#California court orders release of 25% of prisoners in immediate future
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/19/nation/la-na-prison-
release20-2010jan20
California prisoner-release order on hold pending Supreme Court review
January 19, 2010|By David G. Savage
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court today put off a decision on
whether California must release more than 40,000 inmates to relieve
overcrowding in its prisons.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had appealed a ruling of a three-
judge panel last year that found prisoners were being denied adequate
healthcare because of overcrowding. The judges then ordered the state to
come up with a plan to reduce the prison population by more than 40,000
inmates. In his appeal, the governor said the judges had overstepped
their authority under federal law.
But before the high court acted on that appeal, the state had filed a
plan to comply with the judge's order.
Today, the justices dismissed the initial appeal from Schwarzenegger, but
noted that the judge's order had been put on hold and would remain so
"pending review by this court."
Washington attorney Carter Phillips, who is representing the state of
California, said he was preparing a new appeal that challenges the entire
basis for the judge's order. Today's action "largely affects the timing,"
he said.
The justices will decide in a few months whether to hear the prison case,
and the prison-release order remains on hold in the interim.
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
Phlip
> and the prison-release order remains on hold in the interim.
Translation: As usual, a GOP governor left an Easter Egg behind for a
Dem governor. Full of 40,000 potential Willie Hortons.
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
A lower court had already reached the same conclusion under Arnie, and he
actually appeared willing to comply. But he was hit with intense
pressure from the public, and from the prison guard's union, one of the
most powerful in the state.
wy
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:00:34 -0800, Phlip wrote:
> >> The justices will decide in a few months whether to hear the prison
> >> case, and the prison-release order remains on hold in the interim.
>
> > Translation: As usual, a GOP governor left an Easter Egg behind for a
> > Dem governor. Full of 40,000 potential Willie Hortons.
>
> A lower court had already reached the same conclusion under Arnie, and he
> actually appeared willing to comply. But he was hit with intense
> pressure from the public, and from the prison guard's union, one of the
> most powerful in the state.
Yeah, you can't release 40,000 prisoners, thus relieving the state of
huge costs for housing them, without letting go a number of prison
guards who no longer would be needed. So, let's get this straight
now. In order to protect the jobs of prison guards, for which the
state pays their salaries, the state needs to keep those 40,000
prisoners locked up, for which the state pays their incarceration.
That's like a weird form of subsidizing prison guards' salaries - pay
the $40 million per year to house unneeded prisoners just so whatever
number of prison guards, say 4,000, can keep their jobs to the tune of
another what, $10 million in salaries and benefits? Sounds like
socialism to me.
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
That's a fairly accurate summation. You know me; I'm staunchly pro-
union. But not in this case. The Screws' Union has gotten overbearing
and entitled, and what does it say about a culture where SCREWS are a
major political force.
But I don't mean to blame them alone. There is also a vast slave-labor
racket industry in America that has about one million slaves, who get
five to twenty-five cents an hour in some 40,000 different jobs. The
outfits that run this rack pay them the amounts mentioned, charge their
clients--some of whom don't even know they are benefiting from prison
labor--a hefty markup, and the extra costs involved in this--the $40,000
a year or so it takes to "house" the worker--is externalized to the
taxpayers.
We've made prisons profitable, and created a monster.
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
> "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>>> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
>>> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>>
>>We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
>
> There may be some truth in that statement ... although not in the
> sense of Social Security which is a genuine ponzi scheme requiring an
> ever-escalating, ever-wealthier population.
Actually, it doesn't. We have a "bump" in retirees because of the baby
boom, a population surge that we now know is inevitable after major wars,
but was unplanned for in the 1930s.
>
> It's "Requires" more in the POLITICAL sense of the word ... there are
> now SO many cops, staff, officials and supporting industries with a
> vested interest in a huge justice/prison system that it's politically
> impossible to just pull the plug.
>
Agreed.
> Oh, and how'd they keep the poor/minorities under the heel without
> petty drug laws ???
Again, agreed.
Sheldon Cooper
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> > 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>
> We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
That system was created by allowing in an army of illegal aliens.
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
> "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:39:24 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>
>>> "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
>>>>> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>>>>
>>>>We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>>>
>>>
>>> There may be some truth in that statement ... although not in the
>>> sense of Social Security which is a genuine ponzi scheme requiring
>>> an ever-escalating, ever-wealthier population.
>>
>>Actually, it doesn't. We have a "bump" in retirees because of the baby
>>boom, a population surge that we now know is inevitable after major
>>wars, but was unplanned for in the 1930s.
>
> There have been plenty of opportunities to tweak the system since the
> 30's ... even to largely compensate for the 'bump' ... but it's not
> working. This isn't just a USA issue, but one in a number of
> 1st-world countries. Russia and Japan are even contemplating PAYING
> people to crank out more puppies.
