Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Months ago, a former chief economist at the IMF called it mind control. Talking to Simon Johnson of the Atlantic Monthly, he explained that one of the most alarming truths laid bare by the economic crash was that the finance industry had effectively captured the thinking of government.
"That's going too far," said reasonable people. "This is no Banana Republic run by crony cartels."
That was before we read Tim Geithner's phone records.
Thursday's AP report shows executives at a handful of companies -- Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs -- had not just the ear, but both ears of the Treasury Secretary to the exclusion of other even bigger and more troubled banks and legislators.
As AP points out, Geithner had more contacts with Citigroup than he did with Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lawmaker leading the effort to approve Geithner's financial overhaul plan. And Geithner's contacts with Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and CEO at Goldman, way outnumber his contacts with Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
After the week this May when GM almost went bankrupt and the government was considering a federal takeover, the treasury secretary called Blankfein, then Jamie Dimon, the boss at JPMorgan. Then Obama called and as soon as they hung up, Geithner was back on the phone with Dimon. Poor California Democrat Xavier Becerra -- who handles silly stuff like taxes and budgets. He had to leave a voice-mail message.
Geithner wasn't talking to all bankers -- mostly with people he served on nonprofit boards with, and hung out with socially.
So. . . where others have drug cartels, we have a debt cartel? It'd be clear by now if Geithner was just listening to his friends to hone his arguments against greater bank consolidation, debt securitization and finance over industry. So far Geithner has yet to show any sign of breaking with his Wall Street pushers.
In a Banana Republic we'd pay out protection money. Oh, but I forgot, we did that already.
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GritLaura on Twitter.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Oh, don't worry about it, Ms Flanders...
Ralph Nader has a 700 page novel showing us how to bring about the Revolution!
Or Ron Paul's got a slightly shorter non-fiction work.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:14am
there's no limit to the lengths Mask will go to stand up for the status quo!
viva la bailouts!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 08:12am
piffle.
one thing to remember about the banks. they have all of our money.
by all reports the financial crisis has abated, .
as distasteful as the gov't's policy may be, it has been a success.
now, about those jobs.
we have heard from the cons that FDR's policies did not end the depression, the war did.
what ended the depression was gov't creating jobs, building trucks,tanks planes etc.
I repeat gov't created jobs ended the depression.
once more, gov't created jobs. whether this is armaments or servicing our infrastructure is immaterial.
jobs put money in people's pockets. only that will turn our consumer economy around.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 08:22am
Take it easy, Ms. Flanders!
The "Debt Cartel" isn't making any money off its Debt anyway. They just hope to recoup as close to 100 cents on the dollar as they can.
You should pay more attention to the `Interest-Rate Cartel' that's keeping rates low* so that the "Cartel" can make money hand-over-fist using interest-free money!
*Disclosure: My adj. rate mortgage just went down to 3.5% (Prime plus 0.25%) and I'm HAPPY!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 09:17am
'...there are now serious questions about whether a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress can enact basic elements of the Democratic agenda.' -- John Nichols -- The Nation -- http://www.then ation.com/blogs/theb eat/483551/whine r_in_chief
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 09:21am
*Disclosure: My adj. rate mortgage just went down to 3.5% (Prime plus 0.25%) and I'm HAPPY!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 09:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
Meanwhile the value of the dollar sinks.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 09:21am |
Possibly, after all a GOP Congress and a GOP Presidency couldn't pass the "Human Life Amendment" (a plank of the Repub Party) that would have Constitutionally ended abortion in this country.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:01am
Meanwhile the value of the dollar sinks.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 09:55am
No surprise, right?
I went into Gold (GLD) and a gold-mining fund in May, they are going gang-busters! In the meantime, I've sold off a third of my oil/gas stocks/fund to take some profits! Today, I'll initiate my first offer for a Vegas condo!
Inflation, please come!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:07am
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
See Bill Moyer's Jouranl last week Maskie with Marcy Kaptur and Simon Johnson.
Not just Nader and Paul that are worried.
Paraphrasing........
Kaptur: "Obama needs new generals fast"
Johnson: "Obama is in bed with those who "serve" him"
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:08am
Inflation, please come!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
It will Happy - be patient. Next year for sure.
