Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Sorry, you must be logged in to use the shoutbox!
Advanced search  

News:

You can close this shoutbox by clicking the [-] at the top right.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Down

Author Topic: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES  (Read 3957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #360 on: July 28, 2010, 11:25:54 PM »
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

Quote
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 07/22/2010 - 6:22pm 9/119/11 CommissionAssange; JulianBBCBelfast TelegraphEdmonds; SibelEllsberg; DanielGraham; BobKerrey; BobOperation CycloneRothe-Kushel; JeremyWe Are ChangeWhistleblowerswikileaks
"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".

In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:[3]

Bob Graham: "I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."

Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration."

Bob Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: "Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened."

Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"

Bob Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House."

Narrator: "So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?"

Bob Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."

The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn't something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:[4]

Bob Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"

Bob Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about"

Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as 'blunders', 'failures', 'mistakes' and 'cock ups'. This angle is not new, in fact, it's part of a long BBC tradition of 'limited hangouts'. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these 'blunders' and 'gaffes' were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey's remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.[5]

Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is "conspiracy" or "cover-up". Bob Graham doesn't hold back and mentions "withholding of (..) secrets", chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikleaks:[6]

"WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."

I bet whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds[7] and certainly Daniel Ellsberg[8], who is mentioned several times in the mission statement, approve. Surely, a 9/11 cover-up that "led to the heart of the administration" is worthy of Wikileaks' attention. Or is it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "9/11 tragedy pager intercepts" — http://911.wikileaks.org/
[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/
[4] We Are Change LA: "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[6] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About
[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497
[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #362 on: August 03, 2010, 12:45:25 AM »
Chelsea's Wedding
Let Them Eat Cake
By Paul Craig Roberts
8-2-10
 
It is not unusual for members of the diminishing upper middle class to drop $20,000 or $30,000 on a big wedding. But for celebrities this large sum wouldn't cover the wedding dress or the flowers.
 
When country music star Keith Urban married actress Nicole Kidman in 2006, their wedding cost $250,000. This large sum hardly counts as a celebrity wedding. When mega-millionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump married model Melania Knauss, the wedding bill was $1,000,000.
 
The marriages of Madonna and film director Guy Ritchie, Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren, and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones pushed up the cost of celebrity marriages to $1.5 million.
 
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes upped the ante to $2,000,000.
 
Now comes the politicians's daughter as celebrity. According to news reports, Chelsea Clinton's wedding to investment banker Mark Mezvinsky on July 31 is costing papa Bill $3,000,000. According to the London Daily Mail, the total price tag will be about $5,000,000. The additional $2,000,000 apparently is being laid off on US Taxpayers as Secret Service costs for protecting former president Clinton and foreign heads of state, such as the presidents of France and Italy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who are among the 500 invited guests along with Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, and Clinton friend and donor Denise Rich, wife of the Clinton-pardoned felon.
 
Before we attend to the poor political judgment of such an extravagant affair during times of economic distress, let us wonder aloud where a poor boy who became governor of Arkansas and president of the United States got such a fortune that he can blow $3,000,000 on a wedding.
 
The American people did not take up a collection to reward him for his service to them.
Where did the money come from? Who was he really serving during his eight years in office?
 
How did Tony Blair and his wife, Cherrie, end up with an annual income of ten million pounds (approximately $15 million dollars) as soon as he left office? Who was Blair really serving?
 
These are not polite questions, and they are infrequently asked.
 
While Chelsea's wedding guests eat a $11,000 wedding cake and admire $250,000 floral displays, Lisa Roberts in Ohio is struggling to raise contributions for her food pantry in order to feed 3,000 local people, whose financial independence was destroyed by investment bankers, job offshoring, and unaffordable wars. The Americans dependent on Lisa Roberts' food pantry are living out of vans and cars. Those with a house roof still over their heads are packed in as many as 14 per household according to the Chillicothe Gazette in Ohio.
 
The Chilicothe Gazette reports that Lisa Roberts' food pantry has "had to cut back to half rations per person in order to have something for everyone who needed it."
 
Theresa DePugh stepped up to the challenge and had the starving Ohioans write messages on their food pantry paper plates to President Obama, who has just obtained another $33 billion to squander on a pointless war in Afghanistan that serves no purpose whatsoever except the enrichment of the military/security complex and its shareholders.
 
The Guardian (UK) reports that according to US government reports, one million American children go to bed hungry, while the Obama regime squanders hundreds of billions of dollars killing women and children in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
 
The Guardian's reporting relies on a US government report from the US Department of Agriculture, which concludes that 50 million people in the US--one in six of the population--were unable to afford to buy sufficient food to stay healthy in 2008.
 
