Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
FDR did NOT build an "industrial machine" he dang near KILLED it. What ende dthe depression was the END of WWII and the return to a rational system, and the removal of many of FDR's facist policies.
Who did he tax? EVERYONE! Jim Powell author of FDR's Folly writes "Federal excise taxes on beer, wine, cigarettes, soft drinks, chewing gum, radios and other things purchased by millions of ordinary people, generated more revenue than the federal personal income tax and the federal corporate income tax combined."
And "According to the standard reference work HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM COLONIAL TIMES TO THE PRESENT, in 1936 the federal government collected $674.4 million from the personal income tax, $753 million from the corporate income tax and $1.5 billion from excise taxes.
Finally "So FDR's New Deal was mainly financed on the backs of the middle class and poor people who bought things subject to the federal excise tax. To hear one of FDR's "Fireside Chats," Americans had to pay a federal excise tax on a radio and a federal excise tax on the electricity needed to run it."
It is difficult to discuss these issues with something who thinks FDR was a fascist. Maybe you could define what you mean by this term as we are clearly using different dictionaries.
The Economic Depression was triggered by the Wall Street Crash in October 1929 and created the worst depression in American history. Herbert Hoover, a Republican was president at the time. He, like you, believed in a laissez-faire approach. It was a disastrous decision and was to keep the Republicans out of office for 20 years.
It was soon clear to almost everyone that the economy would only recover if the government intervened. This was also true of Congress but Hoover vetoed a bill that would have created a federal unemployment agency and also opposed a plan to create a public works programme. As a result, by the time of the 1932 presidential election the US had an unemployment rate of 24.9%.
Roosevelt's first act as president was to deal with the country's banking crisis. Since the beginning of the depression, a fifth of all banks had been forced to close. As a consequence, around 15% of people's life-savings had been lost. By the beginning of 1933 the American people were starting to lose faith in their banking system and a significant proportion were withdrawing their money and keeping it at home. The day after taking office as president, Roosevelt ordered all banks to close. He then asked Congress to pass legislation which would guarantee that savers would not lose their money if there was another financial crisis.
On 9th March 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt called a special session of Congress. He told the members that unemployment could only be solved "by direct recruiting by the Government itself." For the next three months, Roosevelt proposed, and Congress passed, a series of important bills that attempted to deal with the problem of unemployment. The special session of Congress became known as the Hundred Days and provided the basis for Roosevelt's New Deal.
As a result unemployment in the US gradually came down. Here are the official statistics for the period: 1933 (24.9); 1934 (21.7); 1935 (20.1); 1936 (16.9) and 1937 (14.3).
As you point out, to do this FDR had to increase taxation. Someone had to pay for the government spending on public works. However, it was the rich, rather than the poor, who were complaining about this because those on low incomes were far better off in employment paying taxes than being unemployed and not paying taxes.
The Democratic Party relied on the rich to provide it with funds. Therefore, Roosevelt was under great pressure to reduce government expenditure. He started to do this in 1937 and as a result unemployment began to grow again and in 1938 it rose to 19.0%.
As you say, the outbreak of the Second World War, brought an end to unemployment and by 1944 the rate had fallen to 1.2% of the adult population. The reason for this is that government expenditure increased dramatically during this period. This had to be paid for by the government increasing taxation. However, during wars, the electorate do not complain about this because they realise the country is fighting for survival.
I can only assume that Lampson equates regulation and taxes with fascism. Look at the "derivatives" market, the financiers have managed to keep their derivative game unregulated for over 20 years. As a result of the derivatives scam we sit at the edge of the biggest financial collapse in all known human history. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26709927/
The enclosed article referenced a projected $1 trillion dollar in losses and the closing of some major banks. If the system is not put through bankruptcy reorganization[under government supervision] as FDR did some 70 years ago, then you can bet that the losses will far exceed $1 trillion. The entire system will collapse. And under conditions of collapse fascism will become the #1 option for these bankrupt financiers. Just as they did with Adolph Hitler in Germany back in the 1930's.
What the US Government should do [in concert with other nations] is declare the system bankrupt and conduct an orderly re organization of the banking system. Making sure banks remain open, while protecting people's savings and pensions.The government should then go about writing off the entirety of the debt created as a result of derivatives speculation. The bankers will howl but what of it?
"Interesting times".
-
I have harbored the thought for many long years about the CIA's responsibility in the murder of John Kennedy. One of the three Freedom of Information letters I first wrote, when I learned of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from my attorney, was to the Central Intelligence Agency to try to obtain information about Jose Rivera. Rivera had told me repeatedly and boastfully of his 'other job'; his 'other office' at Foggy Bottom in Washington. In 1963 the CIA offices were scattered in Foggy Bottom, and the agency moved to Langley, Virginia, in that year.
My other two letters were sent to the headquarters of the FBI and the US Secret Service.
Many military personnel were and are still recruited by the Agency, especially if they have some special skill or knowledge, such as biowarfare methods that are considered TOP SECRET. I did not know all this then, but it now makes perfect sense for Rivera to have been in on the plotting and execution of the assassination of John Kennedy. I would like to know who informed him, and invited him, to view the Autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, on November 22, 1963.
Although a conclusion is not so much stated in his book, JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass gives plenty of evidence pointing to the CIA as being behind the assassination. John Newman gets specific by naming James Angleton as the mastermind and organizer of the assassination. I have no reason to doubt this could be true.
I consider the CIA (or certain fragments of it) as the operational part of a much larger organization of people and institutions opposed to our democratic system and against anyone like John Kennedy who would act to further the goals and benefits of democracy to the people of the United States. We could name such a group a Secret Government or The Establishment for lack of better terms.
Webster Griffin Tarpley, in his book, Obama, The Postmodern Coup, observes, on page 68, that the banking oligarchy was appalled by President Franklin D. Roosevelt acting as a real president as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The bankers resolved to never have anyone elected to that office exercise the full powers of the presidency, so they worked to limit the number of terms anyone could serve in that position, and thereby weakened a president to a position similar to an outgoing 'lame-duck' president. Roosevelt had been elected to four terms before his death.
When John Kennedy was elected, the oligarchy feared what he would do. They actually used the same words to describe him as they had Roosevelt - a traitor to his class, a socialist, a communist, and so on.
Although the plot to assassinate President Kennedy was in the works, possibly even before he was actually elected in 1960, it was in June of 1963 when John Kennedy made two moves that I think provoked Wall Street and the cabal of bankers to finalize their plans. Kennedy spoke of peacemaking with the Soviet Union, AND, possibly most important of all, to strengthen the economy, he created a Presidential Executive Order, Number 11110, that would allow the US Treasury Department to print 4.3 billion dollars worth of US Government Notes in $2.00 and $5.00 denominations, interest-free to the Government and to the Taxpayer. Other aspects of this Executive Order also spelled the beginning of the end of the Federal Reserve System of privately owned banks which lend monies (called Federal Reserve Notes) to the US Government which the Government itself prints! The interest paid to the Federal Reserve private banks by the US Government comes primarily from the people who pay their yearly income taxes to the US Treasury. About 40 cents per dollar goes to this loan's interest paid by taxpayers.
To the US bankers and their international banking colleagues, this was heresy and treason. John Kennedy would not have much longer to live or to be re-elected.
The CIA first pushed, as a reason for the assassination, that Castro and the Soviets did it with the aid of "communist" Oswald. Then it became the "lone nut, Oswald." (which may have saved us from a war with Cuba and the Soviet Union). Then the Mafia did it, and then Lyndon B. Johnson, the former Vice-President did it. Vice-Presidents are favorite scapegoats whenever a president is assassinated because their 'benefit' is so obvious to the public.
The CIA's versions were all ANYBODY-BUT-THE-CIA. Help for them came in part from the Warren (McCloy-Dulles) Commission, the FBI, the Secret Service, the State Department, the electronic and print news media, various individuals in the pay and control of the CIA (many 'working' for the Congressional investigative bodies over the years), or those acting as individuals in providing phony clues and testimonies by mistake or intent.as witnesses.
President Kennedy's murder deserved the best of investigations. The American and world's peoples deserve Justice and Truth. In a few more years it will be 50 years since that tragedy; two generations of the world's population have cycled through these years. It's time we know the Truth.
Adele...I agree with most of what you say.
However, it was not JUST the CIA. It was not JUST the international bankers. It was some SECRET group
superior to them. The only names that come to mind are Bilderbergers, CFR, TLC and Nazis, and maybe not
even just them. The identity of the group may be unknowable. I disagree that Angleton was a key player;
I think he was more an interested observer; Dulles, Phillips and Hunt were the CIA players, working with LBJ,
Hoover and certain military. The mafia, Castro and Kruschev, etc. were fall-back plausible patsies.
Jack
Jack, I agree with your statement concering the involvement of "international" players in the murder of JFK The apparatus used to carry out the hit (along with the murder attempts made against Charles DeGaulle) was Permindex. Permindex was headed by British Special Operations Executive (SOE) Major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield of Montreal Canada. Clay Shaw was a director on the board of Permindex.
I believe this is what LBJ meant when he blurted out "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean" LBJ was pointing his finger at Permindex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permindex
As late as 1963 Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was still a recruiting officer with the FBI's counter espionage "Division Five". Division Five had been created top to bottom by "Colonel Sir William "Intrepid" Stephenson, Colonel Mortimer Bloomfield, General Julius Klein and Walter Sheridan. Walter Sheridan was also known as RFK's right hand man inside the Kennedy justice department's criminal division. Sheridan headed up the highly irregular "Get Hoffa" unit. Division Five would play a major role in the Kennedy murder and cover up.
Walter Sheridan remained on the Kennedy family payroll up until the mid to late 1980's. Ted Kennedy eulogized Sheridan at his funeral in 1995. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A963958260
Strange bedfellows to be sure.
And of course this is the same Walter Sheridan who went to work under cover of investigative journalist for NBC in order to wreck Jim Garrison's investigation. Garrison had uncovered Permindex with his arrest of Clay Shaw.
-
Thanks James, Can you also do one with the picture of Harold with the kids? Just his head in the middle picture?
Wim
I think it's a great match. I would say "bullseye".