You've already got a conflict at the Fed. Couple weeks ago Fed says we are going to raise interest rates (G20 pressure) and then last week, the Fed says we are going to leave rates where they are (the debt cartel).
Australia already raising rates, and Gordon Brown selling off public assets to pay down debt.
Lots of money waiting on the sidelines to buy distressed real estate once the Fed is forced out of the market.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:16am
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:08am
Either my suspicion or not, OV...
you're NEVER going to be satisfied with who becomes President....never.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:19am
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:08am
Either my suspicion or not, OV...
you're NEVER going to be satisfied with who becomes President....never.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:19am
Why don't you tell us, YOU are satisfied with the current President....after all, he's NOT Bush!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:51am
Inflation, please come!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
It will Happy - be patient. Next year for sure.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:16am
Inflation?
Double-digit unemployment?
President can't get his proposals through Congress?
Energy crisis?
Car manufacturers going bust?
Treasury Secretary with baggage from previous job?
President endorsed national health insurance during the campaign, but not doing much about it?
Controversy over Afghanistan?
Deficit rising?
Trouble with Iran?
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 10:59am
Did I just fall asleep for 30 years?
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 10:08am
Either my suspicion or not, OV...
you're NEVER going to be satisfied with who becomes President....never.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:19am
Why don't you tell us, YOU are satisfied with the current President....after all, he's NOT Bush!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Mask's bar is very low...it's why he's able to smile when he looks in the mirror
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:01am
you're NEVER going to be satisfied with who becomes President....never.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
I see. So it is my character flaw. A malcontent who will never be satisfied.
Well, alrighty then. I guess I just need an "attitude adjustment."
Fired Up - Ready to Go!
How's that?
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:04am
Inflation?
Double-digit unemployment?
President can't get his proposals through Congress?
Energy crisis?
Car manufacturers going bust?
Treasury Secretary with baggage from previous job?
President endorsed national health insurance during the campaign, but not doing much about it?
Controversy over Afghanistan?
Deficit rising?
Trouble with Iran?
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't worry Mistral - Mask says Bama is going to fix it, and if he doesn't, you should still be SATISFIED. Kind of like a sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.
Happy is betting on misery, and profiting from it. I am betting that he will become richer.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:10am
Geithner will never become a multimillionaire listening to the majority of US citizens. He will, however, be richly rewarded if he listens to the debt cartel. So will Obama & Co.
Posted by sloper at 10/13/2009 @ 11:25am
Why don't you tell us, YOU are satisfied with the current President....after all, he's NOT Bush!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
I am trying to remember a post by Mask ever criticizing BO?
I think you have nicely summarized Mask's criteria for "satisfaction."
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:26am
Don't worry Mistral - Mask says Bama is going to fix it, and if he doesn't, you should still be SATISFIED. Kind of like a sheep being led to the slaughterhouse.
Happy is betting on misery, and profiting from it. I am betting that he will become richer.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:10am
--Mask thinks "right" (as in what is good, not as in conservative politically) will triumph, because it always has--so no need to tune into politics, just relax, it'll all be taken care of on its own...
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:51am
Yep...a good place to start with any President "He's not Bush!"
Of course you had no problems with Bush, not even the spending, HAPP. He was white and Right.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:31am
I am trying to remember a post by Mask ever criticizing BO?
I think you have nicely summarized Mask's criteria for "satisfaction."
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Mask most certainly won't criticize Obama outright (if anything, and it's a big IF, his criticisms of Obama will be mealy-mouthed and, like Happy said, and which I've said literally hundreds of times about Mask and other Obama apologists, since Obama isn't literally Bush, they are content--and will argue "give him time" or "bush's f-ups can't be fixed this quickly" etc...
ask them when the timeline will run out on using as scapegoats both Bush and Obama's relatively "short" time as President
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:32am
"Happy is betting on misery, and profiting from it."----Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:10am
Aren't you?
I mean, if things get better under Obama, HAPP will find some way to play it down...YOU will find some way to play it down.
If things stay the same or get worse, HAPP will recount it all with glee...YOU will recount it all with glee...
HAPP will tell us a "purist to the ideology" can challenge Obama in 2012 and win....YOU will tell us a "purist to the ideology" can challenge Obama in 2012 and win.
