The Evil Empire
Archie
The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized
interest groups that “our” government can no longer respond to the
concerns of the American people who elect the president and the
members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations
over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-
term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman
emperors in the final days of that empire.
Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He
promised change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held
hostage by the private insurance companies seeking greater profits.
The most likely outcome will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order
to help fund wars that enrich the military/security complex and the
many companies created by privatizing services that the military once
provided for itself at far lower costs. It would be interesting to
know the percentage of the $700+ billion “defense” spending that goes
to private companies. In American “capitalism,” an amazing amount of
taxpayers’ earnings go to private firms via the government. Yet,
Republicans scream about “socializing” health care.
Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of
campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as
possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have
never made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public
trough that drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with
debt service obligations.
Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home
from the Bush regime’s illegal wars of aggression. In its final days,
the Bush regime realized that it could “win” in Iraq by putting the
Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000
insurgents collecting US military pay, violence, although still high,
dropped in half. All Obama had to do was to declare victory and bring
our boys home, thanking Bush for winning the war. It would have shut
up the Republicans.
But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share
prices of those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So
instead of doing what Obama said he would do and what the voters
elected him to do, Obama restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched
a new one in Pakistan. Soon Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney’s
threats to attack Iran.
In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for
private insurance companies.
In place of peace there will be more war.
Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling
away from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his
comfortable victory have now swung against him, recently electing
Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats.
This is a protest vote, not a confidence vote in Republicans.
Obama’s credibility is shot. And so is Congress’s, assuming it ever
had any. The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the
entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the
servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of
Representatives of the American “superpower” did the bidding of its
master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report.
In case you don’t know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The “Gaza
Conflict” is the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5
million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes
were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and
civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under
the Nuremberg standard that the US established in order to execute
Nazis.
Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given
his life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against
humanity, but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him
as a “self-hating Jew” because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli
propaganda.
US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked
man on AIPAC’s political extermination list, asked the House if the
members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning
Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire
rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report.
The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world
doesn’t count as it doesn’t give campaign contributions to members of
Congress.
This shameful, servile act of “the world’s greatest democracy”
occurred the very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA
officers for kidnapping a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now
considered “fugitives from justice” in Italy, and indeed they are.
The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of
Egypt, where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured.
The case against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge ordered
his release.
One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, an attractive
young woman, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and
sending him to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture
another “terrorist” in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home.
Without the terrorist hoax, America’s wars for special interest
reasons would become transparent even to Fox “News” junkies.
Ms. deSousa says that “everything I did was approved back in
Washington,” yet the government, which continually berates us to
“support the troops,” did nothing to protect her when she carried out
the Bush regime’s illegal orders.
Clearly, this means that the crime that Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon,
and the CIA ordered is too heinous and beyond the pale to be
justified, even by memos from the despicable John Yoo and the
Republican Federalist Society.
Ms. deSousa is clearly worried about herself. But where is her concern
for the innocent person that she sent into an Egyptian hell to be
tortured until death or admission of being a terrorist? The remorse
deSousa expresses is only for herself. She did her evil government’s
bidding and her evil government that she so faithfully served turned
its back on her. She has no remorse for the evil she committed against
an innocent person.
Perhaps deSousa and her 22 colleagues grew up on video games. It was
great fun to plot to kidnap a real person and fly him on a CIA plane
to Egypt. Was it like a fisherman catching a fish or a deer hunter
killing a beautiful 8-point buck? Clearly, they got their jollies at
the expense of their renditioned victim.
The finding of the Italian court, and keep in mind that Italy is a
bought-and-paid-for US puppet state, indicates that even our bought
puppets are finding the US too much to stomach.
Moving from the tip of the iceberg down, we have Ambassador Craig
Murray, rector of the University of Dundee and until 2004 the UK
Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which he describes as a Stalinist
totalitarian state courted and supported by the Americans.
As ambassador, Murray saw the MI5 intelligence reports from the CIA
that described the most horrible torture procedures. “People were
raped with broken bottles, children were tortured in front of their
parents until they [the parents] signed a confession, people were
boiled alive.”
“Intelligence” from these torture sessions was passed on by the CIA to
MI5 and to Washington as proof of the vast al Qaeda conspiracy.