There have been many opportunities, and some still remain. It's a matter
of political courage. Russia I can see, because they suffered a
population DROP of some 6% in the ten years following the fall of
communism--and no, that doesn't count the break away Republics, which
brought the population drop to near 40%. That's just what's Russia
today. Among developed nations, only Canada and Australia are less
crowded--and Russia has a lot more arable land. Japan, I haven't heard
of any schemes for population growth policies, but I know they have a
rapidly aging population and a life expectancy nearly ten years more than
that of the US. So they probably are headed for a pension "bump". I
doubt that a uptick in the birth rate would help them now, since it would
be sixteen years before they enter the labor market, if then.
>
> The originators of SS produced some graphs showing a nice reasonably
> straight line of contant population growth, the assumption of
> increasing wealth and a fairly stable lifespan & support-cost index.
> Well, that's not how it's going (and CAN'T for a number of important
> reasons). Instead the population is ageing rapidly, but won't die-off
> on schedule, and actually expects a QUALITY of retired life rather
> than a can of cold beans and army-surplus Spam each Sunday.
>
> So, the tax burden on the younger workers can only increase and
> increase until there's some kind of revolt (I'm suprised it hasn't
> happened yet, though all the schemes to cheat older workers out of
> their pension plans are clearly the beginnings).
>
> So ... how DO you "build down" the population without having to use
> the older folks as Soylent Green or having the younger folks show up
> at the statehouse with torches and farm implements ???
>
>
>>> It's "Requires" more in the POLITICAL sense of the word ... there
>>> are now SO many cops, staff, officials and supporting industries
>>> with a vested interest in a huge justice/prison system that it's
>>> politically impossible to just pull the plug.
>>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> Oh, and how'd they keep the poor/minorities under the heel without
>>> petty drug laws ???
>>
>>Again, agreed.
>
>
> Hey ... I'm not used to so much agreement. Makes me dizzy .... :-)
5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09
> A six-percent drop ... we need a global *80* percent drop ... within
> two or three generations ... lest the planet become naught but a
> giant worthless strip-mined mudball. THEN we'd get a drop ... 80+
> percent ... but kinda all at once, and not in a nice way either.
You might get your wish. I wouldn't be faintly surprised if World War
III didn't break out in the next five years, and no matter how they try
to pretty it up with ideological and/or religious causes, it will be a
war over resources. Party A has something in copious amounts and won't
share with Party B, who is carrying a big club. Human history in a
nutshell.
Be careful what you wish for.
>
>
>>Among developed nations, only Canada and Australia are less crowded--and
>>Russia has a lot more arable land.
>
> Thouse countries have low population density for good reasons ...
> Canada and Siberia are too fuckin' COLD and even GW ain't gonna make
> 'em nice. Look at Australia and you'll see that HUGE desert that
> takes up most of the landmass. Too HOT (and dry) to be very useful.
> Excise the "bad parts" from the national acreage and the pop density
> for those countries looks a lot like in many other countries.
>
As noted, Russia has a lot more arable land. More arable land, in fact,
than the US, Canada and Australia combined.
>>Japan, I haven't heard
>>of any schemes for population growth policies, but I know they have a
>>rapidly aging population and a life expectancy nearly ten years more
>>than that of the US.
>
> There was something in "Japan Today" or "Japan Times" not long ago
> ... they really are trying to get folks to make lots more babies -
> tax breaks, cash, appeals to patriotism. Alas, the younger generation
> just does not seem interested. They'll have to try other ways to
> balance their pyramid on end. It should be instructive to see what
> works, what doesn't, what causes bloody revolution .....
By our standards, Japan is crowded, about three times as crowded as
England (8 times the UK as a whole). But much less crowded than India or
Bangladesh.
liberal
> "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> >> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>
> >We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
> although not in the sense of Social Security
> which is a genuine ponzi scheme requiring an
> ever-escalating, ever-wealthier population.
One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> It's "Requires" more in the POLITICAL sense
> of the word ... there are now SO many cops,
> staff, officials and supporting industries
> with a vested interest in a huge justice/prison
> system that it's politically impossible to
> just pull the plug.
>
Sheldon Cooper
> On Jan 17, 5:39 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> > "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> > >> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> > >> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>
> > >We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
> > There may be some truth in that statement ...
> > although not in the sense of Social Security
> > which is a genuine ponzi scheme requiring an
> > ever-escalating, ever-wealthier population.
>
> One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
Phlip
> > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
It was fine under Clinton.
Sheldon Cooper
> > > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> > > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
> It was fine under Clinton.
Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel. Sadly for you,
the inevitable unraveling happened during the Obama/Pelosi/Reid reign.
Bert Hyman
news:54a443e9-44db-437a...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actuarially speaking, the end was just as easy to see then as it is now.
Everybody knew that the amount of money coming in to the system wasn't
going to match the amount being taken out.
So long as it wasn't going to happen "on his watch," he had absolutely
no reason to be concerned with doing anything about it.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sheldon Cooper
> Innews:54a443e9-44db-437a...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com
>
> Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 12:30 pm, Sheldon Cooper <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> >> > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> >> You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
> > It was fine under Clinton.
>
> Actuarially speaking, the end was just as easy to see then as it is now.
>
> Everybody knew that the amount of money coming in to the system wasn't
> going to match the amount being taken out.
>
> So long as it wasn't going to happen "on his watch," he had absolutely
> no reason to be concerned with doing anything about it.