-
Did FDR's New Deal policy bring the US out of the depression or did it in fact, as many argue, actually POSPONE the recovery and actually HARM those it was designed to promote...the poor and the low wage worker?
Maybe you could explain who these "many" people were. Maybe you could give us the name of just one respectable historian or economist who argued this. It definitely was not the American electorate who went onto re-elect him in 1936, 1940 and 1944.
Define "respectable".
FDR taxed the hell out of EVERYONE, the poor and the low wage hit hardest. Thats an undisputed FACT. Excessive taxation reduces private economic activity. If you slow PRIVATE economic activity you slow the rate of recovery. Thats the true legacy of FDR.
wasn't for FDR, AND his legacy, you'd more than likely be shootin' squirrel (instead of digital photos) for supper this evening....
The United States would not have defeated the Nazi's if not for the industrial machine built up by FDR. He returned the USA to our "American System" roots. FDR's grandfather had been a close collaborator of Alexander Hamilton. FDR studied the philosophy of the founding father's during his battle with polio and returned to politics a changed man.
How could FDR tax everyone to hell? There was a reported 25% unemployment rate at the time he took office. Who did he tax, Joe Kennedy? Old man Kennedy was working for the other side.
FDR did NOT build an "industrial machine" he dang near KILLED it. What ende dthe depression was the END of WWII and the return to a rational system, and the removal of many of FDR's facist policies.
Who did he tax? EVERYONE! Jim Powell author of FDR's Folly writes "Federal excise taxes on beer, wine, cigarettes, soft drinks, chewing gum, radios and other things purchased by millions of ordinary people, generated more revenue than the federal personal income tax and the federal corporate income tax combined."
And "According to the standard reference work HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM COLONIAL TIMES TO THE PRESENT, in 1936 the federal government collected $674.4 million from the personal income tax, $753 million from the corporate income tax and $1.5 billion from excise taxes.
Finally "So FDR's New Deal was mainly financed on the backs of the middle class and poor people who bought things subject to the federal excise tax. To hear one of FDR's "Fireside Chats," Americans had to pay a federal excise tax on a radio and a federal excise tax on the electricity needed to run it."
Hey Craig, who built the planes, tanks, ammunition, naval ships, and infrastructure to fight WWII? Was it all done by magic? You attribute the end of the depression to the end of WWII? That sure is an interesting take on cause and effect. End the war and voila the economy is fixed. Let me ask you again, how did FDR win the war against the nazis?
What about the RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation)? What about all those major infrastructure projects built under FDR--Tennessee Valley Authority, major water dams, etc. Was all that magic too? Or maybe you consider these projects a waste of money?
You're a nut. FDR was a fascist? Sounds to me like you're another kook, straight from the "my money" cult.
And you're quite the historian. Jim Powell is a mouth piece for the Cato Institute. You really know how to pick em. The cato Institute is a private think tank financed by the people FDR refered to as "economic royalists" or the "American Tory" faction. They were the very faction responsible for the depression in the first place. They would love to see the removal of government so they can spread wealth and riches to all Americans
. Only greedy fools swallow policy from the Cato Institute.http://www.cato.org/people/jim-powell
The ideology of Mont Pelerin was that of radical free-trade, unrestricted free-market speculation, monetarism (financial aggregates, not men, rule society), deregulation, and so on. This witches brew was called "liberty." They reacted in fear and loathing against the General Welfare clause of the United States Constitution and Alexander Hamilton's American System of Economics. They rejected the Common Good, preferring the rats' nest of pleasure/pain-based radical "individual self-interest." The 1947 meeting occurred just two years after the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The Mont Pelerinites viscerally hated Roosevelt's towering General Welfare achievements, the pro-development Bretton Woods fixed exchange-rate international monetary system, and among his notable domestic accomplishments, the Social Security system. This, they vowed, they would tear down.
The wealthy oligarchical families that had directed the Synarchist/Nazi movement from 1921-45—and were defeated by Roosevelt—saw in the Mont Pelerin Society the instrument to re-establish that program internationally. The Mont Pelerin Society's economics was no different than that of the Bank for International Settlements, Hitler, or Mussolini.
Take the case of Friedrich von Hayek. In the 1920s, von Hayek concocted a theory of "maladjustments" in production, which was extended into inflation and monetary quantities as well. Based on this wacko theory, in the 1930s, Von Hayek assessed that the ongoing 1929-32 Depression had been caused by a "maladjustment in production," and the collapse had to run its "natural free-market course." The evidence showed that this caused destruction of production, the labor force, and the fabric of society. But Von Hayek denounced those who would use monetary expansion or deficit spending to halt the slide. Von Hayek's only recommended program was to "bring labor into balance," which was his term for further gouging living standards. But this was Hitler's program too. In fact, Von Hayek's shrill demand that the collapse be allowed to hit rock bottom, was fulfilled in the social dislocation and impoverishment which created the recruiting ground for Hitler's Nazis.
Von Hayek was the first President of the Mont Pelerin Society, from 1947-61. The Society realized that it needed to create "satellite think-tanks" to do its work. It created the Institute for Economic Affairs in London in 1955, directed by Lord Harris and Sir Anthony Fisher. In 1977, it supervised the creation of the Cato Institute.
Cato is merely an operational arm of Mont Pelerin. The Cato Institute's headquarters at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., is a virtual shrine to Friedrich Von Hayek. The main gathering center is the Friedrich Hayek auditorium, and the walls are festooned with von Hayek's grim, soulless visage. Fourteen members of the Mont Pelerin Society serve in core positions at the Cato Institute, either as members of Cato's Board of Directors, as Cato Adjunct Scholars or Fellows, or as members of the editorial board of The Cato Journal (see box). The Cato Institute carries out the fascist policies of the Mont Pelerin Society.
Cato promotes radical globalization (it helped sponsor NAFTA), extreme speculation (Theodore Frostmann, a Cato board member, is one of america's biggest Leveraged Buy-Out pirates), deregulation, drug legalization, and economic austerity.
"Economic hit-man" George Shultz, because of his direction of the Mont Pelerin Society's Chicago Boys, has special oversight over the Cato Institute. In 1995, Shultz's network made his protected asset, the fascist José Piñera who privatized Chile's Social Security system, the co-chairman of Cato's Project on Social Security Privatization. Its goal was nothing less than imposing the fascist Chilean model upon the United States.
Building Up the Network
Immediately after its creation, the Cato Institute began fulfilling Mont Pelerin's special purpose of assailing Social Security. By the early 1990s, Cato would be Wall Street's command-and-control center for privatization. The think-tank worked from a template with three principal points. First, claim that the Social Security faces an alleged imminent financing crisis, to spur action; second, claim the solution to the crisis is setting up private accounts managed by Wall Street, to be invested into the stock and other financial markets; and third, claim the government is not legally bound to honor Social Security obligations.
Already in 1980, Cato issued a 484-page book, Social Security: the Inherent Contradiction by Peter Ferrara.
At that time, the Social Security Trust Fund (formally, the Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance [OASDI] funds), did have a shortfall in incoming pay-ins (one that its 1935 designers had foreseen for approximately 1980), but not a crisis. In 1983, the enactmen of a payroll tax increase corrected that shortfall, and the basis was set into motion for the Social Security Trust Fund to build up a surplus. According to the 2003 report of the Board of Trustees of the Social Security Administration, following that 1983 payroll tax rise, there would not be a Social Security financing problem until 2042; the Congressional Budget Office says that that problem would not occur until 2052. Despite this undeniable reality, Cato has never ceased to shriek about a "Social Security crisis."
But what jumps out about the Cato Institute 1980 study is this striking assertion: "Under traditional principles of equity, therefore, the Social Security pact ... is unfair, immoral, fraudulent, and voidable" (emphasis added). While clearly rejecting Social Security in principle, it signals Cato's belief that the Social Security system does not have the force of law, and the system does not have to pay its retirees their benefits. Cato "analysts" have frequently made this statement during the past five years, and officials from the Bush Administration insinuated the point during the past few months, but Cato was asserting this 25 years ago!
During the 1980s, Cato published books with such titles as Social Security: Averting the Crisis (1982). In March, 1992, it released Cato Policy Report 14, with the provocative title, "Will the Social Security System Survive till 2001?"
In 1995, Cato went into a higher gear, establishing the Project for Social Security Privatization. It brought in George Shultz's protected asset, the butcher of Chile's Social Security system, José Piñera, to be its co-chairman. In 1973, Shultz's network had installed General Pinochet as dictator of Chile in a coup-massacre; and in 1981, under this condition, Piñera had privatized the nation's Social Security system, which (see EIR, Jan. 21) banks have since looted. Cato called on Piñera to replicate that in the United States. Showing the bankers' strong hand, Cato appointed as the Project's other co-chairman William Shipman, who has for many decades been a top officer of the Boston-based aristocratic State Street Bank, which is part of what is called the "Boston Vault" power structure.
The Privatization Project's 20-member "Advisory Committee," dominated by bankers and speculators, has a prominent Chilean connection. Conspicuous is Arnold Harberger, one of the capos of George Shultz's Chicago Boys, who regularly flew to and periodically lived in Chile during the 1970s, to give direction to the economic policy of Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship. In 1981, Harberger personally oversaw the privatization of Chile's Social Security system implemented by Piñera.
Wall Street's claim that it has no vested interest in privatization is shattered merely by the "Who's Who" list of elite financial institutions which, during the past decade, have poured big bucks into the Cato Institute, and more especially, its Project on Social Security Privatization: J.P. Morgan Chase; Citicorp/Salomon Brothers; Fidelity Investments (mutual funds); the American International Insurance group of dirty money-linked Maurice "Hank" Greenberg; American Express; Prudential Securities; the Chicago Mercantile Exchange; the Bond Market Association; the Economist of London; and others. According to a 2004 study by University of Chicago Business School Professor Austan Goolsbee, financial firms that manage the workers' Individual Accounts that would be set up by privatization, could rip off management and other fees equal to 15-25% of the value of the accounts—an immense windfall.