Amb. Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to
Uzbekistan’s torture prisons “were told to confess to membership in Al
Qaeda. They were told to confess they’d been in training camps in
Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in
person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.”
“I was absolutely stunned,” says the British ambassador, who thought
that he served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had
moral integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and
human rights, the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the
great moral democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin’s
gulags, were prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize
profits.
Amb. Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up.
He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK
military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas
deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a
pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan.
To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public
could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to
save them from “terrorism,” and the utter fools would believe the lie.
“If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against
other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly
the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what
it’s about. It’s about money, its about energy, it’s not about
democracy.”
Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor
George W. Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to
Uzbekistan’s and Turkmenistan’s natural gas deposits and to Unocal to
develop the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed
“president” of Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except
for American bayonets.
Amb. Murray was dismissed from the UK Foreign Service for his
revelations. No doubt on orders from Washington to our British puppet.
Canuck57
> By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
>
> The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized
> concerns of the American people who elect the president and the
> members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations
> over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-
> term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman
> emperors in the final days of that empire.
Yep, "We the people.." now pay taxes to corporations and banks. Thanks
to Obama and Democrats.
Chom Noamsky
You don't really believe that, do you? I'm not a big fan of Obama, but
the path that led the US to where it is today started with Reaganomics.
It didn't start in January 2009. The biggest contributing factor is
successive governments handing out more and more guarantees to big
business, and that sector acted accordingly knowing that however
incompetent, however poorly or corruptly they operated, the taxpayers
was exposed to risk and not them. That's exactly why today, the
taxpayer is bailing out banks and mega corporations. Who demanded those
guarantees and got them? It certainly wasn't "the people." A major
mechanism of the market was corrupted in that big players were getting
huge rewards without any risk. People don't take undue risks with the
market when it's THEIR money on the line, and these people knew their
money was guaranteed.
Archie
>
> You don't really believe that, do you? I'm not a big fan of Obama, but
> the path that led the US to where it is today started with Reaganomics.
> It didn't start in January 2009. The biggest contributing factor is
> successive governments handing out more and more guarantees to big
> business, and that sector acted accordingly knowing that however
> incompetent, however poorly or corruptly they operated, the taxpayers
> was exposed to risk and not them. That's exactly why today, the
> taxpayer is bailing out banks and mega corporations. Who demanded those
> guarantees and got them? It certainly wasn't "the people." A major
> mechanism of the market was corrupted in that big players were getting
> huge rewards without any risk. People don't take undue risks with the
> market when it's THEIR money on the line, and these people knew their
> money was guaranteed.
You are laying the blame exclusively on the American government and
you are trying to preserve the sanctity of capitalism. To you,
governments are always at fault, the hyper rich (and capitalism) are
never the problem.
It was capitalists that have committed the crimes and it is
capitalists that have taken control of the American state. But you say
"A major mechanism of the market was corrupted..." as if the big
capitalists went into leveraging scams knowing that the Fed would bail
them out. You intentionally ignore the incestuous relations between
the big banks and corporations and the American state.
Your fall back position 'blame the government - never blame
capitalism' is an old tactic used by so-called libertarian
capitalists.
Again, your rotting dishonesty or stupidity (it has to be or the
other) exposes your ugly face under the 'liberal' facade.
Alan Illeman
> ... the path that led the US to where it is today started with
> Reaganomics. It didn't start in January 2009. The biggest
> contributing factor is successive governments handing out more and
> more guarantees to big business, and that sector acted accordingly
> knowing that however incompetent, however poorly or corruptly they
> operated, the taxpayers was exposed to risk and not them. That's
> exactly why today, the taxpayer is bailing out banks and mega
> corporations. Who demanded those guarantees and got them? It
> certainly wasn't "the people." A major mechanism of the market was
> corrupted in that big players were getting huge rewards without any
> risk. People don't take undue risks with the market when it's THEIR
> money on the line, and these people knew their money was guaranteed.
I'd like your comments on the upcoming (July 2010) proposed HST in
Ontario Canada. TVO did a piece on it - http://feeds.tvo.org/tvo/TxZN
- scroll down to "Heated over HST".
in brief..