Indeed, Clinton's the kind of guy who delighted in sticking his
problems onto the next guy. It was supposed to blow up under Bush -
instead, it held on until Obama.
5897 Dead, 1040 since 1/20/09
wrote:
No, no, you don't understand. Fake Bill WANTS it to be bankrupt!
How can Americans be properly frightened and servile if they aren't
utterly and completely depending on their employers for every little
bit of sustainance they can get in their wretched lives?
Sheldon Cooper
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:50:30 -0800 (PST), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 21, 12:30 pm, Sheldon Cooper <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> >> > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> >> You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
> >It was fine under Clinton.
> No, no, you don't understand. Fake Bill WANTS it to be bankrupt!
I've been having thousands of dollars a year taken from my checks for
decades. Why would I want all that money to go away?
Seriously, just how insane are you?
> How can Americans be properly frightened and servile if they aren't
> utterly and completely depending on their employers for every little
> bit of sustainance they can get in their wretched lives?
1. Employees can walk away from abusive employers. This is not an
option in your statist utopia.
2. People are perfectly free to be self employed under the current
system. Not an option is a complete statist utopia.
3. My life is anything but "wretched". If that how you feel about
your life...that's your fault.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. I would be far better off had I
been allowed to opt out and put that money away someplace safe.
wy
Are you STILL dreaming in 3D IMAX technicolor with Dolby Digital
Surroundsound?
5897 Dead, 1040 since 1/20/09
And if absolutely nothing is done, it will be in the red in 2037, and
reemerge in 2044.
Sheldon Cooper
wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2011 22:07:27 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In
> >news:54a443e9-44db-437a...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com
>
> >> On Jan 21, 12:30 pm, Sheldon Cooper <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> >>> > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> >>> You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
> >> It was fine under Clinton.
>
> >Actuarially speaking, the end was just as easy to see then as it is now.
>
> >Everybody knew that the amount of money coming in to the system wasn't
> >going to match the amount being taken out.
>
> >So long as it wasn't going to happen "on his watch," he had absolutely
> >no reason to be concerned with doing anything about it.
>
> And if absolutely nothing is done, it will be in the red in 2037, and
> reemerge in 2044.
August 9, 2010
Not In 25 Years, Social Security Is Bankrupt Now
By Bill Frezza
This just in from the trustees that issue the annual report on the
health of those two pillars of the modern entitlement state: Medicare
and Social Security. For the first time in its history the Social
Security program will pay out more money than it takes in. This
watershed event will occur this year, to the tune of $41 Billion
dollars. Under any rational accounting standards this makes the Social
Security program bankrupt. And that's right now, not in 25 years when
the so-called Trust Fund becomes insolvent.
Ray Fischer
Trillions of dollars of assets but the crackpot beckerhead insists
that SS cannot pay its bills.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>
>> > > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
>> > > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
>> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
>> It was fine under Clinton.
>
>Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel.
There is no ponzi scheme, beckerhead. You're lying.
ZNUYBV
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> > 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>
> We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
> --
way.
Hang 'em, flog 'em or put 'em in the stocks.
Sheldon Cooper
> Sheldon Cooper <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> >> > > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
> >> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
> >> It was fine under Clinton.
> >Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel.
> There is no ponzi scheme, beckerhead. You're lying.
You have hundreds of millions of Americans who contributed their
entire lives, and there's no money left. The only way payments can
continue is to find new suckers to underwrite the scheme. If that's
not "ponzi", NOTHING is.
Sheldon Cooper
>
>
>
> >On Jan 21, 12:03 pm, liberal <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 17, 5:39 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
> >> > >> If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> >> > >> 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>
> >> > >We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
> >> > There may be some truth in that statement ...
> >> > although not in the sense of Social Security
> >> > which is a genuine ponzi scheme requiring an
> >> > ever-escalating, ever-wealthier population.
>
> >> One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
> >> delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
> >You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
> Trillions of dollars of assets but the crackpot beckerhead insists
> that SS cannot pay its bills.
There ARE NO Assets. SS is bankrupt.
john whine
''We didn't put people in prisons until 1823. Let's go back to the
old
way.
Hang 'em, flog 'em or put 'em in the stocks. '' - zhubyignu
******************************8
what a thoughtful fellow you are.
do you have any relatives that have
been thrown into the system as 'users'?
yet?
Sheldon Cooper
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:14:50 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
>
> <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
> >> >> It was fine under Clinton.
>
> >> >Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel.
>
> >> There is no ponzi scheme, beckerhead. You're lying.
>
> >You have hundreds of millions of Americans who contributed their
> >entire lives, and there's no money left.
> Nonsense, of course.
You want to tall an Object fact "nonsense"?
There's nothing left in the "safebox" except IOUs from Uncle Sam.
It's all been squandered.
> >The only way payments can
> >continue is to find new suckers to underwrite the scheme. If that's
> >not "ponzi", NOTHING is.
> The way it WILL continue---is to uncap the top end contributions
> because the massive amount of wealth held by the top 10% is a hundred
> times more than it was just 40 years ago.
