• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

The democrats' "100 hour" set of policies if elected

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: Craig234
And those republicans have the interests of the common guy as all they care about.

Snippy one liners don't change the fact that social security is a popular, efficient, successful program at nearly eliminating real poverty for the elderly and disabled, and all the 'reforms' o the table are aimed at virtually destroying it to remove voters of the biggest reminder of a great democrat program, skim off the money to wall street, and have a wedge issue.

It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.

Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it. The main proposal called for the option of privatization of up to 4% of your income (up to $1000) if you're under 40. How the hell would that destroy Social Security? At least two-thirds is still going to the government for redistribution to the elderly. Grannie wouldn't be SOL because she would still be paid for through other revenue.

I'll tell you the only reason why it shouldn't currently be privatized: our budget is nowhere near balanced. This coupled with the fact that the proposals weren't allowed to add in a tax increase for the transition to privatization made the ideas were pretty much DOA.

So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.

And for fvck's sake, Sweden which is one of the most socialist countries around is doing it. Doesn't that tell you that privatization isn't all bad?

That part I bolded is the fundamental problem with privatization, the explanation of how we meet CURRENT social security obligations seems to involve a lot of hand-waving and not too many real ideas. I'm not opposed to the a private system itself, but I don't see how the transition can be accomplished without screwing over people who have already paid a fair amount into social security OR spending HUGE amounts of money to make up the shortfalls such a transition would involve.

As far as Social Security being in trouble, THAT is the load of BS. Yes, there is a potential for a shortfall...there is also a potential for having more money in Social Security by 2018 than there is TODAY, in other words, no problem at all. But you want to know the real dirty secret? The shortfall could come about because the large numbers of people retiring all at once when the baby boomers start getting social security checks...and those are the very people we CAN'T trash social security for since they've spent their entire lives paying into it. Whatever we do to pay their benefits while us young folks are off investing in Enron stock could easily make up the temporary shortfall from baby boomers retiring. The problem has been dramatically overstated and the whole social security privatization debate is way more about dismantling any social program possible than it is about "saving" anything.

Current SS obligations should be paid from spending of other parts of government. That is who borrowed from SS in the first place. The only problem with that is that there needs to be a government surplus to do that otherwise we are just increasing our debt which I'd prefer not to do (this administration doesn't seem to care). There also could be an increase in the payroll tax. Unfortunately Bush wouldn't allow that option for the panel that looked into partial privatization.

I hate to tell you this but SS is in trouble. Sure, they use assumptions to figure out when SS will have a shortfall but those assumptions are fairly justified. They assume wage growth of a certain amount, amount of immigration of a certain amount, and amount of people retiring each year. For real wage growth, the situation is more likely worse than it is better. Given the recent anti-immigration sentiment, I'm not sure there will be a large influx of people. Unless there are a ton of elderly that keel over and die, I don't think the amount of retirees is likely to decrease beyond their expectations.

About the Trust Fund...well the money in that trust fund is owed from other parts of the government. Yes, they may have to pay it back with interest but the end result is still the same, it's being shifted from part of the government (SS) to another (covering up the spending of another part of government). Either way as the baby boomers retire, that's going to have to be repaid, will it not? If it was borrowed by the government how is it going to be repaid? The government can either cut spending in other areas and completely absorb all the costs from repaying or they can bring in more revenue to repay it. I'm guessing it will likely be the latter. They can also run a deficit to pay for it but considering how much the SS money is covering up right now, it wouldn't be such a great idea to fund SS obligations that way.

I'll agree with you that given our current situation with the budget, privatization isn't viable at all. Unfortunately I don't see the situation changing much over the years. The Dems say they want a balanced budget but promises aren't always kept.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
The democrats have come out with their set of policies they plan to use if they get the majority, calling it the policies for the first 100 hours.

This is from Nancy Pelosi:

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

I agree with all of them.

You should know better. Of all people here.