The Bush-Cheney Trojan Horse
In November 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court had hardly decided by a 5-4 vote to declare George W. Bush the winner of the Presidential election, when the network of the Mont Pelerin Society and Wall Street firms backing the Cato Privatization Project descended on the White House. They told Bush he needed to set up a Presidential Commission on Social Security, because the system was in crisis. Bush was compliant. In the first months of 2001, he announced the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security.
Cato made the President's Commission a springboard for its own agenda. The Commission would have 16 members, two of whom—former New York Sen. Patrick Moynihan, and AOL Chief Operating Officer Richard Parsons—were co-chairman. Three members of the Cato Institute were made Commission members: two members of Cato's Project on Social Security Privatization, Sam Beard and Tim Penny; and Leanne Abdnor who had been the Cato Institute's Director of External Affairs. This gave Cato nearly 20% of the membership, but its influence was greatly amplified because some Commission members, like Social Security guru Estelle James of the World Bank, had worked on joint ventures with Cato for years.
But that was just the start. Much of the research and drafting for the Commission was done by its staff, and its leading staff member was Andrew Biggs, who happened to be the Cato Institute's lead Social Security analyst. Randy Clerihue, another Cato Institute member, was made the spokesman for the Commission to Strengthen Social Security. During 2001, according to a Cato Institute report, Cato's Privatization Project distributed pro-privatization "briefing books to members of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security."
Should anyone be surprised that in its December 2001 final report, the President's Commission, so stacked with Cato members, warned of a dangerous crisis, and came out recommending privatization? All 16 members of the Commission favored some form of privatization going in; but some members were less aggressive than Cato, which created some friction. The Commission's Model 2 plan (the principal plan) recommended that 2%, roughly one-third of the 6.2% payroll tax paid to the Social Security system, should instead be diverted into Individual Accounts managed by Wall Street (there would be a $1,000/year investment limit for each Account). This money would be stuffed into the collapsing stock and other financial markets.
The Commission's other notable proposal is austerity, and has become notorious: It recommended a change in the indexing of initial Social Security benefits from the wage-based system currently in use (consistently replacing just under 40% of a retiree's career-average wage), to a consumer-price index-based system, which change would slash retiree benefits over several decades down to about 20% of that average wage. Such deep cuts would be necessary to compensate for the shortfall in the Social Security system's funds caused by diversion of a portion of payroll taxes out of the fund, and into Wall Street.
For the first time in the 70-year history of Social Security, the Cato Institute had gotten a sitting Presidential Commission on that subject to endorse privatization.
But the onrushing financial collapse left Wall Street needing, and demanding more. On Feb. 17, 2004, the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner, executive director of the Privatization Project headed by Piñera, released the Cato report entitled, "The 6.2 Percent Solution: A Plan for Reforming Social Security." This presents Cato's maximalist demands. The report asserted that all of the 6.2% workers' payroll tax should be diverted into workers' Individual Accounts, rather than into the Social Security system, and thence into the stock market.
The Cato "6.2%" plan is premised on a sharp reduction of benefits that the Social Security system would itself pay out to retirees, although for deceptive reasons, the plan doesn't go into detail.
Finally, the plan drops the bomb of default. Tanner states that according to his reading of the law, under Social Security, "workers have no legally binding contractual or property right to their Social Security benefits, and those benefits can be changed, cut, or even taken away at any time" (emphasis added). Tanner is cold-bloodedly arguing that the government can default on the $1.5 trillion in Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund (Treasuries securities are the way that the Trust Fund holds its surplus), and that the U.S. government can severely cut or repudiate its Social Security benefit obligations to millions of elderly citizens. Immediately after Bush's re-election, Bush Administration officials started regurgitating Tanner's treacherous argument. Tanner et al. are rabidly fighting to get the Bush Administration to adopt Cato's maximalist policy of diverting the full 6.2% of a worker's payroll tax into Individual Accounts.
Cato Gestapo Operations
In preparation to ram Social Security through during the Bush Administration, Cato recognized that it needed to create a string of captive front organizations, staffed and run by the same shop-worn crew of privatizers, to claim "grassroots support." Cato has poured big money into these fronts, and spread them outwards. This is "popular support" a mile wide, and a millimeter deep, and one can see how some of the widely cited grassroots groups really operate. As well, Cato made a power grab to take over the Social Security Administration itself, so that it could radiate its lies from inside.
Of the many cases of this, two examples are sufficent to make the point: Leanne Abdnor and Andrew Biggs.
Leanne Abdnor should be called the Madame of Cato's stringers. From 1995 through 1998, Abdnor, as Cato Institute's Vice President for External Affairs, ran the campaign to try to shove Social Security privatization through Congress, or as Cato put it, "she educated Congressional members and staff on the virtues of personal retirement accounts in Social Security reform."
In 1998-99, Cato launched Operation Front Group, and deployed Abdnor to set up the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security (AWRS), an umbrella group that drew on money and office space from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and had approximately 35 other groups as participants. To push Cato's perspective, Abdnor was made AWRS's Executive Director. While campaigning for President Clinton's removal from office, on Sept. 27, 1999, AWRS director Abdnor shrieked, "President Clinton knows as well as anyone that the Social Security Trust Fund is a fraud, a pile of IOUs that amounts to nothing more than a claim on the income taxes of the future" (emphasis added).
The Social Security Trust Fund, in fact, holds Special Obligation Treasury Bonds of the United States. A fraud? Would one want to publish that statement today in Chinese and Japanese, perhaps, and speculate on the reaction in U.S. Treasury debt?
In 2001, Abdnor was selected as one of the members of the Cato Institute contingent, on the President's Commission on Strengthening SociaOBl Security.
In 2001-02, Cato deployed Abdnor again, this time to manufacture the For Our Grandchildren (FOG) organization, where she is President. This group parades as a "grass roots organization" of grandparents who are concerned that their grandchildren won't get Social Security, and targets propaganda at young workers. FOG uses the buzz-slogan, "Strip power away from Washington and return it to the individuals where it belongs." In addition to Abdnor's presidency, the chairman of FOG is Tim Penny, a Cato Institute Senior Fellow, and member of the Advisory Committee member of Cato's Privatization Project (and of President Bush's Commission). Hilariously, among the more than half-dozen Cato members who serve on FOG's National Advisory Council is that venerable American grandfather, Jose Piñera, the privatizer of butchered Chile.
Abdnor is naturally an Advisory Committee member of Cato's Privatization Project. Dorcas Hardy, former Commissioner of Social Security, a speculator who sits on the board of the Options Clearing Corporation, is also an Advisor to Cato's Privatization Project. Hardy is one of the chief organizers and leaders of United Seniors Association, Cato's main elderly "constituency group" for privatization.
The second example is the shocking scandal of Andrew Biggs. The 37-year old Biggs, a graduate of the London School of Economics, was the Cato Institute's senior Social Security analyst. In 2001, Cato made Biggs the lead researcher for the President's official Commission. In May 2003, Biggs was promoted to Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy at the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), part of Cato's coup-effort to take over the whole agency. Biggs sits just below the Deputy Commissioner who runs the Office of Policy, who "is responsible for major activities in the areas of strategic policy planning, policy research, and evaluation," as well as all statistical analysis, according to the SSA.
Biggs is running a Gestapo operation inside the SSA. Last year, Biggs wrote a "policy brief" internal document that mandates that all Social Security managers are required to present the idea "that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action," in the words of the Jan. 15, 2004 New York Times. It would require the SSA to "insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications"; that is, to say that Social Security is in crisis. It would make Social Security managers spread Wall Street-lies in every public forum, as well as at non-traditional sites like farmers' markets and "big box retail stores." Biggs is illegally using money from the Social Security Trust for this campaign.
This is but a small sampling of the myriad ways by which Cato mingles manufactured crisis, and manufactured "grassroots" support, to spread its campaign.
The Guiding Role of George Shultz
The oligarchy finds Cato Institute an indispensable instrument to "intelligently handle" many of its other major designs to tear down the nation-state.
One example is drug legalization. On Oct. 5, 1999, at its von Hayek auditorium, the Cato Institute held a major drug policy conference, entitled, "Beyond Prohibition: an Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century," that carried the themes that drugs should be decriminalized, and that the War on Drugs was a "$50 billion waste of money." The 100 attendees featured the pro-dope denizens of the drug world: Kevin Zeese, the 1980s head of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Ethan Nadelman, the head of the George Soros-funded Lindesmith Center, a leading coordinating point for decriminalization; partisans of High Times magazine, among others.
Cato was in its element. Since its inception, Cato has pushed to create a legal market for marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Representative of this, long-time Cato Adjunct Scholar Thomas Szasz wrote Our Right to Drugs: the Case for a Free-Market in 1992, and Ceremonial Chemistry in 1974. Richard Dennis, long-standing member of Cato Institute's board of directors and a wealthy derivatives speculator, is board member and funder of the pro-drugs Drug Policy Foundation.
Ed Crane, Cato's President, speaking at Cato's Oct. 5, 1999 conference, stated, "There are reasons ... why some of the most prominent critics of the War on Drugs come from libertarian and conservative backgrounds. People like William F. Buckley, George Shultz ... Milton Friedman.... They understand what the great Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek called the fatal conceit.... They understand the powerful forces of supply and demand."
For those Mont Pelerin Society oligarchics, George Shultz directs the drive toward Social Security privatization, and broader fascist looting of the economy's and the labor force's funds. Shultz, with Henry Kissinger, authored Pinochet's Chile dictatorship in 1973, and oversaw that country's Social Security privatization in 1981, through the Chicago Boys networks that he controlled. He tried to bring the "Chile model" into the United States as early as 1981, in the Ronald Reagan Administration (see EIR, Jan. 21).
From August 1971 to 1974, Shultz was the key figure in the Nixon Administration who blew up Franklin Roosevelt's Bretton Woods monetary system, and brought in globalization, "free-floating currency exchange rates."
Ed Crane's praise of Shultz at the October 1999 Cato pro-drug legalization conference, merely reflects Shultz's long-time broad oversight and influence over Cato. When Cato celebrated its 25th anniversary at a 2,000-person black-tie gala at the Washington Hilton Hotel in 2002, Shultz was one of the luminaries selected to give Cato congratulations on a special video tape, stating: "Keep doing what you're doing."
-
Here's an excerpt of his speech to the CFR where he references the 1994 Mexican debt crisis. He states clearly that he has been dealing with crisis and after crisis for three years.
