This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The New Civil Wars Within The West

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by

The New Civil Wars Within the West

Internecine civil wars are underway almost everywhere within the West, and most virulently in the United States of America. They are not yet kinetic wars, but wars of grinding prepositioning, the kind which lead to foregone conclusions without a shot being fired. They are wars of survival, nonetheless, because the basic architecture for national strength is being altered incrementally or dramatically. And, in many cases, consciously. 

Almost all of the strategic restructuring of states is occurring in large part as a result of an accumulation of wealth; an accumulation and value of which is seen as permanent. This has resulted in the hubris — expressed by those who did not earn it — of triumph in the Cold War. This is a Western phenomenon because the widespread growth of wealth, the creation of freedoms classically associated with democracy, resulted — as it must inevitably result — in complacencies which in turn led to a “vote too far”: the extension of the democratic franchise to those who do not help in the creation of wealth. 

Once the voting franchise of the West reached the point where those who sought benefits outweighed those who created benefits, the tipping point was reached. The situation of de facto “class warfare” thus emerges automatically under such circumstances, and the envy of those who take against those who provide erupts into “rights” and “entitlement”.  By deifying “democracy” above justice, the enfranchised non-producers could always outvote the producers.  We are at this point.  The result can only be collapse, or restructuring around a Cæsar or a Bonaparte until, eventually, a productive hierarchy reappears, usually after considerable pain. 

The United States of America 

Virtually every conscious step of the Administration of Pres. Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democratic Party majority in Congress has been to increase the size and role of government in the economy and society, and to decrease, limit, and control the position of private enterprise and capital formation.  Given that this progressively contracts and ultimately eliminates production, and reduces the inherent asset base of the country — its raw materials and productive intellect — to a null value, the tradable value of the US currency will inevitably decline. We cannot be swayed by the enormous wealth of the North American continent.  Almost all areas have an inherent wealth of some kind, but assets left idle in the ground or infertile in the brain define countries which fail, or are not victorious in their quest for unbridled sovereignty. 

Thus, a decline in currency value is exacerbated, or accelerated, by the increasing supply of money, inextricably depreciating its value, particularly at a time of decreasing productivity in vital perishable and non-perishable output. 

The US Obama Administration has focused entirely on an agenda of expanding government — the seizure of the envied (and often ephemeral) “wealth” of the producers — without addressing the process of facilitating the production of essential commodities and goods.  Even the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, during their communist periods, focused — albeit badly — on the production of goods and services, when they realized that the “wealth” to be “redistributed” existed only as the result of production and innovation.  The US, meanwhile, heavily as a result of policies of the former Clinton Administration, has “outsourced” production, and the State — that is, the Government — cannot easily, in the US, become the producer. 

Pres. Obama has addressed the US’ economic crisis by expanding government, and government-related, employment in non-productive sectors, while at the same time blaming and punishing the private sector for all of the US’ ills.  Empowered by the extended franchise, this was the politics of envy now becoming enabled. 

Moreover, the populist, short-term response to the major oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico was clearly geared toward (a) transforming a crisis into an opportunity to pursue a green energy agenda by highlighting the evils of the fossil fuels on which the US remains dependent; (b) ensuring that the President was not blamed for the poor crisis response; and (c) ensuring that the Democratic Party did not suffer from the crisis in the November 2010 mid-term Congressional elections. 

The result of all the Obama initiatives has been to expand government and reduce or absolutely control and tax the private sector, even though, without the private sector, the US has no viable export or self-sustaining capability. The net effect has been to mirror — and overtake — the situation in which, for example, Germany found itself a decade ago: without the ability to retain capital investment or attract new capital investment.

And in order to restrain capital flight from the US, the Obama Administration seeks to further control worldwide earnings of US corporations and citizens. For other reasons, the US, believing that it still dominates the technology arena, has imposed greater and greater restrictions on international exports of technology through its ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 

All of this conspires to limit investment in US manufacturing and restrict foreign interest in US exports because the regulations are being enforced merely for political punitive reasons. The US is making itself increasingly unappealing to foreign investors and has, as this writer has noted, made the appeal of the US dollar as the global reserve currency evaporate, saved, for the moment, only by the lack of a ready alternative. That situation will change within a very few years. 

Thus, the US has, in the space of a couple of years: (i) so dramatically inflated money supply that the value of the dollar is only shored up by the lack of international alternative currencies to act as reserve trading currencies; (ii) so dramatically inflated public debt, without stimulating economic growth, that US economic performance will continue to decline on a national and a per capita basis while competitive economies, such as the PRC and Russia, will grow, reducing strategic differentials; (iii) severely punished the private sector, thereby reducing the opportunities and incentives for strategic capital formation, and in particular punishing the industrial production and energy sectors, almost ensuring major dislocation to the delivery of US basic needs in the near-term; and (iv) so blatantly reduced its strategic capabilities through all of these actions and in its diplomatic and military posture as to guarantee a reduction in US strategic credibility. Concurrent with all of this is an increasingly punitive taxation framework. 

The near-term impact will include rising domestic energy prices, possibly even before the November 2010 mid-term Congressional elections, which could result in the Democratic Party losing its substantial majority in both Houses.  Even on this matter, Democratic Party ideologues have attempted to suggest that this is exactly what the country needs: expensive energy in order to facilitate change to “green” solutions. This defies the historical reality that pre-eminent powers must always have vast energy surpluses and use. 

So much damage has been done to the US strategic posture in just two years (although building on a base of inefficiencies which have been growing since the end of the Cold War), in many respects equal to the 1917 Russian Revolution (but without the bloodshed), that it is difficult to forecast whether — because of a changing global environment — the US can, within a decade or two, recover its strategic authority and leadership.

Domestically, the massively statist and interventionist approaches of the Obama Administration have polarized the country, and the response will be reactive rather than innovative, inducing a period of isolation and nationalism, but with grave difficulty in rebuilding confidence from the international investment community. 


Artificial, wealth-induced complacency following the end of the Cold War led to fury when economic collapse inevitably occurred in 2010, leading to draconian restraint in public spending in many societies, but particularly Greece and Spain. It is said that tourists are warned not to feed bears in Yellowstone National Park (in the US) because the bears do not understand when the tourists have run out of food. State-fed populations in Europe, the US, and Australia (see below) equally do not understand when the free ride is over, and work must recommence. 

Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have begun the arduous path back to recovery, but the euro may, as a currency, have been irrevocably damaged, and the European Union itself may have spent the term of its virility. Clearly, the wealth-induced complacency, which had the compounding effect of allowing a decline in a sense of national survival and national identity among the European Union (EU) component states, has led now to a revived — but as yet unrealized — sense of nationalism.