* Regulation, any regulation, only gives the appearance of accountability.
* Not researched enough to fully comment. However my current opinion on the drug industry is that it's a major scam designed to inflate profits and pass all problems to the taxpayer.
* Socialism is dangerous since it creates a welfare state. It's another form of control over a population despite its supposed good intentions. The flip side is that privately corporations simply don't have the good of the people in mind when they make decisions. Their boss isn't the tax payer, but the share holder. This is not a single item but a systemic issue that can't be solved with changing only one part of the system. It's like arranging chairs on the Titanic.
* Regulating the market with a minimum wage is absurd. This is yet another systemic problem that can't be solved with changing a single item like this. A free market is either free or it isn't. The supposed free market of the West is only somewhat free. In reality it's not free at all but that's going off topic.
* Cutting intrest rates on student loans is nice. It's like the bear keeper deciding only to feed your left nut to the bear. The other nut is for when they jack up intrest rates on credit cards, bank loans etc to compensate. And they will since they are now allowed to go above 20%. Again a systemic problem that can't be solved with arranging deck chairs on the Titanic or in this case using a band-aid to plug a hole several orders of magnitude the size.
* I'm not even going to repeat myself. Plug in the words Oil into my last statement and instead of intrest rates use gas prices.
* The Independant 9/11 Comission wasn't at all independant. One look at the members gives you a who's who of either politicians or people with various conflicts of intrest. In fact about 70-75% of the highly researched and tough questions asked to be tabled was not asked. The comission itself failed its own mandate. It should also be noted that it took considerable effort and a lot of publicity to even create the comission. That in itself is telling, let alone the content, or lack thereof.

Corporatism = Fascism

This isn't a politically polarized issue. It takes both parties to actively take part to make the current system work. Think about that.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
The democrats have come out with their set of policies they plan to use if they get the majority, calling it the policies for the first 100 hours.

This is from Nancy Pelosi:

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

I agree with all of them.


Of course, they won't address any real issues that severely affect the quality of life of the American middle class and lower class, like Global Labor Wage Arbitrage, Population Explosion, Mass Legal Immigration, Mass Illegal Immigration, etc.

Why would the Democrats do that when they are selfless altruists who want to sacrifice the economic interests of middle class Americans to the billions of impoverished people around the world? That isn't to say that the Republicans (who seem to want to sacrifice the middle class to the wealth) aren't any better.



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Aelius


You should know better. Of all people here.

Thanks, I think?

I'll avoid the specifics which seem to be ideological issues.

Corporatism = Fascism

I agree with this.

This isn't a politically polarized issue. It takes both parties to actively take part to make the current system work. Think about that.

You need to be a bit clearer in what you're trying to say. I could guess some interpretations, but I don't see the point in guessing which you meant.

Not participating in the current system is, IMO, a mistake. About the only think the people have going for them is the artifical power of the vote because of a historical anomoly.
 

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
$7.50 an hour is too low. Day laborers round here make $12

And thats why the minimum wage raising is a waste of time.
Plus not good for the economy, business need that flexibility for high school kids ect.

You should only earn what your skills demand for wages.
Want more money? Go to school, work harder, make friends with someone in a position of power.. DO something.

But do it yourself. Thats the point.
 

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Lothar
What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

I think it was something along the lines of this...

Meaning the Republicans have nothing they want to accomplish besides "staying the course"?

Errm.. sometimes staying the course is the way to go.

Now is one of those times. The economy is phenomenal, and the war is in process.
A war that MUST be won, and the democrats dont know how to win wars.. just retreat.

Voting straight ticket Republican this time.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Lothar
What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

I think it was something along the lines of this...

Meaning the Republicans have nothing they want to accomplish besides "staying the course"?

Errm.. sometimes staying the course is the way to go.

Now is one of those times. The economy is phenomenal, and the war is in process.
A war that MUST be won, and the democrats dont know how to win wars.. just retreat.

Voting straight ticket Republican this time.

Um.....not sure where you are getting your information but last time I checked we are not winning the war in Iraq. We are not winning the war on terror. The only reason we haven't been attacked in a major way is becaus the terrorists haven't decided to do so, and because pulling off a terror attack equivalent or greater than 9/11 would require many years of planning. Just imagine how easy it would be for some nutjob terrorist to sneak through the Mexican-American border, strap himself with dynamite and blow himself up in the middle of a busy public gathering.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Um.....not sure where you are getting your information but last time I checked we are not winning the war in Iraq. We are not winning the war on terror. The only reason we haven't been attacked in a major way is becaus the terrorists haven't decided to do so, and because pulling off a terror attack equivalent or greater than 9/11 would require many years of planning. Just imagine how easy it would be for some nutjob terrorist to sneak through the Mexican-American border, strap himself with dynamite and blow himself up in the middle of a busy public gathering.

