expecting a revolution. But the revolution didn't occur, so the detention camps are mostly sitting empty, except for some undocumented maids and gardeners, and law enforcement has a hard time justifiying its ever-increasing budget.

So the people who still believe that this is a legitimate government, and who continue to give their consent to this illegitimate government by voting in its rigged elections, thereby legitimizing it, protest the Democrats and Republicans, lobby the Democrats and Republicans, petition the Democrats and Republicans, and do everything else they can do to help Homeland Security justify its budget. It is similar to the defense industry, in that they can't get contracts for more bombs and planes unless they use the ones they already have. Homeland Security needs to justify its budget, so those who still believe that this is a legitimate government (maybe it needs a few reforms, or a few different people), need to recognize the government and help it justify the Homeland security budget.

Then, when they recover from the tear gas and mace and get bailed out of jail, they turn around and vote for it again.

A violent revolution against a legitimate government, particularly when it happens to be a fascist military superpower, is a very risky gamble, Tom.

If people could just stop recognizing the government and stop voting in it's rigged elections, stop giving it their mandate, delegating it their power, and granting it their consent, then it would no longer be a legitimate government and urgent and essential changes would become possible.

But as long as people believe in it and vote for it, it can keep kicking them in the teeth, because it has their consent. Without their consent, it wouldn't dare -- and it couldn't if it tried. 

That's why I've been advocating an election boycott in November. As long as people vote (and in rigged elections it doesn't matter who they vote for), the government can claim to be democratically elected and a legitimate government with the support of the people, no matter how fascist it gets.

Withdraw that consent and it is no longer a legitimate government. 

If they dared, they wouldn't bother to hold elections. The reason they hold elections is because they don't dare. 

The problem isn't that Americans don't attempt a violent revolution, as it would be very unlikely to succeed against a legitimate government that happens to be a military superpower with a multi-billion dollar Homeland Security industry that specializes in crowd control. The problem is that Americans keep voting to legitimize a fascist government that keeps kicking them in the teeth.

It's abused spouse syndrome. Yes, America wages wars of aggression and steals their money, but they love it! They love the Constitution that never granted them a federal right to vote! No matter how often the government kicks them in the teeth, they'll keep voting for it because they believe in it and they love it. They can't imagine anything different. That's what battered spouse syndrome is.

Worse, it could better be compared to child abuse. Even horribly abused kids love their parents. Yes, daddy (the Republicans) is mean and hurts them, and yes mommy (the Democrats) won't stop him and often helps him, but how can a kid not love their parents? And some kids go right on loving their abusive parents until the parents have killed them dead.

Before anyone babbles about revolution, it might be a good idea if they at least consider withdrawing their support for this government. If you aren't willing to withhold your vote, even knowing that the elections are rigged and even knowing that both candidates are committed to wars of aggression and corporatist policies, then I don't think you're going to be manning any barricades and putting any heads on pikes. 

Did you read Consensual Political Intercourse, Tom?

Don't vote! No in November. If you don't like what your government is doing, stop giving it your permission, consent, authority, and mandate. 

As an election boycott advocate, I often feel like the friend of a victim of domestic violence who keeps pleading for the battered person to stop going back to the batterer. But they don't. And I know that if they don't, one day they'll be dead from one of those beatings. But they're deaf. They can't hear me, won't listen, and they keep going back. It doesn't matter how many times it happens, they keep going back and asking for more.

I don't think Americans are cowards, Tom. I think they're like the female who posted to opednews that she enjoys being whipped bloody and it is her choice and her freedom to choose being whipped bloody, so anybody who doesn't like it is interfering with her freedom. Americans are masochists. They love it when their government kills seven million people in their name and sticks them with the bill and the repercussions. They love it when their government outsources their jobs, forecloses their homes, and runs up debts in their name that even their grandchildren couldn't repay. It is their freedom to choose to be slaves, to choose to be whipped bloody, and we have to allow them their freedom, right?

The most courageous thing the American people could do is stay home and not vote on November 4th and convince their friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. Only seven weeks until the election and the same people griping and moaning about what our government is doing, plan to vote for the very people doing it and give those people their permission and consent to keep doing it.

Only about 10% of Americans are fascists and support what our government is doing. So why are almost half of eligible citizens going to vote for what they disapprove of? Times like this I wish I wasn't an atheist.  It would be very apropos to say, "May God have mercy on their souls."