Right?
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:36am
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:51am
Yep...a good place to start with any President "He's not Bush!"
Of course you had no problems with Bush, not even the spending, HAPP. He was white and Right.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
--key phrase being "good place to start"
...you won't judge him on what he's actually done though
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:36am
"Happy is betting on misery, and profiting from it."----Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 11:10am
Aren't you?
I mean, if things get better under Obama, HAPP will find some way to play it down...YOU will find some way to play it down.
If things stay the same or get worse, HAPP will recount it all with glee...YOU will recount it all with glee...
HAPP will tell us a "purist to the ideology" can challenge Obama in 2012 and win....YOU will tell us a "purist to the ideology" can challenge Obama in 2012 and win.
Right?
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
--and you're betting on Obama righting the ship...yet there's no specific goals you will itemize for him to reach...and no timetables for him to reach them...
just hope for change!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:39am
urmy thinks I've got him on Ignore...
it's actually more fun not to and watch him prove what REALLY concerns him and it ain't Obama, politics, or anybody else on this blog but...you know!..heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:48am
I don't think you have me on ignore Mask...
but I know you'll continue to IGNORE plain questions put forth to you that expose you as an Obama-apologist.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 12:03pm
Right?
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wrong.
Happy doesn't pray for destruction of the goose that lays his golden egg.
He is lucky that he has the resources to profit defensively from the self-serving monetary and fiscal policy designed to keep the baloon inflated for the debt holders.
It is called economic survival. Happy has got kids that I am sure he worries about. He sounds like a good dad. His son is in medical school.
I imagine that you profit in some form or fashion by the status quo.
Would you like to tell us how so?
Your remarkable absence of distress leads me to believe that you are quite comfortable.
How are you profiting Mask? Are you paid to support the DNC? Weren't you part of MSM at one time? Did you go from a journalist to a political shill?
Tell us your story!
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 12:12pm
but I know you'll continue to IGNORE plain questions put forth to you that expose you as an Obama-apologist.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Remember Urmy - Mask gets to ask the questions - he doesn't answer them.
Mask Rule 101.
Cross Reference: Propaganda Rule 101.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 12:23pm
How are you profiting Mask? Are you paid to support the DNC? Weren't you part of MSM at one time? Did you go from a journalist to a political shill?
Tell us your story!
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 12:12pm
Oh, he's just a harmless little fuzzball.
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 12:26pm
The 'debt' cartel' as you put is is also the war cartel, the 'chosen' cartel, the media brainwashing cartel, the WH cabinet cartel, the congress cartel and the grand larceny cartel. But hey, these 'guys' need us, so don't feel bad. They need us to fight their wars with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and whoever else the Israelis dictate. If going to war is the only way we can feed ourselves, guess what? We'll do it.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/13/2009 @ 12:57pm
Good point OneVote--it explains Mask's obvious jealousy toward media that is successful. He's not.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:27pm
Oh, he's just a harmless little fuzzball.----Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 12:26pm
Let me guess you "never listen, and if you do it's sporadic, maybe 1-2 times every 4-6 months"?
ROFLMAO!
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
'Oh, he's just a harmless little fuzzball.' -- Mistral
Yes, but wait until he eats all your quadro-triticale.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 2:13pm
Yes, but wait until he eats all your quadro-triticale.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 2:13pm
Remember, the solution is not to feed them - Bones eventually figured it out.
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
Actually the solution is to beam them into the Klingon vessel before it goes to warp!
Don't try to out-geek a geek!
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:25pm
So if we don't feed Mask, pretty soon, we won't have to listen to him?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 2:31pm
All the leftist wanted was "Anybody But Bush" never realizing the they cast their votes for ALL NOBODIES that haven't even got a clue!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 2:34pm
Oh yes. I've got him on ignore, but everybody keeps reposting and replying ("feeding") Mask.
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 2:35pm
All the leftist wanted was "Anybody But Bush" never realizing the they cast their votes for ALL NOBODIES that haven't even got a clue!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 2:34pm
They thought they were voting for the lesser of two evils and they got the evil of two lessers?
