Giving Obama some credit??

[cfdavid]

So, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Regardless of the healthcare debate, and how that plays out, I sit here watching an Obama speech (no rotations this month).... I also disagree with his ties to big banking, but this represents little change from previous administrations on both sides of the isle.

I've paid VERY close attention to the language coming out of Washington with regards to manufacturing and EXPORT policy over MANY years. I seriously can not remember another president speaking to the importance of a strong industrial/manufacturing base to the extent that Obama has. ****A great book written about 15 years ago by Lester Thoreau, Head to Head discusses these issues and is still VERY relavent today**** I highly recommend it.

Sure, it could just be rhetoric. But, past presidents glossed over the issue almost arrogantly, suggesting that we could have a "thriving" "service economy". WTF is that??

I realize this guy is a polarizing figure, and as a lifelong Republican (not the neocon type) with Constitutionalist leanings, isn't it fair to AT LEAST give the guy some credit on this issue??

At a time when the U.S. has almost NO leverage with our Asian trading partners whom we rely on to buy up our debt, he's AT LEAST speaking about a balancing out of trade deficits and speaking to the point that we import far too much Asian goods than we export to that area.

He's also using direct examples of discussions with Asian leaders on THEIR education policies. He's speaking very frank about the fact that Americans MUST improve our ATTITUDE towards education in order to compete in a global economy.

Just some thoughts. I'm sure this is going to get blown away. Again, rhetoric is just that, but I'd rather see a guy making the right kinds of statements (i.e. leadership) than the status quo which hardly addressed the issue of rebuilding our industrial capacity.

cf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Surfer]

Talking about having a strong producing economy is vastly different than creating policies and an environment that encourages production. The truth is, taxes, unions, cap-and-tax, healthcare, and almost every single issue obama touches, drives more and more business out of our country. Why produce a car here, when you have to pay a UAW worker $70/hr when you can build the same car in mexico for $25/hr?

Obama is killing business in america. Handing GM over to the union was a gross act of political favoritism, fraud, and theft. He should go to jail for that single act. Theft, pure and simple.

Obama is a treasonous bastard. He will go down in American History as the worst president ever, by a long-shot. And I wasn't a bush fan (spent too much money). He is digging a hole we might never crawl out of. Ever. Our only hope is for a conservative revolution in 2010 and not too much damage before then. Pure and simply, we can't tax and spend our way into trillions of dollars of debt and expect to survive?

If a consumer spent the way our country is spending now, what would you tell them? you'd tell them they were headed for personal ruin and disaster. Such is the case with our country today. So no, he is not stimulating a producing economy with his tele-prompter fed platitudes.

 

[cfdavid]

Talking about having a strong producing economy is vastly different than creating policies and an environment that encourages production. The truth is, taxes, unions, cap-and-tax, healthcare, and almost every single issue obama touches, drives more and more business out of our country. Why produce a car here, when you have to pay a UAW worker $70/hr when you can build the same car in mexico for $25/hr?

Obama is killing business in america. Handing GM over to the union was a gross act of political favoritism, fraud, and theft. He should go to jail for that single act. Theft, pure and simple.

Obama is a treasonous bastard. He will go down in American History as the worst president ever, by a long-shot. And I wasn't a bush fan (spent too much money). He is digging a hole we might never crawl out of. Ever. Our only hope is for a conservative revolution in 2010 and not too much damage before then. Pure and simply, we can't tax and spend our way into trillions of dollars of debt and expect to survive?

If a consumer spent the way our country is spending now, what would you tell them? you'd tell them they were headed for personal ruin and disaster. Such is the case with our country today. So no, he is not stimulating a producing economy with his tele-prompter fed platitudes.

I agree with a conservative revolution, but look at what the neo-cons that have dominated Republican policy have done. Endless wars and endless spending. Not too much difference, in my mind.

So, rather than a 3rd party, which the establishment just won't allow (including the media IMO), we need to INFILTRATE the Republican party with TRUE fiscal conservatives that have a strong export driven mentality. Also, strict constitutionalists. Just as the neo-cons, who's original leadership came from the liberal side, infiltrated the GOP, so can guys like Schiff and Rand Paul. This is the way it must be done.