That pretty much sums up why you can't be taken seriously.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,918
2,883
136
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Lothar
What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

I think it was something along the lines of this...

Meaning the Republicans have nothing they want to accomplish besides "staying the course"?

Errm.. sometimes staying the course is the way to go.

Now is one of those times. The economy is phenomenal, and the war is in process.
A war that MUST be won, and the democrats dont know how to win wars.. just retreat.

Voting straight ticket Republican this time.

Um.....not sure where you are getting your information but last time I checked we are not winning the war in Iraq. We are not winning the war on terror. The only reason we haven't been attacked in a major way is becaus the terrorists haven't decided to do so, and because pulling off a terror attack equivalent or greater than 9/11 would require many years of planning. Just imagine how easy it would be for some nutjob terrorist to sneak through the Mexican-American border, strap himself with dynamite and blow himself up in the middle of a busy public gathering.

Then why haven't they done it?

You do realize that there have been many wars that we were not winning at one point, and we ended up winning through determination in the end right? I am no fan of this war or administration, I am just pointing out the obvious. To say that they have not attacked us because they have not decided to do so is just a silly argument. Where is your proof that they have not "decided" to attack us? Can you show us some links from Al Jazeera?

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,918
2,883
136
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Um.....not sure where you are getting your information but last time I checked we are not winning the war in Iraq. We are not winning the war on terror. The only reason we haven't been attacked in a major way is becaus the terrorists haven't decided to do so, and because pulling off a terror attack equivalent or greater than 9/11 would require many years of planning. Just imagine how easy it would be for some nutjob terrorist to sneak through the Mexican-American border, strap himself with dynamite and blow himself up in the middle of a busy public gathering.

That pretty much sums up why you can't be taken seriously.


QFT, but I think you meant to bold We are not winning the war on terror. and we haven't been attacked in a major way
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
LOL, Pelosi is sure popping up right and left all of a sudden.

Too bad this is nothing but BS rhetoric and drivel per usual. Are we to believe Dems are going to cut off soft money which flows readily in to their coffers?

And they've talked about raising the minimum wage for YEARS. It's nothing but talk. And only the poorest sheeple will fall for it.

and when exactly, have the democrats had the opportunity to do it in the last 12 years?
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Aelius


You should know better. Of all people here.

Thanks, I think?

I'll avoid the specifics which seem to be ideological issues.

Corporatism = Fascism

I agree with this.

This isn't a politically polarized issue. It takes both parties to actively take part to make the current system work. Think about that.

You need to be a bit clearer in what you're trying to say. I could guess some interpretations, but I don't see the point in guessing which you meant.

Not participating in the current system is, IMO, a mistake. About the only think the people have going for them is the artifical power of the vote because of a historical anomoly.

Ok I'll be clearer.

As a party both major parties take part in the scam most choose to call Democracy. I'm not talking about individuals. I know for a fact that there are good hearted members in both parties that are doing what they can for the good of everyone. As a whole this is not the case. When you look at the system as a whole it's an apple that is rotten to the core. Both knowingly have to take part in the scam to make it work.

If tomorrow morning we woke up and the two parties abolished the Federal Reserve, jailed the owners with trillions of counts of fraud, took back the gold they current hold in trust as collateral for the national debt and the government started to print their own money... you would all be well on your way towards Democracy.

It also doesn't matter who you vote for. At least not right now. Kennedy was the exception. Not the rule. The last time someone tried to follow Kennedy he was assassinated. Don't count on another Kennedy. Everyone since has been part of the program.

It goes back to 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law while most of Washington was on Xmas leave. Not much different from some more recent stunts of passing bills without reading them in the middle of the night when virtually nobody is there. Where do you think they got the idea from. These people are not stupid.