The Ontario Liberals are getting $4.3B from Ottawa
to make Ontario businesses more competitive in the
'global economy' by reducing their business taxes. At
the same time, consumers will pay more through a
'harmonised' sales tax (HST) which includes an additional
8% GST on:
Natural gas
Gasoline
Fuel oil and other fuels
Tobacco and tobacco products
Portfolio management fees
Advisory fees
Merger and aquisitions fees
Fees related to RRSPs, RRIFs, RESPs, TFSAs
Internet access fees
Cleaning, landscaping fees
Personal care services (hair cuts, facials)
Recreational services
Professional services
Taxis
Income tax relief for people on low incomes, was
mentioned but no specifics.
These changes are due to begin in July 2010 and will be
locked in for 5 years.
It is said that if the Liberals fall at the next election the other
parties would not be able to revoke the tax because "they would
have to pay the $4.3B back to Ottawa".
One of the Eastern provinces (Nova Scotia??) introduced a
harmonised sales tax - and the party in power lost the next election.
I've heard it said that the Ontario liberals will also use this $4.3B to
pay off Ontario's e-Health boondogle waste of our money.
This new HST will replace all current provincial and federal taxes
and will be collected by the province. It has not yet been decided
whether the HST will appear on the bill separately, or be buried in
the item price.
The USA is not moving towards harmonisation of fed and state taxes.
- Alan
Chom Noamsky
> On Nov 7, 11:10 am, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>> You don't really believe that, do you? I'm not a big fan of Obama, but
>> the path that led the US to where it is today started with Reaganomics.
>> It didn't start in January 2009. The biggest contributing factor is
>> successive governments handing out more and more guarantees to big
>> business, and that sector acted accordingly knowing that however
>> incompetent, however poorly or corruptly they operated, the taxpayers
>> was exposed to risk and not them. That's exactly why today, the
>> taxpayer is bailing out banks and mega corporations. Who demanded those
>> guarantees and got them? It certainly wasn't "the people." A major
>> mechanism of the market was corrupted in that big players were getting
>> huge rewards without any risk. People don't take undue risks with the
>> market when it's THEIR money on the line, and these people knew their
>> money was guaranteed.
>
> You are laying the blame exclusively on the American government and
> you are trying to preserve the sanctity of capitalism. To you,
> governments are always at fault, the hyper rich (and capitalism) are
> never the problem.
I clearly blamed both government and big business, if your reading
comprehension isn't completely shot. Big business doesn't get what it
wants without friendlies in government. Why would taxpayers EVER let
themselves become the guarantors for bank profits? The mortgage and
derivatives fiasco started decades ago, with the US government assuming
financial risk for certain mortgages. Private lending and private
profits with a public safety net. I'm sure even you, an old Marxist
relic, can see how this would encourage undue risk taking and greed.
> It was capitalists that have committed the crimes and it is
> capitalists that have taken control of the American state. But you say
> "A major mechanism of the market was corrupted..." as if the big
> capitalists went into leveraging scams knowing that the Fed would bail
> them out. You intentionally ignore the incestuous relations between
> the big banks and corporations and the American state.
That's exactly what the big capitalists did. Those government
guarantees, explicit and implicit, took the risk out of gambling on the
market. If we screw up, oops, we have a safety net called the taxpayer.
> Your fall back position 'blame the government - never blame
> capitalism' is an old tactic used by so-called libertarian
> capitalists.
This isn't really about capitalism or government but about reward being
proportional to risk. If you take the risk out of gambling, normally
the rewards dwindle so drastically as to eliminate any interest in
gambling. Instead, these assholes were throwing the dice knowing that
if they lost it wasn't really their money on the line. However, if they
won it was ALL their money. Privatize the profit, socialize the risk.
It's impossible to stamp out market gambling but it can be controlled by
letting reward be naturally proportional to risk.
> Again, your rotting dishonesty or stupidity (it has to be or the
> other) exposes your ugly face under the 'liberal' facade.
There you go, arguing with silly invective instead of rational thought.
Do you think attacking me constantly elevates you somehow? I do know
that your way has resulted in some of the grossest inequalities in
modern history. If your goal is to stamp out class advantage and
inequality, which is something I also believe in, then don't repeat the
same mistakes that have resulted in failure time and time again. As the
saying goes, learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.