I will respectfully disagree, however, that talking is worthless. It plants seeds. People listen to this guy, and I can't tell you how many FOOLS I've debated over the years on the importance of having a strategic industrial policy in the U.S. and that a "service economy" is a losers game. So, perhaps his idol status can help change the minds of most of the sheople in this country that need others to "think" for them. So, talking is a form of thinking for others....

 

[Eta Carinae]

Our only hope is for a conservative revolution in 2010 and not too much damage before then.

Totally back-assward (Did I spell it right) the way this guy's handling the economy. We should shore up our economy, shore up our borders, shore up Iraq after i serve up some moose stew and levi's head.

Girlfriend, I already made ma t-shirt *snap* *snap*

 

[Bertelman]

Wow. Twenty-four minutes elapsed when this turned into another Obamabash.

 

[pgg]

Wow. Twenty-four minutes elapsed when this turned into another Obamabash.

As long as we're derailed, I mighta s well divert the thread in the direction of a Palinbash.

Totally back-assward (Did I spell it right) the way this guy's handling the economy. We should shore up our economy, shore up our borders, shore up Iraq after i serve up some moose stew and levi's head.

Girlfriend, I already made ma t-shirt *snap* *snap*

Democrats started celebrating about 18 seconds after McCain conceded the election by nominating her. I can only imagine the grand mal seizure of orgasmic orgiastic ecstasy from the DNC should she somehow con the sad, tattered shreds of what used to be the Republican party into putting her on the 2012 ticket.

Palin is best thing that's happened to the Democratic party since the Clinton years.

Are you really a Palin fan, or are you mocking her with the moose stew bit? I really can't tell. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the Tiger Woods thread makes me think you're just nuts enough to actually think she has a shot at 2012.

 

[Narcotized]

Wow. Twenty-four minutes elapsed when this turned into another Obamabash.

.

 

[Narcotized]

He will go down in American History as the worst president ever, by a long-shot.

He will be the worst president in American history, passing even W, but he'll go down as one of the all-time greatest. Don't forget that his koolaide drinking cult followers run the media.

 

[cfdavid]

As long as we're derailed, I mighta s well divert the thread in the direction of a Palinbash.




Democrats started celebrating about 18 seconds after McCain conceded the election by nominating her. I can only imagine the grand mal seizure of orgasmic orgiastic ecstasy from the DNC should she somehow con the sad, tattered shreds of what used to be the Republican party into putting her on the 2012 ticket.

Palin is best thing that's happened to the Democratic party since the Clinton years.

Are you really a Palin fan, or are you mocking her with the moose stew bit? I really can't tell. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the Tiger Woods thread makes me think you're just nuts enough to actually think she has a shot at 2012.

While I don't agree with his politics, necessarily, Matt Damon said it pretty well. Something like the GOP just put "hockey mom" on the f.cking ticket. We CAN do better than that.

I like her spirit and maybe even a lot of what she stands for, but yikes. "You betchum"?! Wow.

 

[cfdavid]

He will be the worst president in American history, passing even W, but he'll go down as one of the all-time greatest. Don't forget that his koolaide drinking cult followers run the media.

I'm trying to be pragmatic here, to some extent. ****Remember, many people drank the koolaide of the "new economy" in which American could just allow the degradation of our industrial base, while we transform into the "new and improved" "service economy"......... That was the biggest load of goods ever sold.

So, even if it's just rhetoric, perhaps his idol status will convince people (which I DO believe is true) that we need to PRODUCE things again, and that it's not "old hat" to believe that manufacturing and heavy industry is the thing of the past in terms of the evolution of a "modern" economy.

I'm not talking about making cheap undershirts and socks again. But, we don't even lead in windmill technology. SPAIN beats us in that catagory, among many other countries. We've really dropped the ball in so many ways.

The Germans and Japanese know full well that having a strong, strategic, industrial/technology (but not just tech without the industrial) economy is critical to the LONG TERM prosperity of their countries. Now, we can add S. Korea, China, perhaps India to that list. But, we've clearly lost the initiative by now.....

While we've sat back, koolaide in hand, and allowed ourselves to go the idiotic route of "Great" Britain. Well, great they ain't no more. The industrial revolution started there (NOT in Germany), but they empired their economy away with foreign adventures, and allowed their economy to evolve into one of "finance" rather than making things. I think we can see where that's landed the U.K.