Intrestingly enough the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913 as well. Since then the tax dollars collected from your wage has been going into the pockets of the private bankers who run the Federal Reserve. For what? To pay off the debt for which they charge intrest. How did this start you ask? It started when they started printing money. Whatever they print they charge intrest on. It's where their power comes from. You the tax payer pays the dept. Every penny you pay in personal income tax goes to it. But that's a big topic I don't want to start discussing unless I have to.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Crusader
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Lothar
What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

I think it was something along the lines of this...

Meaning the Republicans have nothing they want to accomplish besides "staying the course"?
democrats dont know how to win wars.. just retreat.

Since when did Nixon become a Democrat?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Aelius, I think there is some truth in what you say, but like the old metaphor of the elephant and the blind men, it treats a part of the picture as more of the whole than it is.

In fact, the belief in democracy is important in itself, in that if you deliver the message that our democracy is meaningless and people have no power and they believe it, it becomes more true, whereas if you fan the idea that they are the rulers of the nation, then their tolerance for the problems you describe is less, and they'll be more apt to resist.

It's true that we're a long ways from the days of Kennedy, and much truth is virtually taboo in public discussion today. But the road to improvement starts with small steps in the right direction. I think the republicans have become such an instrument of corruption, and the danger is high enough that as they continue to gain power there is a danger of their gaining a domination of the democrats as well which they do not have so much today, that I think it is important to vote the republicans out of office and stop the bleeding now.

Look at history - following the great depression, it was clear change was coming; we could have elected a 'moderate' democrat who would have made small changes, but for the good of the nation, we got lucky and elected a bold leader. We need to do so again.

I think few knew that FDR or JFK would be the leaders they were, and we can't be sure of who we'll get today, but we're better off supporting shifting away from the devil we know to the people know are better, just not how much better.

I'm converned that this time, the public propaganda machine is so much more effective than it has ever been, that our international situation is so much worse than it has ever been as the anti-democratic nations of the world prepare to surpass us economically as we sink further into debt, that our core value of individual power is in danger.

The things you mentioned are issues, but I don't think they're the primary ones. We had feudalism, extreme povertty, robber barons in this nation before 1913, and we had the growth of a historic middle class and many great reforms under FDR after 1913.

Let's try to derail the train of evil that we're riding on now, and then see what we can do about the 1913 issues.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
The terrorists don't need to attack us, the damage has already been done. We are living in a state of constant fear. Everything they wanted to occur from 9/11 has happened, and thus that is the reason why I believe we haven't been attacked yet. America is weaker now than it was 6 years ago, we are not united as a people as we should be. To say that the terrorists have been unsuccessful is being completely ignorant of the facts.

You right-wingers see this world and war on terror as a black-and-white issue. You think because we haven't been attacked at home that we are winning the war on terror. We haven't done a damn thing in terms of border/port security, if the terrorists wanted to hit us they could do so. Every major military/political analyst knows that another terrorist attack will happen, it's just a matter of when. So if you look at what this administration has done to stop terrorism world-wide, you won't find much. Terrorism is on the RISE....
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Craig234
The democrats have come out with their set of policies they plan to use if they get the majority, calling it the policies for the first 100 hours.

This is from Nancy Pelosi:

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

I agree with all of them.

Here's what I see.

*Regulations and more regulations. >Lets fix the corrupted Republican government
*More government must be the answer to healthcare problems. >you're damn right it is. not giving basic medical treatment to every American is immoral.
*For god's sake don't give anyone freedom of choice for their future! >you still have your 401k and other plans
*Give businesses less flexibility >Feed the poor, don't eat the poor.
*More government involvement with financial stuff. >Educate our children so the US can remain the leader in innovation for next 100 years.
*Rolling back subsidies only on oil companies and not all of the other corporations/businsses on welfare because the democrats need support from them >this corporate welfare you talk about is dominated by oil companies. take them out, and you take a huge chunk of corporate welfare out.
*Haven't looked into it much, but may be a good idea. >damn right.

 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Aelius, I think there is some truth in what you say, but like the old metaphor of the elephant and the blind men, it treats a part of the picture as more of the whole than it is.

