We may end up meeting on a life boat then
Posted By: me on 2009-04-03
In Reply to: Yep. Welcome the new Hitler. - Now one world power.
I'm in OR and I heard about that too.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
me too - same boat as you....
Have had Humana HMO for small biz owners (just myself as employer/employee) and this started out as $242/month - 5-6 years ago. I rarely use this insurance too, but because I'm nearly 59 now - it went up July 1st to $710/month. I have to have group insurance due to preexisting conditions and I pay THRU THE NOSE because I don't earn that extra $710/month....between the mortgage ($1750), maintenance ($729/month), phone bills x2, cable TV, electric company, and a little bit of food and some paper goods.....You'd have to be earning $3000-$4000 month to cover everything. I don't earn that amount. 
So, I sympathize with you.......
Whatever floats your boat. SM
I really don't care what you do.
Then you need to put every politician in the same boat
They all have said conflicting things. Every one of them on both sides. Again that's why I say she has done nothing. But maybe I should have said she has done nothing that the other candidates haven't done.
Here is something for ya to peruse. We are all in the same boat.
The United States of America is the Next Argentina
Economics / Credit Crisis 2008
Aug 27, 2008 - 01:56 AM
By: Darryl_R_Schoon
DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF - While bankers do control the issuance of credit, they cannot control themselves. Bankers are the fatal flaw in their deviously opaque system that has substituted credit for money and debt for savings. The bankers have spread their credit-based system across the world by catering to basic human needs and ambition and greed; and while human needs can be satisfied, ambition and greed cannot—and the bankers' least of all.
I have a bad feeling about what's about to happen. The Great Depression is the closest that comes to mind. I, like most, was not alive during the 1930s when it happened. Nonetheless, what once was feared in private is now being discussed in public. It's going to be bad. It's going to make high school seem like fun.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE NEXT ARGENTINA
This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises by University of Maryland‘s Carmen Reinhart and Harvard's Kenneth Rogoff makes for perfect reading when flying between the US and Argentina.
There is perhaps no better analysis than Reinhart and Rogoff's on the history of sovereign defaults; and, as such, Reinhart and Rogoff's paper was ideal reading material when traveling between the US and Argentina , for the sovereign defaults that happened in the past to Argentina will soon be happening to the US .
But a US default will make Argentina 's debt defaults pale both by comparison and consequence. The US , unlike Argentina , is the world's largest economy, the issuer of the world's reserve currency and the world's largest debtor—and a default by the US on its debt will shake the very foundations of our increasingly fragile global economy.
SOVERIGN DEBT LIQUIDATING AMBITION
The power of ambition is extraordinary. The power of ambition transformed the US from the world's only creditor after WWII into the world's largest debtor in less than fifty years. Wanting to emulate England 's 19 th century empire in the 20 th , the US instead has mirrored England decline in the 20 th century here in the 21 st .
Credit and borrowing fueled America 's ambitions in the 20 th century as it had England 's in the 18 th and 19 th . During the 1980s, to pay for President Reagan expansion of the military, the US quadrupled its national debt in less than a decade by borrowing three trillion dollars during a presidency pledged to balance the budget.
When Reagan took office, US debt totaled one trillion dollars. When Reagan left office, US debt totaled four trillion dollars. Reagan's vaunted slogan of fiscal conservatism was just that—a slogan; and while talk is cheap, the debts now have to be repaid.
Just as the costs of WWI forced England to abandon the gold standard in the early 1900s, post WWII military spending forced the US to suspend the convertibility of the US dollar to gold in 1971; and the consequences, e.g. burgeoning trade deficits and global currency instability, are now putting unsustainable strains on a financial system already in extremis .
Ambition has its price and the bill is now due and owing. The question is: how will the US pay what it owes? In Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Model, the US is close to “Ponzi status” if not already there since the US is having to roll its debt forward and borrow from others to pay the interest as it can no longer pay down the principle.
In 2006, in an article published by the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Professor Laurence Kotlikoff stated the US was “technically bankrupt” as there was no way the US could pay the $65.9 trillion it owed.
Evidently, Professor Kotlikoff was conservative in his estimate or we're going downhill faster than he knew. Just three months ago, on May 28, 2008 Richard W. Fisher, President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank estimated the obligations of the US to be actually $99.2 trillion, 50 % higher than Kotlikoff's figures.
Fisher stated: In the distance, I see a frightful storm brewing in the form of untethered government debt . I choose the words—“frightful storm”—deliberately to avoid hyperbole. Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the subprime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.
Fisher should know what the US owes and the danger that sum represents. As President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, Fisher is a part of the Federal Reserve
System—the very system that has indebted America into perpetuity when its credit-based money forced out gold and silver based money in 1913.
But in his speech Fisher said nothing about the role the Federal Reserve has played in America 's fatal dance with debt, warning instead about the increasing costs of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
Fisher is part of a larger effort to now blame America 's entitlements as the primary cause of our problems, assiduously avoiding the role his own Federal Reserve Bank has played in sinking our once wealthy nation into perpetual indebtedness.
In truth, the entitlement program that poses the greatest threat to America is—and always has been—the Federal Reserve System. Without the Federal Reserve's credit-based money whose compounding interest (paid to the bankers) is obliged to be paid for by a possibly unconstitutional US income tax [note: the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Income Tax were both instituted the same year in 1913], the US would not be indebted and bankrupt as it is now.
If Ben Bernanke and Richard Fisher et. al. at the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank resigned and stopped plundering the US for their own benefit at the expense of the public in order to line the pockets of their banker friends with public funds, the US might have a chance of successfully getting out of this mess.