"We have been working on this for three years at some level of intensity or another, going back to the Naples G-7 meeting in the aftermath of the Mexican financial crisis. I have done everything I could do personally to reach out across the country, and indeed across the world, for any new ideas from any source". [One of the sources Clinton was listening to was Lyndon LaRouche.]
Further
• So I want to encourage you, if you think we're right, to support us. But if you have any ideas, for goodness sake, share them, because I agree with what Pete said: this is the biggest financial challenge facing the world in a half-century. And the United States has an absolutely inescapable obligation to lead, and to lead in a way that's consistent with our values and our obligation to see that what we're doing helps lift the lives of ordinary people here at home and all around the world [it appears that the President agree's with Lyndon LaRouche, eh?]
Then he drops the real bomb
• Above all, we must accelerate our efforts to reform the international financial system. Today I have asked Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan to convene a major meeting of their counterparts within the next 30 days to recommend ways to adapt the international financial architecture to the 21st century. [did this meeting ever take place?][Clinton spent his remaining days in office fighting a political lynching and a multitude of legal witch hunts].
In other words your claim that Clinton, “threatened to change the current IMF floating exchange rate system, going back to the FDR Bretton Woods system” was as I suspected a false one.
He made his aims clear and they were nothing to make bankers lose any sleep over:
Therefore, I believe the industrial world's chief priority today, plainly, is to spur growth. It seems to me there are six immediate steps we should take to help contain the current financial turmoil around the world, and then two longer-term projects in which we must be involved.To take the immediate first, we must work with Japan, Europe, and other nations to spur growth. Second, we will expand our efforts to enable viable businesses in Asia to emerge from crippling debt burdens so they can once again contribute to growth and job creation. Third, we've asked the World Bank to double its support for the social safety net in Asia to help people who are innocent victims of financial turmoil. Fourth, we'll urge the major industrial economies to stand ready to use the $15 billion in IMF emergency funds to help stop the financial contagion from spreading to Latin America and elsewhere. Fifth, our Ex-Im Bank, under the leadership of Jim Harmon, will intensify its efforts to generate economic activity in the developing world immediately, in the next three months. And sixth, Congress must live up to its responsibility for continued prosperity by meeting our obligations to the International Monetary Fund.What proof have you supplied to refute my statements? Nothing that I can see. Tell ya what ,why don't you write to the former President and ask him. Let him tell you what his intentions were.
I already know the answer.
-
Did FDR's New Deal policy bring the US out of the depression or did it in fact, as many argue, actually POSPONE the recovery and actually HARM those it was designed to promote...the poor and the low wage worker?
Maybe you could explain who these "many" people were. Maybe you could give us the name of just one respectable historian or economist who argued this. It definitely was not the American electorate who went onto re-elect him in 1936, 1940 and 1944.
Define "respectable".
FDR taxed the hell out of EVERYONE, the poor and the low wage hit hardest. Thats an undisputed FACT. Excessive taxation reduces private economic activity. If you slow PRIVATE economic activity you slow the rate of recovery. Thats the true legacy of FDR.
wasn't for FDR, AND his legacy, you'd more than likely be shootin' squirrel (instead of digital photos) for supper this evening....
The United States would not have defeated the Nazi's if not for the industrial machine built up by FDR. He returned the USA to our "American System" roots. FDR's grandfather had been a close collaborator of Alexander Hamilton. FDR studied the philosophy of the founding father's during his battle with polio and returned to politics a changed man.
How could FDR tax everyone to hell? There was a reported 25% unemployment rate at the time he took office. Who did he tax, Joe Kennedy? Old man Kennedy was working for the other side.
-
I never wrote that Clinton threated to change "exchange rates".
You wrote: “he threatened to change the current IMF floating exchange rate system, going back to the FDR Bretton Woods system”
If you change from a fix to floating system or vice-versa this will cause rates to change. If however by some odd magic they stay the same then the change was irrelevant. I did not see any mention of changing exchange rates or exchange rate systems in the speech.
Our current system is refered to as a "floating exchange rate" system. Former President Nixon ended the "fixed exchange rate" system when he canceled the Bretton Woods system on August 15, 1971. President Nixon on the advice of George Schultz canceled FDR's post war monetary system called Bretton Woods and put the US on a floating exchange rate system. And on the path to hell.Can you explain in your own words why floating exchange rates are so bad? Do any economists not associated with your guru share this view?
President Clinton knew the system to be failing after the Russian GKO crisis and decided to take action. That's what his speech to the CFR was about.Then I’m sure you can cite excerpts of the speech were he threatened to put the US back on fixed rates.
What did the Russian crisis have to do with floating vs. fixed exchange rates?
And your mistaken about 1998 being the first time LaRouche warned about the collapse of the system. He actually issued his warning all the way back in May 1994.I never indicated he 1st made such a prediction in ’98. It is my impression he has been claiming catastrophic failure of the economy was imminent since the time of Methuselah or there ‘bouts. I was disputing the accuracy of the 1998 claim, 10 ½ years later no such catastrophe has struck or seems likely to anytime soon (not on the scale his underling suggested). If he made such a claim 4 years earlier so much the worse for the reliability of his predictions.
And yes the Clinton and Lewinsky affair occured prior to 1998. Big deal, it proves nothing. They exposed his affair only after Clinton threatened to pull another FDR on them, and take their power away.Wrong again. As I already pointed out, the story broke in January 1998 the speech was 8 month later in September - pay attention.
Look at John Edwards, you see a similiar situation. Some people wanted to make sure he wasnt selected as VP on the Democratic ticket with Obama...so they exposed his cheating ways and as a result he's essentially finished for the 2008 election.If they were so threatened by him why didn’t they reveal this when he was in the running for president? That would have killed his chances of becoming VP as well. If they prefer the GOP to Dems. the smartest thing would have been to hope he was made the VP nominee and then expose him.
I’m basically done with this line of discussion, don’t expect further replies except to correct factual errors on your part (or mine)
Do you really believe President Clinton first recognized the financial crisis on September 13, 1998 and decided to make a speech to the bankers at the CFR the very next day on September 14, 1998? And you seem to believe that because the Lewinsky scandal first broke in January 1998 while Clinton's speech to the CFR occured on September 1998 that there's no connection to the scandal and Clinton's decision to threaten action similiar to that taken by FDR, some 60 years earlier? You dont think the bankers knew that president Clinton might decide to go the way of FDR? That's foolish, of course they knew that was a possibility? They knew Clinton was a threat to do this even before he became President. Clinton was attacked viciously through out his term in office.
This latest outbreak of the financial collapse had been in full swing since the summer of 1997. And there had been earlier outbreaks like the Mexico crisis in 1994. President Clinton was aware of the fundamental problems with globalization going back several years. The financial crisis didnt hit yesterday, it had simply reached a level of crisis where Clinton finally got the courage to take real action.
Here's an excerpt of his speech to the CFR where he references the 1994 Mexican debt crisis. He states clearly that he has been dealing with crisis and after crisis for three years.
"We have been working on this for three years at some level of intensity or another, going back to the Naples G-7 meeting in the aftermath of the Mexican financial crisis. I have done everything I could do personally to reach out across the country, and indeed across the world, for any new ideas from any source". [One of the sources Clinton was listening to was Lyndon LaRouche.]
Further
• So I want to encourage you, if you think we're right, to support us. But if you have any ideas, for goodness sake, share them, because I agree with what Pete said: this is the biggest financial challenge facing the world in a half-century. And the United States has an absolutely inescapable obligation to lead, and to lead in a way that's consistent with our values and our obligation to see that what we're doing helps lift the lives of ordinary people here at home and all around the world [it appears that the President agree's with Lyndon LaRouche, eh?]
Then he drops the real bomb
• Above all, we must accelerate our efforts to reform the international financial system. Today I have asked Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan to convene a major meeting of their counterparts within the next 30 days to recommend ways to adapt the international financial architecture to the 21st century. [did this meeting ever take place?][Clinton spent his remaining days in office fighting a political lynching and a multitude of legal witch hunts].
Now the bankers sure as hell know exactly where President Clinton is heading with all this. They certainly know better than you the level of crisis that exists in the financial system. They also know the available options. So this isnt about some mechanistic "fixed rates" versus "floating rates", this is politics at the very highest level. This is Clinton acting as President in defense of the nation and the general welfare [which is the law of the United States] versus the bankers who wish to destroy the nation state.
But you're right you do not need to respond any further. And I sure dont need to be spoon feeding you "information" in an effort to convince you.
-
It's not your fault?
That you posted a document that indicated banks had a derivatives exposure of $ 179 billion to support your (apparently) correct claim that it was $ 185 trillion? Uuh, no.
For a guy who claims to know so much isnt it funny that you're completely unaware of a $600 trillion derivatives bubble overhanging the world economy?I never claimed expertise in high finance, I'm not that interested.
There has been nothing like this in all known human history! And this has been forty years in the making. Where have you been?I may be mistaken on this, as I said high finance is not something I’m especially interested in, but it seems that derivatives entail financial obligations between investors, normally large institutional ones. Thus some will lose while others will gain. This is not akin to a stock market or real estate bubble bursting in which wealth quickly vaporizes. NASDAQ and some major NYSE corps tike Enron melted down and the effects on the economy as a whole were reletivelly mild. From what I’ve read we could see a recession bigger than the 2001-2 one but a economic catastrophe on the scale you are roposing doesn’t seems to be in the works. Can you point to any experts, other than LaRouche and members of his sect, who scare your view?
And LaRouche has never been wrong about the worst financial collapse in history. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed the collapse of the Asian economies in 1997, followed by the Russian GKO bond crisis in 1998(when Russia defaulted on their debt) followed by the collapse of LTCM( The Fed had to broker a deal to keep the entire derivatives bubble from collapse), followed by President Clinton's speech to the CFR where he threatened to change the current IMF floating exchange rate system, going back to the FDR Bretton Woods system followed by the bankers retaliation known as Monica Lewinsky. followed by the "wall of money" policy that fueled the Y2K, Internet hoax, followed by the collapse of Nasdaq, followed by 911 , followed by Enron (that was another collapse of derivatives), World Com, followed by the latest housing bubble (which in reality was nothing more than a reflection of the bankrupt system), followed by the mortgage collapse, followed by hundreds of hedge funds collapsing, followed by Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Countrywide WaMu and on and on. This collapse is literally without a bottom, it's a bottomless pit.No of the above even if all were true changes the fact that LaRouche, or his underling at least, predicted in April 1998 that an unprecedented economic failure in the US was imminent but
1)10 ½ years later this has yet to happen and doesn’t seem likely to in the immediate future.