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 2:38pm
Posted by sloper at 10/13/2009 @ 11:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
nonsense. they could make far more money in the private sector.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 3:00pm
nonsense. they could make far more money in the private sector.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 3:00pm
Does this mean they are in government jobs purely for altruistic reasons?
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 3:34pm
Oh, he's just a harmless little fuzzball.
Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - a real cutie pie....lol.....
Mask's "insinuations" are really tragic, but kind of funny too.
He is good sport to poke fun at, and I think in the bigger picture, reminds us all of the dead end centrist logic that allowed corporations to take control of our beloved democracy.
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 3:34pm
Good point OneVote--it explains Mask's obvious jealousy toward media that is successful. He's not.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Likely his editor just got sick and tired of the same 'in the box' reporting or editorials from Mask all the time...
"The President will follow the path of least resistance and will do X, and the Congress will follow the path of least resistance and do Y."
Duh?
Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 3:46pm
ask them when the timeline will run out on using as scapegoats both Bush and Obama's relatively "short" time as President
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:32am
Can we use this as a timeline:
At least we got through the first September of the new President's term without enduring the largest terror attack on American soil ever.
Too bad the last president can't say that.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:16pm
ask them when the timeline will run out on using as scapegoats both Bush and Obama's relatively "short" time as President
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:32am
Can we use this as a timeline: At least we got through the first September of the new President's term without enduring the largest terror attack on American soil ever. Too bad the last president can't say that.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I despise Bush too. You're using him as a scapegoat, just like Mask et al do.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 5:46pm
Inflation, please come!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:07am
oh, that's a long way off.
the money is a-shrinking....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2009 @ 8:05pm
nonsense. they could make far more money in the private sector.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 3:00pm
oh, they will.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2009 @ 8:10pm
Inflation, please come!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:07am
oh, that's a long way off.
the money is a-shrinking....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2009 @ 8:05pm
You.....don't think shrinking money is the flip side of inflation?
The reason inflation is `delayed' for the time being, is that demand has collapsed in the US. Secondarily, those exporting to us are just recovering and are willing to take less margin/proft in their own currencies.
When rest of the world get going while we lag behind, imports will be priced much higher in dollars. This is what the unions want.....can't blame them!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 8:59pm
happy,
demand is not coming back for a long time.
two things:
"Yes, the job market continues to get worse and worse. Yes, bankruptcies are at epidemic levels. Yes, the credit crunch is intensifying. Yes, foreclosures are hitting new records. Yes, almost 35 million Americans are on food stamps and 39 million people live below the poverty line.
But if we hadn't bailed out the bankers so that they could cut off credit to small businesses while using the bailout money to speculate on the stock market, things would be much worse. What's that? You say that doesn't make any sense?"
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/sacrificing-economy-volcano-god
••
http://www.monkeybusinessblog.com/mbb_weblog /2009/10/repeat-after-me-if-blackstone-and-kkr- are-selling-i-should-not-be-buying.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2009 @ 9:58pm
happy,
demand is not coming back for a long time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2009 @ 9:58pm
You're conflating the US economy with the global economy. I agree w/you (mostly) on "demand is not coming back" for while here in the States under Obamanomics. Oh, they will, but anemic at best.
China's projected growth rate is 9%+, India's is 7.5%, not sure how fast for Brazil and other new tigers.....Europe is getting their own houses in order and lowering tax rates....most all of them will be doing much better than us while we try to become Old Europe.
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:24pm
At least we got through the first September of the new President's term without enduring the largest terror attack on American soil ever.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:16pm
Thanks to Bush and Cheney, we are much safer than when Bush came into office.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 10:59pm
Laura, Thanks for a spot on article. Obama is an enigma himself. Who would have thought he'd appoint the very neocons to right the ship that they had failed in the first place. Being president is more than being able to say, see, you guys messed this up and if you can't fix it, it's on you. Well, it's not on them. They're rich beyond measure already and really have nothing to loose. Obama, on the other hand, may end up being a one term president.
The bailouts have yet to fix anything. The bailouts, so far, have extended the business as usual for the banks the government bailed out. Unemployment is still high and talking about the going green ain't gonna do anything. No high speed rail system. No wind mills. Nothing. But we are in Iraq and Afghanistan bleeding out money left and right for natural gas and oil pipelines. The question for me is why. We don't get our oil from the middle east. We get most of ours from Canada Venezuela.
