On May 9, 5:36 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 13:30:25 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
> > On May 9, 2:54 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:00:56 -0400, T.Keating wrote:
> >> > A little wisdom from the past..
> >> > This is a copy of one of my reply post directed towards JJ I
> >> > composed/posted back in April 2001...
>
> > deleted Tim Keating's material since it can be found in another post.
>
> >> > This outcome brought to you by a President Bill Clinton, The
Neocons,
> >> > and a Republican Congress.
>
> >> I really get sick of the Clinton ba****ng. The blame for most of the
stuff
> >> you correctly see as a problem is squarely on the Republican
Congress.
>
> > My view is that most people are picking their favorite political party
> > for either blame (or credit) when the underlaying problem is the
> > influence that Big Business has with the politicians, no matter which
> > ones are in office.
>
> We really have no disagreement.
I know, but was just adding my two cents that the problem in our
political system is the excess power from special interests (read: the
rich and powerful) and lack of power from "the underlings" (read: the
people).
Big Business and the Republican party have
> had a love fest from at least the beginning of the 20th century. While
> the Democrats may well be corrupt as well, at least they aren't PROUD of
> it. K-Street was not a Democratic operation.
Nominally, the Republican line of thinking has been "the only thing we
need to do is make rich people richer" and trickle down will solve all
other problems.
> > It
> >> is and was the constant "government is bad" and "free markets solve
all
> >> problems" from every bull horn in America that created the Republican
> >> Congress and left Clinton in a very politically weak position.
>
> > I just want to tell everyone that I just finished reading William
> > Greider's book "One World, Ready or Not--The Manic Logic of Global
> > Capitalism" and I would have to say that it is so far the best anti-
> > globalism book I have read so far. Very well researched, lots of
> > references, and reasonable.
>
> I read his "Secrets of the Temple" and it was very good.
I have that book and plan to read it someday. However, the real evil
in the system is better explained by Edward Griffin's book "The
Creature from Jekyll Island". Let me hasten to point out that he is
for hard money with no inflation, not printed money, but I disagree
with that recommendation. However, the research and documentation he
has for how the Fed got started and the scheming and coniving by the
rich (and collusion by the political powers) is really as good as
anything out there.
I still have 2
> copies of the 8 in which I "invested". I gave them to those who I
thought
> deserving and able to benefit. I think he also wrote something called
> "The Great Deflation". Such deflation was postponed as Bush destroyed
the
> dollar. We will see if it can be further postponed.
I could name a few favorite books dealing with economics and
economists, all authored by writers or economists themselves so they
know what they are talking about and have credibility, and also
clearly show that economics/economists don't have all the answers,
either and some of their answers are invalid or wrong.
> > Everyone needs to understand how lobbying, PR, advertising, campaign
> > contributions, caucuses cause all of our politicians to _speak_ as
> > much platitudes that are whatever the constituents want to hear to get
> > the votes and then _act_ in ways to dilute any law formation, stall on
> > passage, or otherwise let loopholes form (and even if loopholes are
> > not formed, then management consultants, lawyer groups, and accounting
> > firms will step forward to provide schemes, scams, and frauds of all
> > manner to benefit the overlings),
>
> But most already do understand that.
Yes, but if you ever want to have a serious debate with someone who
decides his version is stronger than your version because he can say
"I'm an economist, therefore I speak the truth" then you can cite your
sources and say, in return, "not necessarily" and then maybe have a
more honest discussion.
The part that is not actually
> understood is _WHY_ it is like that and what we can do about it while
> actually living up to the American Constitution. Succinctly, we need a
> closer relation****p between the people and their supposed
representatives:http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Suggests a goal of
returning to the
> Constitutional Republic America was defined to be in order to put more
> control in the hands of the people.
I appreciate your pointers and recommendations. However, I've spent
most of the last seven + years reading a fairly wide variety of
history and going back in time to the beginnings of recordings so that
I might _derive_ my own "version" of what is going on and I needed
that because most of the voices out there seem to be built around
"favorite" lines of thinking and I wanted to learn from my own
perceptions based on prior authors who wrote down their own
perceptions.
I've now read a handful of books, for example, relating directly or
indirectly, with the Magna Carta. The whole concept of _rights_ is
fascinating and how people get sick and tired of bull**** and how they
fight back against it. This is what I want to learn more about.
> > One book I read some ten years ago was "Confessions of a Union Buster"
> > by Martin Jay Levitt. Here was a guy, paid by management, whose job it
> > was to screw employees every way possible and after a couple of
> > decades the guy saw the light and wrote his expose'.
>
> > Until we get the influence of Big Business out of the politicians
> > offices, you're going to _hear_ one thing and _feel_ something else.
>
> It does no good to read such books. We already know what is in them.