But, of course, they won't and the now privately controlled US government will continue to indebt the American public so insiders can continue to profit immensely at the public trough. But the question still remains, how will the US pay its unpayable debt? The answer is as clear as it is obvious. It won't because it can't.
DEBT & DESTRUCTION SOUTH OF THE BORDER
In their well-researched paper, Serial Defaults and Its Remedies , Reinhart and Rogoff write “Cycles in capital flows to emerging markets have now been with us for two hundred years”. If we are to understand the dynamics of serial default, it would do us well to look at these cycles and their relevance to what is happening today.
Serial Defaults and Its Remedies, Section 2. Capital Flow Cycles and the Syndrome of “This Time Is Different” :
..a pattern of borrowing followed by crisis is evident in the string of defaults during 1826-28 in Latin America that come on the heels of the first wave of massive capital flows from Britain into Latin America in 1822-25…A second wave of capital flows from Britain came during the 1850s and 1860s. The cycle ended with the crisis of 1873. The next wave of capital flows into emerging markets coincided with the shift of the financial epicenter of the world from London to New York . Among Latin American countries, the borrowing binge of 1925-28 was [financed] with “cheap” money from New York . Capital flows peaked in 1928, the year before the U.S. Stock market crash ushered in financial and currency crises around the world and eventually an international debt crisis during 1929-33.
Argentina is at the very epicenter of Latin America borrowings and defaults and a cursory judgment may well lay the blame for such on Argentina . But understanding the past is akin to sedimentary sampling and a deeper reading of events reveals far more than the too familiar story of a spendthrift deadbeat nation borrowing more than prudence would otherwise dictate.
The capital flows from England and the US in the last two hundred years to Latin America were flows of credit, not money. The distinction is critical in understanding what has happened during the last two centuries. It explains the basis of the British Empire and current American power. It also explains the exploitation of Argentina .
The British Empire was founded on the central bank invention of credit-based money and the subsequent ability to substitute this new “money” for costly gold and silver; and the issuance of paper money allegedly backed by gold and silver is a critical component in the confidence game of central bankers to pass off their printed coupons as the real thing.
What the private bankers accomplished with the creation of the Bank of England was the government's “legitimization” of the bankers' new credit based coupons, sic paper money—coupons upon which the private bankers could now charge interest just as they had when loaning actual gold (what a wonderful scam). The new coupons were a lot easier to come by, especially when the king gave them a monopoly over its issuance.
The advantage to the king was that the king now had an unlimited supply of “money” that could be used to finance his wars—wars which led to the establishment of the British Empire; the cost of which was transferred directly as a burden to the people as the new counterfeit debt-based money was now an obligation of the state, not of the king.
This was the genesis (genius to the bankers and government) of the modern income tax where the people are forced to pay interest on the credit-based money issued by their own government. This was also the beginning of credit-based markets, deceptively called capitalism in order to closely identify the newly counterfeit credit based economy with the real money it had replaced.
CAPITALISM THE SPREAD OF DEBT IN DISGUISE
The flow of credit from England and then from its surrogate successor, the US, to developing nations such as Argentina was but the flow of printed coupons designed to harness and indebt the wealth and productivity of new lands.
The “capital” was really only credit, thinly disguised debt in the form of paper money originally issued by central banks, the Bank of England in Britain and the Federal Reserve Bank in the US , the twin towers of monetary Mordor.
The wonderfully sounding idea of unfettered capitalism is but a smokescreen for bankers to leverage their coupons in the form of credit and thereby indebt and control the productivity and wealth of others. As such, it has accomplished its goal admirably but its success will now cost the bankers dearly.
Three centuries of indebting nations, businesses, and the citizenry with constantly compounding debt is no longer sustainable. This is why central bankers in London , New York , Paris , and Tokyo are in such distress. Debtors can no longer pay their debts, defaults are on the rise and bankers may actually have to find real jobs if their confidence game continues to disintegrate.
BANKERS' FEARS
Lawrence Summers' credentials as a banker are impeccable. Educated at MIT and Harvard in economics, Summers has served as Chief Economist for the World Bank, US Secretary of the Treasury and President of Harvard University.
Recently, in March 2008, Summers stated:..we are facing the most serious combination of macroeconomic and financial stresses that the U.S. has faced in a generation--and possibly, much longer than that…It's a grave mistake to believe in the self-equilibrating properties of economies in the face of large shocks. Markets balance fear and greed. And when fear takes over, the capacity for self-stabilization is not one that can be relied upon.
On June 29, 2008 the Financial Times quoted Summers:... we are in an economic environment where we have more to fear than fear itself …
Lawrence Summer's fears are not to be taken lightly. They are the banker's equivalent of Jim Cramer's televised fit of fear when interviewed on CNBC last year, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?
While Summers is rightfully fearful of the current economic environment, the rest of us have far more to fear from bankers like Lawrence Summers and others like him. Summer's role in the manipulation of the price of gold is found in his 1988 paper Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard co-authored with Robert Barsky, published in the Journal of Political Economy (vol. 96, June 1988, pp. 528-550).
The hubris of bankers such as Summers is stunning. Fixing the price of gold hoping to control interest rates and prices is like fixing the temperature of thermometers hoping to control global warming. Such is the short reach of Summers' considerable intellect.
EVIL BANKERS FACT OR FICTION?
But the real danger of bankers like Lawrence Summers lies not in their untethered intellect but in their cold ambition and selfish greed that sees nations and people as but living fodder to be milked, used and discarded as they and others profit.