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:46:20 PM

  (0+)

I'll never forget hearing Kissinger do a PSA in his creepy German accent.  He said, and I quote, "Ve don't care who you vote for. Ve only care that you vote".

If that isn't a reason to not vote, I don't know what is. 

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:10:06 PM

  (0+)

I googled, but couldn't find a source for it. Nonetheless, it is true.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:31:51 PM

  (0+)

This is THE BEST example of government gone wrong.  Government might as well nationalize Wall Street.  Welcome to the People's Republic of the United States.

Government created the mess by insisting on wrong-minded, sub-prime loans being made to those who could not afford it.  Government needs to get the hell out of trying to pretend they can run businesses when they cannot run the government.  Both parties are totally corrupt.  We the people are no longer a priority.

Sharpen your pencils for the November vote.  NO SINGLE member of Congress should be allowed to return if he/she is on the ballot.  NO Republican or Democrat should return to any elected office.  It is time to get completely revolutionary in the vote.  We MUST send a strong message that we have had enough of being ignored.  This is a Republic, they are supposed to represent US and that has stopped.

It is time to JUST SAY NO.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM

  (1+)

Mike, what cave have you been in?

80% of all American votes are counted secretly on computerized central tabulators using undetectably mutable software.

No matter how you cast your vote or who you THINK you're voting for, what you are doing is giving your consent to and legitimizing the very things you claim to oppose.

You do know that a Libertarian isn't going to be president, right Mike?

You do know that even if YOUR vote is counted accurately, it won't have any impact on the presidential election. In 2000 and 2004 the President was sworn in BEFORE the votes were counted and nothing has changed since then, so that's what will happen this time also.

My next door neighbor, a senior citizen like myself, is a lifelong Libertarian who has always voted and isn't going to vote in November. The only point to voting in a rigged election where your candidate can't win anyway, is to give your mandate, your authority, your permission, and your consent, in the form of your uncounted, miscounted, or ignored vote, to whoever becomes president. You vote, you lose, you accept the results because you voted and you can't complain.

You can't send a message by voting in a rigged election.

Well, they say the newly-converted are always the most pious.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM

  (0+)

Sorry, Mark, but I have read many of your articles.  You are a brilliant guy but you offer questions with no answers.  Talk about pious!  You are as sanctimonious as they come.

I do not personally subscribe to the "conspiracy theory" of massively rigged voting.  You may be right but if these morons think a trillion dollar bail out is the answer then they are not smart enough to rig a national election.

If we all vote against the system and the results come in with either McIdiot or Obullchips we should all wake up to the fact we are being deceived.  Where does that leave us for alternatives?  Don’t vote?  Don’t be ridiculous.  Your " . . . government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is the vote.

And yes, I did read your "Consensual Political Intercourse".  The serious flaw is that if only 3 people turn out to vote, the one with 2 votes will win under our system; while the mass media reports that ticket won with landslide 66% of the vote.  And the people will buy it and will have earned it.  It is the ones who do vote that determine the outcome, good, bad, or indifferent.

By the way, I am sure you read my profile, less than a year to my full AARP membership.  Tom is right and even "seasoned citizens" can revolt.  Do not discount that possibility.  We discounted guerilla warfare during Viet Nam and what happened?  And if it was not for an armed and revolutionary citizenry 232 years ago we would not be a nation today.

Excuse me, Mark, but I have to go.  Homeland Security is at my door and wants to verify the serial numbers on my firearms.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:48:27 AM

  (1+)

Right here on opednews you can find:

Election Fraud Bibliography

and also:

2008 Bibliography of Scientific Studies on Software Driven Voting Systems

Mike wrote:

I do not personally subscribe to the "conspiracy theory" of massively rigged voting.  You may be right but if these morons think a trillion dollar bail out is the answer then they are not smart enough to rig a national election.

You're saying that all the scientists and computers experts are wrong, or that they're lying? Or are you saying that you don't care about documented scientific facts, that you're a faith-based person?

You don't have to be smart to rig an election. You just hire somebody smart to do it for you. Watch the Clint Curtis clip at the end of this video:

Eliza Jane sings "S.O.S."

If we all vote against the system and the results come in with either McIdiot or Obullchips we should all wake up to the fact we are being deceived.