US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that he expected the number of hungry Americans to worsen when the survey for 2010 is released.
 
Today in the American Superpower, one of every six Americans is living on food stamps.
The Great American Superpower, which is wasting trillions of dollars in pursuit of world hegemony, has 22% of its population unemployed and almost 17% of its population dependent on welfare in order to stay alive.
 
The world has not witnessed such total failure of government since the final days of the Roman Empire. A handful of American oligarchs are becoming mega-billionaires while the rest of the country goes down the drain.
 
And the American sheeple remain acquiescent.
 
_______
 
 
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, <http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html>HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: <mailto:PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com>PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

 

Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #363 on: August 04, 2010, 07:58:05 PM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-01-28/secret-banking-cabal-emerges-from-aig-shadows-david-reilly.html

The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.

Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.

We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system -- apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout -- deserves further congressional scrutiny.

The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.

That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.

Saving the System

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.

The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.

By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.

This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.

Geithner’s Bosses

The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.

As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.

Consider AIG. Let’s take Geithner at his word that a failure to resolve the insurer’s default swaps would have led to financial Armageddon. Given the stakes, you might think Geithner would have coordinated actions with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Yet Paulson testified that he wasn’t in the loop.

“I had no involvement at all, in the payment to the counterparties, no involvement whatsoever,” Paulson said.

Bernanke’s Denials

Fed Chairman Bernanke also wasn’t involved. In a written response to questions from Representative Darrell Issa, Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in the negotiations” with AIG’s counterparty banks.

You have to wonder then who really was in charge of our nation’s financial future if AIG posed as grave a threat as Geithner claimed.

Questions about the New York Fed’s accountability grew after Geithner on Nov. 24, 2008, was named by then-President- elect Barack Obama to be Treasury Secretary. Geither said he recused himself from the bank’s day-to-day activities, even though he never actually signed a formal letter of recusal.

That left issues related to disclosures about the deal in the hands of the bank’s lawyers and staff, rather than a top executive. Those staffers didn’t want details of the swaps purchase to become public.

New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.

That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself.

Later, when it became clear information would be disclosed, New York Fed legal group staffer James Bergin e-mailed colleagues saying: “I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals -- too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG -- to keep a determined Congress from the information.”

Think of the enormity of that statement. A staffer at a body with little public accountability and that exists to serve bankers is lamenting the inability to keep Congress in the dark.

This belies the culture of secrecy obviously pervasive within the New York Fed. Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns noted during the hearing that the bank initially refused to disclose even the names of other banks that benefited from its actions, arguing this information would somehow harm AIG.

‘Penchant for Secrecy’

“In fact, when the information was finally released, under pressure from Congress, nothing happened,” Towns said. “It had absolutely no effect on AIG’s business or financial condition. But it did have an effect on the credibility of the Federal Reserve, and it called into question the Fed’s penchant for secrecy.”

Now, I’m not saying Congress should be meddling in interest-rate decisions, or micro-managing bank regulation. Nor do I think we should all don tin-foil hats and start ranting about the Trilateral Commission.

Yet when unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil.

(David Reilly is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: David Reilly at dreilly14@bloomberg.net
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #365 on: August 05, 2010, 11:41:22 AM »
Obama Performs for "The View"
Ducks Debate with Ahmedinejad
By Gerald Celente
8-4-10
 
KINGSTON, NY -- Last Thursday President Obama made an appearance on the mid-morning pop-TV show, The View. Criticized by opponents for brazenly exploiting the female-friendly platform to boost his sagging ratings, the appearance was applauded by supporters for cleverlyreaching out to a normally unpolitical audience to drum up approval for his accomplishments and build support for his agenda.
 
Yucking it up with a panel of five ladies, the President of the United States of America fielded questions about Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, Snooki, Chelsea's wedding and why he wasn't invited. 
 
Obama's performance on The View generated saturation media coverage. What was not covered by the press, was that while Mr. Obama could find time for a third appearance on The View, he had (for a second time) rejected an invitation from the President of Iran to engage in a TV debate on matters of war and peace, life and death.
 
"We are ready to sit down with Mr. Obama face-to-face and put the global issues on the table, man-to-man, freely, and in front of the media and see whose solutions are better," challenged the Iranian President.
 
Sarah Palin recently accused President Obama of having "no cojones" on immigration. "Why won't Obama sit down and debate his opponent 'man-to-man'?" asks Trends Research Institute Director Gerald Celente. "Does he lack the cojones for this too? Or is there some other, hidden foreign policyreason for why he won't engage?"
 
The double refusal to debate is an almost exact repeat of history. Four years ago, in an August 2006 Trends in the News® feature, Gerald Celente reported, "Bush Backs Down Twice from 'Evil Empire' Challenge."
 