Archie
>>
> I clearly blamed both government and big business, if your reading
> comprehension isn't completely shot. Big business doesn't get what it
> wants without friendlies in government. Why would taxpayers EVER let
> themselves become the guarantors for bank profits? The mortgage and
> derivatives fiasco started decades ago, with the US government assuming
> financial risk for certain mortgages. Private lending and private
> profits with a public safety net. I'm sure even you, an old Marxist
> relic, can see how this would encourage undue risk taking and greed.
The problem I have with your spin is where you place the blame. You
spin it as if the corrupt politicians the starting point - as if
American politicians are not under the rule of the private sector.
They are.
>
> > It was capitalists that have committed the crimes and it is
> > capitalists that have taken control of the American state. But you say
> > "A major mechanism of the market was corrupted..." as if the big
> > capitalists went into leveraging scams knowing that the Fed would bail
> > them out. You intentionally ignore the incestuous relations between
> > the big banks and corporations and the American state.
>
> That's exactly what the big capitalists did. Those government
> guarantees, explicit and implicit, took the risk out of gambling on the
> market. If we screw up, oops, we have a safety net called the taxpayer.
I want you to admit that it was the big capitalists that are the
authors of the whole kit and kabuttle. For example, what Obama wants
to do and what he can actually do are two different things. When the
health bill is passed, you can't blame Obama for the weakness of it.
We could see him being manipulated both by the private HMOs and
corrupt politicians on the Hill who are in the pockets of large
private business.
>
> > Your fall back position 'blame the government - never blame
> > capitalism' is an old tactic used by so-called libertarian
> > capitalists.
>
> This isn't really about capitalism or government but about reward being
> proportional to risk. If you take the risk out of gambling, normally
> the rewards dwindle so drastically as to eliminate any interest in
> gambling. Instead, these assholes were throwing the dice knowing that
> if they lost it wasn't really their money on the line. However, if they
> won it was ALL their money. Privatize the profit, socialize the risk.
> It's impossible to stamp out market gambling but it can be controlled by
> letting reward be naturally proportional to risk.
It is precisely about capitalists control over government.
Exactly - privatize profit, socialize the risk. Let the taxpayer take
it on the chin. Its an old story.
>
> > Again, your rotting dishonesty or stupidity (it has to be or the
> > other) exposes your ugly face under the 'liberal' facade.
>
> There you go, arguing with silly invective instead of rational thought.
> Do you think attacking me constantly elevates you somehow? I do know
> that your way has resulted in some of the grossest inequalities in
> modern history. If your goal is to stamp out class advantage and
> inequality, which is something I also believe in, then don't repeat the
> same mistakes that have resulted in failure time and time again. As the
> saying goes, learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.-
As if you don't argue with invective.
You have a preconceived notion of what I believe. I have repeatedly
criticized socialist totalitarians and have said that entrepreneurship
is an important aspect to political economy. But you don't hear that.
You repeatedly whack me over the head with examples of totalitarian
this or that - as if I support it. I've said it before and I'll say it
again. I'd rather a capitalist liberal society than anything like what
happened in the USSR under Stalin - hands down. But my views are too
nuanced for most and I'm routinely attacked as a Stalist by you and
many others.
Canuck57
Double talk to try to sell it.
> These changes are due to begin in July 2010 and will be
> locked in for 5 years.
You mean like temporry income tax and GST to pay the debt off? My, our
society is gullable.
> It is said that if the Liberals fall at the next election the other
> parties would not be able to revoke the tax because "they would
> have to pay the $4.3B back to Ottawa".
Ontario owes so much to so many, it will never be paid off without a
radical change to government.
> One of the Eastern provinces (Nova Scotia??) introduced a
> harmonised sales tax - and the party in power lost the next election.
Yep, because once converted people saw it for what it real was. Tax
grab. Pure and simple and without liberalism turd polishing.
> I've heard it said that the Ontario liberals will also use this $4.3B to
> pay off Ontario's e-Health boondogle waste of our money.
Hm, you think that? Ontario is broke and can't borrow more money. Oh,
they can offer bonds but they don't fill. Sort of like going to the
bank for a loan and they say no. Not maybe, but no more credit for you.
One step away from bankruptcy if the government doesn't cut back big time.
> This new HST will replace all current provincial and federal taxes
> and will be collected by the province. It has not yet been decided
> whether the HST will appear on the bill separately, or be buried in
> the item price.
Heard that story too. Anyone believe this hogwash?