In 1991, Summers issued the following memo while serving as Chief Economist at the World Bank:
…developed countries ought to export more pollution to developing countries because these countries would incur the lowest cost from the pollution in terms of lost wages of people made ill or killed by the pollution due to the fact that wages are so low in developing countries…the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
As the World Bank's Chief Economist, Summer's memo is a chilling reflection of the heartlessness that lies at the core of bankers and banking establishments. The World Bank itself seems to be a favorite watering hole for those of questionable intent.
Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War was President of the World Bank as was Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War. The current President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is also an ardent supporter of the Iraq War (also on Zoellick's considerable list of “credits” is his service as advisor to Enron, his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission and his attendance at the secretive Bilderberg meetings from 1991 to the present and his role as Senior International Advisor to investment bank Goldman Sachs).
It is no coincidence that those heading the World Bank are closely associated with America 's vast war machine. Bankers have profited from fueling the military ambitions of both England and the US for the past two centuries and continue to do so today.
But perhaps the most damning indictment yet of the World Bank and today's bankers is John Perkins's Confessions of an Economic Hitman (Barrett Koehler, 2004) in which Perkins reveals the hidden intent of the World Bank and US bankers to cold-bloodedly indebt third world countries such as Argentina and profit by their misery.
In their review of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman write:
Remember Smedley Butler?
He was perhaps the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history. In the early part of this century, he fought and killed for the United States around the world. Butler was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor.
Then, when he returned to the United States he wrote a book titled “War Is A Racket” which opens with the memorable lines: “War is a racket. It always has been.”
“I was a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers,” Butler said. “In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
In a speech in 1933, Butler said the following:
“I helped make Mexico , especially Tampico , safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”
Smedley Butler, meet John Perkins.
Perkins has just written a book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” (Barrett Koehler, 2004). It is the War is A Racket for our times. Some of it is hard to believe. You be the judge.
In 1968, after graduating from Boston University , Perkins joined the Peace Corps and was sent to Ecuador . There, he was recruited by the National Security Agency (NSA) and hired by an international consulting firm, Chas. T. Main in Boston.
Soon after beginning his job in Boston , “I was contacted by a woman named Claudine who became my trainer as an economic hit man.” Perkins assumed the woman worked for the NSA.
“She said she was sent to help me and to train me,” Perkins said. “She is extremely beautiful, sensual, seductive, intelligent. Her job was to convince me to become an economic hit man, holding out these three drugs –- sex, drugs and money. And then she wanted to let me know that I was getting into a dirty business. And I shouldn't go off on my first assignment, which was going to be Indonesia, and start doing this unless I knew that I was going to continue doing it, and once I was in I was in for life.”
Perkins worked for Main from 1970 to 1980. His job was to convince the governments of the third world countries and the banks to make deals where huge loans were given to these countries to develop infrastructure projects. And a condition of the loan was that a large share of the money went back to the big construction companies in the USA – the Bechtels and Halliburtons.
The loans would plunge the countries into debts that would be impossible to pay off.
“The system is set up such that the countries are so deep in debt that they can't repay their debt,” Perkins said. “When the U.S. government wants favors from them, like votes in the United Nations or troops in Iraq, or in many, many cases, their resources – their oil, their canal, in the case of Panama, we go to them and say – look, you can't pay off your debts, therefore sell your oil at a very low price to our oil companies. Today, tremendous pressure is being put on Ecuador , for example, to sell off its Amazonian rainforest -– very precious, very fragile places, inhabited by indigenous people whose cultures are being destroyed by the oil companies.”
When a leader of a country refuses to cooperate with economic hit men like Perkins, the jackals from the CIA are called in. Perkins said that both Omar Torrijos of Panama and Jaime Boldos of Ecuador -– both men he worked with – refused to play the game with the U.S. and both were cut down by the CIA -– Torrijos when his airplane blew up, and Roldos when his helicopter exploded, within three months of each other in 1981.
If the CIA jackals don't do the job, then the U.S. Marines are sent in –- Butler 's “racketeers for capitalism.”
Perkins also gives lurid details of how he pimped for a Saudi prince in the 1970s, in an effort to get the Saudi royal family to enter an elaborate deal in which the U.S. would protect the House of Saud. In exchange, the Saudis agreed to stabilize oil prices and use their oil money to purchase Treasury bonds, the interest on which would be used to pay U.S. construction firms like Bechtel to build Saudi cities.
For years, Perkins wanted to stop being an economic hit man and write a tell-all book. He quit Main in 1980, only to be lured back with megabucks as a consultant. He testified in favor of the Seabrook Nuclear power plant (“my most infamous assignment”) in the 1980s, but the experience pushed him out of the business, and he started an alternative energy firm.
When word got out in the 1990s that he was starting to write a tell-all book, he was approached by the president of Stone & Webster, a big engineering firm.
Over seven years, Stone & Webster paid Perkins $500,000 to do nothing.
“At that first meeting, the president of the company mentioned some of the books that I had written about indigenous people and said –- that's nice, that's fine, keep doing your non-profit work,” Perkins told us. “We approve of that, but you certainly would never write about this industry, would you? And I assured him that I wouldn't.”
Perkins assumes the money was a bribe to get him not to write the book.
But he has written the book.
You be the judge.
Evil bankers? Fact or Fiction? You be the judge.
DEFAULT OR JUST DEADBEATS
While Reinhart's and Rogoff's work on sovereign default is worthwhile and important, their glaring avoidance of the geopolitical aspect of credit flows from England and the US to Latin America and other developing regions is indicative of the blind eye scholars turn to the activities of those who pay them.
Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard University where Kenneth Rogoff is now employed. It is not likely those who hired the likes of Summers would look kindly upon Rogoff should he begin asking questions whose answers would lead to truths Harvard's trustees would rather not see the light of day.
So instead of dealing with the critical issues raised by John Perkins, Reinhart and Rogoff consider the phenomena of sovereign defaults as an innocent rite of passage much like high school through which developing economies must pass. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not.
But their “trained” eye wanders a bit, even to an untrained eye such as mine. According to Reinhart and Rogoff, the US is a “default virgin”, sic the US has never missed a debt repayment or rescheduled on at least one occasion. While this is strictly so, the US is nonetheless at the center of the largest default in monetary history.
In the 1970s, the US defaulted on its gold obligations under the Bretton-Woods Agreement. After overspending the greatest hoard of gold in history, 21,775 tons, between 1949 and 1971, the US had 7,000-8,000 tons of gold left and still owed perhaps over 31,000 tons to others.
In 1973, when the US officially refused to convert US dollars held by other countries to gold, it was the biggest monetary default ever. In that one act, as a consequence the entire global monetary system shifted from a gold-based system to a fiat-paper system.
Of the US default on its gold obligations, Professor Antal Fekete wrote in June 2008:
http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFItsNotADollarCrisisItsAGoldCrisis.pdf
Thirty-five years ago gold, symbol of permanence, was chased out from the Monetary Garden of Eden , replaced by the floating irredeemable dollar as the pillar of the international monetary system. That's right: a floating pillar. The gold demonetization exercise was a farce. It was designed as a fig leaf to cover up the ugly default of the U.S. government on its gold-redeemable sight obligations to foreigners. The word ‘default' itself was put under taboo even though it punctured big holes in the balance sheet of every central bank of the world, as its dollar-denominated assets sank in value in terms of anything but the dollar itself. These banks were not even allowed to say ‘ouch' as they were looking at the damage to their balance sheets caused by the default. They just had to swallow the loss, obediently and dutifully join the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus of sycophants in Washington praising the irredeemable dollar and the Nirvana of synthetic credit.
Debt virgin? Hardly, and whether the US defaulted or not is not just a question of semantics, it is a matter of truth—which, like credit, is now surprisingly hard to come by.
THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's paper, This Time It's Different , refers to the idea that sovereign defaults are a thing of the past. That we have somehow fixed what was wrong and it won't happen again. Reinhart and Rogoff think otherwise.
But this time, in a different way it really is different. This time default will come to both banker and debtor alike. The bankers' system itself is now collapsing under the weight of debt that the bankers' debt-based money has produced.
Banks are finding themselves increasingly bankrupt as are the governments the bankers used to debase the world's currencies. This time, not only will Argentina possibly suffer another sovereign default, so too will its creditor, the US , as will many of the US banks that issued that debt.
The default of the US will remain, however, outside the limited definition of default used by Reinhart and Rogoff. The US will not miss a payment or reschedule its debt. Unlike Argentina , the US prints the currency in which the Argentine and US debt is denominated. The US will print its way out of its debts. Argentina cannot.
Because of the enormity of the US debt, the amount of dollars necessary to print to pay down the debt will lead to the hyperinflation in the US and the destruction of the US dollar. Those who live by the sword sometimes die by the sword—though not often.
In that same article where Professor Kotlikoff estimated US liabilities to be $65.9 trillion, Kotlikoff also wrote:
The United States ..appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century.
Maybe this time it isn't different..
DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA
SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR YOURSELF
In 1976, the Argentine military overthrew the democratically elected Argentine government. The first to recognize the dictatorship was the US . The second was the International Monetary Fund, and within 24 hours of recognizing the soon-to-be most brutal regime in recent history, the IMF arranged a loan to the military junta.
At the time, Argentina 's external debt totaled $7 billion. When the bloody dictatorship ended with the return of democracy six years later, Argentina 's debt totaled $43 billion, a debt owed mainly to US banks.
The common law concept of caveat emptor has particular relevance here, caveat emptor —Latin, “let the buyer beware", is a legal precept that buyers must take responsibility for the conditions under which the sale was made.
If you loan to a dictatorship, don't expect to be repaid if a democracy emerges.
Richard Perle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and neoconservative lobbyist
Richard Perle who supported the Iraq War said those words shortly after the US invaded Iraq . While it is doubtful Perle believes the same applies for debts incurred by the US supported dictatorship in Argentina , the truth of Perle's words extend beyond Perle's situational principles or a lack thereof. In a court of law, an illegal contract cannot be enforced—unless, of course, the court has been bought off.
A critical distinction between the debt “owed” by Argentina and the debts owed by the US is that Argentina's debt was illegally imposed upon Argentina by the IMF, the US and international bankers without the consent of the Argentine citizenry, The US debt, however, was incurred with the consent of the American people—or was it?
That, my fellow Americans, is a $99.2 trillion question.
BANKRUPT BE THE BONDS THAT BIND
Americans with their outstanding obligations now measured in trillions of dollars of outstanding US bonds have much in common with the Argentine people. We have both been enslaved and bankrupted by the same financial system.
While it is impossible for the debt burdened Argentines to do something about US banks, it is not impossible for Americans to do so. The US Federal Reserve Bank—the largest emitter of debt-based money in the world—while not an official US government agency is nonetheless still subject to the rules and laws of our land.
