How to make America better?

Capitalism is the redistribution of wealth upwards. This is not some biased, sour-grapes reframing, but a statement of plain truth. If the worker does not pay for the oil filter he buys for his car, where does the store get the money (after profit) to send to the manufacturer, who sends it (after profit) to the materials suppliers, and so on, at every step going excessively to the capo, the CEO? So the only possible honest definition of capitalism is the redistribution of wealth upwards from the ever poorer to the ever richer.

Without a mechanism to keep money circulating back to the worker, the economy stagnates and dies and even the top cannot make money any longer. Supposedly, in capitalism, this circulation back to the worker comes in the form of wages and benefits and taxes on the wealthy applied to the common good. But capitalism’s essence is a greed that has proved over and over cannot be relied upon to allow a good-faith return.

Capitalism is so stupid in its greed that without adult supervision it will even do itself in after it has destroyed everyone and everything else. If something is so selfish that it will destroy people and nations without a qualm, what else could it be called but either totally amoral, or else purely evil?

MICHAEL MOORE: “Is capitalism a sin?”

FATHER DICK PRESTON: “Yes. Capitalism is…an evil….It’s contrary to the common good….Capitalism is precisely what the holy books…remind us is unjust, and in some form and fashion God will come down and eradicate somehow.”

FATHER PETER DOUGHERTY: “It is radically evil.”

BISHOP THOMAS GUMBLETON; “The system doesn’t seem to be providing for the well-being of all the people, and that’s what makes it, almost in its very nature, something contrary to the Jesus who said ‘Blessed are the poor, woe to the rich.’”

MOORE: “How have we put up with this system for so long?”

DOUGHERTY: “The system has built into it what we call propaganda…-the ability to convince people who are victimized by the very system to support the system and see it as good.”

For effective propaganda, “nothing works better in the land of the brave than fear” (Moore), in this case fear of the lazy person, an abject terror of the unassertive commoner, a revulsion for those lacking a marketable trick or gimmick or angle or talent. Nothing strikes greater fear in the hearts of some than the possibility that somewhere a slacker lounges in the lap of luxury on the taxpayer’s dime.

You (I am NOT addressing any particular person) worked hard all your life, you say? Well, boo-hoo, so did I, so did everyone but a small percentage. Why DID you work so hard? If you did not work hard because you were morally driven to, because you were raised right, then what? Did you do it for the money? You know what that makes you. If you do not do the best you can at your job unless the pay is what you demand, then that explains why you’re so sure no one else will, either, and that those others like you (but not you) have to be punished as an object lesson. Lazy bums, let them starve! Don’t rob from me to support them, you say.

Of course this whole contrived and distorted narrative of lazy parasites is the product of the propaganda mills of the wealthy in an effort to so poison the idea of taxation for anything else but cops to protect them from the riff-raff, that government is afraid not to acquiesce to those who have no conceivable use for the surplus money they’d save if there were almost no taxes.

Someone on this site once said that, historically, it was governments that caused the most misery for the people, not economic theories. But it was not a government that made Dickens’ London a place of such grinding misery, it was unregulated free enterprise. It was not a government that made Appalachia a world-wide symbol of poverty, but rather the region’s uselessness to capitalism. It was capitalism that made –and then killed- Detroit and Flint and Lansing. Let them live while they’re useful to the top, then gut them, capitalism says. If capitalism is to retain its ability to create jobs and wealth, the story goes, it must be freed from the restrictions of morality and law. It must be not only freed from paying taxes in most cases, but must also get subsidies from taxes on workers. If this fragile, hot-house primadonna god-king is to survive and thrive, we must lavish TLC on it. Because, after all, it’s this theory that must be preserved, at all cost, not human beings,-that merits our worship, not whining, useless people. Let’s get our priorities straight; people are expendable serfs to King Greed. (Imagine! Exalting in awe an economic system based on GREED! Is that a slap in the face of every moral impulse mankind has ever had, or what?)

I’ve lost the delightful comment our esteemed Larry Summers made, saying that the economic value of our dumping mountains of toxic waste on third-world peoples is too great to dismiss for being disgustingly selfish. When he made that comment, it was not the brother/neighbor/friend/decent guy speaking, it was the capitalist zealot , the mobster speaking. You know, the thick-necked enforcer saying “It’s just business. You can’t take it personally.” So the victim about to get whacked says “Oh, well, if it’s just business, then by all means, whack away.”…Oh yeah? No one –NO ONE- gives a flying f-bomb that it’s just business if business is about to snuff out his life that so many years of effort and worry have gone into. No one –NO ONE- who has not gone over the edge can look at what uncontrolled capitalism does and say that it is good and that it seeks to “promote the general welfare.” To say that capitalism is all about freedom and choice and that only capitalism can give us freedom and choice, is to echo il capo di capo’s enforcer. Buy it as revealed truth and you legitimize the rule of mob mentality, which is, in essence, the unsocialized child’s solipsism gone bratty.

Now is the time, now, when capitalism is lying in its own vomit and urine and feces after its latest stupid orgy,-now is the time to ground it, cut up its credit card, cancel its twitter account, make it do some chores around the house, straighten up and fly right. Yes, “make it.” It’s not a responsible grown-up, after all. It’s not even the selfish brat I was comparing it to. It’s a fiction without a single natural right, only obligations to serve society or be dissolved.

Well, it’s on its way out.

I am not prone to extreme reactions to these issues but I am sick to my stomach and fed up of the lives our men and women are losing over there.
Set a deadline and bring the troops home. There are other ways to fight the war on terror - close the book on Afghanistan.

I think there should be a deadline. However, I think we can't leave the Afghanistan people without making sure they are safe from the Taliban. We at least owe that to them.

Excellent post Mike Q.

Send it to every newspaper in the country.

Don't be fooled because Obama will not leave Iraq or Afghanistan.