Back then the White House brushed off Ahmadinejad's call for a televised debate: "The president's view is that he doesn't respond publicly to private correspondence," said Tony Snow, Bush's White House Press Secretary.
 
Four years later, Denis McDonough, chief of staff at the White House National Security Council, blew it off as well: "I'm not leaving it open and I'm not closing it." 
 
Making sure the door was closed, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs responded with Robert "Gibberish": the U.S. "would be willing to sit down and discuss Iran's illicit nuclear program if Iran is serious about doing that. To date, that seriousness has not been there."
 
"Serious" and "seriousness" is not the issue. The only issue is: Why won't the President of the United States sit down "man-to-man" with the President of Iran? It can't be that he's too busy. After all, he finds time to fly to New York to sit down with a bevy of lightweight, chattering TV personalities to entertain an audience with so little to do with their lives that they waste an hour of it watching The View.
 
Gibbs extricated the President from a mano-a-mano confrontation by claiming that Ahmadinejad's invitation to debate was a sign of Iranian weakness proof "the sanctions are beginning to have an impact". This was not only an unproven assumption, it was irrelevant, a craven cop-out, a disregard for democratic principles and a diminution of presidential stature. 
 
Ominous Signals: Is the refusal to debate a prelude to war? Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, in a 60 Minutes interview, offered to debate President George W. Bush on TV, denying that he had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. (Click on the above cited Trends in the News® feature)
 
The offer was summarily dismissed by the White House and laughed off by60 Minutes host Dan Rather, who asked Mr. Hussein if his request was "a joke."
 
Two weeks later, the United States invaded Iraq. It was no joke. There was no debate and there were also no WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. The agenda had long been set.
 
Publisher's Note: Surely, if the President can find time for TV talk show small-talk, he should be able to squeeze in an intelligent discussion with the elected leader of another sovereign country. What is the big problem with a debate? What's there to lose? Cojones?
 
Or does Mr. Obama's refusal to debate Ahmedinejad mean that the agenda ­ as with Iraq and Bush ­ is already set? This past Sunday, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that the US military has a strike plan against Iran in place.
 
 
 
Zeke West
Media Relations
zwest@trendsresearch
 
©MMX The Trends Research Institute®
 
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #368 on: August 20, 2010, 10:04:55 PM »
Rense and Celente prepare for the worst
Rense and Celente prepare for the worst
Logged

Gerald

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #370 on: August 26, 2010, 10:22:50 PM »
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/d-sherman-okst/why-we-are-totally-finished

Why We Are Totally Finished
Submitted by D Sherman Okst on Sun, 27 Jun 2010
In A Nutshell: Corporatocracy Has Replaced Capitalism
Capitalism Fixes Problems & Preserves Democracy: Capitalism is what we should be relying on to fix our problems. Capitalism has it's own ecosystem, just like biology's ecosystem. An economic ecosystem that weeds out the weak, has parasites that eat the failures and new bacteria that evolves and grows replacements for that which failed. A system that keeps everything in balance.

The problem is we are no longer a capitalistic society. What we were taught in school is now utter and absolute nonsense. Capitalism is a thing of the past.

As outlined in "It's Not A Financial Crisis - It's A Stupidity Crisis", we created two back to back bubbles. The air out of the Tech Bubble was sucked up for fuel by our next stupidity crisis: The Housing Bubble.

Now, after the second Stupidity Crisis there isn't a third bubble to inflate. If we still lived in a capitalistic environment the banks and financial institutions that created loans for folks who should have remained renters and then sold those loans as investments to pensions and countries would have been cleansed by capitalism's ecosystem.

But that isn't what happened.

In a very anti-capitalistic move the government decided that stupidity and criminal activity should be rewarded. I'd say they took our money, but it is worse, we didn't have that much money. So they borrowed the money in our name. The loan has a variable rate. They borrowed so much money that our kids cosigned the loan. In fact, our kid's future kid's signed on the dotted line.

That is unequivocally immoral.

 

They gave that borrowed money to a bunch of morons as a reward for stupidity. Morons who created subprime loans, liar loans, no income no documentation loans and other fraudulent instruments. Morons bundled that trash, got it rated AAA and then sold these turds or weapons of mass destruction that they had the audacity to name complex financial instruments or derivatives to pension funds, countries and other "investors".

Then it all blew up.

Big surprise.

For blowing up the world's economy this Stupidity Crisis was falsely named an Economic Crisis by CNBS and 535 morons on a hill in DC (Ron Paul and a few other fiscally responsible adults excluded). The idiots who created the mess were rewarded with a 700 billion dollar "bailout". This "bailout" was anything but a bailout and had a price tag of anything but 700 billion. The actual price tag is closer to 11 trillion and puts us on the hook for another 13-17 trillion - not counting interest.