STIRRINGS IN THE ELECTORATE
Dissatisfaction, the beginning of change, is now occurring. The two political polarities are finally awakening to the fact that both have been callously used by those in power. The US has lurched right then left then right again, but it continues to go in the same disturbing direction, a direction now equally distasteful to those on the left and on the right.
In modern democracies, successful politicians must possess two qualities: They must say what the people want to hear and they must do what those in power want done.
It has been easy to manipulate those on the right as well as those on the left. The Republicans and Democrats have done so for years. But where's the beef? The nation's finances have been even more badly managed by the Republicans than the Democrats—and Iraq ? Sure, vote for the Democrats and stay mired in a conflict they promised they would end.
Both parties are controlled by the same money, the same money that now controls global governments and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the same money that buys politicians, scholars, the military, lawyers, TV anchors, radio talk show hosts and anyone else whose influence they can use for their own ends.
There is a reason why we are indebted as we are and there is a reason why we are mired in a war that one wants except the few that do, the few that now control our nation and many others. In the midst of this most unreasonable world, there are reasons—whether you want to know them or not.
Humanity now finds itself at the beginning of a profound shift, a shift that will force us—if we are to survive, if we are to triumph—to put aside our differences to accomplish together what we obviously cannot accomplish apart.
The two political polarities must find common ground or they will soon find there is no ground at all. What is happening is bigger than money and power although it involves both. It involves humanity, it involves all of us and unless we find each other we will soon find there will be nothing left to find at all.
We are closer to the end than to the beginning. Keep your own counsel. Buy gold and silver. Keep the faith.
In Argentina , I read in a recent issue of Scientific American that physicists now believe that in the beginning of time the Universe was only one centimeter across. That knowledge heartened me. We have come a long way.
Note: I will be speaking at Professor Fekete's last session of Gold Standard University Live to be held in Canberra , Australia from November 11 th to the 14 th . The focus of the session will be trading the gold and silver basis for profit. For further details, contact feketeaustralia@yahoo.com .
By Darryl Robert Schoon
www.survivethecrisis.com
www.drschoon.com
blog www.posdev.net
About Darryl Robert Schoon
In college, I majored in political science with a focus on East Asia (B.A. University of California at Davis, 1966). My in-depth study of economics did not occur until much later.
In the 1990s, I became curious about the Great Depression and in the course of my study, I realized that most of my preconceptions about money and the economy were just that - preconceptions. I, like most others, did not really understand the nature of money and the economy. Now, I have some insights and answers about these critical matters.
In October 2005, Marshall Thurber, a close friend from law school convened The Positive Deviant Network (the PDN), a group of individuals whom Marshall believed to be "out-of-the-box" thinkers and I was asked to join. The PDN became a major catalyst in my writings on economic issues.
When I discovered others in the PDN shared my concerns about the US economy, I began writing down my thoughts. In March 2007 I presented my findings to the Positive Deviant Network in the form of an in-depth 148- page analysis, " How to Survive the Crisis and Prosper In The Process. "
The reception to my presentation, though controversial, generated a significant amount of interest; and in May 2007, "How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process" was made available at www.survivethecrisis.com and I began writing articles on economic issues.
The interest in the book and my writings has been gratifying. During its first two months, www.survivethecrisis.com was accessed by over 10,000 viewers from 93 countries. Clearly, we had struck a chord and www.drschoon.com , has been created to address this interest.
Darryl R Schoon Archive
Whatever floats your boat
--
Perhaps had she attended the meeting
When she voted for Obama, may she missed the part where he repeatedly and emphatically said he would close Gitmo. Of maybe she bought into all the fringe rhetoric calling him a liar, saying he would never live up to his campaign promises, could not be trusted, etc and felt reassured that Gitmo would not be closed.
BTW, did you see the video interview of the mother who decided not to attend the meeting...you know, the one Fox tacked on the headline that read, "Mother of USS Cole Victim BLASTS Obama...?"
Here's what she said. she is upset. She is disappointed. She is disillusioned. She THINKS she MAY have made the wrong decision. Despite the reporter's best efforts to provoke a stronger, more emotional response from her, she maintained that calm and rational demeanor throughout the interview. No place in the interview did she state she "wished" she hadn't voted for Obama.
Sorry. What I saw was a mother in grief. What I did not see was anybody anywhere BLASTING Obama over this decision. I respect her decision not to attend the meeting, but at the same time, I think if she had attended the meeting, she MAY have come away from it feeling reassured.
Beyond that, it is WAY too much of a stretch, to conflate this report into such inane assertions as Obama supporters are changing their minds in droves and "finally seeing the light," as the propaganda meisters on this forum have been attempting to do.
I voted for Obama. I fully expect he will not march lock-step with me through the next 4 years and do my bidding. I expect to be disillusioned and disappointed along the way. This does not mean that I "wish I hadn't voted for Obama." It means I am no child and don't throw temper tantrums every time I don't get my way and will not be packing up my marbles and going home anytime soon.
I am in the same boat, labeled a hater.sm
All I want is accountability and truth.
G20 meeting. Lavish meal
 So...seems the upper echelon doesn't give a darn about cutting back. Their dinner consisted of
"fruitwood-smoked quail with quince gastrique; quinoa risotto; thyme-roasted rack of lamb; tomato, fennel and eggplant fondue; a salad course of endive, baked brie and walnuts; and a pear torte to cap the meal.
Among the wines: bottles of Shafer Cabernet "Hillside Select" 2003 — about $300 per bottle — for the main course and the much cheaper Landmark Chardonnay "Damaris Reserve" 2006 for about $40 per bottle with the appetizer course. The Chandon DEtoile RosDe sparkling wine that accompanied dessert runs around $30 a bottle.