Like I said, you're going to find new suckers. You'll soak the rich,
then soak the rich. Then soak the rich. But the "rich" soaked won't
be Soros, Gates or Buffet. It'll be married couples who work 70 hours
a week.
The Democrats had virtual fillibuster proof majorities in both Houses
and the White House, and you didn't soak the rich then. No, you gave
"wavers" to 211 major corporations, while unleashing pushing ObamaCare
on small business.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF BILLIONAIRES!
> The term "social security" is the obvious solution to a NATIONAL
> problem dealing with a range of things from minimal payments to
> retiree's, disabled, orphaned children, widows, etc.
The term is "Social Security INSURANCE". Something people buy by
themselves, for themselves. It wasn't sold as a giveaway program.
> Raising retirement age, redoing the contribution cutoff level, will
> "add to" the existing amout we STILL have.
The problem is that, if SSI is nothing more than a giveaway for the
Democrats, additional funds will simply be given away.
> Had the GOP's "plan" to privatize retirement been in place---the
> entire fortunes of a nation would be wiped out by the fortunes of the
> market. (and Bernie Madoff who did, in fact, leave thousands
> destitute)
Putting aside for the moment that the Dow currently enjoys record
levels - the Dow has NEVER hit "zero".
Right now, people who spent their lives having $7,500.00 a year taken
(against their will) and put into the SSI "lock box" have LITERALLY
NOTHING.
No-thing.
Zip.
All Gone.
Nothing but promises that they'll extort the money from somewhere
else.
Even Bernie had SOME money left at the end of the day. And HE went
to jail.
ZNUYBV
If you can't joke 'em ; fug 'em.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 22, 3:14�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Sheldon Cooper �<richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > One fairly rational post and you sink back into your cesspool of
>> >> > > delusion and illusion...the reichtard "reality."
>
>> >> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>
>> >> It was fine under Clinton.
>
>> >Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel.
>
>> There is no ponzi scheme, beckerhead. �You're lying.
>
>You have hundreds of millions of Americans who contributed their
There is no ponzi scheme, you lying beckerhead. Learn to tell the
truth and stop being such a sucker for a shameless con man like beck.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 23, 6:13 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:14:50 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
>> >> >> > You DO know that Social Security is bankrupt, don't you?
>>
>> >> >> It was fine under Clinton.
>>
>> >> >Yes, it takes a while for a Ponzi scheme to unravel.
>>
>> >> There is no ponzi scheme, beckerhead. You're lying.
>>
>> >You have hundreds of millions of Americans who contributed their
>> >entire lives, and there's no money left.
>
>> Nonsense, of course.
>
>You want to tall an Object fact "nonsense"?
The Social Security Trust fund has TRILLIONS of dollars in it,
beckerhead.
>There's nothing left in the "safebox" except IOUs from Uncle Sam.
What the hell do you think that your bank account is, dumbshit? IOUs.
Ray Fischer
YOU ARE A LIAR, DUMBASS!
Sheldon Cooper
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:35:11 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
>
> <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >You have hundreds of millions of Americans who contributed their
> >> >entire lives, and there's no money left.
>
> >> Nonsense, of course.
>
> >There's nothing left in the "safebox" except IOUs from Uncle Sam.
> >It's all been squandered.
> Are you poor assholes just that dumb--or acting that way?
Oooooooo - you're getting touchie.
> There NO rational reason to "lock money" in any account or "box".
Of course there is - the money is supposed to be there to be paid
back. Now, there's none to pay back. This was supposed to be an
insurance investment plan. Instead, it's a ponzi scheme, and Madoff
made off with the cash.
> It is unproductive, it irratonal, it is absolutely pure bullshit that any
> (ANY) financial operation idles money.
Excuse me - the money hasn't be invested - we're not looking at bonds,
stocks, or other interest baring accounts.
It's been pissed away buying votes for the Democrats.
It's gone.
Bankrupt.
At at a time of massive deficits, this will be yet another money pit
the taxpayers will have to cough up for.
> The "full faith and credit" of the US government accounts for the
> ability to pay debts as they arise.
And where are we going to get that money from? Soak the rich some
more? Higher taxes? Borrow?
Just how much money do you think is out there?
> >> The way it WILL continue---is to uncap the top end contributions
> >> because the massive amount of wealth held by the top 10% is a hundred
> >> times more than it was just 40 years ago.
>
> >Like I said, you're going to find new suckers.
> You think those poor assholes--investors, old lady's, retirees,
> elderly who took their money and invested it public
> investments----losing it ALL to Wall street and Investment bankers
> schemes that the GOP congresses, Reagan and Bush caused----aren't
> devastated?
Excuse me, but the Dow just topped 12,000 today. People in the market
are doing just fine right now. the people who count on Social
Security are the ones who are screwed.
> What the fuck are a couple hundred million americans going to do if
> their money is invested in accounts that collapse a few years prior to
> retirement? If their accounts are "insured"---and haven't been paying
> into an "insurance" that the Federal government say backs
> accounts---this nation could collapse totally
You're counting on the market crashing and burning under Obama?