This is beginning to lead to the recognition of the cohesive national efficiency required for survival and competitiveness. It can be said that the EU destroyed nationalism, without replacing it with any mechanism to create a new sense of social cohesion, thus removing Europe’s capability for economic competitiveness, self-defense, or ability to define a new culture (and identity) to replace the national identities. 

Had the British Labour Party Government of outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Brown persisted in office with his slavishly doctrinaire governance — and demonstrably unworkable socialism, led by a privileged élite of Labour mandarins wallowing at the trough — it is possible that an economic recovery in the UK would have been problematic. It may still be problematic. And in this, Brown was a prototype Obama, with his rank sense of entitlement.

Even now, the British political psyche is fractured along geographic lines, and, wealth-induced, considers itself effectively “post-industrial”, and therefore beyond the need for a manufacturing (or even agricultural base). Thus, even though the UK is now far more dependent on a maritime trade base than at any time in its history, it is incapable of defending or projecting that maritime base; neither does it have the wherewithal to trade. 


The Australian Government has — like the Obama Administration in the US and the Brown Administration in the UK — demonstrated its absolute lack of experience in management, economics, or real-life work skills. A decision by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to impose a new “super tax” of some 40 percent on resource companies — miners, who produce most of Australia’s export wealth — suddenly highlighted the reality that the mining companies did not need to put their investment into Australian projects.

This “tax and spend” approach so damaged Prime Minister Rudd’s popularity in the run-up to a November 2010 election, that his deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, an extreme left-wing feminist, mounted a rapid campaign within the ruling Labor Party to overthrow him.  But apart from some temporary back-peddling on the Resources Super Profits Tax until the next election is out of the way, don’t expect incoming Prime Minister Gillard — the first Australian female head-of-government and the most left-wing ever — to back off her punitive stance against the private sector.

The Australian Government’s punitive tax approach, initiated by Rudd but likely to continue for as long as Labor governs, also highlighted the fact that foreign investors did not need to invest in Australia, and that capital could move — as it always does — away from draconian tax regimes.  As Chilean Mines Minister Laurence Goldborne said in June 2010, “Just because you have resources doesn’t guarantee investment.” This is something which the governments of most African states know. 

In Australia, the realization of the over-reaching greed — and envy-inspired approach of the proposed new tax laws — in turn led much of the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the profoundly leftist Australian media to begin their drift away from Rudd, leaving him with the prospect that he could either be abandoned as party leader before the late-2010 general elections, or be faced with the prospect of becoming Australia’s first one-term Prime Minister.

Gillard’s unbridled ambition also saw to that. The question remains as to whether she will be able to win the November 2010 general election. A more important question remains, however, as to whether the markets will still be there when the ruin of trust in Australian export and investment reliability is addressed by a future government. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Australia’s major export client state, and Russia are now developing vast iron ore reserves on their mutual border, possibly — in the near future — obviating the need for much of what Australia exports. 

In the meantime, both Kevin Rudd and the opposition Liberal Party have essentially embraced the move by Australia to see itself as a pseudo-post-industrial society, gradually eroding the independent and innovative manufacturing sector which had been a hallmark of Australian economic growth.  A pseudo-post-industrial society is one which believes that it can live solely on the intrinsic value of its currency, without the necessity to sustain a balanced agricultural and industrial base to preserve sovereign independence. A true post-industrial society — something thus far a utopian dream — can produce all of its food and goods with a minute fraction of its population, which would largely be left to address intellectual pursuits. 

Australia, thus, faces a major challenge to its comfort, wealth, and security when value perceptions, investment, and clients evaporate. We see, then, in the very deliberate acts of envy and entitlement politics, the seeds of national collapse in Australia, the US, and Western Europe. 


Some of the Western powers have slumped before, and recovered. The United States has yet to demonstrate this resilience.  Other Western societies have slumped, and have yet been protected by a strong regional system so that their societies could prosper under foreign protection.  The Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal, for example, retained stable and individual prosperous societies and yet never recovered their strategic leadership, relying, instead, on the power of their region for economic and security protection.  States which remain dependent on others for their protection never fully regain their wealth and freedom. 

States such as New Zealand depend on their greater neighbors for protection.  But wither New Zealand if Australia fails?  Wither the Netherlands today if the European Union fails?  And wither the United States if its fortunes erode? Re-birth is, as Britain has found through history, as did Rome, more arduous than that first, pure flush of strategic victory. 

The West is at its watershed, not because of a threat from a less-productive society. The collapse of the West is not because Islam is at the gates. Islam is at the gates because of the collapse of the West.


Analysis. By Gregory R. Copley for This article first appeared in the Global Intelligence Report. For Energy, Finance and Geopolitical News visit


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:25 | 453108 VK
VK's picture

And why do countries, societies and civilizations fail?

Marginal cost > Marginal Benefit. Not economically feasible to keep the empire humming as the cost begins to outweigh the benefits. We've hit brick walls credit wise, resource wise and population wise. Limits bitchez, learned by every single empire and civilization before the present one. An economic smackdown of Keynesiansim and Monetarism is at hand.

PS - Islam isn't the problem. Stupidity is, otherwise religion would've been banned centuries ago.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:39 | 453128 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Do I interpret correctly your post script as implying that religion is necessary to keep stupid people in line?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:50 | 453138 Broken_Trades
Broken_Trades's picture

I read as far as and realized this article wasn't worth my time.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:18 | 453178 Canucklehead
Canucklehead's picture

I agree with you on 

I read the article above.  Very simplistic linear thinking.  No paradym shifts or "outside the box" simulations.  Basically the premise of the article is "if people put up with short term pain they will put up with long term pain".

Now you know real time paradym shifts will happen and the outcome will be completely different than that professed above.

The above analysis must have come from a phd (econ). It is so simple because macro is too hard...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:42 | 453265 Broken_Trades
Broken_Trades's picture

Economics, high finance, central banking, MBS, CDOs, CDS, are all things I don't do every day.  I come here to read about that - It's confusing, its complicated.  The information posted on thsi site has opened my eyes and led me to discover so much more about the financial markets on my own.


The oil business is what I do,  I understand how it works.  Thats why I need to post that anything from is complete garbage.  It makes no sense.  It's not based on reality.  Most of the articles posted here from are obviously written by someone without even the most basic understanding of oil and gas.  It's sensational BS that doesn't pass even a cursory look.  No need to fact check, it's utter nonsense. 



Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:55 | 453358 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

then let us into the deep secrets that you possess??  or do you just get your info from what is released to the MSM since you are just a grunt?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:58 | 453359 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

duplicate.. nice servers Tyler

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:57 | 453360 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

duplicate.. nice servers Tyler

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:10 | 453375 trav7777
trav7777's picture

To really mount a credible rebuttal, you need to learn how to spell "paradigm" properly

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:13 | 453438 Canucklehead
Canucklehead's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:11 | 453378 trav7777
trav7777's picture

To really mount a credible rebuttal, you need to learn how to spell "paradigm" properly

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:43 | 453486 Muir
Muir's picture

And you need to be able not to hit the save button twice, you moronic smiley.

The above poster was correct this "article" is pure rubbish.

p.s. And, take that finger and stick it up your bung hole.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:44 | 453212 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 22:41 | 453727 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Jesus Christ, I got this shit all over my monitor.

Bad ZH, bad. Go to your room.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:46 | 453342 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

"And why do countries, societies and civilizations fail?"

Answer: Fraud and Systemic Corruption
When the fraud and corruption of the parasitical oligarchy become to great a burden, rent seeking taxation, on the citizenry and real economy, collapse is inevitable.

BTW: Obummer is not some creeping socialist. He is a pro corporate owned governance fascist.

Obummer institutes corporate and TBTF (Obummer's owners) bankster welfare and bailouts, instead of free market failure for the incompetent elite (Obummer's owners) Rubin, Rubinites, Jamie, Lloyd, et al (Obummer's owners)...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:44 | 453530 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

He is a statist, but then so are most politicians.  Government grows in scope, intrusiveness, and destructiveness, at different rates over time, but it always grows, faster under some, a bit slower under others.   Our Constitution was designed in recognition of that tendency to ever increasing reach by government:  It set the several branches against each other, and reserved many rights to the people or the state and local governments.   However, ever since the Commerce Clause was reinterpreted to allow the Congress to regulate absolutely anything it wants to in the name of regulating commerce, our central government has gone out of control.   Thus pointed questions to Kagan whether the Commerce Clause limits what Congress can regulate, including down to individual behavior (such as being forced to buy some good or service, the very centerpiece of Obamacare, a piece of overreach unimaginable to our founders).   Much hinges on how the Supremes rule on the latter.  It is the end or the continuation of the american experiment in liberty at stake.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:48 | 453344 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Double Post....

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:49 | 453345 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Double Double Post

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:53 | 453346 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Tyler: I am getting sent to some bizzaro blank edit page when I hit save... I can not even tell anything posted...

Can you delete the last three?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:07 | 453552 DosZap
DosZap's picture

*That was MY error.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:08 | 453553 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Problem IS,

Was having same issue....

Here's the only way AROUND it, w/out losing your POST....

Leave the error page alone.

Click on ZEROHEDGE.Com, anew, and you will find ONE POST..NOT 3/4-5-

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:09 | 453557 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Not Tyler,

 but you can, hit edit, erase, and put an asterik in, and  hit SAVE.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:48 | 453415 DosZap
DosZap's picture


LARGESS is why we're FKD.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:11 | 453437 Instant Karma
Instant Karma's picture

Article II Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:11 | 453559 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Instant K,

Look up the definition of MISDEMEANORS...............cover a LARGE GAMBIT.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:29 | 453630 Instant Karma
Instant Karma's picture

Good, maybe we can get rid of this insane Administration before it's too late.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 03:05 | 453935 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:44 | 453132 ZackAttack
ZackAttack's picture


Once the scales fell away, I've begun tuning out anyone who parses the world through the broken, cloudy prism of their politics or religion.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:12 | 453295 Reductio ad Absurdum
Reductio ad Absurdum's picture

Wtf?? Did dcb just argue that Obama forcing everyone to buy health insurance proves that the democrats aren't trying to expand government??? This is the kind of logic that causes robot brains to explode on Star Trek. It's self contradictory. Let me explain things very very slowly so that dcb can understand: When the government forces you to do something -- anything -- then the government is expanding its role in your life.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:45 | 453534 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:58 | 453543 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Apparently, neurons are in short supply in the bizarro universe you dwell in, Reductio Absurdist!

Word up, lowbrow, the US goverment has long been majority privatized, dood!

Word up, lowbrow, the most sensitive intel operations in the US government are now between 67% to 95% privatized (N.R.O., 95% privatized, last time I checked several years back)!

Word up, dood, that so-called "health insurance reform" was about the further consolidation of power and control within the health insurance industry.

Word up, dood, that so-called "financial reform" just passed by the US congressional whorehouse is about the further consolidation of power and control of the banksters.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:16 | 453562 DosZap
DosZap's picture


word up.............

List a few, pls sir?.....................Outside the USPS,and the Fed.

On the last two, Uh, Yes & No..................

A LOT more to it than that.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 16:19 | 455268 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Forgive my annoyance, but in the year 2010, anyone who asks me to list a few, must surely be unable to read.  Kerist, dood, this has been going on for thirty years now!

The US military, many, too many functions have been privatized.  Perhaps you've heard about this country and US invasion known as Iraq!  Half or more of the "soldiers" over there: private contractors!

Perhaps you've hard of this country and US invasion known as Afghanistan: half or more of the "soldiers" over there are private contractors.

Over 60% of NSA, CIA, DIA and CIFA are private contractors.  I previously mentioned that 95% of National Reconnaissance Office, what should be the most secretive of US intel ops, is privatized.

A considerably large fraction of the US government has been privatized, beginning with Reagan, and continuing on with Bush #1, Clinton and Bush #2.

Who does the background checks for the TSA? Blackwater USA, nor called Xe Services.

Who does the background checks for the Office of Personnel Management, and a number of other government agencies? Formerly Kroll, now owned by Veritas Capital and renamed Pearson.

And on, and on.  I am stupified by the asking of such a question at this site.



Tue, 07/06/2010 - 16:26 | 455287 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

What the frigg do you mean, Yes & No?

The health insurance legislation came from the Heritage Foundation, was written by the Wellpoint VP, and the insurance exchange originated at Enron?

On the so-called financial reform, the only thing unique is the replication of existing laws regarding predatory lending, which the Bush Administration, acting through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, interdicted individual states when they wanted to use their existing predatory lending and consumer protection laws to go after the banksters.

Oh yes, along with the help of Standard and Poor's threatening to reduce the states' bond ratings.