2) The worst economic crisis since then was rather mild and had little if anything to do with factors he mentioned
3) Except for the NASDAQ meltdown and 9/11, which had nothing to do with his prediction, the effects of the above on North American and European was almost negligible. Few were related to factors mentioned by the Larouchite.
“the collapse of the Asian economies in 1997”
That was before his 1998 testimony thus it can’t be said to conform to his prediction. In any case the effects on North America and Europe were mild.
“President Clinton's speech to the CFR where he threatened to change the current IMF floating exchange rate system, going back to the FDR Bretton Woods system followed by the bankers retaliation known as Monica Lewinsky.
[…]
http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emailspeech.html"
1) I didn’t read the whole thing but there doesn’t seem to be any mention of changing exchange rates etc. Can you tell us exactly where he made such a threat?
2) Those evil bankers must be psychic because the affair started in 1995, Linda Trip started recording her conversations with Lewinsky in September 1997, Newsweek got wind of the story shortly there after but sat on it and the Drudge Report broke it January 17, 1998 but Clinton didn’t give his speech till September.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...on/timeline.htm
.You would do well to study the works of Lyndon LaRouche. You might even discover for yourself what art really isHe seems to think Jazz is evil so what would he make of RnR especially those coke and Quaalude hounds you are so enamored with, the Eagles and Tom Petty? I think you are going to have to burn a good chunk of your music collection.
You might also learn the indispenable role "culture" plays in the advancement of the human race. Destroy classical culture (see GG Allin) and you'll destroy the nation.On yeah, GG was huge - his cultural impact was almost on the same level as Picasso, Elvis and the Beatles. The Eagles did a lot more to make Beethoven roll over and tell Schindler the news than GG did - burn your CDs!
Look, you could have taken some time and researched it on your own and found out that I was correct. Instead you decided to give me a lesson on how to count zero's.
And I never wrote that Clinton threated to change "exchange rates". Our current system is refered to as a "floating exchange rate" system. Former President Nixon ended the "fixed exchange rate" system when he canceled the Bretton Woods system on August 15, 1971. President Nixon on the advice of George Schultz canceled FDR's post war monetary system called Bretton Woods and put the US on a floating exchange rate system. And on the path to hell. President Clinton knew the system to be failing after the Russian GKO crisis and decided to take action. That's what his speech to the CFR was about.
And your mistaken about 1998 being the first time LaRouche warned about the collapse of the system. He actually issued his warning all the way back in May 1994.
And yes the Clinton and Lewinsky affair occured prior to 1998. Big deal, it proves nothing. They exposed his affair only after Clinton threatened to pull another FDR on them, and take their power away. Look at John Edwards, you see a similiar situation. Some people wanted to make sure he wasnt selected as VP on the Democratic ticket with Obama...so they exposed his cheating ways and as a result he's essentially finished for the 2008 election.
The financial system has been blowing apart for years. The fact that they've pumped trillions of dollars into the system to keep it afloat a while longer does not change the fundamental fact that the system is finished. All they did with this hyperinflationary money pumping was guarantee that the collapse will be that much more explosive and chaotic.
This crisis has little or nothing to do with high finance. You're mistaken if you view these derivatives contracts between counter parties as simply a "zero sum" game. The derivative mongers have been selling that lie for years. You mentioned ENRON in one of your earlier messages. ENRON was all about derivatives. That's what blew out causing ENRON to collapse.
-
I'll be surprised if someone doesn't start calling Sarah "Dumbo" -- her ears are huge and seem to have a life of their own. Maybe it was the close-ups in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I was starting to become grossed out. Why doesn't she cover them?
Palin: Shoot Those Caribou Terrorists from the Air!
Sept. 12 (LPAC)--Interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson--her first
TV interview since becoming the Republican Vice Presidential
candidate--Sarah Palin had one prescription for dealing with
Israel's enemies: You have to treat Israel's enemies like we do
with caribou terrorists in Alaska--"you have to shoot them from
the air!" She had similiar strategic insights for dealing with
other enemies.
But, she added, "You don't really kill the caribou. Under
my Administration, they'll be born again!"
Briefed on Palin's statements on Russia and on Israel's
security on the ABC-TV interview, Lyndon LaRouche commented that
there's only one way to deal with Palin--"ridicule." "She's not
really important," LaRouche commented, "she was just put in there
for the obvious reasons."
-
Len, you might want to look at the argument below. I got the derivatives chart from this website. A few folks made the same mistake that you made (with out the stupid arrogance). The value of the banks derivatives holdings is in the trillions not billions. You may want to widen your browser window to fit in all those zero's. As usual it is you who got it wrong.
Len, you might want to look at the argument below. I got the derivatives chart from this website. A few folks made the same mistake that you made (with out the stupid arrogance). The value of the banks derivatives holdings is in the trillions not billions. You may want to widen your browser window to fit in all those zero's. As usual it is you who got it wrong.
I stand corrected the amount of derivative exposure. It is far higher than I imagined. I did not however misinterpret the document you posted, there was no indication on it that the values were in $(000s) that info was on the hostpage which you didn’t link to. This has nothing to do with the width of ones browser. It’s not my fault if you offered evidence which doesn’t support your claims.
And as usual LaRouche is right on target.As for Larouche being “on target” he and his underlings have made numerous pronouncements over the last 5 decades, odds are that by chance and luck some were at least partially accurate. But his percentage is quite low except when he repeats the pronouncements of others. I’m a poor pool (billiards) player but give me enough shots and I’ll sink a few. His racist rantings in the 70s were obviously not “on target” nor was his recent comment that the US had “no interest” in Georgia ignoring the obvious issue of the oil and natural gas pipelines, his assertion that Georgia’s invasion of S.Ossetia was part of some plot to encircle Russia was frankly bizarre.
His underling claimed in April 1998 that “We are heading into the worst financial and monetary crisis since the collapse of the Lombard triggered the Dark Age” It is obvious form context he was talking about short term but 10 ½ years later and no such financial disaster has taken place and despite your chicken little like predictions one of that scale doesn’t seem to be looming. The worst financial crisis since then happened in 2001 – 2 and had nothing to do with the factors he mentioned. Rather it was due in the most part to causes impossible or difficult to predict at the time, 9/11, the burst of the dot com bubble and the accounting scam crisis (Enron, WorldCom etc). That didn’t measure up to the recession of the early 90’s let alone, the Depression let alone the Dark Ages.
Predicting vaguely that there would be a financial crisis some time in the future involving derivatives was not prophetic. The cause of the current crisis was the bursting of the real estate bubble, the problem with derivatives is an effect not a cause. LaRouche said he’d sink the 7 ball in the corner pocket but got the 5 in a side one.
It's not your fault? For a guy who claims to know so much isnt it funny that you're completely unaware of a $600 trillion derivatives bubble overhanging the world economy? There has been nothing like this in all known human history! And this has been forty years in the making. Where have you been? Of course we know the answer to that question don't we.
And LaRouche has never been wrong about the worst financial collapse in history. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed the collapse of the Asian economies in 1997, followed by the Russian GKO bond crisis in 1998(when Russia defaulted on their debt) followed by the collapse of LTCM( The Fed had to broker a deal to keep the entire derivatives bubble from collapse), followed by President Clinton's speech to the CFR where he threatened to change the current IMF floating exchange rate system, going back to the FDR Bretton Woods system followed by the bankers retaliation known as Monica Lewinsky. followed by the "wall of money" policy that fueled the Y2K, Internet hoax, followed by the collapse of Nasdaq, followed by 911 , followed by Enron (that was another collapse of derivatives), World Com, followed by the latest housing bubble (which in reality was nothing more than a reflection of the bankrupt system), followed by the mortgage collapse, followed by hundreds of hedge funds collapsing, followed by Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Countrywide WaMu and on and on. This collapse is literally without a bottom, it's a bottomless pit.
http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/emailspeech.html
You were so quick to mock and critize, [with all the arrogance of a foolish boob who knows nothing], that you didnt take the time to find out for yourself the truth of the matter. How difficult would it have been to find out for yourself that the amount of derivatives outstanding is several scores greater than the worlds combined annual GDP? Like I stated earlier, the demise of the US economy has been in progress since the time immediately following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
You should learn to wipe your own backside before you go sticking your nose in other places.
You would do well to study the works of Lyndon LaRouche. You might even discover for yourself what art really is.Y
You might also learn the indispenable role "culture" plays in the advancement of the human race. Destroy classical culture (see GG Allin) and you'll destroy the nation.
-
This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system.
An impossibly high number $185 Trillion is:
“…the notional value of GLOBAL OTC (over the counter) interest-rate derivatives” as estimated in 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF24Dj01.html
“the total value of all real and financial assets in the U.S.” as estimated at the end of 2007
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.27849/news_detail.asp
and
“the projected US “GDP over the next 10 years”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mone...5C%7D&dist=
Reports I’ve seen indicate the total debt of the two is about $ 50 billion which is still a huge sum of money about $ 165 per American.
.
April 1998
http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/42998eir.htm
August 21, 2008
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/fil...iv_exposure.png
Even according to the Larouchite “The U.S. commercial banks, as a group, had $25.4 trillion in these derivatives at the end of 1997” but this was based on “Comptroller of the Currency, company reports, EIR” so basically we have to take his word on it.
As to the page from the blog, we don’t know the source (i.e. reliability) of the document. Who produced it based on what evidence? But let’s assume the numbers are accurate. You claimed the exposure was “$ 185 trillion” but if we add up the numbers (rounding) 38.2 + 90.4 etc it only comes to 179…
…$ 179 BILLION.