> You dumb assholes are so susceptible to propaganda---you can't think
> past the "message" and figure out that "self-investment" for old age
> only is possible for those who earn incomes with an ability to have
> income LEFT OVER from living expenses.
Are you under the impression that most Americans live on a sack of
beans once a month?
I've ALWAYS assumed that Social Security wouldn't be around for me -
and I've planned accordingly.
> THere are now hundreds of thousands of investors (including state run
> retirement accounts) that lost Billions in the latest schemes set up
> by Republicans from their years in the majority.
>
> IDIOT.
(snicker) What's the matter, bucky? Nobody's buying this bullshit
anymore?
>
> >> The term "social security" is the obvious solution to a NATIONAL
> >> problem dealing with a range of things from minimal payments to
> >> retiree's, disabled, orphaned children, widows, etc.
>
> >The term is "Social Security INSURANCE". Something people buy by
> >themselves, for themselves. It wasn't sold as a giveaway program.
>
> Yer point---being what?
> There are more people who exist on little or no income---which is what
> your party prefers as wage earners.
And yet you're the party of billionares. I know, let's pushing
working couples who manage to $125.00 a year.
> >> Raising retirement age, redoing the contribution cutoff level, will
> >> "add to" the existing amout we STILL have.
> >The problem is that, if SSI is nothing more than a giveaway for the
> >Democrats, additional funds will simply be given away.
> Absured claim
It's abusre but true. Democrats get in more money, they spend more
money.
> >> Had the GOP's "plan" to privatize retirement been in place---the
> >> entire fortunes of a nation would be wiped out by the fortunes of the
> >> market. (and Bernie Madoff who did, in fact, leave thousands
> >> destitute)
>
> >Putting aside for the moment that the Dow currently enjoys record
> >levels - the Dow has NEVER hit "zero".
> Putting aside that there is NO guarantee that any retiree could retire
> with the DOW on the positive side, investments enough to cover
> retirement, and/or a guarantee of COLA.
Meanwhile, that same retiree has NOTHING in social security. It's
bankrupt. No money in the box. Nothing but promises.
> >Right now, people who spent their lives having $7,500.00 a year taken
> >(against their will) and put into the SSI "lock box" have LITERALLY
> >NOTHING.
>
> They have exactly what they signed up to get---and will
You sound very much like Bernie Madoff just before the shit hit the
fan.
> THere is no truth to the bullshit claim, "there is no money"
Except for the part where there IS NOT MONEY! THE DEMOCRATS SPENT IT
ALL, AND ALL THAT'S LEFT ARE IOUs. JUST LIKE BERNIE MADOFF.
> >Even Bernie had SOME money left at the end of the day.
> None of it his.
And the money the Democrats squandered wasn't their money, either.
Something they should remember.
Sheldon Cooper
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:37:40 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
>
> <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There NO rational reason to "lock money" in any account or "box".
>
> >Of course there is - the money is supposed to be there to be paid
> >back.
>
>
> There is NO constittional provision to EVER "stick money in a box",
> electronically or other wise.
Where's the money going to come from to pay all those people?
Who are you going to beg, borrow, or steal it from next?
The Ponzi scheme is through.
Sheldon Cooper
Yoorg...@jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:54:47 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
> <richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 26, 9:42�pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:37:40 -0800 (PST), Sheldon Cooper
> >>
> >> <richarddead...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> There NO rational reason to "lock money" in any account or "box".
> >>
> >> >Of course there is - the money is supposed to be there to be paid
> >> >back.
> >>
> >> It's called the "full faith and Credit" of the United States.
> >>
> >> There is NO constittional provision to EVER "stick money in a box",
> >> electronically or other wise.
> >
> >Where's the money going to come from to pay all those people?
>
> Full faith and credit
So, basically, you're saying "magic".
Billy
<12ec54f6-c38e-4b5d...@q8g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Sheldon Cooper <richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:14�am, "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > > If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
> > > 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
> >
> > We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>
> That system was created by allowing in an army of illegal aliens.
Don't give our Latino brothers all the credit. The corporate interests
in this country are trying to divide the slaves (us) against each other.
It is an old trick. It's a twofer for corporations because undocumented
work cheaper, and if they protest working conditions, they are fed to
I.C.E.
Mexico has had neo-liberalism for 20 years now. Can anybody see an
improvement in Mexico's economics?
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prisons29feb29,0,53
55881.story>
One percent of Americans are behind bars.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html>
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world�s population. But
it has almost a quarter of the world�s prisoners.
Why worry about nickel and dime larceny anyway, when we have giant,
parasitic, criminals who have bought Congress?
-----
Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by
Chris Hedges
<http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568
586132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295634644&sr=1-1>
(Available at better libraries near you.)
Chapter 5
. . . "America's most dangerous enemies are not
Islamic radicals (or undocumented workers) but those who sold us the
perverted ideology of free-market capitalism and globalization. They
have dynamited the foundations of our society. . .
The problems we face are structural. The old America is not com-
ing back. Our financial system was taken hostage and looted by
bankers, brokers, and speculators who told us that the old means of
p.151
making capital by producing and manufacturing were outdated. They
assured us money could be made out of money. They insisted that
financial markets could be self-regulating. Like all financial markets
throughout history that have thrown off oversight and regulation, ours
has collapsed. Speculators in the seventeenth century were hanged.