And a consumer protection agency from within the Fed....puuuuhhlease don't make me puke.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:28 | 453629 Tenma13
Tenma13's picture

enough already with the dood, sort of funny the first time, moronic by the last. Good points, leave it at that.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 16:20 | 455272 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

FYI on dood.

I use it as a term of disrespect.  Otherwise, I would spell it dude.

Such semantics have their purposes.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:52 | 453868 dcb
dcb's picture

I am unable to find my initial post, but I would argue along the lines of the sargent below.

nationalizing healthcare is an expansion of government. forcing people to buy private insurance is forcing people into private corporations. Not government expansion. (in my view).

There really is no reason to be insulting. As usual such tactics have to be used by those who aren't very logical in their thought progression.

If you still don't understand what I am attempting to say, I hope at least others do.

By the way I fully understand what you are saying. the point then concerns what is intended by the author in this debate.

I'm getting a bit frustrated by the whole Obama commie socialist thing. His polices are much closer to the last Bush than the man I thought I voted for.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 01:15 | 453886 dcb
dcb's picture

The US Obama Administration has focused entirely on an agenda of expanding government — the seizure of the envied (and often ephemeral) “wealth” of the producers —

the statement above is just silly. you don't say this and force people into for profit insurance. you don't have record banker bonuses while main street suffers. Obama (showing big time via Bernanke, geithner, summers) if a corporate guy. these folks would have never been appointed or reappointed if he wasn't.

When the wealth comes from corporate crony goverment capiatialism it isn't wealth. taking money from bankers that failed (but now were bailed) isn't stealing from producers.  covernment /tax payer money has been systematically diverted to the wealthy.  there is overwhelming data to support this.

it is the crony capitialist/governemt axis that ensures those connected always make profits and never fail that has goten us into trouble. By the way. putting back regulations that worked for this country for 70 years (seperation commercail and investment banking) isn't some socialist plot. It was good enough for many republican presidents. Remember Clinton (the democrat) really rolled back banking regulations. I do not consider that deciding the removal of regulations were a mistake, and putting them back to be an expansion of government.  We aren't even getting the financial reform we deserve,a dnwe know it will happen again. the white house itself has fought agains the toughest regulations. the were/are against the audit the fed (which is supported by about 80% of the people.

People are just saying stuff that isn't supported by the data.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 03:15 | 453936 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

sounds pretty good to me.  however it is not contradictory to say obama, as bush before him, seeks to expand the power of both corporations and the government at the expense of the individual.  the obama/bush policies on incarceration/rendition (and now assassination) clearly are expansions of government power.  

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:56 | 453146 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Government is a stooge, a lackey, for the real power.  Government, in and of itself, is inert.  Who controls it gives it the direction to become what it will.  This is more diversion from the simple, overarching truth that we are an oligarchic fascist state controlled by the monied interests.

The heart of this false meme can be observed in the ongoing agit/prop campaign that it was, essentially, the government forcing banks to lend money to undeserving people for the 'socialist' agenda of a home for everyone, rather than the facts on the ground wherein a system of crony capitalism allowed lobbyist to use soft and hard money to get compliant legislators to write the laws and overturn the regulations that led to the most outsized profits in history and the seeds for our own economic collapse.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:01 | 453154 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

compliant legislators

...doesn't sound like an inert government to me.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:47 | 453216 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

lol...that's all show, CFR writes everything, tells the CON-critters when to eat a BLT and how much mayo goes on it, too.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:55 | 453227 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

I mean, the initial state of government is 'inert', waiting to be acted upon.  But as soon as whatever prevailing force takes the reins, whether it be monied interests or the People themselves or any other dominant power block, it becomes an agent of change in that direction. Government is the golem to be commanded to wreak its havoc.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:19 | 453179 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The question is, who is John Galt?

Hard work and heavy investment occurs more intensely when the natural incentives for them are not destroyed.

The current Pelosi-Reid-Obama bunch destroys these incentives with their vindictive, punitive measures toward work and investment, and by the rewards they hand out in effect for not working, not saving, not investing.   This is what is happening, now.   We're in the beginning stages of a general retreat by the productive and prudent, in the face of unproductive pillagers voting themselves goodies on the backs of the productive and prudent.   Incentives and individuals will make or break this country.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:04 | 453371 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture


The people junking you are living off our taxes!

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:00 | 453544 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Negative, pea-brain, the people junking the two you are are ACTUALLY paying the taxes, and know just who ain't paying their taxes, sonny!

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:35 | 453526 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Whew (wipes brow).  So now we know the real problem -- it's the Democrats

I'll rest easy now. 

No need to look further; I'll just vote for Republicans and that'll fix everything.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:42 | 453850 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Lesser of two evils.  That's your choice at the ballot box under our political system.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:27 | 453570 DosZap
DosZap's picture


+1000, Dead fkin on............anyone with half a brain can see that.

The current Pelosi-Reid-Obama bunch destroys these incentives with their vindictive, punitive measures toward work and investment, and by the rewards they hand out in effect for not working, not saving, not investing.   This is what is happening, now.( Except for the recently unemployed, you have descibed the majority of the Welfare state).


   We're in the beginning stages of a general retreat by the productive and prudent, in the face of unproductive pillagers voting themselves goodies on the backs of the productive and prudent. 

Yes sir,we are....................that's why the Unemployment numbers continue to climb, corporations,middle/small sized business, is not going to HIRE a soul, unless they know what the cost is, and how the new SOCIALIST policies are going to affect the bottom line.............any PRUDENT businessman/woman, Corprpration, is doing JUST that.


  Incentives and individuals will make or break this country.( Yeah, it's called Capitalism).

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:25 | 453189 Seal
Seal's picture

bedda red than ded

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:44 | 453853 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Live free or die tryin', bitchez.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:31 | 453196 Dingleberry Jones
Dingleberry Jones's picture

Once I yellowed a statement... 

I agree with you. I'm sick and tired of ideologues and good guy vs bad guy agendaism.

Our system is broken. The Democrats are robbing us. Guess what, it was broken before and the GOP robbed us.  The hand waving about how much GWB and the GOP controlled congress spent is hilarity.  It's just more of the same with the current regime. 

The politicians that run the government are morally bankrupt and intellectually crippled (there are a few semi-tolerables).

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:43 | 453210 colonial
colonial's picture

hey, dcb...take the other side of the trade...tell us what Team Obama have done to foster the risk taking, capital creation energy of the country? 

Was it their play on GM and Chrysler where they gave the company to the very Unions whose contracts destroyed the companies? 

Was it in healthcare where we will see a new massive federal system? 