It
> is like causing pain to yourself. Who needs it. Lets do something about
> it instead of just reha****ng it over and over again.
Fine. What is the "do something about it" that we should do? I've
spent much of my own time on "do something" and most people prefer to
sit on their hands or look the other way. A common experience in non-
profit circles is 'psychological burnout." Too much to do, not enough
energy.
Another area I plan to read is in union-formation. Grass-roots
formation. It's useless to say "lets do something" unless you have all
the conditions needed to get people behind the "do something." Even if
you have a good idea, if most people don't get interested, then you're
dead in the water. But, look at doctors, lawyers, and CEOs, and rich
people, and they're right there taking very good care of their
wallets, their mansions, and their "moneyharvesting" operations that
have the net effect of making poor people even poorer.
> > He could
> >> "go with the flow" or just let the Republicans have a clear shot at
the
> >> White House in 2000. He tried, but he didn't make it. The Pukes
took
> >> over the entire world in 2001. There is no way that you will ever
> >> convince me that a more "left" lean by Clinton would have stopped
> >> Pinocchio Bush in 2000. As it was he actually won, as we know. The
> >> Supremes crowned Bush Emperor in 2000, but Clinton tried. Al Gore
tried to
> >> go left and the world was lost.
>
> > I'm sorry but I don't think there is a really honest political party
> > out there. Here and there, maybe a better one than another, but you
> > have to write up your own list of characteristics and hope for the
> > best.
>
> I would actually agree. But the Republican party is the locked step
party
> and the Democratic party as it was and can be is not that at all. "I am
> not a member of any organized political party", Said Will Rogers. "I'm a
> Democrat".
Me, I'm affraid I don't see many good candidates out there. But, I
don't want to get into that any farther right now.
> >> > Shrub (Bush) had the power to mitigate the damages, but instead
made
> >> > things much worse. Invaded Iraq,
>
> > All on a lie: WMD in Iraq and my proof of the impotence of the present
> > system is that Bush should have been impeached for the lie, and there
> > is barely a whisper about impeachement and yet look at the uproar that
> > happened over Clinton with Lewinsky. Yes, Bill was naughty but that
> > was infinitesimal compared to Iraq which is egg on our face in terms
> > of the rest of the world.
>
> Democrats are not a lock step party. Most Democrats voted against the
> resolution to allow Pinocchio Bush to do whatever he wanted. But you
are
> right on this one. Bush should have been impeached early last year when
> he vetoed the funding bill.
Good, right, thank you.
> Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper
> or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or
> concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle
> in government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the
> purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
>
> Helvidius No. 1,24 Aug. 1793 -- PJM 15:71 (Madison)
>
> > signed several bills authorizing
> >> > additional visa program expansions, and recently used, (April
2008),
> >> > administrative powers to expand foreign tech labor pool in the U.S.
> >> > by another 400,000.
>
> > And, its all primarily done to cut costs of labor, nothing else. The
> > rich get richer, the poor poorer.
>
> Republicans.
Yes.
> >> The Republicans have always sought a caste society where the
aristocracy
> >> dictates the morality by ruling with an iron economic fist. Your
position
> >> in the society is based on your loyalty to the privileged caste.
>
> > Which is pro****tional to how much money you have. If you are Warren
> > Buffett, you are a saint. If you are broke, then its your fault only.
>
> Republicans believe that God decides who will be rich and they should
> therefore lead the society in all things.
And, this reminds me when they asked Nelson Bunker Hunt he said "God
helps those that help themselves" and I was thinking that you could
just clip off the first two words of that sentence...
> > The
> >> destruction of the US dollar is part of the destruction of economic
man.
> >> When there is no money then there is no way to keep score. The
winners
> >> are whoever the Republicans care to anoint. The Republicans create
money
> >> as they need it. They don't need no stinkin taxes.
>
> > You need to look at David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal" to see
> > how rich people dodge taxes and save $billions by all manner of
> > techniques not available to the rest of us. Yes, I read the book,
> > cover to cover.
>
> I did. I got about 1/3 of the way before I lost interest. Stuff like
> that is just boring, boring, boring.
Fine. I got through it all and on every page was saying to myself
"those SOBs, they really are SOBs" and was glad that the guy knew his
material, knew how to write, and cared enough to blow the lid off this
problem.
I'm actually glad there is a large section in libraries and bookstores
dealing with scams, schemes, and all the other crap being pulled off
on underlings. Might not be able to do much, but at least one does not
have to be in the dark about what is going on. Some of these books do
end up on the desks of some politicians and administrators and they
sometimes do good things. Sometimes loopholes are closed. Sometimes
justice is served. Sometimes the good guys win and the bad guys get
put in jail, etc.
|