==============

UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'
8 August 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lz2nhc
The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.
Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times that "nation-building" would last decades.
Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said the UK had to be there long-term to achieve its objectives.
Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.
He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8191018.stm

Don't be fooled because Obama will not leave Iraq or Afghanistan.

=======================

General Abizaid: Mideast Wars May Last 50 Years
November 1, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2ubd58
PITTSBURGH - It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.

"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University.

Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, stepped down in March as the longest-serving commander of U.S. Central Command. He retired from the Army in May and now is at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155402,00.html

Ron Paul hits government on Afghhanistan & oil spill efforts; defends GOP chairman.

See Video:

Aaaaah isn't is refreshing to here a politician who can speak truthfully and coherently?

Here's another.

..."Feingold, now in his third term, knows he has a fight on his hands. Never shy about showcasing his independent streak, he reiterated his splits with the White House and fellow Democrats on two key policies last week.

"Regardless of who is in command, the president's current strategy in Afghanistan is counterproductive," Feingold said as the Senate confirmed Gen. David Petraeus to lead that war.

Feingold also renewed his opposition to the regulatory overhaul that Obama and Democrats wrote for Wall Street. "My test for the financial regulatory reform bill is whether it will prevent another crisis," and the measure "fails that test," he said.

Mike Q:
You forgot the shareholders.

"You forgot the shareholders."

Actually, they're even more detached from those affected by corporate activities, with plausible deniability, which can make them even colder than the CEOs. Parasites on the backs of parasites.

Mike Q- off topic, so I tried to wait until the post got older but I couldn’t. Your suppositions are quite flawed you know. No CEO’s are in a small to medium business such as an auto parts store selling oil filters. The worker that buys the oil filter does so from money he earns stocking shelves at a Supermarket. The owner of the auto parts store gets some of that money, the manufacturer gets some and they buy the groceries at the Supermarket that keeps the worker employed.

Nice CIRCLE of returning the money back to the worker. Fair distribution? Sure, those willing to take risks and put out the money should get the most in return. What if the worker wants more? He is FREE to take the same risks and in a fair society he should have enough opportunities to do so but it will take effort. What if he does not want to take the risks or struggle with the extra effort but still wants equal pay? Well then, that is Socialism and quite unfair to those that sacrifice or risk the most.

Now, there is such a thing as greed. It exists not only in Capitalism but in government and individuals. There is nothing Godly about greed or excess. In the Bible even gluttony is a sin. Capitalism in itself is not evil but unbridled anything is. Totalitarian government, Communism, Socialism that controls with centralized authority of individuality is also IMO, a sin. Would Father Preston have rather been in communist USSR or a regime like IRAN? I think not. So he wants America’s freedom for his beliefs but preaches Socialism to redistribute the wealth. As I have said before, Socialism or even Communism is Biblical but if it is forced upon by some central authority for some sort of social justice, then it is more corrupt or evil then unbridled Capitalism,in my opinion.

Michael Moore and others like him are true propagandist hypocrites that take statements out of context to make a phony point. The real point is, woe to those that seek riches and blessed are the poor. Jesus told the rich ruler to sell everything he has and give to the poor in order to inherit eternal life but he could not. How many of these so called Socialist believing actors, politicians and individuals would give up their riches? I suspect none but they are FREE to do so, they have a CHOICE today. So why don’t they? Because they are hypocrites and they rather have a system in place that forces redistribution among the masses. It is just plain wrong and should only be practiced by choice.

People have fled other nations to live in America. A free Capitalist society that has given back more to the world then any Communist or Socialist nation in history. Whether it be through charities or innovation, America is still the greatest country on Earth and although the lion of Capitalism needs to be tamed quite a bit, you rather see it destroyed. This destruction will not accomplish equal prosperity but equal poverty for everyone. Nice going.

The worker sends his money upward to the store, that sends its money upwards to the manufacturer, which sends its money upwards to the materials supplier that's part of a larger conglomerate that's owned by an increasingly smaller and richer hierarchical structure. Not much of a circle there.

The risk and rewards thing may sound appropriate, but it's a system that allows the foolhardy or the gambler to maybe make millions or maybe go broke. It does nothing to achieve some kind of security in the lives of millions of plain, unimaginative, careful, regular folks.

The only people being "forced" in any way in a less cowboyish system would be the BPs of the world being "forced" to spend money on assuring they can handle a blowout. This mantra of being forced doesn't sound as heroic and free as you feel it is. To me it sounds more like self-centered petulence. Different viewpoints, apparently.

As you said, something like socialism is more in the Biblical spirit than is capitalism. Moore's priests saying that is not hypocrisy on their part, but more like a prayer for a better way for all.

Afghanistan Exit Strategy?


Beat the Taliban and Al Qaeda to the living hell the way Bush beat down Al Qaeda and the Insurgency in Iraq....The only acceptable exit strategy for America. God Bless America always and keep it strong!

"Beat the Taliban and Al Qaeda to the living hell the way Bush beat down Al Qaeda and the Insurgency in Iraq...." - Bill F

Still having those delusional flashbacks, huh Bill. Bush "quit" THE MISSION at Tora Bora. REMEMBER?
Bush "stopped" looking for AlQaeda and limited the scope of the Petreaus surge after receiving that tape from OBL that read "you are safe as long as we are safe..." You may want to forget it, but it was pointed out to you the very day the news broke. IN CASE YOU MIGHT WANT TO REVISIT NEWS ARCHIEVES THAT SURFACED DURING THOSE WEEKS PAUXETAUNEY CHENEY ALSO CHOSE TO EXIT STAGE LEFT AND WENT OFF TO HIDING IN HIS BUNKER, AS WELL.
Mr Skidmark was removed from the role of Commander in Chief and was replaced by Gates who was responcible for all the illusionary recovered gains that supposedly took place from the billions in hush money, paid to Iraqs insurgients that included Al Sadr in return for their cease fire. BUSH LEFT THE FIELD- A LOSER!!!