Click image to enlarge.

Think about that for a second. This stupidity crisis is the equivalent of our Federal Debt which took a generations of politicians over a hundred years to wrack-up.

For anyone who still believes we live in a free country where capitalism reigns please show me one economic textbook which states that failure, and fraud get rewarded with borrowed taxpayer money. For anyone who believes we live in a democracy please show me a textbook that says the government will en-debt you and your kids and their kids to pay for a failed business. How is that democratic?

"Law of Morons": Years ago, while serving on a committee I came to a sad realization. Like gravity, there is the another invisible force which I dubbed "The Law of Morons". Put a group of very intelligent, well meaning people in a room together, put them on a committee or some governmental body that is devoid of guiding principles or merit based decision making and "The Law of Morons" will prevail. The collective IQ will drop to the smallest shoe size in the room. And hope for loafers, because collectively this body won't be able to tie anything together - not even a single shoelace.

Government Creates Problems: Basically our government is comprised of many well meaning intelligent people who for whatever reason, re-election, greed the "Law of Morons", corporate puppet strings (read: lobbyist), self interest, corporatocracy or whatever else, do nothing but create massive problems. Lack of regulation, too much regulation.

And without any uncertainty --- too much DEBT along with a deficit that will NEVER be paid.

They have failed us.

Terribly!

With debt and a failed capitalistic society our democracy is now at risk. Serious risk.

A democratic society requires a stable and effectively functioning economy. I trust that we and our successors at the Federal Reserve will be important contributors to that end.~ Alan Greenspan
Serious irony there unless he was talking about the end of a democratic society. Greenspan was primarily responsible for muzzling Brooksley Born's attempt to regulate derivatives.

Our deficit requires that we counterfeit "money" to service our debt payments.

Forget about GDP, it is a bogus measure cooked by the BEA (US Bureau of Economic Analysis) . GDP is so baked that it makes the folks who cooked Enron's books look like saints. Let's focus on what we take in and what we pay out. We take in about 2 trillion in taxes and other revenues. We borrow about 2 trillion of which about 1 trillion must be taken off for debt service, and we spend well over 4 trillion.

To deal with the 1.6 trillion ++ shortfall we just print/counterfeit it. This debases the value of every dollar we hold, stealing wealth from every hard working American. It causes the need for more dollars to be injected into the system, which increases the amount of taxes that Americans pay.

There are only two crimes listed in our Constitution: Treason and counterfeiting.

"Solutions Create More Problems" ~ Al Bartlett (Worked on the Manhattan Project).
Another asked, "Is there any intelligent life on earth to change our future to a sustainable one?"
Dr. Bartlett replied, "Is there any intelligent life in Washington, DC is the bigger question?"
We Have a Corporatocracy: Not capitalism.

Corporatocracy: A government that serves the interest of, and may de facto be run by corporations.

Some states have government workers who have powerful unions that influence the government's decisions. California has a massive pension mess, created in large part by government unions and elected officials who have catered to these unions.

"Too Big To Fail" is living proof that capitalism is dead. These TBTF institutions that blew up the economy in 2008 with their stupidity crisis, at the very least deserved to fail. They blew it. That is the definition of capitalism. You do well you are rewarded, you screw up you close shop. You commit fraud and you do time.

But with a Corporatocracy you have Hank Paulson - a former Goldman Sachs CEO worth about 700 million dollars who winds up becoming our past Secretary of the Treasury. There is a serious distinction between a civil servant and someone who serves a corporation, especially the last corporation he worked for. His salary was only six figures, but his benefit was that he got to cash out of his stocks and pay no taxes. He gave the morons who blew up the economy 700 billion dollars. He had another former Goldman Sachs employee disperse the funds while the current CEO of Goldman Sachs professed to be "Doing God's work."



The movie "The Corporation" can be viewed at NetFlix or online with Hulu.

In Summary: Our debt and our inability to revive capitalism and cut the waste in government will be our demise. Sadly, the only glimmer of hope I see is that Corporatocracy will destroy itself. I say sadly because it will destroy the average American citizen like some parasite that kills it's host.

Capitalism is dead and that is why we are totally screwed.

In Summary: My faith in the 5Gs: (G*(religious edit)d, Gold, Guns, Grub & The Government Will Continue to Screw It Up) remains strong.

D Sherman Okst
Bernardston MA USA
davossherman @ gmail.com
Logged

opetero

  • Administrator
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3246
Re: THE MORALITY OF THINK TANK MILLIONAIRES
« Reply #371 on: August 27, 2010, 10:33:02 AM »
 :thup:
Logged
~ risk fear ~
"We are the world and the world is us" - Krishnamurti
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Up