Perhaps it was the stimulus, which gave untold billions to the key States where Democrats and Unions rule? 

Give us an example...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:50 | 453272 unununium
unununium's picture

You're right of course.  But consider that Obama was chosen to fulfill this role, just as helicopter Ben was chosen to fulfill his.

The article is pure drivel, prima facie and in the final analyis.  The truth is that democracy, and any breakdown of their subversion of it via lobbying and control of the media, is the only thing the plutocrats have to fear.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:09 | 453292 juangrande
juangrande's picture

Is this the same GM and Chrysler who insisted on building gas guzzlers because of the short term profit margins and ignored the writing on the wall about future energy problems? Whose idea of innovation was how to install TVs on the dashboard? Are these the same companies whose company outlook goes about 1 yr. into the future? (get paid now, fuck the next guy?) Unions have surely over reached in their negotiations just as in the early part of the 20th century business abused labor in the US. There needs to be a balance between the two instead of moving labor to where abuse is allowed and having short term profits drive corporate decisions. And healthcare? When the argument still centers on what drug we should take to alleviate the symptoms from idiotic lifestyles instead of let's fix our eating, exercise, and leisure habits. Well maybe companies such as Coca Cola, Mc Donald's, Sarah Lee, et al who insist on pushing these vacuous substances they call food onto the consumer should be paying on this bill. And let's not forget the years of ongoing subsidies of corporate America ( farming, oil, etc.) And legalized tax subsidies. The point being it's not just the working stiff whose to blame, even if the unions went too far.  

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:50 | 453217 DosZap
DosZap's picture


 "The US Obama Administration has focused entirely on an agenda of expanding government " I turn off. "

If you do not believe this, I have some swampland for sale.................the only JOBS growth, has been, will be the Government sector..............

Never mind the article,the reality of this statement is happening before your very eyes...............


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:40 | 453328 konputa
konputa's picture

when has this not happened? has any recent administration eliminated a large number of (or that matter, any) jobs from the government payroll? i seem to recall DHS was created while a republican sat in the whitehouse. i also remember the creation of DHS being a huge increase in government payrolls/waste/bureaucracy.

thank god those terrorists can't brush their teeth for more than 2 days when they're traveling by air. i feel so much safer now.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:44 | 453333 konputa
konputa's picture

deleting my dupe.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:15 | 453299 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

Forcing people to buy, temporarily until the entirely govt run scheme can be passed, for profit insurance in a scheme requiring millions of highly paid bureaucrats, shows that the statement is completely true.  You sir, are clueless.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:08 | 453308 FedUpGuy
FedUpGuy's picture

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.  Can you name one significant government agency or program this administration has proposed eliminating?  (I would ask the same question about the last administration, by the way.)  How many new agencies and bureaucracies have they created with the new health care plan?  Did they eliminate anything to offset them?  Where have they made any effort to lower the power of the government over people's lives?


Is there any sign they have any intention of shrinking government?  Forcing people to "buy for profit insurance" proves they do not.  Why? Because forcing people to buy a massively expensive product from a private company is one of the single most egregious appropriations of government power in history.  Never before has a U.S. citizen been required to purchase thousands of dollars from another business simply because he exists.  That's a huge increase in government power right there.  There is no difference, in effect, of the government taking $10,000 from you directly, and giving you health insurance, or requiring you by law to send $10k directly to another party for health insurance.  Either way, you're out $10k that you might have wanted to spend differently.  Remember, anyone making above $88,000 is responsible for the entire cost of insurance with no subsidy if their company doesn't provide it (e.g., independent contractors, consultants, small businessmen.)  If you make $100k a year, that's a massive appropriation of your income assuming the average cost of $10k for single person insurance and $15k for family.


How would you have felt if the previous administration had passed a law requiring that all U.S. citizens buy $1500+ AR15 rifles "for their own good".  After all, it is in every citizen's best interest, for safety and health of their families, to have adequate means to defend themselves.  Therefore, we, the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-controlling, Harvard-educated overlords, will require all U.S. citizens to purchase high quality weapons.  I'm sure there won't be any jockeying and lobbying by the gun manufacturers to make sure their particular brands of weapons make the "allowed" list.  There are gun manufacturers in almost every state, but I'm sure that there won't be any favoritism shown to particular weapons platforms from manufacturers that contribute to the congressmen on the key committees creating these laws.  That could NEVER happen.


We'll have to make sure they buy high quality weapons as well.  A $200 shotgun shouldn't be among the choices because we, the all-wise government, don't believe that a shotgun is adequate.  We also don't think that people's decision not to own a weapon is an adequate justification for not having one-- because we know better than they do what they need.  (We went to Harvard, for Pete's sake!)


We'll have to make sure nobody ignores this law, for their own good, so we'll put into place some new government agencies which will have the legal authority to go house to house, and verify that these weapons are present and loaded.  Further, we'll make sure to spend taxpayer money on mandatory training for all people.  Now, we recognize that some people might not have the money to purchase a $1500 assault rifle, so we'll tax everyone else's rifle another $1000 so we can send vouchers to anyone making less than $88,000 to help them with their purchase.


Would you feel better about it if the previous administration had just raised taxes, purchased the AR15's, and sent them to each household?


The only people who don't see that government has only one purpose, to grow and obtain more power regardless of the cost and consequences, are the "useful idiots" helping them attain that power.  This administration is just far worse at hiding it than any in modern history.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:53 | 453424 DosZap
DosZap's picture


"This administration is just far worse at hiding it than any in modern history."

No, you missed this part,agree with the rest, BUT they DO NOT CARE...................they are END GAME.

And we're the meal.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:22 | 453448 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Hey, Fedupguy--Please force me to have an AR-15 and maybe even an auto 12 Gauge. Think you could arrange for them to send a couple of boxes of shells--say 00 shot for the shotgun--ya know to get those high flying Geese!

What tree did you fall out of?  Milestones

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:42 | 453483 PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

There was at one time a groupe of people that felt that govt could be good. They wrote this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

The govt. they envisioned disappeared a long time ago in the U.S.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:28 | 453317 konputa
konputa's picture

ditto. i realized it was shite once i read that line. at least i didn't waste anymore of my time.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:37 | 453324 megatoxic
megatoxic's picture

Fucking statist asshole.

One doesn't have to be a "right wing ideologue" to understand that Obama is ALL about consolidating and centralizing power.

The GOP is only marginally better.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:49 | 453351 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

"simple analysis showing the white house actually against the most 'severe" of the financial reform efforts proves it to be false."