Today they receive billions in taxpayer dollars and huge bonuses.
The corporate forces that control the state will never permit real
reform. It would mean their extinction. These corporations, especially
the oil and gas industry, will never allow us to achieve energy
independence. That would devastate their profits. It would wipe out
tens of billions of dollars in weapons contracts. It would cripple the
financial health of a host of private contractors from Halliburton to
Blackwater/Xe and render obsolete the existence of U.S. Central Command.
This is the harsh, unspoken reality of corporate power. The
unseen hands of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman,
the nation's top-three defense contractors, divided up $69 million in
Pentagon contracts in 2007, the last year for which contracting data are
available. These industries, which have judiciously spread their parts
and supply business throughout the country, defend the production of
weapons systems as vital for employment. But their leaders are clearly
nervous. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), which represents
more than one hundred defense and aerospace corporations, has an ad
campaign with the slogan: "Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to
Lift America." It claims its manufacturers contribute $97 billion in
exports a year and employ 2 million people, a figure disputed by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which puts the number at 472,000 wage
and salary workers. But this has not dampened the promise made by
these corporate executives to help lift the nation out of its economic
morass. "Our industry is ready and able to lead the way out of the
economic crisis," Fred Downey, an associate vice president, told the
Associated Press. The ads are useful, but so is the some $149 million a
year the industry lavishes on lobbying firms, according to the Center
for Representative Politics.
Seymour Mellman spent his academic career, which spanned the
Cold War, at Columbia University, researching, writing, and speaking
about the large military portion of the federal budget. In Pentagon
Capitalism he described the redundancy and costliness of modern
p.152
weapons systems�such as the next wave of fighter planes, missiles,
submarines, and aircraft carriers. He said that high-tech weapons yet to
be designed always escalate spending as new, costlier systems replace
the old, which are often junked.
The United States has become the largest single seller of arms
and munitions on the planet. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the
largest since the Second World War. More than half of federal discre-
tionary spending goes to defense. And so we build Cold War relics
such as the $14 billion Virginia-class submarines as well as the stealth
fighters we engineered to evade radar systems the Soviets never built.
We spend $8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense systems that would be
useless in stopping a shipping container concealing a dirty bomb. The
defense industry is able to monopolize the best scientific and research
talent and squander the nation's resources and investment capital.
These defense industries produce nothing that is useful for society or
the national trade account. They offer little more than a psychologi-
cal security blanket for fearful Americans who want to feel protected
and safe.
The defense industry is a virus. It destroys healthy economies. We
produce sophisticated fighter jets while Boeing is unable to finish its
new commercial plane on schedule and our automotive industry goes
bankrupt. We sink money into research and development of weapons
systems and starve renewable energy technologies to fight global
warming. Universities are flooded with defense-related cash and grants
yet struggle to find money for environmental studies. The massive
military spending, aided by this $3 trillion war, has a social cost. Our
bridges and levees collapse, our schools decay, our real manufacturing
is done overseas by foreign workers, and our social safety net is taken
away. And we are bombarded with the militarized language of power and
strength that masks our brittle reality. . .
The Pentagon, Mellman noted, is not restricted by the economic
rules of producing goods, selling them for a profit, then using the
profit
for further investment and production. It operates, rather, outside of
competitive markets. It has erased the line between the state and the
corporation, and it subverts the actual economy. It leeches away the
ability of the nation to manufacture useful products and produce
sustainable jobs. Mellman used the example of the New York City Transit
Authority and its allocation in 2003 of $3 billion to $4 billion for new
subway cars. New York City asked for bids, and no American companies
responded. Mellman argued that the industrial base in America was no
longer centered on items that maintain, improve, or are used to
build the nation's infrastructure. New York City eventually contracted
with companies in Japan and Canada to build its subway cars. Mellman
estimated that such a contract could have generated, directly and
indirectly, about 32,000 jobs in the United States.
The grip of corporations on government is not limited to the defense
industry. It has leeched into nearly every aspect of the economy. The
attempt to create a health-care plan that also conciliates the
corporations that profit from the misery and illnesses of tens of
millions of Americans is naive, at best, and probably disingenuous. This
conciliation insists that we can coax these corporations, which are
listed on the stock exchange and exist to maximize profit, to transform
themselves into social-service agencies that will provide adequate
health care for all Americans.
"Obama offers a false hope," says Dr. John Geyman, former chair
of family medicine at the University of Washington and author of Do
Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry Is Dying, and How
We Must Replace It. "We cannot build on or tweak the present system.
Different states have tried this. The problem is the private insurance
industry itself. It is not as efficient as a publicly financed system.
It fragments risk pools, skimming off the healthier part of the
population
and leaving the rest uninsured or underinsured. Its administrative and
overhead costs are five to eight times higher than public financing
through Medicare. It cares more about its shareholders than its
enrollees or patients. A family of four now pays about $12,000 a year
just in premiums, which have gone up by 87 percent from 2000 to 2006.
p.155
The insurance industry is pricing itself out of the market for an ever-
larger part of the population. The industry resists regulation. It is
unsustainable by present trends."
