|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
I just don't get it. I heard a lady from South Carolina on National Proletarian Radio (voice of Socialism Worldwide). They are voting in the meaningless Republican primary for president this weekend, you know, the one with the Invisible Candidate (R*n P**l). This lady lives in a county with 12% unemployed, and she said they needed to elect somebody who could help them. I gasped for air.
Doesn't she understand that the government is the REASON we suffer economic turmoil and instability? Rotten money?
With all due respect, when did anybody from any government ever help anybody? Of the three greatest lies in the world, the first on the list is, "Hi! I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." All government money comes with a sock in the jaw. All government help comes with ropes, chains, and shackles.
I don't get it. Why can I see this, and somebody from South Carolina (of all places!) not see it? When are folks going to wake up grasp that the government cavalry is NOT coming, and you don't want 'em to? If anybody is going to help us, it will have to be US, and we have to start by re-building our own local economies, working to restore our neighbor's prosperity as well as our own, building on a sound foundation of clean local food grown by local people. That's just for starters.
I just don't get it. We're standing on acres of diamonds, and people still want to call in the government to screw everything up even more than they already have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/26/2010
Posts: 82
|
Hey, hey, watch it there, Bud. Growing local food is against the law, thanks to the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed during the waning days of the lame-duck Congress in 2010.
The best help government can give is to start repealing unnecessary laws, which covers about 90% (at least) of what's been passed since 1975.
"Good luck with that", you say? Yeah,...well...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
pgculater wrote:Hey, hey, watch it there, Bud. Growing local food is against the law, thanks to the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed during the waning days of the lame-duck Congress in 2010.
The best help government can give is to start repealing unnecessary laws, which covers about 90% (at least) of what's been passed since 1975.
"Good luck with that", you say? Yeah,...well... I guess thats why they closed Rawsome Foods! But who gave them the ability to tell me what I can do with my land for the benefit of my family, friends, and neighbors? I will eat and trade my goods with what others produce to benefit this community for the good of all! If it is against the law then I will get to go to prison where I don't have to work or produce anything for the detrominte of this country! I will keep my weapons, to defend this countrys constitution and enough amunition to protect myself, family and friends from any invasion of any intruders, including the goverment from any unconstitutional laws tring to be imposed upon this great country's citizens or myself. Even with the knowledge that their is concentration camps being built thruout this country to inprision most if not all of the citizens of America! Rex 84, Rex 85
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
Why the Fed's Actions Are Threatening Capitalism
Here it is, folks, the quote of the day (from yesterday), courtesy of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke:
"Our ability to forecast three and four years out is obviously very limited."
Here's what's really amazing about Bernanke's frank assessment of his club's prognostication prowess...
It came on the heels of his pronouncement - after a two-day confab of the Federal Open Market Committee for the Everlasting Future of Big Banks, Bigger Bonuses, and Rampant Speculation with Cheap Leveraged Financing for All - that's their full name - that the Fed expects to keep short rates "near zero" (yes, that's a "0" with several zeroes behind it) until 2014, or until Ron Paul becomes president, whichever comes first.
What's comforting about such decisive action in the face of uncertainty (at the Fed) so many quarters and years out is that the Fed, in spite of its modesty about its remarkable forecasting facilities, is usually quite good... oh, no, not at forecasts, but at making quote-worthy prognostications.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from the current Chairman (I'd include some even more prescient calls from Benny the Jet's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, but alas, I don't want you to laugh so hard you start crying when you realize this isn't funny.):
October 20, 2005: "House prices have risen by nearly 25% over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals."
February 15, 2006: "Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise."
March 28, 2007: "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."
November 14, 2007: "We at the Fed will have to remain exceptionally alert and flexible [emphasis added, because I can] as we continue to access how best to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability in the United States."
February 14, 2008: "At present my baseline outlook involves a period of sluggish growth followed by a somewhat stronger pace of growth starting later this year as the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus begin to be felt."