That is because their Wall St. bankster cronies hold the purse strings and threatened "the markets and everything would collapse if you punish us."

Congress has no clue what to do until their campaign financiers and lobbyists tell them what they are to think.

And who in their right mind would believe that making people buy insurance, which actually will be paid for by the government prior to people paying for it, is smaller government?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:28 | 453116 spinone
spinone's picture

This article reinforces the false dichotomy of democrat vs republican, liberal vs democrat.


They are both heads of the same monster, the corporate state.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:40 | 453129 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


"This article reinforces the false dichotomy of democrat vs republican, liberal vs democrat.
They are both heads of the same monster, the corporate state."

Simplify, demonize, dehumanize and destroy. Those are the rules of the blame game.
If you keep a segment angry they are easier to control.

Here is something to ponder. Please read the article, I assume most people are too lazy and unfocused to follow a link and actually read a whole article instead of seeking summaries and quotes.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:24 | 453186 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

I, for one, enjoyed that article immensely.  And I thank you for posting it.  And am now, even now, engaging in the very behavior it purports to be revolutionary and productive, if in a tiny way...

This is one of the many reasons I love my family here at Zero Hedge.  They help me to invest my cognitive surplus in something that actually matters.

By the way, everyone knows that Mary Anne was way cuter.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:49 | 453270 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


"By the way, everyone knows that Mary Anne was way cuter."

Dude I once interviewed Mary Anne. Last year she was busted for pot. If I know she smoked way back then the interview would have been much more enjoyable for both of us.
She was very hot.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:09 | 453664 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

i woulda sucked it up and made a run at Mrs. Howell.  Follow the money as they say...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:52 | 453206 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Make your post interesting instead of whining about click-throughs.

By the way, great article. I get the same feeling reading a CogDis post; ironic self-observation.

This part made me feel not so bad anymore:

The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing-- there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London.

I feel like this posting on ZH:

The way you explore complex ecosystems is you just try lots and lots and lots of things, and you hope that everybody who fails fails informatively so that you can at least find a skull on a pikestaff near where you're going. That's the phase we're in now.

And this made me think, "I wonder if aliens will understand modern culture through Lolcats better than any other medium?"

It's better to do something than to do nothing. Even lolcats, even cute pictures of kittens made even cuter with the addition of cute captions, hold out an invitation to participation. When you see a lolcat, one of the things it says to the viewer is, "If you have some sans-serif fonts on your computer, you can play this game, too." And that's message--I can do that, too--is a big change.

Thanks for the post Gully. It's not about lazyness; I only have 25 hours in a day so I must choose wisely. You got me. ;-)

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:46 | 453267 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


"Make your post interesting instead of whining about click-throughs."

You know as well as I there are a handful, one hand not counting the thumb,who will click a link and actually read the article.
Even if I lie and say it links to naked Lesbians cavorting in the sand and doing what Lesbians do, the article would not be read.
If you consider honesty whining, then I am quite the whiner.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:42 | 453334 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Very thoughtful argument regarding the new media.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:39 | 453409 CD
CD's picture

The article was indeed great, thanks for sharing Gully. I think WW's comment was that if your posts in general stand up on their own, make sense, bring something interesting to the table, the fellow readers will be more likely to click and read the original source. Pasting the whole thing into a reply here is just as likely to turn readers away.

The reason this site takes so much time for me is that I generally do check out the supporting materials and/or research interesting, cogently presented claims on my own. Plus, though I have no real numbers on active, posting members vs. the number of people who read the site, but generally the ratio is at least 1:10 = posters:lurkers. You are potentially reaching more than you are giving yourself credit for.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:41 | 453479 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


You seriously overestimate the quality of your peers.
It doesn't matter if it is a link or a repost of the whole article very few will make the effort.
I'm assuming you have been reading all the everything must change topics? How many do you see who have already changed their thought process? Their lifestyle?
The majority is incapable of that. I think Maslow compared people to Bees where the masses were too scared to think for themselves.
I've said it before, when I post something it is directed at the few who "get it". I'm not here to be a friend, a teacher or cheerleader. I spotlight aspects usually over looked.
In prison they say everyone has to do their own time. The same is true with understanding, everyone reaches it in different ways. Sometimes an insignificant piece brings everything in focus. The fucking AH HAH moment.
Ive read the need for enlightenment is "A Hot Molten Ball You Can Neither Swallow Nor Spit Out". I'm hoping a single soul has a burning throat.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:11 | 453605 CD
CD's picture

Gully, methinks you are the one who underestimates. There are plenty here with severely sore throats, whether from seeking or trying to impart possible clues to avenues of enlightenment.

The same is true with understanding, everyone reaches it in different ways. Sometimes an insignificant piece brings everything in focus.

That's why I came here in the first place, and why I remain. The frequency with which pieces of the puzzle fall into place always seems higher here. While not yet a majority, there are plenty who seem to have changed at least their thoughts and words. And while they will perhaps always be in the minority, their numbers ARE growing daily - and by changing their lifestyle are leading by example. This guy was for the most part right - but had trouble getting his message out:

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:41 | 453477 Shortbus Bully
Shortbus Bully's picture

How about doing something proactive to convince people it is worth reading instead of presenting an unsourced link and smuggly assuming people will not read it?  99.99% of random unsourced links are garbage, period.  Perhaps providing people with a short summation and a convincing argument as to why it is worth the read will get people to actually read the link.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:43 | 453485 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Shortbus Bully

Obviously you aren't on that hand I mentioned.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:44 | 453531 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I right clicked on the link to open in another tab, right clicked on the page to send by email to myself.  Intending to read at my leisure later on this evening.  Closed the tab.  Will now continue with my ZH comments without a break in rhythm.  Looks like a great article that merits a focused read.  I'll come back later to ream you if it ain't. Thanks for posting it.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:31 | 453319 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

I remember coming to the US, fresh out of the Indian navy, guitar in hand, many Hollywood movies under my belt, burning passion and rock solid certainty that I'd fit in US society like a glove.

Boy was I wrong. And you know why? I had not grown up on US sitcoms and all conversations were so heavily laced with sitcom references (character, event, episode, something), that I would lose the thread.

It took many nights up, watching re-rurns to get up to speed.

But dominant US interaction structures are dominated by TV induced memes.


Such a crazy medium. Watch our "Programs". Like saying, Eat My Poison. Who else can get away with that!


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:49 | 453418 DollarMenu
DollarMenu's picture

Thanks for that link GF.

Very interesting concept; 'cognitive surplus".