Our health-care system is broken. There are some 46 million
Americans without coverage and tens of millions with inadequate poli-
cies that severely limit what kinds of procedures and treatments they
can receive. Eighteen thousand people die, according to the Institute of
Medicine, every year because they can't afford health care. . .
"The private health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical
industry completely and totally oppose national health insurance," says
Stephanie Woolhandler, one of the founders of Physicians for a
National Health Program. "The private health insurance companies
would go out of business. The pharmaceutical companies are afraid
that a national health program will, as in Canada, be able to negotiate
lower drug prices. Canadians pay 40 percent less for their drugs. We see
this on a smaller scale in the United States, where the Department of
Defense is able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices that are 40 percent
lower." . .
Our health system costs nearly twice as much as national programs in
countries such as Switzerland. The overhead for traditional Medicare is
3 percent, and the overhead for the investment-owned companies is 26.5
percent. A staggering 31 percent of our health-care expenditures is
spent on administrative costs. Look what we get in return. And yet the
reality of the health-care system is never discussed because
corporations, which fund the main political parties, do not want it
discussed. . .
The Democratic Party has been as guilty as the Republicans in the
abdication of real power to the corporate state. It was Bill Clinton who
led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. Clinton
argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of
votes or power, as a political ally. Workers, he insisted, would vote
Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, he argued, to
take corporate money and do corporate bidding. By the 1990s, the
Democratic Party, under Clinton's leadership, had virtual fund-raising
parity with the Republicans. Today the Democrats raise more.
The legislation demanded by corporations sold out the American
worker. This betrayal was accompanied with a slick advertising campaign
that promoted the laws, used to destroy the working class, as the
salvation of the American worker. The North American Free Trade
Agreement was peddled by the Clinton White House as an opportunity
to raise the incomes and prosperity of the citizens of the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA would also, we were told, stanch Mexican
immigration into the United States.
p.157
"There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will
be able to support their children by staying home," President Clinton
said in the spring of 1993 as he was lobbying for the bill.
But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the effect of reversing
every one of Clinton's rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government
lifted price supports on corn and beans grown by Mexican farmers,
those farmers had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the
United States. Many Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least
2 million Mexican farmers have been driven off their land since 1994.
And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of poor
Mexicans into the United States is now being exacerbated by large-scale
factory closures along the border as manufacturers pack up and leave
Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China's totalitarian capitalism. But
we were assured that goods would be cheaper. Workers would be
wealthier. Everyone would be happier. I am not sure how these
contradictory things were supposed to happen, but in a sound-bite
society, reality no longer matters. NAFTA was great if you were a
corporation. It was a disaster if you were a worker.
Clinton's welfare reform bill, signed on August 22,1996, obliterated the
nation's social safety net. It threw 6 million people, many of them
single mothers, off the welfare rolls within three years. It dumped them
onto the streets without child care, rent subsidies, or continued
Medicaid coverage. Families were plunged into crisis, struggling to
survive on multiple jobs that paid $6 or $7 an hour, or less than
$15,000 a year. And these were the lucky ones. In some states, half of
those dropped from the welfare rolls could not find work. Clinton
slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25
billion in Medicaid funding. The booming and overcrowded prison system
handled the influx of the poor, as well as our abandoned mentally ill.
We have 2.3 million of our citizens behind bars, most of them for
nonviolent drug offenses. More than one in one hundred adults in the
United States is incarcerated. The United States, with less than 5
percent of the global population, has almost 25 percent of the world's
prisoners. One in nine black men between twenty and thirty-four is
behind bars. This has effectively decapitated the leadership in the
inner cities, where African Americans have traditionally had to react
more quickly to confront social injustices.
p.158
The Clinton administration, led by Lawrence Summers, signed
into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which
ripped down the firewalls that had been established by the 1933 Glass-
Steagall Act. Designed to prevent the kind of meltdown we are now
experiencing, Glass-Steagall established the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. It set in place banking reforms to stop speculators from
hijacking the financial system. With Glass-Steagall demolished, and the
passage of NAFTA, the Democrats, led by Clinton, tumbled gleefully
into bed with corporations and Wall Street speculators. They used
institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a welfare gravy train.
And many of the architects of this deregulation, economists such as
Summers, remain in charge of the nation's economic policy.
The cost of our empire of illusion is not being paid by the corporate
titans. It is being paid on the streets of our inner cities, in former
manufacturing towns, and in depressed rural enclaves. This cost
transcends declining numbers and statistics and speaks the language of
human misery and pain. Human beings are not commodities. They are not
goods. They grieve and suffer and feel despair. They raise children and
struggle to maintain communities. The growing class divide is not
understood, despite the glibness of many in the media, by complicated
p.159
sets of statistics, lines on a graph that chart stocks, or the absurd,
Utopian faith in unregulated globalization and complicated trade deals.
It is understood in the eyes of a man or woman who is no longer mak-
ing enough money to live with dignity and hope.