But you have no way to know how other people voted. Votes are private, votes are counted secretly by computers, and nobody cares about exit polls unless they're in the Ukraine. If you haven't woken up after two stolen presidential elections in a row, it isn't because the alarm didn't go off, it is because you keep hitting the snooze button.

Don’t vote?  Don’t be ridiculous.  Your " . . . government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is the vote.

Only in an honest election. But since you believe that our elections aren't rigged, and that those fifty scientific reports commissioned by the GAO, Secretaries of State, and various universities are all written by conspiracy theorists, and that all the authors of the books in the election fraud bibliography are conspiracy theorists, you can't tell the difference between a rigged election and an honest election. Have you never heard the old quote from Josef Stalin that it doesn't matter who votes, it only matters who counts the votes?

And yes, I did read your "Consensual Political Intercourse".  The serious flaw is that if only 3 people turn out to vote, the one with 2 votes will win under our system; while the mass media reports that ticket won with landslide 66% of the vote.  And the people will buy it and will have earned it.  It is the ones who do vote that determine the outcome, good, bad, or indifferent.

If only three people turn out to vote, the government will only be able to show three signatures of people who voted. The mass media can report anything they want, but our elections, particularly the turnout for presidential elections is covered by the world media, and they won't buy it. Low voter turnout is the only known proven effective, nonviolent way to discredit a government. The Apartheid regime in South Africa tried to install the candidates that got the most votes in the boycotted election. But nobody believed that they were a legitimate government because everyone knew from the low turnout that they didn't have the support of the people.

I'm not going to respond to your name-calling. I don't care how old you are, if you still think that election fraud is a conspiracy theory and that you can trust Diebold to count your vote, you're one of the most ignorant people in the country. Try telling anyone you want that you trust Diebold to count your votes and that the proven and documented election fraud is just a conspiracy theory, and see if they don't laugh in your face. Do you still believe in and trust Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too, Mike?

Your vote, what is called "the popular vote," is meaningless, Mike. The Constitution never granted you a federal right to vote at all, and it specifically prohibited you from voting for President or Vice-President. In 2000 and 2004 Bush was sworn in BEFORE the votes were counted. The reason the Supreme Court was able to stop the vote count in 2000 was because the Constitution never gave us the right to vote. The reason that Kerry reneged on his promise to ensure that the votes were counted in 2004 was because the popular vote is irrelevant. The Electoral College vote can be meaningful, unless one of the political parties contests it and it is thrown out. Then Congress can determine who becomes President, without regard to the popular vote, unless the Supreme Court intervenes. And of course if the winning candidate decides to concede to the loser, all the votes for the winning candidate are ignored and that person alone, one single person, decides who becomes president. 

I didn't know my neighbor very well and didn't know anything about her. One day she saw my "Don't Vote! No in November!" t-shirt and asked me about it. So I explained the election boycott to her. She said, "That sounds like a great idea. I'm a Libertarian. I've been voting all my life and my candidates never win. I think I'll join your boycott." 

In addition to rigged voting machines, there are many ways that our elections are rigged. Gerrymandered districts, unequal ballot access, no proportional representation....there are actually hundreds of things that our government and the two ruling parties have done to ensure that only the wealthy elite were represented by our government.

And don't think that people like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul can bring about change. They've been in Congress a long, long time. How much change have you seen? 

The Democrats used to say that election fraud was a conspiracy theory. They kept that up until 2006 until there was just too much evidence of election fraud and so much public awareness of election fraud, that their own voters stopped taking them seriously. If the Libertarians want to show the same ignorance that the Democrats used to show, they'll only alienate Libertarian voters. Election fraud is a fully documented, indisputable fact, not a theory. You don't have to read all fifty scientific reports to know that, you can just scan a dozen or so of them at random and figure it out. Unless, as I said, you prefer faith to fact. You're free to believe that it doesn't exist, and you're free to believe that the world is flat -- it seems flat where you're standing so anyone who says otherwise must be a conspiracy theorist.  ;)

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:46:24 AM

  (0+)

I know they rig the votes, and that Bush lost both elections.

Here's the thing.  If they can lie about the results, they can lie about how many people turned out.  How would you know?  \

They can just announce that 40,000,000 people voted and it was 49% to 51%.  (It doesn't matter who wins, just that we think we're more divided than we are) 

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:15:19 PM

  (0+)

Wagelaborer wrote:

ooh, I found a flaw in your plan

I know they rig the votes, and that Bush lost both elections.