And this speech is already 2 years in the past.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:22 | 453151 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Aye, it is that.  But methinks people are waking up every single day to the fact the dichotomy is false.  It is a battle between one side waking up and another side hardening its views that the faux paradigm is inherently true.  Which side reaches a fully operational state fist will have significance in the direction of America's not-distant future.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:12 | 453169 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

I agree. There is always an opportunity to demonstrate to the sheeple that both parties are in collusion; further enriching the cream on top while the rest of us flounder and slit our wrists. It's better to omit party labels and unveil the beast for what it is. The Islam reference at the end was unexpected - seemed ad hoc.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:03 | 453547 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

+1 trillion. Thank you, spinone, and why ANYONE still has to repeat the wisdom you just stated is indicative of just how many retards (or Ameritards if they are citizens of the USA) are still out there.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:36 | 453122 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

How exactly is the Obama government punishing business again?  It sounds reasonable as rhetoric and I agree that unemployment is expensive, but it isn't like business actually pays any taxes, nor is it beholden to much regulation.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:19 | 453180 Cow
Cow's picture

Businesses under Obama are not beholden to much regulation?  What planet are you living on?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:32 | 453234 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Yeah, I see a big yoke of obedience tethered round the neck of Wall Street.  LOL.

You are only onerously over-regulated if you are Too Small to Matter.  Then you can be focked with at whim.  And often.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:26 | 453314 DosZap
DosZap's picture


 "What planet are you living on?"

Correct, if your WALL run the Gv't.

What regs there are, carry no weight.........Congress gutted that.

Thus far, we discuss things "Yet to be Felt"............a Colonoscopy without drugging, will feel good.

2011, will be the "GREAT AWAKENING" far as regs/taxation goes.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:20 | 453251 The Mighty Monarch
The Mighty Monarch's picture

Ask the small business owner who has to pare his business down to himself and his wife running the phones for free, because of costly environmental legislation or increasing employee-related costs. Ask the private practice doctor who has to fire another medical assistant so she can keep seeing the money-hemmoraging Medicare patients that she gets reimbursed pennies on the dollar for.

Hell, even corporations are limited by the market as to how much they can raise prices to offset regulation and tax rates. I don't blame them for lobbying for preferential legislation, it's a lot easier to pay off a few Senators than it is to change the minds of millions of idiots who keep voting state and national governments into more debt.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:46 | 453266 DR
DR's picture

"Ask the private practice doctor who has to fire another medical assistant so she can keep seeing the money-hemmoraging Medicare patients that she gets reimbursed pennies on the dollar for"

I'm confused..

You want the government to raise medicare taxes so doctors can get higher reimburstments? I thought you were against more government taxes...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:01 | 453283 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

"Ask the private practice doctor who has to fire another medical assistant so she can keep seeing the money-hemmoraging Medicare patients that she gets reimbursed pennies on the dollar for"


90 percent of doctors don't even know what they charge, it all runs through a billing specialist, whose job it is to gouge, steal and plunder any entity on the hook for the patients coverage. Call around some day and simply ask doctors offices what they charge for a simple procedure or test, most will tell you; "it depends".

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:46 | 453414 The Mighty Monarch
The Mighty Monarch's picture

Perhaps, but can you hardly blame them? Medicare severely underpays for services, shifting the cost overruns to other patients. They certainly can't make it up through raising prices for their few cash-paying patients, so they extract as much as they can from those with deep pockets, namely insurance companies. Their mentality is, "screw the insurance companies, they overcharge my patients and underpay me", without realizing that it merely feeds back into higher rates and co-pays. Doctors are surprisingly ignorant of economics apart from what keeps their business afloat, even more so when they work in large medical centers.

Let's also not forget the permissive legal system as it relates to malpractice suits. It has effectively scared doctors into ordering costly and unnecessary tests for routine ailments as opposed to actually making sound medical judgements and treating conservatively.

Or let's look at the hospital level, where they are required by law to treat regardless of ability to pay. A crop-picker from across the border crashes his unregistered truck into a ditch and skips the bill, while the guy with an $800 a month insurance plan gets billed $30 for a Tylenol and a $2000 co-pay.

So, what is to be done? Simple. Eliminate all forms of publicly-funded medical care. Incentivize medical savings. Allow private charity to take on the hard-luck cases. Restrict court damages to medical costs and lost wages. Repeal the HMO act and stop forcing businesses to provide the lowest common denominator in medical care. Take the chains off the insurance market so that low-cost emergency plans are available and purchasable across state lines. Watch prices plummet and insurance relegated to its proper place as coverage for emergencies and life-changing events instead of routine care.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:00 | 453594 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Maybe medicaid pays a fair amount and the insurance industry and medicare overpay?  I'm being facetious, the problem with health care is that nobody knows what any service is worth.  The hospitals are willing to take an 80% haircut in cases where people have no insurance and must pay in cash.  The system is broken beyond repair.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:12 | 453293 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

its even better than that.  If they are serious and want to get rid of medicare/caid and quit getting paid 'pennies' so they dont have to fire another assistant I wonder as to whether they have thought it through at all.  Fine, abolish medicare.  Any idea how much of a surplus we'd have of doctors and health care infrastructure?  How many doctors and assistants do you think would be out of work then?


Not arguing for getting rid of or keeping, just trying to point out that people rarely if ever think about these things they spout out.  Usually because they come to it through a slogan as opposed to seriously considering the ramifications at a later date of their actions today.  The illogic of whining about someone that has to fire an assistant because the govt program that allows thousands of doctors and health care workers to thrive with these new patients that they otherwise wouldnt have and otherwise wouldnt have their practice as there would be a surfeit of health care workers is just too rich.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:54 | 453357 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Do you know Dr's are dropping Medicare patients NOW?.
Do you know why?.

Because they LOSE 20% per patient per visit, because the Gv't underpays them..........NOW.
Plus, there is a shortage of Dr's as we type........and going to be less, and more put on the rolls......Illegals,Uninsured.

As an aside, WHO the hell would care for the previous Medicare recips?.(rememeber, this is not an Entitlement, it's a service they paid for VAST majorioty for deacades).

MediCaid(would be welfare, as they already are)

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:11 | 453379 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

did you read my post?  I was not arguing for or against it, or even whether people make money or not off of it.  I suggest you reread what I wrote.  So just so we are clear on this - you are arguing that there are no extra health care individuals, or infrastructure (hospitals etc), and that no one will be extra and get downwized from not needing them due to not needing as many beds, nurses, doctors, etc, due to not having medicaid patients et al take up space and time.