So the U.S. tax payer is funding wars for private profit in other countries. Our leaders could give a shit less about jobs being created here. Sadly to say, this appears to be the situation on both sides of the isle.
Evidently our best national product is war, more war and as much war as our leaders can drum up. When the wars are done, private international corporations rake in the money rebuilding from the destruction the wars leave in their wake. None of this benefits the American people.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 07:08am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 07:08am
Oh, really, Wolf....talk about something important...
like me!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:38am
ask them when the timeline will run out on using as scapegoats both Bush and Obama's relatively "short" time as President
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:32am
Thanks to Bush and Cheney, we are much safer than when Bush came into office.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 10:59pm
Remember that former VP Cheney is on the list of Washington power people that Ari Melber writes about in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/notion/483989/ progressives_bloggers_make_ gq_s_new_washington_power_list). So I suppose this means the Democrats can keep scapegoating and the Republicans can keep taking credit for q long time
Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 08:28am
h, really, Wolf....talk about something important...
like me!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:38am
Well, we are more likely to get change from you than from the administration of change. Obama may politically be doing the right things to be elected again, but making incremental changes when drastic changes are needed won't solve the problems at hand.
Listening only to the likes of Larry Summer and Timmy Geithner is a prescription for disaster. That's how we got into this mess in the first place....following Milton Friedman's greed is good advice.
I sometimes think that this country would be better off if you randomly picked some guy off the street to run things. At least you have the random chance that he'd be an honest guy who wasn't looking out for big old number one.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 08:41am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 08:41am
Can I venture another theory?
That the public doesn't want "drastic change"?
As yourself, why did the Tea Parties and Town Hollerers succeed (as much as they did, mind you, there is still going to be SOME bill passed)? "Astro-turffing" and "Fox News" doesn't cover the whole thing, does it?
Is it POSSIBLE that the general public doesn't want a "massive reform" or "total overhaul"?
Of course our right-wing friends will claim just about anything passed is "Socialism!!!!!" and a fevered panic.....but couldn't it also be just as wrong for those on the Left to claim that "It's still not good enough!" at just about anything and everything?
Now, of course we can banter polls..."74% want a public option"...and the Right will pull out ""86% don't want Government take-over"....but what if the truth lies a little between that?
And the public wants some incremental change...opposing the Right's "status quo", but opposing the Left's "single payer now!!!!"?
Or...put it this way...what if "The Nation" is just as wrong as "National Review"??? Or both have a piece of the puzzle, but not the whole landscape?
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 09:18am
Now, of course we can banter polls..."74% want a public option"...and the Right will pull out ""86% don't want Government take-over"....but what if the truth lies a little between that? .....
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 09:18am
You are right. I never accused the American voters of being intelligent as a whole. We, as a whole, by into any scare tactic employed by the insurance companies, defense contractors and the pentagon.
But, as we sit here idly by throwing trillions into our defense budget, ratchet up wars we shouldn't be in, and continue to support a ton of overseas military bases because we are afraid someone is coming to get us, we'll get what we deserve. Financial ruin as a nation. If we cut our defense spending in half and stopped all of our overseas war efforts, we could easily fund social security, and health care. But, we appear to be a nation of cowards. How does the saying go... the coward dies many deaths, but the valiant only die once.
The only justification for the defense budget we have is fear. Fear dictates how we as a nation spend our money, not rational thought.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 10:32am
by....sorry, should be buy into
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 10:33am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 10:32am
True...but BOTH sides use it.
The Right uses fear of "Soviet-style socialism" every time somebody proposes an inkling of a domestic policy agenda that doesn't involve tax cuts for Exxon-Mobil or "30 days notification of the father before an abortion"...
they use it for foreign policy....Commies on the doorstep to terrorists just waiting for us to leave Afghanistan and they'll be in downtown Bloomington, IN or Birmingham, AL is DAYS!!!
The Left uses fear of "One paycheck away from homelessness" or "thousands bankrupt due to medical expenses".