Why is it that you must delude yourself with falsifying heroics in order to pleasure yourself with any notion that wasting American treasure and killing more people in Bush's name lessens the threat of retaliation to this country?

RON PAUL TEAMS UP WITH DEMS BARNEY FRANK WITH BILL TO CUT OUT OF CONTROL DOD SPENDING BY ONE TRILLION OVER A DECADE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html

"By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.

We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.

Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."

When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.

We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. ****We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes. (cont.)

HOORAY!!! FINALLY "THE WORD" HAS BEEN HEARD AND IS BEGINNING TO TAKE ROOT.

Hey guys, Barney Frank even acknowledged that the banking reform bill as written does not cover those most in need of regulation, as noted by Senators Feingold and Cantwell.
*Please take note- there is now big big money been recently put into play, to oust "peoples champion" Feingold from his seat.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion
Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows / September 9, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/mqclpd
Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.[1]

During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.

The last economic expansion began in November 2001 and ended in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which means the Piketty-Saez data essentially cover that expansion. The last time such a large share of the income gain during an expansion went to the top 1 percent of households — and such a small share went to the bottom 90 percent of households — was in the 1920s (see Figure 1). [2]
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed
February 23, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/yz3p6u2

The effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes has declined by nearly half over the past two decades, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger, new IRS data show.[1]

The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.

To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million in 1992 (in 2007 dollars) and $139 million in 2007.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090

"As you said, something like socialism is more in the Biblical spirit than is capitalism. Moore's priests saying that is not hypocrisy on their part, but more like a prayer for a better way for all."

Mike Q - Alright, I will make my point another way. If your motive behind Socialism is for a better life for those less fortunate and to spread the wealth to those in need, then the answer simply lies in you.

If you are of average income there are probably millions of people less fortunate then you. Anybody moved to help these people have it within their own power to do so, right now, it will require some self sacrifice but in the end many of those less fortunate will be of equal income as you. You will have a little less and they will have a little more. Does that sound fair?

Well, most people preaching Socialism rather take it from someone else who has more then them, either to increase their income or way of life or to help those less fortunate then themselves.

So who really is the selfish ones? Here is how to answer that question. If we were a poor nation and your current income meant you were among the richest people in America, would you still want to redistribute your income? If the answer is 'yes' then your cause is true. If the answer is 'no' then the quote "Socialism fails when you run out of other peoples money" might make more sense to you.

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everyone Else
http://tinyurl.com/ydf6r6 / April 18, 2004
One of the country's top investigative reporters reveals how the richest people within the top 1 percent of the country has rigged the tax code and other laws in its favor.
Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston has been breaking pieces of this story on the front page of The New York Times for nine years, work for which one business school professor calls him ìthe de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United Statesî. With Perfectly Legal, he puts the whole shocking narrative together in a way that will stir up media attention and make readers angry about the state of our country. And he has sound advice on what to do.
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1776

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense
(And Stick You with the Bill) January 18, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/2yequa
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book, “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).” Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans

Caspian: BRAVO!!! THANK YOU. GREAT JOB!!!
YOUR POST FINALLY SYNTHESIZES ALL THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING- ABOUT GOV'T AND INSIDER CORPORATE RIGGING, AND HOW WE AS A NATION ARE FAST BECOMING MORE POORLY EDUCATED, INDENTURED SERVANTS,... BY DESIGN.
Thank you, thank you, thank you...
-Spirit

KNOWLEDGE IS THE POWER, teamed along with action that "We as united people" need to overcome tryanny!
-----------------
interview: FREE LUNCH(EXCERPT)

JUAN GONZALEZ: You also delve into this whole phenomena across America of the big box stores, the Targets and the Wal-Marts and the Kmarts. And obviously they’ve—to some, they at least offer cheaper goods, cheaper consumer goods. Your analysis of their impact?


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, they say they offer cheaper goods. I don’t accept that that’s necessarily true.


But here’s what happens. And this is a good example of where the news media hasn’t done a good job. I have tons of news clips that say, oh, this new shopping mall is coming or a new Wal-Mart or a new Cabela’s store, and thanks to tax increment financing, this store is going to be built. Well, what is tax increment financing? I’ll tell you what it is. You go to the store with your goods, you pay for it at Wal-Mart, and there’s a very good chance that that store has made a deal with the government that the sales taxes you are required to pay, that government requires you to pay, never go to the government. Instead, those sales taxes are kept by Wal-Mart and used to pay the cost of the store. And typically in those deals, the store is tax exempt, just like a church.


Now, there are two ways that it’s important to think about this. One is, that means your kid’s schools, your police department, your library, your parks are not getting that money. And you’ll notice we keep saying we’re starved for money. We’re twice as wealthy as we were in 1980, but we’ve got to close hospitals, and we’ve got to close schools, and we don’t have money for all sorts of things like after-school programs, even though we’re twice as wealthy. The second thing to think about is, imagine that you own Amy Goodman’s or Juan’s department store across the street. You suddenly have to compete with people whom the government is giving a huge leg up on. You think you would go broke after a while? Well, in fact, you will.
------
And I tell about a man named Jim Weaknecht who owned a little store in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. He sold fishing tackle, hunting gear, stuff like that. And the way he made his living in his little tiny store, enough that he was able to have his wife stay at home and raise their three kids full time, was by charging less than a company called Cabela’s. Well, then Cabela’s came to town. This little city of 4,000 people made a deal to give Cabela’s $36 million to build a store. That’s more than the city budget for that town for ten years. It’s $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in that town to have this store. And even though he charged lower prices, he was pretty quickly run out of business.


That’s not market capitalism, which is what Ronald Reagan said he was going to bring us. He said, you know, government’s the problem, we need markets as a solution. Well, that’s not the market. That’s corporate socialism. And what we’ve gotten is corporate socialism for the politically connected rich—not all the rich, the politically connected rich—and market capitalism for everybody else.