Presidents pay for their own groceries, even while living in the White House. But during official or state dinners, such as Friday night's, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.
Bush's guests for the dinner included Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper; Chinese President Hu Jintao; French President Nicolas Sarkozy; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. About two dozen leaders in all attended the dinner in the White House's State Dining Room."
It must be nice. Oh, and BTW, since my DH is self-employed and work as been so slow this year, does he qualify for a bailout??? Of course not.
Financial crisis meeting;
November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
in the same boat! If hubby loses sm
job we are in a world of hurt. Have no bills but house and utilities, ins etc, no car payment but he has to have his job.
I have family and friends all over the place retired from the big 3 auto companies and are all worried about their pensions. Am originally from Michigan and it has kind of turned into a ghost town up there. Very sad. Never thought I would see the day when the auto companies would be in so much trouble. The auto companies have put a lot of food on a lot of folks table!
That's why Obama called for a meeting with McCain....(sm)
Obama is going to have to *waterboard* that info out of him....ROFL....
Yeah, I often amuse myself.
Whatever floats your boat. I just dont find
you are hawking to be terribly helpful. Besides, the results are basically the same if you do the math.
I was simply casually passing on a bit info in line with the post below that was speculating on whether or not Obama has lost his support. According to CNN's poll right after the election and this one now (comparing apples to apples, since they are from the same source), it appears that he is pretty much holding his own IN SPITE OF all the controversy surrounding the stimulus package. That makes me feel pretty relaxed, all things considered, so I'll pass on that drink you offered, thanks just the same.
Romney is a joke, he tried meeting w/black folks
if you all had seen it - it was very_inappropriate..........showed us all he has little to no interaction with people of color.........isolationist in my mind..........
Obama can't do a town hall meeting...he needs his teleprompter so he can
remember what to say on that given day.
Maybe they'll be serving up Sunday-go-to-meeting dinner
all the fried chicken, ribs, hog jowls, chit'lins, collard greens, fried okree, black-eye-peas, conebread, hush puppies, Aunt Jemimas, buttermilk biscuits, fried grits, watermelon and sweet potato pie (O's favorite) you can eat....and save you from slaving over that hot stove all day. Keep us posted on the minutes.
And add Republican Mike DeWine and his Swift Boat ad firm
DeWine sticks with firm that bungled 9/11 ad
By Bret Schulte
Posted 7/20/06
Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine is sticking with the political advertising firm that doctored images of the World Trade Center to make it appear as though the footage came from the September 11 attacks. The video was used in a 30-second campaign spot that has aired throughout Ohio since last Friday, accusing his opponent, Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, of being weak on national security. An investigation by U.S. News revealed that the images, which show the south tower ablaze and the north tower untouched –– contradicting the chronology of the day's events –– were bogus.
The firm that produced the commercial has been the subject of controversy before. Alexandria-based Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm produced the famous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that challenged the war record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Still, the DeWine campaign has no plans to ax the ad agency. Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm is a nationally recognized firm, and they will continue to do media consulting for the campaign, said DeWine spokesman Brian Seitchik.
The DeWine campaign learned of the faked video when contacted by U.S. News Wednesday evening. DeWine promised to immediately replace the video in question with a still image of the World Trade Center taken before the attacks. The campaign says the spot, now modified, will not be pulled anytime soon, despite ongoing controversy that has threatened to drown out the commercial's message. Long before yesterday's revelation, Democratic critics were lambasting the ad as an attempt to capitalize politically on the terrorist attacks. Republicans have made similar charges about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's use of images of flag-draped coffins in ads criticizing the war in Iraq.
Still unclear is why DeWine's advertising firm would doctor an image of the twin towers when numerous photos and video accounts of the actual event are available. A source with some knowledge of the ad called the entire commercial graphics based, with the computer-generated smoke just another part of the mix. Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potholm did not return phone calls requesting comment. A source says no one has been fired from either the campaign or the ad agency as a result of the fallout.
Brown's campaign, already enraged over the ad, called the doctored images shameless. Brown has seized this opportunity to question DeWine's character. Mike DeWine has always run campaigns with attack ads and distortions, Brown said in an interview. For his part, DeWine insists it was an honest mistake that doesn't detract from the message of the ad. The fact is we stand by the ad. Sherrod Brown and I have very different views and approaches to the defense of this country, DeWine said.
Brooks Jackson, director of the watchdog publication publication FactCheck.org, expressed mostly bemusement. This seems to be a case of incompetence on the part of the media consultant, Jackson said, not an attempt to deceive voters.
In White House Meeting -- Obama muddied the waters. sm
Who really derailed the Thursday meeting?? It's coming out on the Internet now, See below.... ***Edited by Moderator***
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/26/in-wh-meeting-obama-muddied-waters/
Israel rams humanitarian aid boat destined for Gaza
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20081230/twl-israeli-patrol-boat-collides-with-ai-3cd7efd_2.html
Bloody butchers block 3 tons of medical supplies being transported to Gaza to help prevent severely injured Palestinians from becoming fatalities due to lack of medical supplies resulting from ongoing Israeli blockade of Israel. People who could be stabilized with provisions as basic as electrolytes, antibiotics, bandages, etc are being turned away from hospitals and left to die in the street. Dead bodies are being returned to the family to be taken home due to inability to prepare them for burial. Wonder how many Hamas were hiding out on that boat? Yesiree, our tax dollars are hard at work once again.