In fact, the belief in democracy is important in itself, in that if you deliver the message that our democracy is meaningless and people have no power and they believe it, it becomes more true, whereas if you fan the idea that they are the rulers of the nation, then their tolerance for the problems you describe is less, and they'll be more apt to resist.

It's true that we're a long ways from the days of Kennedy, and much truth is virtually taboo in public discussion today. But the road to improvement starts with small steps in the right direction. I think the republicans have become such an instrument of corruption, and the danger is high enough that as they continue to gain power there is a danger of their gaining a domination of the democrats as well which they do not have so much today, that I think it is important to vote the republicans out of office and stop the bleeding now.

Look at history - following the great depression, it was clear change was coming; we could have elected a 'moderate' democrat who would have made small changes, but for the good of the nation, we got lucky and elected a bold leader. We need to do so again.

I think few knew that FDR or JFK would be the leaders they were, and we can't be sure of who we'll get today, but we're better off supporting shifting away from the devil we know to the people know are better, just not how much better.

I'm converned that this time, the public propaganda machine is so much more effective than it has ever been, that our international situation is so much worse than it has ever been as the anti-democratic nations of the world prepare to surpass us economically as we sink further into debt, that our core value of individual power is in danger.

The things you mentioned are issues, but I don't think they're the primary ones. We had feudalism, extreme povertty, robber barons in this nation before 1913, and we had the growth of a historic middle class and many great reforms under FDR after 1913.

Let's try to derail the train of evil that we're riding on now, and then see what we can do about the 1913 issues.

I think clarification is in order.

I never said that what we think Democracy is not Democracy. I think most people hold it very dear to their heart and think highly of our ideals of it. As do I.

I'm referring to small parts of government in the hands of very powerful individuals who unfortunately are in such key positions that they can do anything. Because they are in such key posts it reflects on the entire nation. They lead it. Well they don't actually lead it, but that's what we see from our point of view. They run it from day to day, but they answer to the bankers who own the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately there is no way to know who they all are since I don't think a full ownership of the Federal Reserve has ever been printed.

I'm not asking for a belief in Democracy. Everyone has that in them already. I'm asking for understanding that what we hold dear is at grave risk. Is it too late? No. Can we do something non violent at this point? Yes. Education. Above all else people need to know their rights and they need to know the history of these organizations as well as the concept of what money means to a nation. How money can be used to control policy as well as who you vote for.

What I don't agree with you is what you buy into and that's a polarized political process. As if the Democrats will save us from the evil Republicans. I belieave in individuals within the two major parties. Very few and very far between but they exist. Kennedy and his brother are examples.

So Democrats....

Clinton did at LEAST as much damage to civil rights, freedom and liberty in the US as Bush. Personally I think Clinton laid the foundations and Bush simply built on it by passing laws to try to make it legit. That's quite a statement to make. Can I back it up?

I will now quote 60 Minutes:

"?A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ?Oh, Danny really bombed last night,? just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.?

?This is not urban legend you?re talking about. This actually happened?? Kroft asked.

?Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.?

If anyone is wondering what that could be... that's ECHELON.

Read about ECHELON under Clinton here.

Transcript

The fact that it doesn't upset anyone is what pisses me off. It pisses me off because you people are pissing away what freedoms you have and take everything for granted. While I grew up under Communism where I went through the same fvcking thing.

That doesn't even touch on the hundreds of Executive Orders Clinton issued. That doesn't include the PDDs he issued as well which are not printed anywhere and even Congress is not privy to. Note: PDD = Executive Order (kept secret)

Only a few leaked info exists on PDDs. Mostly when they were used to circumvent US law.

That man should be sitting in jail. Bush should be in a cell next to him.

These people acted/act effectively as dictators. Both of them. People can spin it if they like.

The Media? Burried it or supported Clinton. Acts like these make Conservatives say that the Media is largely Liberal or that certain news orgs are Liberal. That's also polarized bullsh!t. What is true is that they played soft on Democrats and played hard against Republicans. It's the oldest trick in the book and people fell for it. Good Cop, Bad Cop.

Or I guess it's Bad Cop, Worst Cop.

All major news orgs are part of this system. There are simply individuals within them that are good and in high places. Very few and very far between.