SOMEHOW, MIKE G HAS STILL BEEN MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT OF WHY THE TOO BIG TO FAILS AND THE WELL CONNECTED RICH MUST BE REIGNED IN TO PAY THEIR RIGHTFUL SHARE IN TAXES TO THE COMMUNITYS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUCKING DRY. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT HE AND THE OTHERS HERE, LISTENS OR READS THE ENTIRE 22MINUTE INTERVIEW, WHICH ONLY TAKES 7MINUTES TO READ.
THE ORGANIZED CRIME COLLUSIONS BETWEEN GOV'T & THESE SELECT ENTITIES PAY NOTHING FOR THEIR INVESTMENTS, PAY NO TAXES, AND HAVE BEEN DEPRIVING US OUR JUST DUE FOR DECADES NOW.

IN A JUST WORLD- "WE THE PEOPLE" WOULD ALL BE RECIPIENTS OF THE DIVIDENDS AND PROFITS PAID. MOM AND POP STORES AND DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES WOULDN'T BE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS. OUR SCHOOLS WOULD BE TOP NOTCH AND MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE. OUR CHILDREN WOULD BE HEALTHIER.

Now place what what has said stated here about how community taxes have been usurped and use them in the larger context of G8-20 Summits and MORE FULLY realize- how THE FEDERAL RESERVES out of control budget spending, THE IMF, AND WORLD BANK AND THEIR TENTACLES HAVE CAUSED AND ORCHESTRATED THIS NATIONS ENTIRE DEBT.
--------------

Bill F: Kindly we will all leave it up to you to re-manufacture the wheel, on the Bush shenanigans that are at the essence of his entire corrupt administration.
WHOEVER WOULD WANT TO SEE JUSTICE WOULD JUST HAVE TO CHECK THE ROSTERS OF THE BUSH FUND RAISERS- ...AND FOLLOW THE MOOOLA ... ~~~$$$ to their offshore tax havens and Dubai.

"SOMEHOW, MIKE G HAS STILL BEEN MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT OF WHY THE TOO BIG TO FAILS AND THE WELL CONNECTED RICH MUST BE REIGNED IN TO PAY THEIR RIGHTFUL SHARE IN TAXES TO THE COMMUNITYS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUCKING DRY."

John, In my view we are talking about two different subjects all together. You are talking about corruption in the Corporate world, where they rigged the system so they benefit and we lose. Of course those that steal or cheat MUST be reeled in to pay their fair share. I agree with you.

I am talking about the ideology of Socialism, not Capitalism corruption. It would be like saying, because Madoff profited through corruption and thievery then ANYBODY in the financial business is no longer allowed to make an honest profit. We must change the system to Socialism, so this never happens again. I am saying fix the things that are broken that allowed this to happen but don't destroy Capitalism because of it.

MG: First, look at Caspian’s notes. There is a tipping point in wealth at which wealth can stand on its own two feet, and doesn’t need any more support in the form of capital input. Those people poor enough to have only a checking account with minimum balance get no interest. With a higher balance they may get some microscopic interest rate. A savings account gets a little more. A small CD gets more yet. A big CD even more, and on and on and on. The poor, with no or little interest, can’t even keep up with inflation. They get poorer by the day without even spending a dime.

The more money you have, the more you get for loaning it to a bank or broker. The interest income pushes the wealthy into ever higher interest rate brackets. This system abuses the poor, using their money for free, while the wealthy, who don’t need more money, are given interest rates that loudly say “in your face, you s**t-faced peasants.” It’s the investor’s usefulness to the bank that matters, not at all how the bank could so easily encourage the struggling. Bankers foreclosing on houses have often said outright that they foreclose rather than rent the house to the mortgage-holders to PUNISH the mortgage-holders. Our whole system of late is legalized mugging of the poor by the rich. It just isn’t necessary to be so aggressively crappy to people.

So it’s really galling to hear some people say that wealth is a sign of hard work and superior morality. Get past a certain point and you can’t help but keep getting richer and richer without even getting out of bed. Ooh, look how productive I am! Ooh, look how superior I am to you! Whew, all this hard work! I deserve all this money, and more. It’s mine, all mine, and that damned immigrant working out in that 100 degree heat we’ve been having had better not expect to get a penny of medical help if he gets heat stroke outside my window!

Look again at Caspian’s notes. I’d venture to say that the total dollar amount by which the top 1% have gained works out to just about what the other 99% would have gained in another era. So it’s not that the worker has stagnant wages because there’s just less money out there, or because we’re in competition against third-world workers and have to settle for less. It’s that the top 1% are just getting it all after rigging the house odds farther in their favor. Years ago, a worker could build cars and support his family, send his kids to college. Today, “industry” increasingly consists of financial gaming, peasants need not apply. Walmart or McDonald’s will only keep people off welfare rolls, not provide an income that can accrue.

I don’t need to see capitalism die. But a system that’s BASED on greed and stab-in-the-back competition OF COURSE needs to be regulated. And who by? Who else could it be, but a strong government? More socialist countries, such as those in Europe, are no more oppressively centrally managed than ours, and still we’re not managing our more capitalist economy properly. Those countries that have imitated our ways in recent years were hard-hit by the recession, and the rich/poor gap is approaching America’s. Countries that kept up their public-economy-first, private-economy-second approach, such as Sweden, (OK, not Greece), were hardly touched by the downturn. Letting uncontrolled private interests control the economy invites bubbles and busts and horrific rich/poor gaps.

Nowhere have I said (as you suggest I did) that I want equal wealth for all. If I have enough to live on without a lot of worry and risk of catastrophe (risk with no reward), (so public health insurance, for instance, is necessary), then I have all I need or want. If I won a lottery for $10 million, I’d give away $9 million of it. That $1 million I kept, getting 5% interest (still possible) would let me live plenty comfortably on the interest income, without ever diminishing the capital no matter how long I lived. Anything more than that, as I see it, is pure waste and is better put to needed use elsewhere. Others can revel in the millions they could never use, but there have to be limits to how far they go in their detached coldness.