Someone should tell Benny that we're still waiting to feel the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus...
Keeping rates low led to cheap financing of leveraged speculation in the housing market.
Cheap money - which is considerably more expensive than "free" money (which is what the Fed has been giving away for years) - is not the answer.
To Say That I Have a "Problem" with the Fed Is like Calling
the Grand Canyon a "Ditch"
The Fed has become a police force that's taken free markets hostage so that their masters, the Big Banks, can loot and pillage taxpayers at will.
It's insane. It's criminal. And it has to stop.
The Fed doesn't have to be shut down; it just has to be stomped on, really hard.
The Fed was a creation of the most powerful bankers in America. It was based on the Bank of England and the Bank of Switzerland. Not bad models. But its American banker creators created a de jure bank-led arm of government that actually controls the purse strings and wields its power in such a way that it has become the most powerful institution, not just in America, but in the world.
Color me crazy, but that's too much power for anyone to have and to hold... and especially for my favorite class of citizens (bankers).
And because I feel that this is perhaps the most important issue facing America, what to do about the Federal Reserve's power, I'm going to say to heck with the Democrats, to heck with the front-running Republican wannabes... let's elect Ron Paul for the Libertarian that he really is.
Of course he can't say he's still a Libertarian. Otherwise he'd be outside the levers of power and money afforded the combatants in our grossly outdated two-party system. Which, by the way, isn't anywhere in our Constitution.
I used to be a staunch pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps kind of conservative.
When America elected an actor as president, I was going to move overseas. But I came to revere Ronald Reagan, not for everything he did (hated the massive deregulation spree), but for his character and objectiveness in the face of changing circumstances (he raised taxes 11 times).
You could say I was a Republican, until George W. Bush took us to war for the benefit of the military industrial complex, bankers, and his oil buddies. I hated his tax cuts even though I was a huge beneficiary of them. Don't get me wrong, I hate paying taxes and I will use the tax code to my advantage wherever it is allowed. But we had surpluses coming out of the Clinton years, and that was brilliant.
Today I don't care a lick for Republicans or Democrats anymore. They're all just politicians (more like vultures), fighting over every scrap of power they hope to wield to crush each other.
I care about America.
And if Ron Paul is going to be different than any Republican or Democrat, well, I'm for change that matters.
More than that, I'm for changing the Fed and for constructive, sensible, pragmatic, objectivism in America, for Americans, and for the world.
What scares me is the Fed's actions are a threat to free markets, and that is a threat to capitalism.
Not that capitalism is perfect - far from it. But any alternative is anathema to me and to our Constitution.
And speaking of threats to capitalism...
Let's Talk About Private Equity
No, I'm not going to go after Bain Capital and Mitt Romney today.
For heaven's sake, leave the guy alone. Just because he made a fortune and pays an effective tax rate of 14.9% doesn't make him a bad guy. It makes him a capitalist who played the game, won, and pays his taxes according to what the law requires. We can pick on him for other things, but not for being a successful capitalist.
But about that private equity model...
I'm not going to get into how the business works and whether they're egalitarian capitalists or vulture capitalists, or what side of the creative destruction equation they're on (they're on both, so there). I just want to point out that one of their own, one of the biggest players in private equity in the world, is putting forward an idea that is about as anti-capitalist as they come...
The D.C.-based Carlyle Group wants to take itself public in an IPO. That's good for them, but really bad for their shareholders and for everyone's sense of free market capitalism.
What's good for Carlyle is that they can raise a lot of money to make themselves (the three principal founding partners and a few other "partners") vastly richer than they already are.
Good for them. That's capitalism.
What's bad for their would-be shareholders is that Carlyle plans to insulate itself permanently from class-action suits and any courtroom suits by any shareholders.
That's bad for shareholders, which is bad for capitalism.
The buyout behemoth's registration statement filed with the SEC requires future shareholders to resolve any and all claims against the soon-to-be public company by means of arbitration. In other words, they can't sue the company or its officers or directors, for any reason, including fraud, in any court, ever.