Joint Chiefs Chairman "Very Positive" After Meeting with Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
-
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.
But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.
Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.
Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.
Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.
"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."
Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.
But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.
Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.
In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.
In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.
Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.
"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.
But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.
The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.
These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.
Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.
Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.
Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.
A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.
One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.
Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.
"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.
But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
With the President meeting with the Republicans in closed door talks to come to agreements,.....sm
find middle ground, listen to their concerns, and try to modify where needed? Condemn and Condemn, has a Republican come forward with an alternative package? George was handing out money o the banking pirates before he left office, remember?
Built into this plan, which is very complex, are social programs for schools, which are going down fast, health aid, food stamps for those who have lost their jobs and need to eat while looking for new jobs that Obama is tring to create, funds to build companies to work with alternative energy and green solutions to get us less dependent on foreign oil and stop poisoning our earth.....
There is no quick fix!!! Just like the Great Depression, it is going to take time to reap all the benefits from this package, but they are meant to be real, lasting jobs and benefits to our society, not a quick boo-boo bandaide,which is all that Bush could provide with his quickie tax rebates!!!! Take off the jaundiced glasses and blinders, forget party lines and affiliations, and just go to MSN or CNN and read the copious outlines there.
I am not in your life....I am in the life of the baby...
and will continue to speak for the baby. Again, my right.
get a life
You post once again shows you are a vile and nasty person who surmises too much about people on chat boards. You know nothing about me and you attribute too much to me. I have no control of liberal posters. I enjoy reading their posts and respond when I want to. My advice to you is get a life and stop taking postings on a tiny bulletin board so seriously. You are sounding irrational.
Life?
Well, as a practicing Jew, I believe life begins at the first breath, but I know everyone does not agree with me.
Life...
How can something that moves, has a heartbeat and brain waves not be alive? Please to explain that to me.
Life...
I never said I did not give a hoot about what you believe and I am somewhat taken aback that you accuse me when you do not even know me. I do not agree with you, no; but you are entitled to believe as you wish, and just hope that you afford me the same courtesy. So, you are saying that you are on board with abortion? It is okay because the child is not alive according to your religion...that the child has no soul until it takes its first breath? So basically taking away its chance to take that first breath by invasive surgery is not murder, because you believe the child has no soul until it breathes? I am not finding fault, I am trying to understand a different view.
life
I am not on board with abortion. Since I believe (and many Jews do too, but not all) that life begins with breath, I believe it is up to each woman to make the decision that is right for her. It is not my place to judge or condemn her choice. My family has 2 children what were very much wanted and are very much loved. I feel fortunate that I never was in a position to have to make a choice regarding my pregnancies. But, just because I didn't chose to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason), I certainly don't want to take that choice away from another.
Basically, (and I am not referring to you personally here) if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't push your beliefs on me or anyone else.
Nat'l Right To Life, etc.
Check some of these places if you still don't want to believe me. Plenty are out there. One search for the above (nrl.org) brought up plenty.
I'm Pro-life sm
My point is that all our tax dollars have no business being spent on bad behavior and things such as this. The mainstream media has "mainstreamed" this issue, in an attempt to minimize the subject matter a
Many people who refuse to watch FNC because they're supposedly nutty right-wingers aren't getting both sides to the story. For instance, if you go to Foxnews.com and pull up Hannity & Colmes, you'll see that the show is half liberal and half conservative. You won't find that on the others. And while you're at that site, the info regarding what Rick Warren had to say about the debate at Saddleback, and how Obama actually heard more ahead of time than McCain. Actually, it was no debate, as Obama still refuses to have a face-to-face with McCain. I guess that's presidential?
I personally prefer to know when I get my news that I get both sides of it, and the people on the network aren't afraid to put their political views out there.
It sounds like we both agree on this, so I was surprised that you asked. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough or something.
her life is obviously out of
control. A real woman attends to her responsibilities at home. Her Downs baby needs her to BE THERE and interact with her. It is not enough just to bring her into the world, she must care for her. A pregnant teenager needs her mother there to guide her through this unfortunate time in her life. Teenage pregnancy is devastating to the development of a young woman who should be preparing for her own adulthood not attending the needs of an infant. Infants of teenage mothers suffer also. Instead Mrs. Palin will be on the road campaigning for 2 months and then in the WH adjusting to her new job after that. Those sure aren't part-time activities. I don't approve of a part-time mother OR a part-time VP especially with such an elderly pres. Obama and Biden are vital individuals who have loving, stable home lives and will not be distracted from their duties.
Get a life
Duped how exactly??? They still have the ranch and are keeping the ranch. Big figgin deal.
Nothing in life is sure but............ sm
death and taxes, and Mr. Barnett very eloquently proved the latter.
A Day in the Life of a Republican
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
I am against anything that destroys life.
That's my stand.
Yes, I am strongly pro-life...
and I have said in numerous posts that I am not against insuring children. And I am NOT. What I am against is taxing all Americans to death to pay for all kinds of programs where the waste is unimaginable. There are thousands if not millions of women who made a living having babies...under Aid for Dependent Children. If you don't believe that, talk to some people in Human Services. They sign up 2nd and 3rd generations on AFDC or whatever they call it now. Those ladies will never work and they tell you they will never work, and I can promise you they are not bettering themselves so that they can keep health care for their children. And if you look at those children, I am thinking not a lot of that check every month goes to taking good care of the kids. My point is, trim the fat on existing programs that obviously are not working...don't make NEW taxes to pay for MORE programs that no one is going monitor either. There is plenty of money floating around out there in wasteful programs that could fund insurance for children without making even MORE taxes. And what I am saying to you is that at some point, the more people who get on programs and out of the work force, the less tax money there is going to be to take care of all the programs. That is all I am saying.