All I'm saying is that it's at least refreshing to hear some talk on re-prioritizing these sectors, regardless of other polarizing policies of his, and regardless of whether it's just rhetoric or not.

cf

 

[Surfer]

Democrats started celebrating about 18 seconds after McCain conceded the election by nominating her. I can only imagine the grand mal seizure of orgasmic orgiastic ecstasy from the DNC should she somehow con the sad, tattered shreds of what used to be the Republican party into putting her on the 2012 ticket.

How wrong you are. Palin gave McCain an immediate boost and in fact had mccain leading in the polls for about a week.... then the "financial crisis" hit. McCain started acting weird and "suspended" his campaign. His answer was essentially no different from Obama's. Obama surged ahead and won by 5 points.

5 points. If 3 out of every 100 voters had gone the other way, Obama would still be the over-matched, most liberal senator in the senate.

Don't try to rewrite history. Palin was a masterful choice and gave the ticket a HUGE boost. The media went into attack mode because they hate successful, conservative women almost as much as they hate successful, black men.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Man, people are so melodramatic on message boards. I'm pretty sure there have been about 41 "worst Presidents ever."

No one knows how good or bad a President will be viewed for a good 20 years. 8 years ago 95% of Democrats were saying Bush would go down as the worst President ever. And will he? Probably not, though I'm guessing he'll be viewed in the lower half.

It takes some serious work to be at either end of the spectrum, and while I can't say Obama WON'T be the worst President ever, it seems a bit premature to say he IS already.

On the other hand, if you whine about how bad each President is right after taking office, one of these days you might be right. In that case, maybe you could be a sports analyst then, as they seem allowed to make whatever predictions they want with no accountability.

Really, all you can do is adapt as best as possible and if you don't like it, well that's why we vote.

 

[pgg]

Don't try to rewrite history.

I don't know what to say. Search the forum for threads last August, September, and October ... it was clear to many people (I was probably the most vocal on this particular forum, but I was far from the only person to point it out) what an absolute disaster Palin was. Many of us saw the absurd trainwreck even before the awful interviews, the pregnant daughter, the (mostly manufactured) dirt ... There were a lot of Republican strategists who tried to keep a stiff upper lip and positive public spin going after her nomination. A few got caught with live mikes for being critical and essentially admiting it was over then and there.

They were raked over the coals for not drinking the Palin "koolaide" ... but they were right. She was just one of many desperate stunts a desperate McCain pulled in that 3 ring circus of a campaign.

Even during the post convention Palin bump it was obvious that pandering to the neocon and religious right base with Palin wasn't going to get McCain anything in the swing states. Her supporters were joyous about being up tens of points in Alaska and Utah, totally oblivious to or unwilling to admit that Obama steadily made progress and took the lead in polls in five swing states GWB won in 2004. The Palin bump you and yours were so proud of barely even dented his progress in those states.

The most frightening, disturbing thing is that EVEN NOW there are still quite a few people who honestly think that Palin will be a good candidate for the Republican party. You appear to be one of them.

Democrats love Palin the way Republicans love Hillary.

She could be a great fundraiser and campaigner, but as a candidate she is poison.

 

[pgg]

The media went into attack mode because they hate successful, conservative women almost as much as they hate successful, black men.

And another thing -

As a group, conservatives (and I include myself in that group for the most part, minus a few quibbles) really need to quit blaming the "liberal media" boogeyman.

The media attacked Palin because she was such a shockingly inappropriate, unqualified, erratic, bizarre, left field nomination. Her selection was a hail mary stunt. The alleged liberal media gave her a series of softball interviews and she blew them all by herself. Credit where credit's due, and blame where blame's due ... Palin was simply unprepared and outclassed.

The liberal media is a mythical falsehood. We need to stop blaming CNN for Republican and conservative failures and get our **** together.

 

[Narcotized]

while I can't say Obama WON'T be the worst President ever, it seems a bit premature to say he IS already.

I will say that taking an economy on life support and doing his best to nail the coffin shut puts him on a very short list for worst ever, though he will never be viewed that way. Ignorance is bliss, and if people actually understood how we are accerlerating to a potentially severe currency collapse with him at the wheel, I guarantee you more would be "melodramatic."

 

[Bertelman]

How wrong you are. Palin gave McCain an immediate boost and in fact had mccain leading in the polls for about a week.... then the "financial crisis" hit. McCain started acting weird and "suspended" his campaign. His answer was essentially no different from Obama's. Obama surged ahead and won by 5 points.