Should be worded truthfully, "HST will replace as well as supliment
current provincial and federal taxes..."
> The USA is not moving towards harmonisation of fed and state taxes.
I know, the USA does not have a federal sales tax. And you know if they
tried, if they didn't get shot they certainly would not get re-elected.
Which is why Ontario voters are stupid, they keep voting for idiots time
and time again.
Archie
>
> >You are laying the blame exclusively on the American government and
> >you are trying to preserve the sanctity of capitalism. To you,
> >governments are always at fault, the hyper rich (and capitalism) are
> >never the problem.
>
> of politicians whose self interest comes first in all things, with
> very few exceptions. Following them are the bureaucrats and the
> politicians make damn sure those ranks are filled with like minded
> time servers and there are pitifully few rules and regs to stop it. I
> will virtually guarantee that the 2000 page health care bill has
> dozens, if not hundreds of pork included, not even remotely connected
> to health care and they didn't appear magically. Easy to do when
> nobody is reading the damn thing until after it's passed and signed.
> Pelosi has even decided not to put it on the web.
And whose interests is it to ensure that private capitaists have few
rules and regs to follow? Do you think politicians make policies like
that in a vacuum? There will be plaenty of pork. Who are the real
authors of thise bills? The politicians? The bureaucrats? Pelosi, like
the rest of them, does what she is told. And that is why she is there
and that is why Obama is there.
>
Archie
>
> Correction: the U.S. government is under the thumbs of it's own
> elected representatives who need the Health Care industries money to
> get re-elected. Corrupt, self serving politicians are the problem
> here and as I've said for years, term limits would at least be a
> beginning in solving the problem. Some of those clowns (like some of
> ours) having been sitting on their asses for decades, put there by the
> electorate, time and time again. To them, it's become an entitlement.
If you think that the politicans are not bought and paid for by big
business, the privare sector - if you think that they are autonomous
decision makers, then I have seriously overestimated you.
Neil K
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ac23f516-d30e-49c1...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
They'll never make the mistake of putting Jimmy Carter there again .....
They will not do it ...... so it seems we have to hijack Beck's movement.
Roy
> "Archie" <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
But, but, but...Beck is an IDIOT.
==
Chom Noamsky
So you're basically endorsing the "third way", neither radical left nor
right, something we are already progressing towards. The third way
revolves around a market-based economy (but not regulated to death) in
order to finance a strong welfare state. This is generally how it works
in the Scandinavian states, and when it comes to the metrics of human
development these states rank consistently in the top ten. Under such a
system the left still screams about social and economic inequality, and
the right still screams about too much taxes and government, but it's
the pragmatic center. How far did Marx's ideas go towards achieving
equality? They didn't, they simply created other types of class,
mainly, those with political power and those without.
In my train of logic, look at what the successful states do and model
your systems after theirs. Canada typically ranks in the top ten, a
nation with a market economy and capitalism, yet here you are constantly
demonizing capitalism and capitalists as if they are the evilest thing
in the world. But if I attack socialism I'm accused of not being "nuanced."
Why do you get to make nuance-less blanket generalizations and not me?
Chom Noamsky
You'd have to be awfully cynical to believe that every politician is
just an agent of commerce with no integrity or human values. If you
think about that a little deeper, the logical extension is that all of
humanity is corrupt to the core. If you don't have any faith that
humans will generally do the right thing when put to the challenge, you
might as well give up hope right now. As long as people equate wealth
with success and power, there will be an element of society that will
covet these things. It's human nature for some, not all, and if you're
going to start making blanket generalizations I have a big problem with
that.
Archie
>
> So you're basically endorsing the "third way", neither radical left nor
> right, something we are already progressing towards. The third way
> revolves around a market-based economy (but not regulated to death) in
> order to finance a strong welfare state. This is generally how it works
> in the Scandinavian states, and when it comes to the metrics of human
> development these states rank consistently in the top ten. Under such a
> system the left still screams about social and economic inequality, and
> the right still screams about too much taxes and government, but it's
> the pragmatic center. How far did Marx's ideas go towards achieving
> equality? They didn't, they simply created other types of class,
> mainly, those with political power and those without.