And another thing, you need to read the bill. It does give a lot of leeway for folks who could pay for private insurance for their children if they made it a priority. But why should they, if you and I are going to pay for it for them. Yes, I believe there are some people out there who would like to better themselves but will not so they can keep health care for their children. I can also tell you that there are as many out there who could provide health care for their children but will not because they think it is too high and they choose to spend the money elsewhere. Ugly, but true. So why didn't Congress send the bill to Bush that did not have that loophole provision in it? There is a really good question.
I am sorry if my being pro life is offensive to you...
however, I have not called any individual a profane and hateful name. Defend it if you like. Birds of a feather.
I am THRILLED that we might have a pro life ....
(it's about darned time we had a voice in washington), Bible-thumpin' (which builds character and compassion, not bad things, and may I remind you, Obama professes to be a Christian and talks about his faith as well..why the double standard may I ask), gun moll (oh please...although the idea that she could pick up a gun and defend herself if she had to is not a minus either) for VP. If I was going to be in a fight I'd sure rather have her at my back than Joe Biden.
Even after loopholes, the rich still pay more than 80% of the taxes in this country. Even that is not enough for you?
I actually was doing worse under Clinton than I have done under either of the Bush terms. Your party has had control of Congress for a year and have sat on their hands and done NOTHING to help this economy. Bush had to push through the economic stimulus package, and frankly, that check was welcome. At least it was SOMETHING.
Your congress is who makes policy. It is THEY who should be working on the economy. BUt they have not done diddly. Not my fault...I didn't vote for the Democrats (majority). Those are your guys and girls.
The Nat. Enquirer? Oh, get a life.
nm
A day in the life of Joe Repub. sm
Someone e-mailed this to me, I thought it was kind of funny and took it in the spirit in which it was sent (considering a pub sent it to me). The date says 2004, but whoever recirculated it put in some current references. Not saying that it is true, just thought it was funny.
A Day in the life of Joe Republican.
Politics September 28, 2004
Found on This Modern World, an e-mail that’s apparently making the rounds:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations]
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions] He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations that have prevented poisoned food being imported to the USA ]
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations] .
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations and environmental protections]. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of the public projects in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions] If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of these consumer protections and public assistance in favor of the giant financial industry] Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to unions and government safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. (And have used smears and lies against liberals that have pushed these agendas)Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.” (sic)
I have know some people in my life who are....sm
always flying the American flag or have worn a flag pin (or a cross) on their lapel who if truth be know are dispicable human beings, not patriotic or religious in any way. It is what is in your heart and mind that matters not what you display to the rest of the world via a symbol on your lapel.
I would stake my life on it...
They do not want Palin to answer any questions, just want to somehow sneak her into the WH. You don't have to believe me but mark my words if that is not what happens. Somehow, some way, they will not have the VP debate.
Its a Wonderful Life
Warren Buffet and Barack Obama
George Baily and Mr. Potter are finally friends George will be the richest man in town!
Well....if I was fighting for my life....
I would much rather have Sarah at my back than Joe Biden or Barack Obama. In a HEARTBEAT.
What exactly makes him a low-life, besides just
x
Geeeze, they need to get a life then
))
I fear for his life.
I truly do worry about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that there are nut jobs out there who would rather he be killed than take the presidency. We've already had one plot to take his life. I hate to say that I believe there will be more. I will not be voting for Barrack Obama and I do believe he is a liar and will drag this country down into the dumps, but I do not wish him any harm.
If, God forbid, something horrible should happen to Barrack Obama....I believe it will tear our country apart. It will segregate us and racism will become even worse than it is now. We could potentially have our own civil war started with all of this.
When does life begin? sm
You state that you apparently have a different view of when life begins as opposed to others, Shelly and myself for example.
My stance is that life begins in full at the moment of conception. Why? Because cell division begins at that point and body organs and systems begin forming very shortly thereafter. It is quite an amazing process, really. At 5 weeks, the neural tube has formed. At 6 weeks, the heart bulge has begun to form as well as the jaws and the buds that will become arms and legs. At 7 weeks, we have eyelids and elbows and fingers. At 8 weeks, we have a brain and hands and knees. At 9 weeks, earlobes appear as well as shoulders. At 10 weeks, the fetus is fully recognizable as a baby and at 11 weeks bones have begun to form. At 16 weeks, your baby has started to grow toenails. And on and on it goes that this living viable BABY grows. Can an inanimate lifeless object do that? Can your computer monitor grow fingers? Do the cells of your car multiply? No. A baby is something that is living and growing from the moment of conception and to take its life is murder and robs it of its civil rights as a human being.
That is how wrong abortion is.
McCain is pro life and HE is who I am ....
voting for. I wouldn't vote for Ahhhnold for dogcatcher. He is about as Republican as Maria Shriver. LOL GP.
And this impacts your life how?????
x
Impacting my life???
So am I not allowed to be interested or curious about anything that doesn't directly impact my life? You must have a very narrow range of interests.
Get a life, for God's sake!
.
We know a guy who never worked a day in his life
and collects SSD for his "mental illness." He checks himself into a state hospital when it comes close to the time when he has a review coming up. This is what I heard from my son, so I don't know how true it is, but I do know that he is healthy and doesn't seem to have any mental health issues.
His one brother is on disability because he was on the drugs so much, they fried his brain and another brother had cirrhosis. He couldn't get help and died.
|