5 points. If 3 out of every 100 voters had gone the other way, Obama would still be the over-matched, most liberal senator in the senate.

Don't try to rewrite history. Palin was a masterful choice and gave the ticket a HUGE boost. The media went into attack mode because they hate successful, conservative women almost as much as they hate successful, black men.

You're delusional.

I'll go ahead and count your vote for Palin in 2012, though. Might as well vote for Obama.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Would anyone here bashing Obama give him any credit for the fact that unemployment went down this month to 10.0%? Or that hours/employee rose? Or that temp jobs increased by 50K? All signs that the economy might be turning a corner?

As a side note, anyone want to bet that Obama wins a 2nd election? It's pretty much guarenteed in my mind. 1) He comes in with one of the worst economies in a generation. In 4 years, that will largely be gone, and we'll be in the midst of some economic growth. (I predict this based on the natural cycles of economies, not necessarily anything Obama specifically does.) 2) The wars in Iraq and Afganistan will be largely done with small numbers of US troops stationed mostly in secure bases within each country, focusing on training and intelligence operations. Obama can say he "successfully" ended to wars. Americans and American media won't really care what those countries actually look like. Once they're out of the news, they're out of the American consciousness.

These two alone ensure Obama gets his second term. Anything else is icing on the cake. He's a lock for 2012.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Wow. Do you work for CNN or do you just watch it on a daily basis?

I prefer NPR.

But, seriously, all the economic indicators I mentioned are 100% true. I'm not saying they tell the whole story, but what else should I be basing my opinions on? What sources of cold, hard facts are there that should sway my feelings on the economy? Post links, and I'll read 'em.

On the second part (Obama re-election), I'll readily admit I'm going out on a limb on the economy. The thing is, I'm not even saying Obama's policies will affect the economy. I'm just guessing from my feeling that the economy goes in 10ish year cycles. This page backs me up somewhat. So, 3 years from now, it seems logical that we'll be seeing some economic growth, irregardless of Obama's actions.

As for the wars, I didn't say they'd be wrapped up successfully. I said they'd be wrapped up "successfully." Once it's not on the daily news, it's done in the minds of Americans. Who's complained about Iraq recently? I don't watch Fox News, so maybe they have, but I just don't know. But in my opinion, Iraq issues have already faded significantly from the American mind. So, why wouldn't Afghanistan have faded too, once the surge is over in 2011 and most of our troops are home?

To me the guessing at Obama's re-election isn't a "liberal" post. It's just guessing at the future based on my thoughts on the American people.

 

[Narcotized]

Obama's a lock for 2012.

He's a lock if the Republicans put up an old man that graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, doesn't offer much in the way of an alternative, and chooses a "you betcha" soccer mom as his sidekick. If Obama faces credible competition he is a lock to get slaughtered in 2012.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

He's a lock if the Republicans put up an old man that graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, doesn't offer much in the way of an alternative, and chooses a "you betcha" soccer mom as his sidekick. If Obama faces credible competition he is a lock to get slaughtered in 2012.

Honestly, I think McCain was a great pick. There were just 2 problems: 1) I bought into the Obama enthusiasm, probably unjustifiably, though I'm not going to pass judgment until I see how the rest of his term goes, and 2) the selection of Palin for VP.

And honestly, 2) was a bigger factor. I was torn for awhile, and after the VP picks it was a no-brainer. I would probably vote against Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington if they had Palin on the ticket. Out of all the women in politics, why did the Republicans choose her? To mobilize the far-right? That end of the spectrum doesn't need any mobilization, and as evidenced by this thread, it causes unending grief to more moderate Republicans.

 

[pgg]

If Obama faces credible competition he is a lock to get slaughtered in 2012.

A big part of the reason the Republicans put up McCain as a nominee in 2008 was because there really wasn't any credible competition.

I don't see any awesome, bold, and compelling Republican leaders out there itching to stand up. Of course it's only 2009 ... but the question stands, who's it going to be?

 

[GoodmanBrown]

He's a lock if the Republicans put up an old man that graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, doesn't offer much in the way of an alternative, and chooses a "you betcha" soccer mom as his sidekick. If Obama faces credible competition he is a lock to get slaughtered in 2012.