Mike, somewhere in the balance lies a merger point within the two strictures that would make both defective ideologies the best synthesis of both worlds in one package. THAT IS THE YIN/YANG OF THINGS THAT LETS THINGS MOVE SMOOTHLY- "BALANCE". One that doesn't inhibit drive or ingenuity and where creativity and production are amply rewarded, while leaving out the need for sovietized dominance, by the formations of robotic uniformity or neo-fascist indescriminate hateful dominance by a few, who now call themselves Czars whether it be in business or on the world stage.
Hmmmmmmmm! Do you think there might be a reason for so called "capitalists" to adopt such a title, in promoting their "new world order", if socializing their debts while privitizing everyone else's wealth isn't the be all, and end all, ... end game" in their quest to be crowned as Gods?

Let's see.
Once upon a time, way back in 2001 the top 1% held or controlled only 9% of America's GDP.
Today the top 1/10 of that same 1% now hold 63% of America's GDP, while claiming to owe "none" of America's debt that they themselves created under "their" own mismanagement under the guidance and tutelage of "their" select proxies. Whether it be private sector or government, it's their fault.

...Not the union worker they have set up to be your foil. Not your fellow private sector peer who in cases must bilk someone else in order to prove their worth in order to climb their ladders.

Seems like they've got you and Q fighting their sideshow ground war for ideology, while laughing all the way to the bank. By the time you guys realize they we are all in the same petry dish in this science experiment FREEDOM and upward mobility will have been lost incrimentally, one job sector at a time.
the only way to stop the bleeding is to hold the 1% wholly accountable for our entire national debt.
If you noticed one common factor in all of the illustrations left in the Caspian web post, "we the people" are already paid up on our taxes and haven't received our just due in returns.
THAT IS WHY I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL DEBT. MAYBE YOU LIKE THE IDEA BUT I CAN'T SEE PAST WHAT MY TAXES AREN'T DOING TO KEEP MY STANDARD OF LIVING AS A "FREE" MAN IN THIS ELITIST RIGGED AND INVASIVE SOCIETY.
Living by principal, couldn't we all claim "consciencious objector" status against a cruel and inhuman Federal Reserve, IRS, banking and multi-national corporate systems that subsidizes a 10million illegal invasion force at the expense of its own people?


Since national debt seems to be one of your primary focuses that mass media has managed to wormhole and ingrain into your mind. HOW ELSE WOULD YOU PERCEIVE THAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN COULD CLIMB OUT OF HOLE OF DEBT? NOW 13.7TRILLION.
Remember lowering the number of employed and lowering wages also lowers the amount of taxes needed to pay off any debt?
Also remember that the Gulf spill will have consequences that will impact the eranings income of another 5-7% of what is left of the taxable employed for a minimum of the next 3-5yrs.
REMEMBER IT IS ONLY THE ELITE WHO CAN DEFER DEBT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.
Now think. What do you think they would do if the debt owed were to become their own?
a) refuse to pay their foreign creditors, saying tough luck. b)pay it grudgingly in return for our sons and daughters military protection. c)print more money in a hurry without telling us about the devaluation in overseas buying power. d) ???

C'mon Mike. think outside the box. Forget ideologies. America needs new leadership. THESE BLOOD SUCKING SELLOUTS DON'T CARE A BIT ABOUT US.

-LOCKERBIE BOMBER STILL ALIVE AND WELL!
-SAUDI ARABIA HOME TO 3,000,000 FUNDAMENTALIST WAHABBISTS, STILL FUNDS THE ISI.
-DOD WANTS TO INCLUDE THE TALIBAN IN NEW AFGHAN GOV'T HEADED BY DRUG DEALING OIL CEO KARZAI.
-IRAQI OIL NOW HEADED BY CHALABI. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE IRAQ WAR BEING PAID FOR WITH IRAQI OIL, ...CHEAPER GAS?
-NO MONEY FOR US JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE BUT, ...$100B PER YR FOR IRAQ. ANOTHER $100B FOR AFGHANISTAN, $59B FOR THE IMF TO LOAN TO BAIL OUT EUROPE.
-THE MEXICAN WELFARE PLAN- INCLUDES DEFERING THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO MEXICAN AMBASSADORS.
-10 MILLION ILLEGALS COST STATE BUDGETS AN ESTIMATED $113B PER YR IN LOST TAX REVENUE, HOSPITAL CLOSINGS, AND EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN.(just released today)
Just for the record who wants that? *OUR FRIENDLY CEO AND GOV'T OVERLORDS

I always live by that old adgage ...

..... Be kind to the people on the way up .....


..... Because your going to meet the same people on the way down.

RK

LOL


================

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

--Louis Brandeis
Supreme Court Justice
1941

"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

--Edward Dowling

Adage

More evidence revealed today: BANKING SYSTEM STILL BANKRUPT WILL CONTINUE TO PAWN OFF THE DEBTS REMAINING ON THEIR REMAINING TOXIC HOLDINGS INCREMENTALLY- FOR YEARS.

Toxic bank assets haven't gone away yet.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- All those loan problems that once plagued U.S. financial institutions don't seem so noxious anymore.

Many banks managed to put a substantial portion of their problems behind them after drastically writing down the value of those assets starting in 2007. Other institutions regained some viability after committing to scrub their books clean. BY SENDING THEIR CRAP TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND SETTING UP PROXY ENTITYS TO STORE THE TOXIC MESS FOR LATER DISPERSAL ON THE OPEN MARKET.


Bank shares have held their own despite the recent market decline, suggesting investors feel a lot more confident about the underlying health of the industry. The KBW Bank index is up just over 12% so far this year.
Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), for example, cordoned off its troubled assets in January 2009 with its creation of Citi Holdings. Over the last two quarters alone, the bank has unloaded some $56 billion in bad debt, including complex investment products like collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

Other banks have followed suit, albeit far less visibly, deploying teams of individuals called "special asset groups" who have been tasked with clearing out loans and other securities.