((Now is when BOTH sides jump on me and say "But OUR fears are REAL!!! Theirs are false!"...and prove my point!))
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 11:19am
and prove my point!))
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 11:19am
As I said also, both sides fears may come to pass if the market takes another nose dive. The commies don't have to come to our door, we'll destroy ourselves by running up our debt on military ventures and spending.
Look at what happened to the Soviet Union. The irony of this, is that it's the same country that the Soviets got bogged down in that we are now trying to undertake. If that isn't complete stupidity with a little arrogance thrown in, I don't know what is.
No matter how they slice it, we as a nation can't afford any more expensive overseas business ventures tied with military coups whether it be our military or some hired hands off the local economy in whichever country they decide to rule. Like the Roman empire, we're spread too thin. We don't have the manpower to rule the world nor do we have the wealth and we certainly don't have the expertise. No country has in the history of the world. Only arrogance makes our corporate masters think they can.
All of our arm chair warriors don't know what pandoras box will bring when they open it. They thought that our military would saunter into Iraq, kick butt in a couple of weeks, have the Iraqis greet us like heroes and everyone lived happily ever after. It didn't work out and hasn't worked out that way and neither will Afghanistan. There's nothing there for us to win, but we sure as hell can lose a lot.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 11:40am
The only justification for the defense budget we have is fear. Fear dictates how we as a nation spend our money, not rational thought.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 10:32am
This is just another example of how a number of liberals just don't have a clue (even when it's one who served in the military, like Wolfgang).
<If we desire to insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.>
George Washington, Annual Message, December 1793
25% of our budget is for payroll of military personnel
9.5% goes towards medical care for military personnel and their families
2% goes for housing for military families
That represents 194.5 billion of the 533 billion dollar budget
We cannot afford to reduce the number of personnel in the military, if for no other reason than the size of the Chinese army.
The Chinese army is already 2.5 million which is a million more than our active forces.
Their budget actually would be similar to ours if they actually paid their military even half of what our military personnel earn.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
We cannot afford to reduce the number of personnel in the military
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
Instead of bankrupting ourselves (remember what happened to the USSR when their military got too expensive?) maybe we should ask the other democracies (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.) to pay their fair share of the common defence?
Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 1:24pm
Instead of bankrupting ourselves (remember what happened to the USSR when their military got too expensive?) maybe we should ask the other democracies (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.) to pay their fair share of the common defence?
Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 1:24pm
A good idea but then the left, led by Chomsky, Zinn and the Nation mag would claim we are bent on Imperial power.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 1:30pm
Their budget actually would be similar to ours if they actually paid their military even half of what our military personnel earn.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
hey, another great outsourcing idea!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/14/2009 @ 1:39pm
"Bingo. We can easily slash our military budget by 70% and still be the most powerful nation in the world. Moreover, it is time to declare the war in Iraq and Afghanistan over, pack our bags and leave. Gradually, over the next 5-8 years we should bring home all our troops from literally every county they are stationed.
This chart shows the absurdity of our spending.
Chart courtesy of Global Issues - World Military Spending.
Nearly $700 billion dollars of "defense" spending. The amount needed for actual defense is 20% of that at most, and more likely 5%. Balancing the budget is easy if you start here."
michael "mish" shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
••
larry, this site his highly recommended.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
Nation mag would claim we are bent on Imperial power.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 1:30pm
At least if you're an imperial power you should try to go for the good stuff. The Romans went for Gaul and Carthage. Alexander went for Persia and India. The Czars (not the Obama communist czars, the Cyrillic czars) went for fabled Samarkand, the British for India, Manhattan and South Africa, the Mongols and Chinese for the juicy parts of Asia, and what prizes did the US fight over? Cuba, Vietnam, Aztlan...
Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 2:43pm
Nearly $700 billion dollars of "defense" spending. The amount needed for actual defense is 20% of that at most, and more likely 5%. Balancing the budget is easy if you start here."
michael "mish" shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
••
larry, this site his highly recommended.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
First of all, he throws out a number without any means of justifying it.
Secondly, at 5% of current, budget we would have to reduce our military personnel by over 95%. Do you think anyone but the 1-2% fringe in this country would support that.
That would reduce us from 1.5 person military to 75,000. You cannot defend the country with that few of people.