In my mind, it's bigger than Obama vs. Other Guy. In the last couple decades, the incumbent president has routinely won if the economy is better at election time compared to when he entered office. Obama just happens to be the president who rides the wave of positive economic change this time around. We could've elected elected a Democrat, a Republican, or a talking horse to this term, and I'd say the same thing. It's always about the economy because that's what the everyAmerican feels most. Banking regulations, foreign wars (without a draft), and takeovers of GM be damned.

The only wild card in my mind is healthcare. If this health care reform shenanigens passes and premiums rise and people lose their health care (which is quite possible, IMHO), Obama is going down. No question. But if the health care status quo remains, or people feel like he did something positive for health care, he's still a lock.

 

[pgg]

The only wild card in my mind is healthcare. If this health care reform shenanigens passes and premiums rise and people lose their health care (which is quite possible, IMHO), Obama is going down. No question. But if the health care status quo remains, or people feel like he did something positive for health care, he's still a lock.

I don't see the negative effects of Obamapelosicare really being felt by the lay public before 2012. I can easily imagine a scenario in which he's well into his 2nd term before enough people say "Wait ... something's not right ... what just happened?"

 

[thegasman]

I prefer NPR.

But, seriously, all the economic indicators I mentioned are 100% true. I'm not saying they tell the whole story, but what else should I be basing my opinions on? What sources of cold, hard facts are there that should sway my feelings on the economy? Post links, and I'll read 'em.

On the second part (Obama re-election), I'll readily admit I'm going out on a limb on the economy. The thing is, I'm not even saying Obama's policies will affect the economy. I'm just guessing from my feeling that the economy goes in 10ish year cycles. This page backs me up somewhat. So, 3 years from now, it seems logical that we'll be seeing some economic growth, irregardless of Obama's actions.

As for the wars, I didn't say they'd be wrapped up successfully. I said they'd be wrapped up "successfully." Once it's not on the daily news, it's done in the minds of Americans. Who's complained about Iraq recently? I don't watch Fox News, so maybe they have, but I just don't know. But in my opinion, Iraq issues have already faded significantly from the American mind. So, why wouldn't Afghanistan have faded too, once the surge is over in 2011 and most of our troops are home?

To me the guessing at Obama's re-election isn't a "liberal" post. It's just guessing at the future based on my thoughts on the American people.

Anyone using the non-word "irregardless" will be ignored. Obama sucks.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I don't see the negative effects of Obamapelosicare really being felt by the lay public before 2012. I can easily imagine a scenario in which he's well into his 2nd term before enough people say "Wait ... something's not right ... what just happened?"

Yeah, I agree. Most of the provisions don't take effect until 2011, right? So, Obama will probably be able to tout his "heath care reform" with impunity. Another point for Obama, me thinks.

Anyone using the non-word "irregardless" will be ignored. Obama sucks.

Merriam-Webster begs to differ, though I'll take note and use regardless from now on.

 

[Narcotized]

Obama just happens to be the president who rides the wave of positive economic change this time around.

You make a huge assumption that the economy will be better in 2012. We may get a technical bounce and appear somewhat stable in 2012, but we are clearly well into a debt death spiral and just intensifying the inevitable with these massive spending/debt programs. It's just as possible you will experience an economy you've never experienced in 2012 and look back at 2009 as the good ol days.

The JAPS have their stock exchange at 25% of it's high TWENTY years ago. But Americans love to think their Titanic can't possibly sink, yet policy is doing its best to assure just that. Hey, the Romans couldn't possibly fold either, right?

 

[GoodmanBrown]

You make a huge assumption that the economy will be better in 2012. We may get a technical bounce and appear somewhat stable in 2012, but we are clearly well into a debt death spiral and just intensifying the inevitable with these massive spending/debt programs. It's just as possible you will experience an economy you've never experienced in 2012 and look back at 2009 as the good ol days.

The Japanese have their stock exchange at 25% of it's high TWENTY years ago. But Americans love to think their Titanic can't possibly sink, yet policy is doing its best to assure just that. Hey, the Romans couldn't possibly fold either, right?

Oh, yeah. I totally agree that we're in for rocky, rocky times as Americans. I do think the economy will feel better in 2012, hence my Obama re-election thoughts. But as a whole, the US is way outspending its means. Foremost, we need to up Social Security entrance age to 72ish. Social Security was never meant to finance retirement. Medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc. also need to be reined in, though I definitely don't have great ideas on how to improve these. I do think they're necessary, but I don't think there are easy solutions as there is for Soc. Sec.