"The truth of the matter is many financial institutions are in much better shape in than in February or March of 2009," said Edwin Truman, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

With bank stocks still in positive territory in 2010 despite the broader market sell-off, investors appear to agree. So far this year, the two-most closely watched indexes - the S&P Banking Index and the KBW Bank Index - are up 6% and 12% respectively.

Government-led programs that were launched at the height of the crisis have also helped alleviate the burden of bad debt facing U.S. financial institutions.

To help prop up AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), for example, ****the Federal Reserve spent $31.5 billion buying the troubled insurance giant's assets only to funnel them into two separate holding companies, dubbed Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III.

But not all of the efforts aimed at rooting out the toxic debt that has plagued banks for so long have proven effective.

The Treasury Department's Public-Private Investment Program, or PPIP, for example, promised to buy as many as $1 trillion worth of troubled securities(WITH "WE THE PEOPLE'S" MONEY)when it was first unveiled in March of 2009.

As of late June however, the program has purchased just a fraction of that amount, roughly $12 billion in assets. It hasn't helped either that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was forced to shelve the legacy loans portion of the program last June.

Critics have used those missteps as fodder against regulators. At a hearing last month, Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, the main watchdog for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,
--->suggested that many banks have still not yet digested all of their loan troubles, an indication that TARP may not have worked as well as the government hoped.

****Banks also seem to be trying to buy more time so that the problems can resolve themselves. ****Many lenders have lengthened the terms of their commercial real estate loans, hoping that property values or occupancy levels will improve before long. NOT POSSIBLE WITH A JOBLESS RECOVERY.

Other experts agree that U.S. financial institutions still have a ways to go before they are fully rehabilitated. In April, ****the International Monetary Fund forecast that the nation's four largest banks by assets will take ---> another $228 billion in writedowns both this year and next.

The IMF didn't name the banks specifically, but based on Federal Reserve data, the four largest are Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), ****JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), ****Citigroup and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500).

A new proposal being floated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board is another risk to a banking recovery. Under the rule, all banks, including traditional commercial lenders, would be required to value their loans based on what is happening in the market, a move which accounting experts said could make banks' book look sickly again.
---> "This is going to have a huge impact on regional and local banks," said Rick Martin, vice president and head of technical accounting for Pluris Valuation Advisors.

For now, lenders can take comfort in the fact that at least some of their troubles appear to be moderating. First-quarter loan data published Wednesday by the American Bankers Association revealed that consumer delinquencies fell across a broad number of loan categories including credit cards and home equity loans.

Investors will get even more clarity about the health of those loans later this month as banks start reporting their second-quarter results.

Whether those assets continue to improve however, will largely depend on the direction of the U.S. economy.

Last week, investors were bombarded with a series of troubling economic reports, including an a renewal of job losses as well as a disastrous 30% decline in pending home sales, prompting some to suggest that another recession could be looming. That would obviously be horrible news for banks.

But even if the economy doesn't double-dip, a slower recovery will likely mean that problems for banks won't disappear overnight.

"We'll continue to see losses in some categories for a number of years," said Fred Cannon, equity strategist for Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a boutique firm specializing in the financial services industry.

But Cannon added that given how hard banks have worked to get their financial houses in order, it would take another severe downturn in the economy for toxic assets to become another big problem again.

Mike Q, John, Caspian - excellent thought provoking posts. The best so far in revealing your true motive behind your thinking. I agree with all of you to some degree.

MQ - "There is a tipping point in wealth at which wealth can stand on its own two feet, and doesn’t need any more support in the form of capital input...Our whole system of late is legalized mugging of the poor by the rich. It just isn’t necessary to be so aggressively crappy to people"

100% agree and it needs to be corrected but what’s the best way?

MQ- "I don’t need to see capitalism die. But a system that’s BASED on greed and stab-in-the-back competition OF COURSE needs to be regulated.. And who by? Who else could it be, but a strong government?"

Now your losing me because yes, these abuses need to be regulated by a strong entity but government has shown, time and time again they can't be trusted and really are part of the problem. Furthermore, Capitalism is based on competition it is not stab in the back or greed that its based on.

Lets compare it to Baseball. Is anybody worth $100's of millions? No. Is the game based on greed or competition? Competition. Are there people that cheat (steroids) and lie to make more money and become famous? Yes. Is that what the game is BASED on? No. So we need to regulate it to protect the integrity of the game and the ones that play by the rules. How do we regulate it? We the people unite, we sacrifice and we stand up for what’s right and not go to the game when a cheater is playing. Can the baseball team force us to go to the game and buy a ticket? No. Can the government? They can and they will, which regulates it so WE don't have the power, while the baseball team makes deals with the very entity we thought was supposed to be watching our backs.

MQ-"If I won a lottery for $10 million, I’d give away $9 million of it."

Now you are revealing a side I never expected, very impressed with you on this. If true, it shows your motives are sincere to help those less fortunate and I commend you for that. I must admit, I would not be as generous. If I won $10 million I would take the 6 million left over after taxes, give $1 million to charity and keep the other $4 million to cover future inflation caused by this Administrations policies. (sorry I could not resist).

John?


The entire world knows that Bush was Commander in Chief during the Iraq conflict and the entire world also knows that the USA was finally and decisively victorious in Iraq despite your moronic objections to what is known to be the only possible accepted truth. Why do you even bother to make an ass of yourself as you do disputing the undisputable? Obama has even gone out of his way to employ the same Bush team that brought honor and victory to America once again, General Petraeus.With any luck Bush's team will pull this one out of the fire as well and Obama and Biden can stand proud once again stealing credit for another win as they pathetically have for the Iraq War victory.