Here's the thing.  If they can lie about the results, they can lie about how many people turned out.  How would you know?  \

They can just announce that 40,000,000 people voted and it was 49% to 51%.  (It doesn't matter who wins, just that we think we're more divided than we are) 

You wouldn't have happened to notice that while votes are private, turnout is not?

For example, there is no public record of how you voted, but there is a public record of the fact that you voted. 

It is difficult, and in almost all cases impossible, to determine if an individual vote was flipped to a candidate the voter hadn't selected.

But it is easy to find out if that person voted. Just check the voter registry. 

When a precinct in Ohio produced 10,000 votes for Bush but had fewer than 400 registered voters, it was easy to determine that the votes produced by the machines were fraudulent. 

Even if the political parties hired homeless people to stand in line at the polls, unless they signed the register book and actually voted, it would be obvious that the turnout was lower.

The votes are counted secretly inside computers, but the registry books are public. You can't know HOW somebody voted, but you can know IF they voted. 

Turnout is a hot topic because fewer than half of all eligilble U.S. citizens vote. In every election turnout is discussed by the mainstream media. Historically there has always been a larger turnout for a presidential election than for primaries and off-year elections. If there is even a slightly lower turnout in November, it will be hot news in the mainstream media all over the world. International observers can be banned from entering the polls or the central counting places, but they cannot be banned from observing the lines (or lack thereof) at the polls and looking at the registry books.

I live in San Diego and two precincts vote at the same polling place where I vote. They each have about 1,000 registered voters and usually get about 200 votes at the polling place and perhaps 300 mail-in ballots. If those figures change, it will be evident and obvious immediately. 

When the governnment lies and says that there is gold in the vault, but doesn't let anyone into the vault, there is no way to know for sure that they are lying. When they say that people voted for one candidate or another, but the votes are counted secretly, you might know for sure that they're lying, but you have no way to prove it before the candidate is sworn into office. In both 2000 and 2004 Bush was sworn into office BEFORE the votes were counted.

But when the government lies and says that day is night, there is no way they can prevent everyone from seeing for themselves that day is not night, so it is immediately obvious and evident that they are lying. The turnout is public, it cannot be hidden, and it cannot be faked. It is as public as day or night. 

Similarly, wagelaborer, if you were not given a paycheck for your work, and your pay was deposited directly into a secret government account to which you did not have access, your employer could say that they were paying you more than they were or even claim to be paying you when they weren't paying you at all. It is only because your pay is given to you, either directly or deposited into an account to which you have access, that you are able to know if and how much you are paid. Secret vote counts have no place in democratic elections. 

Yes, America is divided. We know that there are a small minority of Americans who support the wars and support Congress, but that they are no more than 20% of registered voters. Since half of us don't register to vote, that's only 10% of Americans. And even most of THEM don't approve of our goverment's fiscal mismanagement. 

If you are aware that the past two presidential elections were stolen, and you are still planning to vote in the next one, maybe you should think twice before claiming to have found flaws in other people's plans. ;)

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:12:36 PM

  (0+)

it takes real guts to do the right thing --we all know what it is but everyone is afraid to start the ball rolling--who will leed the attact on money----we all should  and can default on our loans and everyone can start from scratch--think obout it -we could buy back america at a much lower cost at the big auctions and all the fire sales---------pick a date--ill join anybody who wants to default on this country and wants to put things right

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 at 8:20:08 AM

  (0+)

As a working divorced mother of two, going to college, she applied for food stamps and was denied.. Why? Because she made  a couple of dollars too much.  Now, we are married, a stay at home mom and because I make a couple of dollars to much, any aid is also refused, we have to do the best that we can to make ends meet. To contrast the buyouts of the rich buSINess with the nations poverty level citizens makes me question the morality of our nation's elected officials.

by 1Bigbeam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:42:30 AM

  (0+)

How to spell the designation of the next increment? Starts I think, with a "Q".

by vthom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM

  (0+)

This is the best article on the subject that I have seen. Naming the democrats, pining it on specific works. Incidently 20 years ago the best writing teacher ever, Zola Ross pounded specific, never general into my head for 12 years. Thanks Rob. You did it. Anyone reading this article will spread it. I wonder how many can attach why it hits so hard.

It's the "specific," not "general" lugheads. Rob taught all of us a lesson in how to write.

by emily horswill (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 79 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:25:29 AM

  (0+)