I wouldn't be overly surpised if the US defaults on its debts eventually, and I don't even want to think of the turmoil that it would cause. I can't imagine the public outrage when the government cuts tons of programs because it actually has to pay as it goes because no one will loan us money after we screw them out of the $40-50 trillion we'll eventually owe them.

 

[Eta Carinae]

While her merits will always remain questionable (including having to transfer to five different colleges before ever earning a community college degree and a history of failing grades etc), I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Mz. Palin.

Nov 1 2009 Gallup polls show Republicans ranking her just after Huckabee (#1), with Romney following close behind if not tied with her, followed by Barbour, ito who they are mostly likely to vote for.

As a woman who is able to rally "the faithful" through persistent proclamation of conservative dogmas (of which she is bereft of a depth of understanding), her power comes from support (in numbers) that could swing both ways- constituting an impediment to democratic congress' agenda AND dismantling the campaigns of any of her political rivals on the Republican side.

And she has the requisite culture of pursuing Vendettas to make both of those possibilities a reality.

The media attacked Palin because she was such a shockingly inappropriate, unqualified, erratic, bizarre, left field nomination. Her selection was a hail mary stunt. The alleged liberal media gave her a series of softball interviews and she blew them all by herself.

Palin was simply unprepared and outclassed.

that's putting it nicely...

She is obsessed with her imagination that simply being herself in whatever condition that is, will always be enough. Palin stands in sharp contradistinction to Truman and Reagan whose relentless efforts to purge themselves of their unfortunate (or ill-fitting for Washington) backgrounds drove them to countless hours of study and preparation. Reagan, in fact, became notorious for his "imperial aloofness", his solitude in dedication to study and his impressive collection of books on political philosophy, preparing studies in concise argument which he read on radio five times a week.

Palin's problem is not her legs, neither is it even Bristol's pregnancy, it's that even after she's finally had time to compile a list of what she actually reads, the absence of any moral and intellectual progress persists. It's the reflection of the curiously arrested condition of the movement she represents.

Albeit, the passion (and numbers) of her followers, though not new in American populist history (ala Huey Long), while it reflects the sorry state of the American public education system (thank God for private middle/high school education...ABROAD!), makes her a political force to be reckoned with.

tele-prompter fed platitudes.

Newsflash sunny,
All presidents use teleprompters. Thanks to W actually following it with his head (instead of his eyes only) suddenly the public (or perhaps FoxNews) is antagonistic to it...H., Clinton, Reagan etc all used prompters.

 

[Narcotized]

I can't imagine the public outrage when the government cuts tons of programs because it actually has to pay as it goes because no one will loan us money after we screw them out of the $40-50 trillion we'll eventually owe them.

.

 

[cfdavid]

You make a huge assumption that the economy will be better in 2012. We may get a technical bounce and appear somewhat stable in 2012, but we are clearly well into a debt death spiral and just intensifying the inevitable with these massive spending/debt programs. It's just as possible you will experience an economy you've never experienced in 2012 and look back at 2009 as the good ol days.

The JAPS have their stock exchange at 25% of it's high TWENTY years ago. But Americans love to think their Titanic can't possibly sink, yet policy is doing its best to assure just that. Hey, the Romans couldn't possibly fold either, right?

Yeah, neither did the USSR. Here's an interesting article.


Are You Ready for the Next Crisis?
By Paul Craig Roberts

A narco-state is bad enough. The US surpasses this horror with its financo-state…

Evidence that the US is a failed state is piling up faster than I can record it.

One conclusive hallmark of a failed state is that the crooks are inside the government, using government to protect and to advance their private interests.

Another conclusive hallmark is rising income inequality as the insiders manipulate economic policy for their enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

Income inequality in the US is now the most extreme of all countries. The 2008 OECD report, “Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries,” concludes that the US is the country with the highest inequality and poverty rate across the OECD and that since 2000 nowhere has there been such a stark rise in income inequality as in the US.

The OECD finds that in the US the distribution of wealth is even more unequal than the distribution of income.

On October 21, 2009, Business Week reported that a new report from the United Nations Development Program concluded that the US ranked third among states with the worst income inequality. As number one and number two, Hong Kong and Singapore, are both essentially city states, not countries, the US actually has the shame of being the country with the most inequality in the distribution of income.