The guy is just another dreamer leftist who denies all reality. His expertise: he is an investment broker who's hobby is photography. He has zero credibility and his statements show it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 3:01pm
The only justification for the defense budget we have is fear. Fear dictates how we as a nation spend our money, not rational thought.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 10:32am
....
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
Useful & easily hybridized Quotable Quote by Wolfie....
The only justification for the family food budget we have is fear (of hunger). Fear dictates how we as a family spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the car budget we have is fear (of mobility loss). Fear dictates how we spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the insurance budget we have is fear (of major illness). Fear dictates how we spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the school budget we have is fear (of being idiots). Fear dictates how we spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the internet budget we have is fear (of being isolated). Fear dictates how we spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the entertainment budget we have is fear (of being unHAPPY). Fear dictates how we spend our money, not rational thought.
The only justification for the clothing budget we have is fear (of being nude). Fear dictates....
The only justification for the utility budget we have is fear (of going blind). Fear dictates....
The only justification for the law enforcement budget we have is fear....
The only justification for the prison budget we have is fear....
Wiser words have never been penned before by Wolfie!
Posted by Happy at 10/14/2009 @ 3:08pm
It's quite simple guys...
Larry/antisoc...loves war.
He'll deny it til he's blue in the face, but everything he supports from domestic spending to foreign policy is about one thing and one thing only....
a huge military that will be endlessly at war with a nebulous opponent "terrorists" and "victory just around the corner" (as long as HIS guys are in charge) and "retreat and it's death to us all!!!" if somebody opposes it.
Ask him when the "War on Terror" will end....ballpark it...and I'll guarentee the time-frame he gives is likely past his expected lifespan (He's in his 60s now....healthy food eater and exerciser...grant him 30 more years).
He loves militarism (not just "the military") and jingoism and endless....war. Period.
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
He loves militarism (not just "the military") and jingoism and endless....war. Period.
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
That's why he's on my ignore list. He's a hypocrite. He claims to be a christian and then rants and raves about how great military conquests are. The man he claims to follow never killed anyone.
The irony in all of this, of course, is that the Romans occupied Israel in the time of Jesus much the same as Bush invaded Iraq and now the U.S. occupies Iraq and Afghanistan now and if folks like the rev had their way, you could add Iran and North Korea and possibly China to that list.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 3:43pm
The man he claims to follow never killed anyone.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 3:43pm
His Dad, however, was quite a mighty smiter.
Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 3:53pm
It's quite simple guys...
Larry/antisoc...loves war.
He'll deny it til he's blue in the face, but everything he supports from domestic spending to foreign policy is about one thing and one thing only....
a huge military that will be endlessly at war with a nebulous opponent "terrorists" and "victory just around the corner" (as long as HIS guys are in charge) and "retreat and it's death to us all!!!" if somebody opposes it.
Ask him when the "War on Terror" will end....ballpark it...and I'll guarentee the time-frame he gives is likely past his expected lifespan (He's in his 60s now....healthy food eater and exerciser...grant him 30 more years).
He loves militarism (not just "the military") and jingoism and endless....war. Period.
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
You're nuts Mask. I'll repeat, no one loves war. But until we no longer have enemies trying to kill us or enslave us, war will remain a necessity.
And as you know (even while lying about me), I support all of our presidents as commander-in-chief. I demonstrated that by enlisting under LBJ when I was 17 years old. I supported Clinton on Bosnia-Kosovo and the targeted attempts on Obama in the 90's. I supported Clinton on the Iraq Liberation Act (how about you?). I support president Obama on making Afghanistan a central front in the war on terror.
Not because I love war, but because I hate totalitarianism, enslavement of others, and conversely, I love liberty and freedom for myself and all mankind.
You evidently have mixed feelings about freedom since you are neither willing to defend it or bring freedom to others.
Your repeated juvenile attempts to label me as "loving" war simply reflect your inability to understand the cost of freedom.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 09:18am
Just one flaw in your well-reasoned reasoning: scientific brain scans show definitively that FOX-steeped 'working class whites' have less clarity about the concept of a public option than do their pit bull pups, so long as the latter were not near the television.
Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 07:21am