A number followed by 6 digits is in the millions (2,000,000 = 2 million) by 9 digits is billions. Trillion is a number followed by 12 digits. http://www.merriam-webster.com/table/dict/number.htm According to the document not even the banks’ total economic capital or RBC (Risk Based Capital) come close to US $ 185,000,000,000,000.00
I guess the best thing for you is to stick to insults and ad homs, its about all you’re good for. But hey I admire your Jack White like persistence in not letting continually being show to be wrong dissuade you from trying again.
I think the GAO reports the off balance sheet debt of the banks, by quarter. The number I provided, $185 trillion notional value is accurate according to the GAO. Henry Gonzales Chairman of the House Banking Committee is responsible for having any kind of reporting on derivatives.Gonzales decided to push for transparency after listening to John Hoefle's testimony given before his committee in 1993.
I would also bet that the total value of derivatives in the system is much larger than $185 trillion and could be as much as $600 trillion world wide. That means the worlds financial system is finished.
The system is swimming in debt based on these derivative instruments. Derivatives came into popular use after the October 1987 Wall Street crash. And yes the banks do not have the capital to cover just a fractional loss in their off balance sheet derivatives portfolio. They are bankrupt hundreds of times over.
Len, you might want to look at the argument below. I got the derivatives chart from this website. A few folks made the same mistake that you made (with out the stupid arrogance). The value of the banks derivatives holdings is in the trillions not billions. You may want to widen your browser window to fit in all those zero's. As usual it is you who got it wrong. And as usual LaRouche is right on target.
This derivatives debacle gives you an idea why Obama and McCain just dont fit the bill as candidates for President. What we require is another Franklin Roosevelt, while the financiers want another Hitler or Mussolini. The derivatives time bomb also demonstrates why Secretary Paulson's proposed bail out of Freddie and Fannie is really an open door policy to bail out the multi trillion dollar derivatives market. As you can see by the numbers any attempt to bail out the derivatives market would result in a new Dark Age for humanity. It cannot be done. The only sane policy would be to place the system under a government supervised bankruptcy reorganization and cancel all the derivatives obligations. The bankers would receive nothing. Then you go back to regulation.
Look at JP Morgan. Alone they are holding in derivaties debt an equivalent to 8 times annual US GDP. The financial system has reached an end point. It cannot continue on in it's present form.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/200...nk-derivat.html
WTF? $90 Trillion dollars derivative exposure for JPMorgan ?
The chart says:
JPM $91,592,580 and notes $(000s)
That's Billions not trillions.
~~~
BR: RD, thats tier 1 -- look at the 3rd column: (widen your browser window)
JPM $90,408,468,778 (All figures in $000):
Dems' trillions, baby!
Posted by: Rob Dawg | Aug 21, 2008 3:24:31 PM
Ummmm...isnt the Worlds stock market capitalization about 47 tillion? JPM has almost double the exposure of the worlds market cap? how does that even work?!?! am i missing something?
Posted by: Mika | Aug 21, 2008 3:26:38 PM
Here is my interpretation of this data. BUY GOLD!! BUY GOLD!!! BUY GOLD!!!
Posted by: GLOOMY | Aug 21, 2008 3:33:27 PM
@ Rob Dawg
Move a column to the right - you showed the Tier 1 assets - derivatives are really trillions
Posted by: crgordon | Aug 21, 2008 3:37:21 PM
Look, I think the entire Financial System in the US is F D! Get it?
The thing that amazes me is that apparently no one ANYWHERE did anything wrong???
Now, that my friend is the greatest WTF of all times!
Posted by: BG | Aug 21, 2008 3:37:22 PM
-
As the financial system continues to collapse at a break neck pace, the financial oligarchy has come up with a solution. They want to legalize their favorite commodity "DRUGS". As usual they are right on que.
This would mark a return to the days of the British East India company.
-
This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system.
An impossibly high number $185 Trillion is:
“…the notional value of GLOBAL OTC (over the counter) interest-rate derivatives” as estimated in 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF24Dj01.html
“the total value of all real and financial assets in the U.S.” as estimated at the end of 2007
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.27849/news_detail.asp
and
“the projected US “GDP over the next 10 years”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mone...5C%7D&dist=
Reports I’ve seen indicate the total debt of the two is about $ 50 billion which is still a huge sum of money about $ 165 per American.
(Edited for offensive remark)
April 1998
http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/42998eir.htm
August 21, 2008
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/fil...iv_exposure.png
-
The "real killer" was Jason, and OJ covered for him. He was infatuated with his step-mother,
and she had "stood him up", not showing for a scheduled meal where he was to wait on her.
He was the one with the "uncontrollable rage and jealousy."
When she did not show for the reservation he made for her, he left the restaurant without
notifying anyone. I once was able to ask Dershowitz about this, and his reply was curious:
"Well, he is the only one WITHOUT AN ALIBI for the time of the murder."
Jack
I find your theory difficult to accept given that OJ Simpson pleaded innocent and fought like the dickens for his freedom. The case is still open meaning Jason is no more safe then prior to OJ's arrest. Had OJ wanted to take the rap for his son he would have pleaded guilty and worked out some kind of deal.
The Bundy murders were likely a satanic ritual killing of the type well known to Hollywood since the Manson killings, the Cotton Club killings in the 1980's etc. Hollywood has had this problem for a long time. And after all it was the Hollywood that made the Simpson trial the most popular soap opera of all time. The case itself lacked any real substance and the not guilty verdict was appropriate given the lack of evidence against OJ Simpson. It was a nothing case against OJ Simpson. No murder weapon, no witness, no motive and no means to commit the crime. One thing for certain, there was more than one killer involved.
-
Mark Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder (Harper, William Morrow, 2006) was pretty much ignored by JFK Assassination buffs and the mainstream media, but I found a good, cheap copy and some of what he has to say interesting.
In a compact 232 page paperback Fuhrman says pretty much the same thing that Vincent Buglosi crams into his mammoth dictionary length treste that adds little more than what Fuhrman says quite distinctly, however wrong they both are.
As I expected, Fuhrman concentrates on the hard evidence in the case, but then he stumbles badly when he gets to the motive, a necessary ingrediant in the conviction of the guilty.
(p.88)
Motive
"Motive is a secondary consideration, especially in an assassination, where, like serial killing or mass murder, the motives are primarily psychological and therefore not essential to connecting the suspect to the crime. In a rage-based killing motivated by jealousy, for example, it is helpful, even necessary, to link the suspect with the victim. (Sometimes that link exists only in the suspect's imagination.) However, in an assassination, where the victim is murdered to satisfy the psychological urges and/or political beliefs of the suspect, motive is not only unnecessary for the solution of the case but often a question that will forever remain unanswered and may distract investigators from other subjects more pertinent to the solution of the crime."
WHAT?
"...We can speculate endlessly without reaching any real conclusion..."
So even though there's no motive, we have our man, and there's no reason to speculate as to possible motives, even though the lack of one indicates that there's more to this than meets the eye, except when Mark Fuhrman's on the case, when it's okay if we can just let it go and not bother with all the psychology and motive stuff, which isn't really essential to connect the suspect with the crime.
Fuhrman's a slacker whose too lazy to bother to complete the investigaiton, tie up loose ends and figure out the real truth.
BK
Fuhrman seems to have a fixation on the Kennedy's. "Rage based" killing based on jealousy? Would'nt that make jealousy the motivation for the murder?
-
I've been on the record for letting them fail. Nationalization is the wrong move ofr lots of reasons. I would prefer for us to take the lumps now and move forward.
The problem is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole system is under threat. As much as it must hurt, Bush had no choice but to nationalize them. What alternative strategy do you suggest Bush should take?
This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system. There is no way to bail out the derivatives market.
We should do what Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930's. Put the system through government supervised bankruptcy re organization and write off all the derivatives obligations. Essentially bankrupting the speculators, which is long overdue.
-
Bill you're the one who brought Bundy up. I'm done with the subject if you are.
Still waiting for any evidence it wasn't Ivins.
Len,
I started a new, dedicated Ted Bundy thread here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=13428&hl=
My point being that the same investigative procedures and techniques used to catch Bundy were most certainly used against targeted suspects in the Anthrax investigation.
There might also be some parrallels running between Bundy and Ivins in regards to being stiffed by sorority girls, but I don't know if anybody knowledeable has gone there.
I'm certainly not done with the subject.
I'm just getting started.
As for evidence of suspects other than Ivins, I don't know what you're waiting for.
My proposition is that our own US government WMD efforts are more of a threat to us than anything terrorists can dream up, and that if Ivins had anything to do with the Anthrax mailings, or Oswald had anything to do with the assassination of the President, then our national security is serously threatened and still at stake.
I think it is pretty terrifying that foreknowledge of Oswald's role in the assassination was expressed by a government scientist in the same, small outfit stationed at Fort Detrick, Md., where the Anthrax originated, and they were both interested in the study of Anthrax as a weapon. I think that we should find out more about what they are doing there and who's been doing it.
BK
Here you go http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841wolfowitz.html
Colby is likely to describe this article as "rubbish". How many folks from NYC or Jersey are partial to this expression?
-
Oh my god I am in a cult.
Didnt we all see and hear Secretary Paulson tell the world that the US citizens would be on the hook for trillions of dollars in bad debt? I'll bet the financial markets take off like a rocket today now that they believe they can transfer their losses to the US Government.
And you take credit for influencing GG Allin? Was it your idea to have him take the photo with his "arse" sticking in the air preparing a bowel movement? That's quite a testimonial to your intellect. Artistic expression protected by the 1st amendment?
And why should anyone study Lyndon LaRouche? He's only been doing this since before you were "crapping" in your mouth.
Why not check out this article by Richard Freeman March 2003. They already had this mess pegged 5-1/2 years before Paulson's treasonous announcement of Friday September 5, 2008.
Sorry not impressed, “psychics” have a scam, they make lots of vague predictions several of which common sense dictates are likely to happen. Then when a couple come true they want you to be impressed with their 'prophetic' abilities. Freeman didn’t even pull that off his essay:
- was based on a government report, it not something he figured out on his own
- got the situation backwards it predicted problems at Freddie Mae / Fanny Mac would trigger problems for the mortgage market.