The stark increase in US income inequality in the 21st century coincides with the offshoring of US jobs, which enriched executives with “performance bonuses” while impoverishing the middle class, and with the rapid rise of unregulated OTC derivatives, which enriched Wall Street and the financial sector at the expense of everyone else.

Millions of Americans have lost their homes and half of their retirement savings while being loaded up with government debt to bail out the banksters who created the derivative crisis.

Frontline’s October 21 broadcast, “The Warning,” documents how Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt blocked Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, from performing her statutory duties and regulating OTC derivatives.

After the worst crisis in US financial history struck, just as Brooksley Born said it would, a disgraced Alan Greenspan was summoned out of retirement to explain to Congress his unequivocal assurances that no regulation of derivatives was necessary. Greenspan had even told Congress that regulation of derivatives would be harmful. A pathetic Greenspan had to admit that the free market ideology on which he had relied turned out to have a flaw.

Greenspan may have bet our country on his free market ideology, but does anyone believe that Rubin and Summers were doing anything other than protecting the enormous fraud-based profits that derivatives were bringing Wall Street? As Brooksley Born stressed, OTC derivatives are a “dark market.” There is no transparency. Regulators have no information on them and neither do purchasers.

Even after Long Term Capital Management blew up in 1998 and had to be bailed out, Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers stuck to their guns. Greenspan, Rubin and Summers, and a roped-in gullible Arthur Levitt who now regrets that he was the banksters’ dupe, succeeded in manipulating a totally ignorant Congress into blocking the CFTC from doing its mandated job. Brooksley Born, prevented by the public’s elected representatives from protecting the public, resigned. Wall Street money simply shoved facts and honest regulators aside, guaranteeing government inaction and the financial crisis that hit in 2008 and continues to plague our economy today.

The financial insiders running the Treasury, White House, and Federal Reserve shifted to taxpayers the cost of the catastrophe that they had created. When the crisis hit, Henry Paulson, appointed by President Bush as Rubin’s replacement as the Goldman Sachs representative running the US Treasury, hyped fear to obtain from “our” representatives in Congress with no questions asked hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars (TARP money) to bail out Goldman Sachs and the other malefactors of unregulated derivatives.

When Goldman Sachs recently announced that it was paying massive six- and seven-figure bonuses to every employee, public outrage erupted. In defense of banksters, saved with the public’s money, paying themselves bonuses in excess of most people’s life-time earnings, Lord Griffiths, Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, said that the public must learn to “tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all.”

In other words, “Let them eat cake.”

According to the UN report cited above, Great Britain has the 7th most unequal income distribution in the world. After the Goldman Sachs bonuses, the British will move up in distinction, perhaps rivalling Israel for the fourth spot in the hierarchy.

Despite the total insanity of unregulated derivatives, the high level of public anger, and Greenspan’s confession to Congress, still nothing has been done to regulate derivatives.

One of Rubin’s Assistant Treasury Secretaries, Gary Gensler, has replaced Brooksley Born as head of the CFTC. Larry Summers is the head of President Obama’s National Economic Council. Former Federal Reserve official Timothy Geithner, a Paulson protege, runs the Obama Treasury. A Goldman Sachs vice president, Adam Storch, has been appointed the chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Banksters are still in charge….

 

[tennischamp822]

...

 

[pgg]

because no one will loan us money after we screw them out of the $40-50 trillion we'll eventually owe them.

Yeah, this will end poorly.

Still, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy for our foreign creditors who'll be left holding the bag when we default.

Like the banks that lent $500K no-doc mortgages to Wal-Mart greeters who couldn't even greet in English, those foreign creditors made a risky investment. They're no more entitled to guaranteed returns than I am when I buy shares of Apple.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Sorry, but I thought this was absolutely just hilarious, I had to share it here:

"In honor of Sarah Palin's best-selling new memoir we asked Slate readers to submit sentences that captured Palin's unique style of writing. We received more than 700 entries, the best of which combined
pastoral lyricism ("the soft periwinkle glow of the Alaskan morning")

with

unlikely metaphors ("The snow machine pummeled through the white-dusted plain like a jubilant beaver")

and

an adventurous approach to the English language."

http://www.slate.com/id/2237261/