Elba Figueroa, forty-seven, lives in Trenton, New Jersey. She
worked as a nurse's aide until she got Parkinson's disease. She lost
her job. She lost her health care. She receives $703 a month in gov-
ernment assistance. Her rent alone runs $750 a month. And so she
borrows money from friends and neighbors to stay in her apart-
ment. She laboriously negotiates her wheelchair up and down steps
and along the sidewalks of Trenton to get to soup kitchens and food
pantries to eat.
"Food prices have gone up," Figueroa says, waiting to get inside the
food pantry run by the Crisis Ministry of Princeton and Trenton. "I
don't have any money. I run out of things to eat. I worked until I physi-
cally could not work anymore. Now I live like this." . . .
States, facing dramatic budget shortfalls, are slashing social assis-
tance programs, including Medicaid, social services, and education.
New Jersey's shortfall has tripled to $1.2 billion and could soar to $5
billion. Tax revenue has fallen to $211 million less than projected.
States are imposing hiring freezes, canceling raises, and cutting back
on services big and small, from salting and plowing streets in winter to
heating assistance programs. Unemployment insurance funds, especially
with the proposed extension of benefits, are running out of money. . .
Corporations are ubiquitous parts of our lives, and those that own and
run them want them to remain that way. We eat corporate food. We
buy corporate clothes. We drive in corporate cars. We buy our fuel
from corporations. We borrow from, invest our retirement savings
with, and take out college loans with corporations and corporate
banks. We are entertained, informed, and bombarded with advertisements
by corporations. Many of us work for corporations. There are
few aspects of life left that have not been taken over by corporations,
from mail delivery to public utilities to our for-profit health-care
system. These corporations have no loyalty to the country or workers. Our
impoverishment feeds their profits. And profits, for corporations, are
all that count.
The corporation is designed to make money without regard to
human life, the social good, or the impact of the corporation's
activities on the environment. Corporation bylaws impose a legal duty on
corporate executives to make the largest profits possible for
shareholders.
In the 2003 documentary film The Corporation by Mark Achbar, Jen-
nifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan, management guru Peter Drucker tells
Bakan: "If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsi-
bilities, fire him. Fast." And William Niskanen, chair of the libertarian
Cato Institute, says that he would not invest in a company that pro-
moted corporate responsibility.
p.l62
A corporation that attempts to engage in social responsibility, that
tries to pay workers a decent wage with benefit, that protects workers'
rights, that invests its profits to limit pollution, that gives consumers
better deals, can actually be sued by shareholders. Robert Monks, an
investment manager, says in the film: "The corporation is an
externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing
machine. There isn't any question of malevolence or of will. The
enterprise has within it, and the shark has within it, those
characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed." . .
The film (The Corporation), based on Bakan's book The Corporation: The
Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, asserts that the corporation
exhibits many of the traits found in people clinically defined as
psychopaths. Psychologist Robert Hare recites in the film a checklist of
psychopathic traits and ties them to the behavior of corporations:
� Callous unconcern for the feelings for others;
� Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships;
� Reckless disregard for the safety of others;
� Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning of others for profit;
� Incapacity to experience guilt:
� Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior.
And yet, under the American legal system, corporations have the
same legal rights as individuals. They make contributions to candidates.
They fund 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state
capitals to write corporate-friendly legislation and defang regulatory
agencies. They saturate the airwaves, the Internet, newspapers, and
magazines with advertisements promoting their brands as the
p.163
friendly face of the corporation. They have huge legal teams, tens of
thousands of employees, and scores of elected officials who ward off
public intrusions into their affairs or lawsuits. They hold a near
monopoly on all electronic and printed sources of information. A few
media giants, such as AOL Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom,
Disney, and Rupert Murdoch's NewsGroup, control nearly everything
we read, see, and hear.
The growing desperation across the United States is unleashing not
simply a recession�we have been in a recession for some time now�
but rather a depression unlike anything we have seen since the 1930S. It
has provided a pool of broken people willing to work for low wages
without unions or benefits. This is excellent news if you are a
corporation. It is very bad news if you are a worker.
--
- Billy
�When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.�
-Archbishop Helder Camara
http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/israelpeacegroups.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111812130964689.html
20111812130964689.html
5897 Dead, 1040 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>In article
><12ec54f6-c38e-4b5d...@q8g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Sheldon Cooper <richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 17, 9:14�am, "5888 Dead, 1031 since 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:22:15 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> > > If they'd just quit arresting crackheads, potheads and people caught
>> > > 'driving while black' they'd save gobs of money.
>> >
>> > We've created a system that REQUIRES lots of prisoners.
>>
>> That system was created by allowing in an army of illegal aliens.
>
>Don't give our Latino brothers all the credit. The corporate interests
>in this country are trying to divide the slaves (us) against each other.
>It is an old trick. It's a twofer for corporations because undocumented
>work cheaper, and if they protest working conditions, they are fed to
>I.C.E.
"Cooper" is one of the more futile trolls that roam these groups. His
schtick is disingenuity coupled with obsessive lying about various
items for troll bait.
And yes, he knows that undocumented workers make up a very tiny
fraction of the federal prison population. The vast majority that are
caught are simply sent back to their country of origin.