-
Nor was he the only person outside the gov’t agency that produced the report to pick up on it or the potential problem. A Google search for the report’s name "Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO", returns dozens of hits.One of the first is from a site called housingbubble.com was posted February 5, 2003. The site itself has been online since some time before August 19, 2002 http://web.archive.org/web/20020819234848/...ing-bubble.com/ and pages dating back to May of that year which discuss a housing bubble are linked to it. By contrast your guru’s disciple only published his essay March 14, 2003. Trust me as some whose family was trying to sell an apartment in NYC at the time, lots of people were talking about the real estate bubble in the months following 9/11.
You’re right LaDouche has been peddling his rubbish since before I was born. But age doesn’t always equal wisdom, Willis Carto father of the Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi movements in the US and one of the country’s most virulent racists has been going since before your messiah. They even had a meeting of the minds a few decades back. Some of your guru’s “wisdom”:
• LaRouche delivers racist rant (April 12) against Senator Obama, slams Obama's mother for race mixing. "If you chase his [Obama's] family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches....Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him."[...]
• LaRouche compares jazz musicians to monkeys (2006). This is pretty much what he said about Obama but in raunchier and more insulting language.
2. LAROUCHE'S RECORD OF RELENTLESS RACISM
• "Zombie Killers Out of Control" (June 1974). The rhetoric of this LaRouche leaflet is almost indistinguishable from that of the Ku Klux Klan: "This summer you will be walking down the street with your family and a cruising car will pull up beside you. A group of young black men will jump out of the car and surround you. As they close in, you may notice that their eyes show no emotion, their pupils are pinpoints. Your throat will be slashed, your wife will be stabbed, your children's heads will be smashed against the pavement. The attackers will be grinning or laughing."
• LaRouche is really not fond of black mothers. In "The Politics of Male Impotence" (1973), he writes: "What is the sickness inside so many of our members whcih [sic] causes them to awfully admire the image of the Black Ghetto mother? Can we imagine anything much more viciously sadistic than the Black Chetto [sic] mother?" Note his use of "anything" rather than "anyone."
• Cleansing the continent of "miserable" and "bestial" cultures. LaRouche says it was "absolutely" correct for the "American branch of European humanist culture" to grab all the land from the "miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans." (Note that he lumps hundreds of tribes, language groups and ancient peoples into a single undifferentiated culture.) And the same thing goes for those miserable Mexicans after the War of 1848: "We do not regard all cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." (The page image is from The Case of Walter Lippmann, LaRouche's 1977 prescription for fascism in the United States.)
• "Drunken Indians"? In this page from "What Happened to Integration?" (The Campaigner, August 1975), LaRouche argues that the assimilation of "backward" cultures into a modern industrial economy results in "a significant diminution of the paranoid tendencies--those same paranoid tendencies which cause the notorious wildness of the 'drunken Indian.' It is not the primitive individual's genetic disposition which makes him pathetically susceptible to effects of alcohol in that way; it is the relative paranoia characteristic of the primitiveness of the culture in which he was matured."
• Subhuman orientals? LaRouche claims (in "What Happened to Integration?" The Campaigner, August 1975) that (a) the Chinese peasantry represents a paranoid personality type rooted in cultural backwardness; (
the "paranoid personality and lower forms of animal life share a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities"; and © persons from paranoid cultures, such as the "oriental village commune," tend to "[approximate] the lower animal species" and to that extent are "incapable of sustaining a stable guiding moral structure for [their] behavior."• "Monkeys and baboons"? LaRouche lashes out against African-American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan re her civil rights-oriented speech at the 1976 Democratic Party convention. Calls her views "bestial" and "hideous." Says that in a LaRouchian "republic" the law would be "hostile to those kinds of distinctions among human beings which would be proper to the classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." (Excerpted page is from The Case of Walter Lippmann (1977), available today on the website of the LaRouche Youth Movement, where it is described as a "classic.")
• Mayan beast-men and Amazon zoo people? This is Chap. 11 of The Plot to Annihilate the Armed Forces and the Nations of Ibero-America, a kind of Mein Kampf for Latin American military officers and death-squad supporters published by the LaRouche organization in 1994 in both Spanish and English. Filled with artfully worded racist descriptions of indigenous peoples in Central America and the Amazon basin. Claims the Mayas today represent a "failed" civilization that was "saved" from the consequences of its failure by the arrival of the enlightened Conquistadores. Suggests that the ungrateful wretches are now plotting to stab the nation-states of the region in the back and dismember their territories. Says that some Mayan leaders today are also attempting to promote a "bestial concept of 'Indian religion.'" Calls Brazil's Yanomami reserve a "zoo," and expresses indignation that a British museum with the backing of the Human Genome Organization intends to preserve frozen samples of the tribe's gene pool.
• If they get uppity, kill 'em. Since the early 1980s, LaRouche's organization has encouraged the violent assaults by rightist death squads on indigenous peoples in Mexico, Guatemala and elsewhere. Here are numerous examples of the sadistic and racist propaganda of LaRouche and his followers that may have had an effect in unstable countries where Spanish-language LaRouchian propaganda is widely circulated and LaRouche's private intelligence apparatus has long been active.
• Subhuman music? Here are selected pages (with highlighting) from "The Racist Roots of Jazz," which appeared in the Sept.-Oct. 1980 issue of The Campaigner. Although author Peter Wyer, who later left the LaRouche organization, appears in this article to sincerely regard himself as opposed to racism, the delusional ideology he embraces leads him into making absurdly bigoted judgments.
Basically this article argues that jazz and the blues were invented by an evil Jewish-British cabal using black prostitutes and drug addicts as its puppets. The underlying assumption, although never directly stated, is that black people lack the creativity to develop a valid form of music on on their own. Wyer believes that black musicians should have worked exclusively in the European classical tradition (he grudgingly concedes there is some merit in Scott Joplin's work because Joplin "studied with an old German musician" in Texas). Wyer also expresses scorn again and again for individual jazz artists; for instance, he refers to the "psychotic honkings" of saxophonist John Coltrane which supposedly represent "yet another step towards truly un-mediated psychosis in black music, in the name of black rebellion."
[…]
I imagine you will claim he and his underlings never said these things but most are backed by scans of his pamphlets, all forgeries I suppose all part of an elaborate plot to defame him right? I liked the "zombies" one it went on about how NYC largest methadone program was a giant CIA brain washing opweration.
I said earlier I’d cease engaging you, that applied to a specific thread but I’ll extend it to this one as your messiah is irrelevant to this the topic and irrelevant period.
Why bother to respond? Now you're ranting about “psychics" and how you don't trust them. Great!
But please tell me what could be more racist, irrational, and satanic then GG Allin, leather chaps, fornication/rape on stage, while parading around his own crap, screaming satanic verses to the ritualistic banging of electric guitars and drums? This is your world so please explain it.
In case you didnt understand the article it had nothing to do with "chicken or egg". LaRouche forecast in May 1994 that the post Bretton Woods monetary system was headed for collapse. The fact that it is manifesting itself in the housing market right now is not really that important. What is important is taking action to prevent the kind of chaos that threatens to erupt as a result.
Too bad the late Henry Gonzales is not alive, or Kennedy's press secretary Piere Salinger, or Eugene Mcarthy. They were all personal friends of Lyndon LaRouche. I'm sure they would shake their head at the method you employ to win an argument. It's crap, smelling worse than anything GG let loose on stage, (for the most part
)You might ask yourself why House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzales allowed EIR's John Hofle to give testimony before his committee in 1993? Especially given that "you're not impressed".
But you keep sniffing those turds and digging them up. That's one job you seem to be good at.
-
Both candidates Obama and McCain support the bailout proposal of Secretary Paulson. So what does that tell you? Under conditions of collapse the financial oligarchy will be wanting a Hitler or Mussolini in the White House, so I wouldnt be surprised if neither man ever sets foot in the White House. Nothing at this point is setlled. Many things can happen between now and November.
The bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is tantamount to treason. They want to keep these institutions functioning so they can throw all the toxic paper in the banking system onto US taxpayers.
Thus spoke the messiah -
Unless Vice-President Cheney can start World War III very soon, in which case neither Obama or McCain would ever be President. The situation right now, is that the election could be called off, while the nation operates under an unelected "emergency government," for the duration of the presently onrushing global, economic breakdown-crisis.Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. September 2, 2008
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/02...-candidate.html
there's a present move to bring the crisis under control by establishing a Mussolini type of fascist government in the United States under Mayor Bloomberg! That's what the whole election is about. And therefore, the people who are behind this are trying to destroy her. This is like what put Hitler into power in Germany.January 31, 2008
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/01/31...coordinati.html
However, Fannie and Freddie are at the heart of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's insane scheme to bail out the banks by dumping all their bad mortgage paper into the two government-sponsored enterprises, effectively transferring the banks' losses to the government, and ultimately to the taxpayer. The government is not really bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but merely funding their conversion into the largest toxic waste dumps in history. Far from being saved, Fannie and Freddie are being destroyed.[…]
Not only is this scheme insane, LaRouche stressed, but it is “tantamount to treason”
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/06...ut-taking-.html
September 7, 2008 (LPAC)--Economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche has denounced U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's `unlimited' bank bailout announcement today, as "tantamount to treason"[…]
Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama announced they backed the bailout.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/07...obama-mcca.html
Amazing! You do derive your entire worldview from the pronouncements of a single person and his disciples. Aren’t you capable of independent though? No comparisons to GG are valid, we only influenced each others taste in music and I definitely turned him on to more stuff than vice-versa.
Oh my god I am in a cult.
Didnt we all see and hear Secretary Paulson tell the world that the US citizens would be on the hook for trillions of dollars in bad debt? I'll bet the financial markets take off like a rocket today now that they believe they can transfer their losses to the US Government.
And you take credit for influencing GG Allin? Was it your idea to have him take the photo with his "arse" sticking in the air preparing a bowel movement? That's quite a testimonial to your intellect. Artistic expression protected by the 1st amendment?
And why should anyone study Lyndon LaRouche? He's only been doing this since before you were "crapping" in your mouth.
Why not check out this article by Richard Freeman March 2003. They already had this mess pegged 5-1/2 years before Paulson's treasonous announcement of Friday September 5, 2008.