Any action brought against the company by any shareholder or shareholders would have to be arbitrated in private and be entirely confidential. Entirely.
Arbitration? Seriously?
I don't care about a lot of the other "stuff" in the company's registration statement, stuff like shareholders have no ability to elect directors or fire them, nor do they have any say in the company's business (what do you know about private equity, anyway?), what anybody gets paid, or pretty much anything that goes on at the company. That's none of your business.
All that "stuff" is out there, and if shareholders accept their backseat, blindfolded ride to wherever they're being taken, that's up to them. If they get in and don't like the ride, they can always vote with their feet and sell their shares.
What's egregious is that Carlyle wants to take away the shareholder's right to address their grievances in any court of law they choose, or have to, turn to, in an open public forum, which is the American way.
That is sickening.
And some private equity guys wonder why they're in the limelight these days...
The SEC is going to have to rule on this, because preventing shareholder access to the courts by a public company is unprecedented. They will likely disallow it (thought that's just my opinion, based on the scrutiny the SEC is getting lately as a regulatory body supposedly looking out for shareholders and governing public companies). And if they do, Carlyle may take its case to the Supreme Court, which, by the way, has in the recent past issued a series of "pro-arbitration" decisions.
These threats to capitalism are just more gasoline on the fire that rages over America's future.
I, for one (and one for all), call on you to join your voices with mine in defending free markets and American capitalism before we lose both to the oligarchy of banker fat-cats that brought us class warfare and economic Armageddon.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
A third rail sometimes runs alongside (or between) the twin rails of a train track to provide electric power to the train.
You don't want to step on these high-voltage rails, unless you're game for the shock of your life, or death, as the case may be.
In politics, the "third rail" is a metaphor for an issue that's "charged" enough that, by supporting it, you risk derailing your career.
Me, personally, I get a real charge out of political discussions, especially contentious issues.
But there's one "third rail" in politics that no-one ever seems to want to talk about.
And I don't understand why.
It's not even charged. In fact, it's more of a non-starter for most people. They don't get electrified by it; they get indignant, as if you're stupid if you even bring it up.
Okay, call me stupid...
To me the real "third rail" in American politics is that there is no real third party, or fourth or fifth party, for that matter.
There's nothing in the Constitution about parties or the need for a two-party system.
There's nothing in any of the Founding Fathers' personal or public papers, or anything anywhere on any Revolutionary battlefield, or in the dispatches from Constitutional conventions, or ratification assemblies, or anywhere in our history that even suggests or hints at a two-party system.
In fact, in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Jon Jay's Federalist Paper No. 10, we are warned that: "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."
The problem with a two-party system is that both parties are opposition parties all the time. There's no room for compromise. There's no middle ground.
This is where we are in America today.
We don't have the fruits and balance of a divided government. We are a nation divided by two warring parties.
Federalist Paper No. 10 also warned us that:
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
My message today is this: Our two-party system isn't working. It's too divisive. It's turned us into a nation of two opposing sides, when there aren't just two issues we face - there are thousands.
It's high time we send a clear message to the Republicans and Democrats that they don't speak for all of us, and more often these days, they don't even speak for most of us.
We need a third party to electrify the electorate.
Personally, I'm hoping Ron Paul steps out of the two-party system and becomes a third-party candidate. And I hope Ross Perot backs him.
Paul is different.
And America needs to be on a different track.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/26/2010
Posts: 82
|
I would love to see the Democrats split into two or three separate parties, but they won't as long as they can control large blocks of Presidential Electors from winner-take-all states like California and New York. And even if there were proportional representation, they still might not go for it. All the talk of third parties always seems to come from conservatives or libertarians disgusted at being dragged around by the Republican elites.
But if only conservatives split up into interest blocs, they get less than they're getting now, and boy, howdy: wouldn't the Dems just love that kind of winner take all situation?
|
|
|