However you cannot ignore that large parts of these organizatins, as well as the government, act in their own intrests. They don't serve any morals but their own. Watch a documentary called "Spin". That may give people a new perspective on big media.

It's also important to understand that there are degrees of Fascism as there are degrees of anything. However the principles remain the same. Either you are something or you aren't. To what degree... well that's up to argument.

America is a Fascist state. It's modeled after Europe. That's where central banks started. I just think all this push towards Fascism is more visible in the US right now because the US is the largest military force. It draws attention. 700+ military bases overseas in some 130 nations out of 193. That's only the official ones on paper that doesn't list even known official bases. It's doubtful that more than a few people at the Pentagon know exactly how many bases the US has overseas. That doesn't count secret bases.

If all of this isn't the makings of an Empire I don't know what is. One thing is for sure, it's not for the benefit of Freedom, Democracy, or the US tax payer.

You know what... don't listen to me. Do your own research. (speaking to anyone who reads this and gives a damn about Democracy as we like to think of it)

Educate yourself.

P.S. It would take another Kennedy to derail this train of evil and they would likely assassinate them like they did JFK and RFK.

P.P.S. Kerry and Bush are cousins and both belong to Skull and Bones.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Aelius, it's a bit hard for me to distinguish between the bits that are reasonable with things like the Federal Reserve Board - certainly, capital has set itself up well and it manipulates economic activites in ways which serve it and not the nation - from the exaggerations, the tin-foil 'trilateral commission controls the world' silliness.

I look at bits I know of how these things work, and I see the somewhat limited resources people like the Federal Reserve Bank control in their personal wealth, I look at some of the leading international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, I read 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' and watch 'The Moneymakers'.

Sometimes, common sense has to play a role. I share some of your concerns bout Bill Clinton - you didn't mention things like his support for NAFTA - and yet, we do know his background of poverty, his rise, how it came about largely - and we have some sense of his motivations. He's *not* skull and bones, but he was president.

I have the feeling that your concerns on the issues may be somewhat disproportionate, while there is truth to learn in the issues.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Aelius, it's a bit hard for me to distinguish between the bits that are reasonable with things like the Federal Reserve Board - certainly, capital has set itself up well and it manipulates economic activites in ways which serve it and not the nation - from the exaggerations, the tin-foil 'trilateral commission controls the world' silliness.

I look at bits I know of how these things work, and I see the somewhat limited resources people like the Federal Reserve Bank control in their personal wealth, I look at some of the leading international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, I read 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' and watch 'The Moneymakers'.

Sometimes, common sense has to play a role. I share some of your concerns bout Bill Clinton - you didn't mention things like his support for NAFTA - and yet, we do know his background of poverty, his rise, how it came about largely - and we have some sense of his motivations. He's *not* skull and bones, but he was president.

I have the feeling that your concerns on the issues may be somewhat disproportionate, while there is truth to learn in the issues.

Since I have failed to explain myself clearly. Let me have someone else do it for me.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I understand Jefferson's concerns, to a point.

But we need to ask, how have times changed since then? What have we learned about the efficiencies of modern finance and corporations' ability to create goods and services?

Are the harms predicted at the time what we see happening? Or are they smaller? Do we see a few bankers owning and controlling the world, really?

Too much influence, sure; profiteering, sure; some harmful behaviors regarding the economy, sure; the US government its puppets, taking orders from them? No.

We're not going to return to a rural farmiing society over which Jefferson and Jackson stood guard. We need plans that fit our modern society.

And I still think that the first step to having more freedom to do that, escaping some of the control of big money, is to vote in the democrats - despite Clinton's problems.

They're hardly all controlled - for example, just looking at my own Congressman, Pete Stark, he founded a good sized bank, and knows something of the industry - and yet regularly votes against the big money agenda, as someone who was named the 'most liberal member in Congress'. He has safe re-election without needing the financial backing of such groups. He's not alone.

I think one of the first things to do, apart from electing democrats, is to educate the public about the anti-democracy provisions in the free trade agreements, and build a movement with labor to repeal some of the *AFTA agreements, during the Bush backlash movement hopefully arriving in 2006 and 2008.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I understand Jefferson's concerns, to a point.