-
I am finding myself annoyed that the Democrats were not permitted an opportunity to discuss Sarah Palin at their convention -- because the choice was conveniently not announced until after that convention had ended. Seems like they were afraid she couldn't take the heat.
Bold mine.
This really takes the cake. No wonder you guys are losers...you don't even know how to play the game.
Permitted...ROFLMAO!
You've said it like it is -- this is all a game to you. You want us to focus on personalities and forget about issues, while the country is failing. In this past week alone, unemployment has been announced to be over 6%, the dow plummetted nearly 400 points, and now Freddie Mac and Fannie May have to be bailed out. You are living in a twilight zone, just like Hitler and his cronies were in the bunker in Berlin, believing that somehow they would win the game. They too were oblivious to the carnage their policies had created.
Both candidates Obama and McCain support the bailout proposal of Secretary Paulson. So what does that tell you? Under conditions of collapse the financial oligarchy will be wanting a Hitler or Mussolini in the White House, so I wouldnt be surprised if neither man ever sets foot in the White House. Nothing at this point is setlled. Many things can happen between now and November.
The bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is tantamount to treason. They want to keep these institutions functioning so they can throw all the toxic paper in the banking system onto US taxpayers.
-
Russia Today, August 21, 2008
What exactly are the undocumented claims of LaRaouche supposed to prove? I don’t think anyone here but you takes what he says as gospel. His pronouncements are nonsense.
He claimed the war was an attempt to “encircle” “surround” and “crush” Russia etc. LOL Georgia with it’s relatively tiny military unable even to defend it’s own territory was as much of a threat to Russia as a rocker thrower is to a tank.
He also claimed that the US “has no particular interest” in the Caucuses and obvious un truth which I don’t know is due to him being deceptive, ignorant or willfully blind, see my earlier posts about the pipelines.
He also claims that the British and Soros are behind the crisis and that Soros is a “British national” the man has a weird tick in his brain – Jewish financiers and/or the British almost all (if not all) world problems. Soros is not a British national he was born in Hungary in 1930, moved to London in 1947 then to NYC in 1956 (52 years ago) and became a US citizen in 1961 (47 years ago).
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/22/Worldand...lionaire_.shtml
Funny the way they present LaRouche one would think he was an important figure in the US but when he runs for President he only gets about 2% of the vote in the primaries of his chosen party.
Still waiting for you to explain how the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia would have led to WW3 but for Russia’s counter attack.
You are so dense. How can you make the claim that I'm the only person that takes LaRouche serious, when here he is being nterviewed on Russian television! Your claim is shot down right there.
I wonder why "Russia Today" took the trouble to interview LaRouche? Why would their media allow Lyndon LaRouche to express his viewpoint? Apparently they thought what he had to say was important.
You should stick to promoting Satan and his first amendment rights.
Ideally I would only end up engaging polite, intelligent, well informed people on this and other forums. This world is of course a far from perfect one, so I have on occasion debated with people who were rude because they were smart and/or well informed about the subject on other occasions I discussed a topics with people who weren’t very smart or knowledgeable about the subject because they were polite.
You on the other hand are obnoxious, dimwitted and continuously have demonstrated your ignorance concerning just about every topic we’ve discussed from constitutional law (I think your friend Dawn should be able to set you straight) to the situation in the Caucuses to GG. You even seem to have difficulty understanding the word “here”* (a 1st grade teacher should be able to help you with that). The only thing you seem reasonably knowledgeable are the pronouncements of your guru. Therefore I will no longer waste my time responding to your rubbish.
For anyone interested another example of the giant “conspiracy” to defame the only man who can save the world. I imagine all the direct quotes like the direct quotes in various other exposes are all fabricated. LOL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Oct20.html
* As is “I don’t think anyone HERE but you takes what he says as gospel.”(See above)
Here = this forum not planet earth.
For a "bloke" who doesn't mind promoting satanic rituals for our youth you sure are sensitive. Imagine, you poor little fellow having to deal with someone as dimwitted as me. "It's all just a bunch of rubbish" isnt it Lenny? Or as GG might say "eat s#it" and "die"!
And satans little helper Lenny Colby went and found himself another slander piece. And lucky for us he is placing it right "here"(please note when I write "here" I literally mean "here" and no where else.) on our forum for all of us "here" to read.
Now back to more civilised dialogue between real intellectuals that understand the literal meaning of words. Betrand Russell would be smiling if he could see this.
-
What gave you the right to spread this perversion and insanity?
The 1st Amendment,apparently you never heard of it.
Your argument is identical to the US Diplomat arrested in brazil---"the victim knew what they were getting into" or "the victim liked it".The girls he had sex with were minors.In most societies even if a minor consents to sex with an adult it is a crime. The people who came to GG shows were over 21 for the most part. Even some minors came its absurd to compare a teenager going to a rock show with a 14 girl having sex with a middle aged man.
And as far as James Bevel I do know that during 1991-1994 period James Bevel went to Omaha Nebraska to organize law enforcement, media and the local population around the "child sex scandal" that broke out in 1989 around the Franklin Credit Union and Larry King. Now 15-16 years later he is in jail for the very same type of crime. Bevel worked with former Nebraska state Senator John De Camp in his efforts to bring the pedophiles to justice. Now James Bevel sits in jail over a case that was 15 years old when brought to trial. It's lucky for officials that the alleged rape/incest took place in Virginia where they have no statute of limitations on rape. I have not followed Bevel's case but I do know that he could have been set up by the very same pedophiles he was pursuing 15 years ago.Irrelevances followed by nonsense his own words prove his guilt his accusers are his own kids not people from Nebraska. If you think condemning a vice is incompatible with committing it Google "elliot spitzer","jimmy swaggart" and "jim baker". You are really in denial aren't you?
And how can I not believe that you have an association with the ADL (American Dope Lobby), your "id format" slander of LaRouche comes straight from their organization. I've read these false allegations so many times I know them like the back of my hand.LOL only the ADL is critical of LaRouche? What about Chip Berlett, Moynahan and Royko? So the ADL pedals dope eeh?I don't supposed any evidence in support of that claim wil lbe provided any time soon?
I didnt know Satan had first amendment rights? The law of the United States is still the "general welfare" of it's citizens. So anything that violates or threatens the "general welfare" is against the law. GG Allin certainly fits as a threat to the general welfare.
And I loved your line "the people who came to GG's shows were 21 for the most part". Why dont you admit that minors attended these satanic rituals?
And I was not defending the US Diplomat, I am pleased that he was convicted. I just pointed out that his choice of defense and your defense of GG Allin are axiomatically identical.
I have not followed Bevel's legal troubles. I just tried to point out the irony that he went from chasing criminal pedophiles (without success of course. The legal system refused to move for Bevel, De Camp and others who wanted justice for the victims) to being convicted of the same crime.
Chip Berlet? He and ADL stringer Dennis King have been slandering LaRouche since the late 1970's when Berlet was a writer for "High Times". Berlet penned a slander piece about LaRouche titled "This man wants to take your drugs away". LaRouche had published the book Dope Inc., in 1978.
I would also suspect that drugs played a big part in your life, isnt that correct? You probably advocate the use of drugs.
Edited to comply with Forum rules.
-
Russia Today, August 21, 2008
What exactly are the undocumented claims of LaRaouche supposed to prove? I don’t think anyone here but you takes what he says as gospel. His pronouncements are nonsense.
He claimed the war was an attempt to “encircle” “surround” and “crush” Russia etc. LOL Georgia with it’s relatively tiny military unable even to defend it’s own territory was as much of a threat to Russia as a rocker thrower is to a tank.
He also claimed that the US “has no particular interest” in the Caucuses and obvious un truth which I don’t know is due to him being deceptive, ignorant or willfully blind, see my earlier posts about the pipelines.
He also claims that the British and Soros are behind the crisis and that Soros is a “British national” the man has a weird tick in his brain – Jewish financiers and/or the British almost all (if not all) world problems. Soros is not a British national he was born in Hungary in 1930, moved to London in 1947 then to NYC in 1956 (52 years ago) and became a US citizen in 1961 (47 years ago).
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/22/Worldand...lionaire_.shtml
Funny the way they present LaRouche one would think he was an important figure in the US but when he runs for President he only gets about 2% of the vote in the primaries of his chosen party.
Still waiting for you to explain how the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia would have led to WW3 but for Russia’s counter attack.
You are so dense. How can you make the claim that I'm the only person that takes LaRouche serious, when here he is being nterviewed on Russian television! Your claim is shot down right there.
I wonder why "Russia Today" took the trouble to interview LaRouche? Why would their media allow Lyndon LaRouche to express his viewpoint? Apparently they thought what he had to say was important.
You should stick to promoting Satan and his first amendment rights.
-
Russia Today, August 21, 2008
. Only greedy fools swallow policy from the Cato Institute.
the "paranoid personality and lower forms of animal life share a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities"; and © persons from paranoid cultures, such as the "oriental village commune," tend to "[approximate] the lower animal species" and to that extent are "incapable of sustaining a stable guiding moral structure for [their] behavior."
Sins of the Warren Commission
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Don.
I don't think the conclusions of the Warren Commission were ever intended to stand the test of time. Their conclusions came under attack from the get go. And tt was a great way to blame the "boogie man" known as the US Government for the murder of President Kennedy.
What is more intriguing to contemplate and reflect on is the thousands of "conspiracy" articles, books, and media specials promoted over these last 45 years. Almost with out exception these "conspiracy" theories have done more harm than good. Including driving many people nuts! And all of the major conspiracy theories have been "promoted" to one degree or another by the dirty mass media.
Harold Weisberg had it right, years ago when he essentially stated "If you had a kooky theory, or something that the media knew wasn't true then the media would promote your theory far and wide. But legitimate criticism never had a voice".
Weisberg's conclusion regarding the JFK murder always remained the same "The crime itself was never investigated".
There is however a real knowable history to the United States. One thing that can be stated without question is that this republic has been under constant attack since it's founding. This included war, assassination, economic warfare, and perhaps the most popular of late, "subversion" from within. If you take a close look at the radical changes in this country over the last 40 years, then the motive for the JFK assassination is not all that obscure. And neither is the culprit.