More or less. There either has to be away from preventing capitalists
growing to the point they hi jack society or, there has to be a system
where production is controlled and stabalized. The problem with the
former, capitalism has 'tendencies'. As we know. So then, Marx is
highly relevant. You can't throw the Marxian baby out with the
bathwater just because previous Marxists fucked things up. Marx
identified the tendencies of capitalism.
In my view the vital economy - the provision of essential needs like
health care, shelter, food etc. cannot be left to the capricious
market or the instability of capitalism. We also must consider
political economy in a world wide context. Sure - capitalism runs well
in some countries and has been an abysmal failure in many.
Equality is a relative thing. We can't expect absolute equality but it
is a notion we should aim toward.
The important thing is that the average Joe - the citizens, have
control of the economy. The means of production in terms of
satisfaction of needs to be controlled to a level where the provision
of vital needs is secure. Aside from that, the economy should be more
liberalized.
>
> In my train of logic, look at what the successful states do and model
> your systems after theirs. Canada typically ranks in the top ten, a
> nation with a market economy and capitalism, yet here you are constantly
> demonizing capitalism and capitalists as if they are the evilest thing
> in the world. But if I attack socialism I'm accused of not being "nuanced."
Canada and the nordic countries do have a mixture of capitalist
socialst economies. As we can see - the more capitalistic they are the
worse off they are. The nordic countries are going to run into the
same problems that America is facing and they are related to the
development and maturation of capitalism.
>
> Why do you get to make nuance-less blanket generalizations and not me?-
Because I'm special. My social worker told me so.
Archie
>
> And whose interests is it to ensure that private capitaists have few
> rules and regs to follow? Do you think politicians make policies like
> that in a vacuum? There will be plaenty of pork. Who are the real
> authors of thise bills? The politicians? The bureaucrats? Pelosi, like
> the rest of them, does what she is told. And that is why she is there
> and that is why Obama is there.
>
>
>
> They'll never make the mistake of putting Jimmy Carter there again .....
The possibility that Beck still has life - that there is still fertile
gound in the USA for that idiocy presents a problem. And that problem
is that it could easily morph into fascism.
Archie
>
> You'd have to be awfully cynical to believe that every politician is
> just an agent of commerce with no integrity or human values. If you
> think about that a little deeper, the logical extension is that all of
> humanity is corrupt to the core. If you don't have any faith that
> humans will generally do the right thing when put to the challenge, you
> might as well give up hope right now. As long as people equate wealth
> with success and power, there will be an element of society that will
> covet these things. It's human nature for some, not all, and if you're
> going to start making blanket generalizations I have a big problem with
> that.
All humanity is not corrupt to the core. In a world where your family
may face financial devastation I don't blame eitehr the capitalists or
the politicians - or anybody else for feathering their nests. For
securing their futures. It's as natural as caring for a baby.
If the basic needs were covered - that is, if you knew that you kids
would never face starvation or homelessness, the compulsion to walk
over others to gain for yourself would be greatly reduced and in most
cases, eliminated.
And if we did live in this context - we would be free. THAT more than
anyhting else, is why I'm a socialist.
Archie
>
> That has always been my point, Archie, without the corrupt
> politicians, your greedy capitalists couldn't exist. Crime syndicates
> couldn't exist without crooked cops and crooked judges; history has
> proved that many times. That applies to the clouded world of
> politicians and the laws they make.
The mafia has ways of making judges crooked. But yeah - they are two
parts of a whole.
I guess where we differ is a bit of a chicken/egg thing.
Chom Noamsky
> politicians, your greedy capitalists couldn't exist. Crime syndicates
> couldn't exist without crooked cops and crooked judges; history has
> proved that many times. That applies to the clouded world of
> politicians and the laws they make.
Didn't the guys you voted for promise to make government more open and
more accountable? And what did they actually do? They made government
less open and less accountable. The only thing that can keep any
organization honest is scrutiny and this government does not like
scrutiny. Having said that, Canada still ranks as having one of the
least corrupt governments.
Canuck57
Then I guess I am cynical. OK, maybe not every single one. But the
majority are. If they are not, a year or two with Ottawa peers will fix
it. Their only skill is balancing the bullshit they feed people and
political crap that goes on behind the scenes. What is best for Canada
and Canadians isn't even on the radar.
As for humanity, I do think most of us are corrupt to the core. Oh, we
sin for six and repent for one, or justify our ways seeing only what we
want to see without regard to history, logic or rationality. Many think
they are good people but are in fact not.