But we need to ask, how have times changed since then? What have we learned about the efficiencies of modern finance and corporations' ability to create goods and services?

Are the harms predicted at the time what we see happening? Or are they smaller? Do we see a few bankers owning and controlling the world, really?

Too much influence, sure; profiteering, sure; some harmful behaviors regarding the economy, sure; the US government its puppets, taking orders from them? No.

We're not going to return to a rural farmiing society over which Jefferson and Jackson stood guard. We need plans that fit our modern society.

And I still think that the first step to having more freedom to do that, escaping some of the control of big money, is to vote in the democrats - despite Clinton's problems.

They're hardly all controlled - for example, just looking at my own Congressman, Pete Stark, he founded a good sized bank, and knows something of the industry - and yet regularly votes against the big money agenda, as someone who was named the 'most liberal member in Congress'. He has safe re-election without needing the financial backing of such groups. He's not alone.

I think one of the first things to do, apart from electing democrats, is to educate the public about the anti-democracy provisions in the free trade agreements, and build a movement with labor to repeal some of the *AFTA agreements, during the Bush backlash movement hopefully arriving in 2006 and 2008.

I'm not against corporations or banks. They are both needed and useful tools.

What harms he predicated are exactly what we see today. Why? Credit. That's what this is about. These people are very smart. They got most Western nations on a type of heroin called Credit. All of your income tax goes to pay off a big credit card called the National Debt. The issuer of that credit card is the Federal Reserve. The best thing about it? It's a no limit card. Want another 500 billion to fight a war? No problem. They reset the debt limit and print the money. Yet NOBODY stops to think for a second. Hey! What is backing up the money they are printing? Another nation like China buying the debt? Is there something tangible? Like I duno.... Gold? Probably not. Last I read the nation's gold is with the Federal Reserve held as collateral on the debt. Look into how much money the US paid in personal income tax last year. Now think about all of that money going directly into the pocket of a corporation. They have been doing it since 1913. Why stop now? A central bank is the best ATM machine in the world.

Do we see a few bankers controlling the world? No. If we did the game would end. That's the whole point. These are not stupid people that sit on a throne in the middle of Congress and bark orders. It doesn't work like that. The point is we don't even know what it is that they do. What we DO know is that they have full 100% control of the nation's money. I can prove they do. They created the last Great Depression and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. If you want to look up the details of how it all started you can go ahead. People call it a mistake. I'm not even talking about intentions. The point is they have the power. Not the President, not Congress and not the people.

I never asked that we return to a farming community and I don't think it's fair to try to assert that this is exactly what would happen. What happens with the nation is what we make it or allow it to occur. Natural progression of the economy. True free economy. No control by a corporation. 100% transparancy.

As far as controlling people. You don't need to controll the whole of Congress. That's impossible. All you need is a President willing to meet ink with paper and a whomever it takes to push a law through when most of Congress is on vacation or in the middle of the night without having it read by everyone. That's what they did with both the Federal Reserve Act and a few other nasty Acts most people here already know of.

All I can do is say once again that I trust in individuals in the current system. I don't trust in the actual system itself. It's being missused and you need to put your house in order. Democrats are part of the problem. Not part of the solution. Individuals are regardless of party.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I disagree not so much with your description of the problem as with your weighing it as 'the' problem of our society. There's a big pie, and the problems you describe are one slice.

One simple example that not all the fiscal policy is so closely manipulated: a third of the interest on our debt is foreign, with the largest share, if I understand correctly, going to China. That's all money not flowing into the pockets of the financial interests you mention; if they could control that, it wouldn't be going to China.

There are a whole lot of groups involved in 'the system', many corrupt, many draining some of the wealth. The big banks are one of the groups.

It's worth trying to understand that problem, but it's not a good idea to pretend that it's irrelevant whether republicans or democrats are elected. Trillions of dollars will be affected by democrats being elected which are unrelated to the big banking industry - for just one example, changing one sentence in the republican drug bill to allow the government to negotiate drug prices is estimated would save the nation 900 billion dollars over a decade. That's 900 billio related to the republicans selling out the public to the drug industy to get the donations, not to big bankers.