Are Low Taxes Exacerbating the Recession?
July 9, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/247k9xz
As the planet's economy keeps stumbling, the phrase "worst recession since the Great Depression" has become the new "global war on terror" — a term whose overuse has rendered it both meaningless and acronym-worthy. And just like that previously ubiquitous phrase, references to the WRSTGD are almost always followed by flimsy and contradictory explanations.
Republicans who ran up massive deficits say the recession comes from overspending. Democrats who gutted the job market with free trade policies nonetheless insist it's all George W. Bush's fault. Meanwhile, pundits who cheered both sides now offer non-sequiturs, blaming excessive partisanship for our problems.
But as history (and Freakonomics) teaches, such oversimplified memes tend to obscure the counterintuitive notions that often hold the most profound truths. And in the case of the WRSTGD, the most important of these is the idea that we are in economic dire straits because tax rates are too low.
This is the provocative argument first floated by former New York governor Eliot Spitzer in a Slate magazine article evaluating 80 years of economic data.
"During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak — 91 percent or 92 percent — the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent," he wrote in February. "The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm — just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/are-low-taxes-exacerbating-the-recession.html

Buddy from W.Heights Bush lost Iraq and Afghanistan with the best military on earth.

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

No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
11 September 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5rkmym
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".
Afghanistan remained a "hugely important endeavour", he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

Caspian?

What planet are you communicating from? As of July 7th, 2010 Iraq is a fabulous Bush and American conquest no matter what else you feel the need to go on chattering about. The events are real, the events are true and speculation is as worthless as your fantastic assessment. Obama is truly lucky to have President Bush's team at his disposal.

Wealthy Reap Rewards While Those Who Work Lose
BOSTON, Jul 9, 2010 (IPS) - Times are tough for workers in the U.S. where a recession has a stranglehold on much of the economy, but life is perfectly rosy for those at the top. / http://tinyurl.com/28chaet
The riches of the wealthiest North Americans grew by double digits in 2009, primarily from interest their money earned when it was invested in the stock market and elsewhere, according to a report by the Boston Consulting Group.

Millionaires in the U.S. and Canada saw their wealth increase 15 percent in 2009, to a total of 4.6 trillion dollars, the report found.

Worldwide, 11 million - or less than 1 percent of all households - were millionaires in 2009. They owned about 38 percent of the world's wealth or 111 trillion dollars, up from about 36 percent in 2008, according to Boston Consulting Group.

About 4.7 million millionaires live in the U.S., four percent of the population and more than anywhere else in the world. Japan, China, Britain and Germany followed the U.S. in the number of millionaires.

Their fortune is a stark contrast to the lives of more than 15 million people in the U.S. who are unemployed and searching for work, and the eight million more who are just getting by with a part-time job, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than two million more people were working prior to the recession but have now dropped out of the labour force.

Apart from the newly unemployed, about 39 million people in the U.S. are chronically poor and do not have enough food to eat, according to the U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Agriculture. / http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52103

Obama is truly lucky to have President Bush's team at his disposal.

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

Buddy a word to the wise.

The best Bush did and the best Obama can do is "contain" which we already accomplished during the 12 years of sanctions and no fly zones in Iraq.

Everything else you believe is hype and half truths from the corrupt corporate mainstream media and corrupt corporate right wing media.

Bush lost Iraq to the Iranian Shites who live in Iraq.

Remember at the hanging of Saddam?

What were the crowd chanting in the room?

Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr

===============================

General Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8ldmo

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.

The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=2208&from_page=../index.cfm

Behind The Deregulatory Curtain
October 1. 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/3kn39v
Notice what these revisionists are not mentioning.

No “thank you” to former Senator Phil Gramm for pushing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. This law was passed in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 - and designed to separate banking from securities activities. In 1999, when Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and in so doing repealed Glass-Steagall the banks strayed into rough waters by looking for fast money from risky investments in securities and derivatives.

As predatory lending mushroomed out of control, the regulators -- key among them, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of Currency -- sat on their hands. The Federal Reserve took exactly three formal actions against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007. Bloomberg news service found that the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which has authority over almost 1,800 banks, took three consumer-protection enforcement actions from 2004 to 2006.

No “tip of the hat” to the Bush Administration for preempting state regulators and Attorneys General from using state consumer laws to crack down on predatory and sub-prime lending by national banks.
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2063-Behind-The-Deregulatory-Curtain.html

"it is not stab in the back or greed that its based on."

Say I need one bag of groceries per week. If food becomes free, would I take 2 bags, or 3, or 10? I can't eat more, I'd get sick trying. I'd have to find a place to store the excess, and it would go bad in time and stink up the place. Then I'd have to find a place to dispose of it, wasted. Not a single reason I can see to take 2 or 3 or 10 bags, but, let's see, how many reasons not to?

Say one bag of money takes care of all my needs,-medical care, property taxes, clothes, etc. Again I can think of no reason to take 2 or 3 or 10 bags. If someone does take more, then I don't know what to call that but greed. Taking an excess because maybe it says somewhere that you're entitled to more, or that you've earned more, or that it's only fair that you get more,-such iffy and abstruse arguments ignore the real and basic point that you don't need more, and that taking more is wasteful and irrational.

Sometimes people are defiantly wasteful, driving a Hummer instead of a Chevy Aveo, for instance, and daring anyone to tread on his inalienable right to waste. Different viewpoints of equal validity? Or is one just plain wrong and the other undervalued? Does some right to do your own thing, free of any nanny-like interference have absolute moral authority over what's hopefully a sensible attitude in a world of finite resources?

Gotta run.

"Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr"



And where is he now? Why do you insist on hanging on to passing snapshots in time that you obviously conveniently and regularly misinterpreted in the first place. Don't answer Caspian, that was a rhetorical question.
You hang on to nothingness because that is all you have. President Bush beat you and the rest of the left and you'll never admit i, but never forget it. Bravo Buddy, great post!