Actually, a good politician has to be irrational, has to chose to
believe in bullshit or they wouldn't be able to look themselves in the
mirror. As one in SK actually commited suicide so maybe they all are
not bad. Caught up with him I guess.
People equate wealth for power because they themselves are at the bottom
of Maslows hierarchy of needs, hopeless in debt, working their asses off
and many only a pay cheque or two away from financial ruination so they
keep pushing on the tread mill leading to nowhere. Bombarded with the
good life on TV just reving up the greed and envy, and not enough time
to sit back and think about how they are managed like a herd of sheep.
Just get diciplined and a little real (not debt) money, and some time to
think and it all become apparent.
Canuck57
Then how do you explain that virtually every socialist effort in makinds
history has ened up in colapse, corruption and people living a low
standard of living? Should be all live like Cubans?
Canuck57
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:58:38 -0800 (PST), Archie
> <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> politicians, your greedy capitalists couldn't exist. Crime syndicates
> couldn't exist without crooked cops and crooked judges; history has
> proved that many times. That applies to the clouded world of
> politicians and the laws they make.
Capitalists existed before poloticians. They will exist as long as 2 or
more people have something of value to exchange with someone else.
The underground economy does not recognize governments presence. Saves
them at least 40% off the top in wealth robbing taxation. That is, cut
the Ottawa crooks out of the game. Government and mafia differ little
other than the perception of legitimacy. Each family wants its take.
Canuck57
Yep, the US does not have a national sales tax. And given the structure
of the union, even if tax happy Obama decided to have one I would not
doubt states could opt out.
That is why Obama is going after US health care, it has a huge cash flow
that if government can skim it there would be the massive tax increase
statism wants.
Just like Ottawa did in Canada, promise health care then reduce funding
forcing the provinces to take it on. Then don't decrease taxes and
spend it on corruption.
Many Americans will not fall for this dirty liberal statism trick.
David Johnston
wrote:
>E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:58:38 -0800 (PST), Archie
>> <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 12:22 pm, E. Barry Bruyea <termlim...@democracy.com> wrote:
>>>> Correction: the U.S. government is under the thumbs of it's own
>>>> elected representatives who need the Health Care industries money to
>>>> get re-elected. Corrupt, self serving politicians are the problem
>>>> here and as I've said for years, term limits would at least be a
>>>> beginning in solving the problem. Some of those clowns (like some of
>>>> ours) having been sitting on their asses for decades, put there by the
>>>> electorate, time and time again. To them, it's become an entitlement.
>>> If you think that the politicans are not bought and paid for by big
>>> business, the privare sector - if you think that they are autonomous
>>> decision makers, then I have seriously overestimated you.
>>
>> That has always been my point, Archie, without the corrupt
>> politicians, your greedy capitalists couldn't exist. Crime syndicates
>> couldn't exist without crooked cops and crooked judges; history has
>> proved that many times. That applies to the clouded world of
>> politicians and the laws they make.
>
>Capitalists existed before poloticians. They will exist as long as 2 or
>more people have something of value to exchange with someone else.
Ahem. That's not what "capitalist" means. Capitalist is not a
synonym for "trader" They did not exist before the practice of
selling shares in an enterprise to people who play no role in the
actual operation of said enterprise came into existence.
Roy
> E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:10:28 -0500, "Alan Illeman"
> > <illem...@surfbest.net> wrote:
>
> >> Chom Noamsky wrote:
> >>> ... the path that led the US to where it is today started with
> >>> Reaganomics. It didn't start in January 2009. The biggest
> >>> contributing factor is successive governments handing out more and
> >>> more guarantees to big business, and that sector acted accordingly
> >>> knowing that however incompetent, however poorly or corruptly they
> >>> operated, the taxpayers was exposed to risk and not them. That's
> >>> exactly why today, the taxpayer is bailing out banks and mega
> >>> corporations. Who demanded those guarantees and got them? It
> >>> certainly wasn't "the people." A major mechanism of the market was
> >>> corrupted in that big players were getting huge rewards without any
> >>> risk. People don't take undue risks with the market when it's THEIR
> >>> money on the line, and these people knew their money was guaranteed.
> >> I'd like your comments on the upcoming (July 2010) proposed HST in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your thinking processes are faulty.
==