Comment from: Bill F. [Visitor]
"Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr"



And where is he now? Why do you insist on hanging on to passing snapshots in time that you obviously conveniently and regularly misinterpreted in the first place. Don't answer Caspian, that was a rhetorical question.
You hang on to nothingness because that is all you have. President Bush beat you and the rest of the left and you'll never admit it, but never forget it. Bravo Buddy, great post!

"Say one bag of money takes care of all my needs,-medical care, property taxes, clothes, etc. Again I can think of no reason to take 2 or 3 or 10 bags. If someone does take more, then I don't know what to call that but greed."

MQ- There are needs, desires and excess. I can justify needs and desires but not excess. Most people feel the same. There are not a real lot of Scrooge like misers and for them maybe they need a few nightmares of Christmas past to correct their ways. For me and the rest of the average Capitalist thinking people, we regulate ourselves.

For example NEEDS: my neighbor has a big garden. Most people with gardens get more food then they could possibly eat. My doorbell is always ringing. When I open the door there are vegetables in a bag from their garden. Other neighbors get the same treatment. In return we are generous back and everybody works together nicely. No need for government regulations or rules we must obey. We do it simply on our own and we don't need or want government involved to screw it up and tell us what we must and must not do.

For example DESIRE; Suppose this same neighbor had a bag of money. I can tell you for certain he won't be giving me that. Why? Because perhaps he desires a nice vacation or a down payment on a summer home or putting kids through college and so on. Is he an evil scrooge for wanting these things and working hard to get the money to buy these things? Should he HAVE to give some to me because I can't afford the same things he can? The answer is absolutely not. Is he greedy if he goes on a nice vacation? No way. What about those that can't afford to eat isn't he greedy for taking a vacation while they can't eat? No, there SHOULD be both private and public programs in place to help supply the poor with their NEEDS.

What about their desires? The governments role is to make sure there is equal opportunity for their desires but not equal desires. They also need to help keep Capitalism pure so some don't rig the system. Then EVERYBODY could work as much or as little as they want, in order to achieve their desires. This is the motivation for Capitalism, not greed. Greed is a corruption or an abuse of Capitalism.

Obama Makes Surprise Visit to Iraq, Meets With Top Commander:

President Obama all but declared victory in Iraq in a surprise visit to U.S. troops outside Baghdad.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009


President Obama all but declared victory in Iraq Tuesday, telling U.S. troops during a surprise visit to Camp Victory that they had given the Arab nation an opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That, he said, is an extraordinary achievement.

"Here's a couple things I want to say. Number one, thank you," the president bellowed as he addressed troops at a stopover at the tail end of a marathon overseas trip. After capping his visit with meetings with top U.S. military and Iraqi officials, he then left Baghdad on Air Force One for Washington.

Obama told the troops the next 18 months are critical to the mission. U.S. troops are expected to be out of the country by the end of 2010.

"You've kept your eyes focused on just doing your job and because of that, every mission that's been assigned, from getting rid of Saddam to reducing violence to stabilizing the country to facilitating elections, you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement and for that you have the thanks of the American people," he said.

As I told you during the election McCain was dead on correct!
----------------------------------------
Afghanistan Needs Aggressive Approach Petraeus Used in Iraq, McCain Says:

Sunday, August 23, 2009


WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain said he wants the military leadership in Afghanistan to use the same aggressive approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq.

The Arizona Republican said Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs in Afghanistan, let the Congress debate it and President Obama would make the ultimate decision.

Troops in Afghanistan should "clear and hold" an environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said. McCain said he worries McChrystal will be pressured to ask for lower troop totals than he needs.

"I don't think it's necessarily from the president," he said. "I think it's from the people around him and others and that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain said: "I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

"We're facing a very determined enemy that will stand and fight in some instances that are very adaptable, and obviously with safe havens in Pakistan," he said. "But as the president described it in the campaign, this is a good war and one that we have to win. And I think he'll hold to that."

EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS:

June 9, 2008

-- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.

The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."

The Bush administration has taken heaps of abuse for its Iraq policy, including its decision to launch the "surge" last December. Now the strategy, which our nation's "best and brightest" regularly dismissed as a failure, has cleared the way for the establishment of a secure democracy in Iraq and a lasting peace.

It would be foolish to pop open the victory champagne yet. The truce between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq remains fragile; al Qaeda may well launch one more last-ditch offensive there (a la Tet 1968), in order to discourage the US and/or Iraq publics on the eve of the elections.

Meanwhile, we're still fighting a vicious insurgency in Afghanistan, and have yet to root out the al Qaeda remnants of along the Afghan-Pakistan border. And the continued threat of home-grown terror cells keeps European governments nervous.

In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.

According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.

And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.

Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.

In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.

The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.

From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.

If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.

Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.

Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.

Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.

Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.

Go Figure, Caspian!
--------------------------------------
Obama administration takes credit for Bush success in Iraq:

Feb. 11, 2010

In the midst of weak polls numbers, the Obama administration is grabbing on to anything that will boost the image of a flailing presidency. Everyone from President Obama to Vice President Joe Biden to White House Press Secretary Joe Gibbs are more than willing to say the successes in Iraq are due to Obama administration policies without crediting the President Bush's foundational groundwork, like the surge (which Obama and Biden opposed) and setting up the military drawdown in Iraq with Prime Minister Maliki before he left the White House. The Fox News Channel details further the Obama administration's attempt to call any success in Iraq their own, while trashing the Bush administration in the process.

It remains amusing that the White House will continue to repeat they "inherited" the Bush economy, when Obama's economic policies continue to fail, while embracing any victory in Iraq that rightfully belongs to the prior administration's work with the U.S. Military and Iraqi government.

This is sort of like beating up on the class nerd everyday, demand he does your class work, score straight A's, still beat up on the class nerd, and truly believe you are some kind of genius for getting good grades. Unfortunately for President Obama, the teachers are the American people. He has not paid attention to them, and stealing the credit for someone else's hard work will not bring up his poll numbers.