I never argued or said that doctors make $1,000,000 per medicare patient.  Never.  Reread what I said.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:28 | 453396 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

or do you believe that like magic the amount of time with your doctor will increase, or your costs will go down to account for those others that you were previously subsidizing and all the current health care people will still be kept just so they can spend more time with you?  Or may it be more likely that they would continue the current system, just with all deeper pocket individuals so they can make more money and you still get the same crappy health care?


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:39 | 453474 DosZap
DosZap's picture



"did you read my post?

That's obvious..........yes.


 I was not arguing for or against it, or even whether people make money or not off of it.  I suggest you reread what I wrote.  So just so we are clear on this - you are arguing that there are no extra health care individuals, or infrastructure (hospitals etc), and that no one will be extra and get downwized from not needing them due to not needing as many beds, nurses, doctors, etc, due to not having medicaid patients et al take up space and time.

  Yes, & No, I was specifically refering to Medicare(as Medicaid, is welfare now).And, there will be no SPARE personell is a fact.

No, you did not say you were arguing for or against, but the way you left it, read like NO One would be left hanging,( like Chads).

I never argued or said that doctors make $1,000,000 per medicare patient.  Never.  Reread what I said.

( I didn't say you did, I was telling you, what they were NOW losing).

Your post seemed to imply that they were being selfish already......At least that the way it came across to me......(FWIW).

Not pertinent to your POST, but did you know NO NEW Hospitals will be able to be built when this plan goes into effect,(W/out Gv't approval) and 40+% of current physicans are considering retiring, and/or  leaving the in, WHO Needs this shit.


Sorry if I misunderstood the intent/your logic..........

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:34 | 453680 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

Yes, I am aware of the current state of affairs with regard to costs and some being forced out.  My point is that it really isnt possible to think that if only we stop this thing, or that thing, then everything will go back to being good.  The total system has grown to accommodate all these extra people through the years until we are where we currently are.  Regardless of the eventual outcome, I think it is hard to believe that if we stop medicare and force the real cost to be born by those in need then they will not go (again not arguing for or against - just stating what I believe will happen).  Therefore their will be a reduction in the numbers that get serviced.  I am not saying the infrastructure isnt currently at top or overcapacity, but after many many years of the system evolving into what it is today it is hard to envision that if this large number stop using the system there isn't a lot of overcapacity - think lots of commercial malls right now with empty storefronts after all the false demand from 'endless' credit.  To me, that should translate into less need for as many techs, md's, receptionists, billers, insurance claim people, etc...

I find it hard to believe that the health care industry would be in a 'sweet spot' condition if we'd just get rid of the medicare people.  Personally I'm against all the medicare/soc sec/etc taxes.  I'd much prefer to get nothing from the govt and keep whats mine.  I'm a saver and would be just fine.  Let corporate taxes and tariffs handle defense and other truly needed govt functions.  And if your citizens got enough guns in their hands you really dont need that much of a standing military unless you're maintaining an empire.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:40 | 453365 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:15 | 453385 The Mighty Monarch
The Mighty Monarch's picture

No, I want to see Medicare phased out entirely, so the cost-shifting ends.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:16 | 453386 The Mighty Monarch
The Mighty Monarch's picture

No, I want to see Medicare phased out entirely, so the cost-shifting ends.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:42 | 453482 DosZap
DosZap's picture



Ok, for newbies, but what about the one's that have PAID their dues for decades?..............What you intend to do with them?.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:39 | 453528 The Mighty Monarch
The Mighty Monarch's picture

Figure out a way to end a Ponzi scheme that doesn't involve people getting screwed over, and we'll go with that.

Otherwise we just keep paying into the system and resign ourselves to deteriorating health care and means-testing, while saddling our children with higher taxes, devalued currency, and dependency on the government teat.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:07 | 453291 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

So you are saying that small  business cannot afford to pay their workforce?  How do they stay in business?  Have the rules changed from the last administration to the current one?  (Healthcare aside which hasn't even taken effect yet.)

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:24 | 453567 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Have you ever owned a business with employees?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:05 | 453599 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I can tell you that I have had employees within several different businesses.  Government is/was the most intrusive headache I had -- on local as well as State and Federal levels.

One of the most heartbreaking things I've ever done is fire people who were doing their jobs quite well.  External conditions and events caused them to be without a job.  That is what it appeared to be to them.  They didn't "do" anything to deserve to be out of work.  Not having an overall view of economic or industry conditions kept them from understanding the big picture.  Those are the ones we should be concerned with because they will be keeping the pitchfork industry alive.  That's what worries Washington today.  Buy 'em off with unemployment benefits well beyond what the insurance funds provided for.  Self preservation for politicians.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:12 | 453823 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

The grief of dealing with the various levels of government with respect to employees was the most important factor in my decision to shut down my company and go it alone. It has been several years since this occurred, but based on discussions with my clients, things haven't improved.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 01:34 | 453896 dcb
dcb's picture

From reading posts on this site it appears many would blama Obama for this. that is ust silly. Look I really don't support the guy, but I am tired of the right wing propaganda machine. All Obama spending bad, all bush spending good. republican spending good, democrat spending commie. fight war off books for many years, ignore signs of housing bubble, create DHS, expand medicare drug program (good spending). Obama unemployment benefits (bad spending) Bush tax cuts to wealthy (undeserving in view of finanical bust), restricting banking profits via regulation to make the system sounder (less leverage) , bad spending.

Nixon (republican) took us off the gold standard. his polices laid the ground for carter inflation and malaise.  he also started the EPA, clean water act.

Stupid ideology. It prevents proper analysis. Greenspan was an idealog he refused to see what was going on because it didn't fit within his ideology. Housing boom and bust, tech bubble. blind faith on left /right/ideology always leads to trouble at the end.  

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 11:22 | 454321 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Read more posts on this site. You will realize the majority consider Obama a rube; a tool; a guy that can read a teleprompter with conviction.

Who cares about elections anymore. It's all a charade, and it's all going to burn.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:37 | 453126 Coldcall
Coldcall's picture

The US can only hope that the EU keeps stalling the inevitable eurozone breakup, or at best a restructuring, in order that the world's attention is not too drawn towards the US deficit catastrophe.

But once Europe has stabilised i fear for the US.

The immigration issue in Arizona is an omen of the sort of disconnect which could occur between federal and state government. If an Obmama of future US president really challenges the autonomy of a state with a well armed population, then US civil war is not such a ridiculous concept.



Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:01 | 453155 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Whiskey Row in Prescott, AZ is an absolute blast.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:04 | 453163 economicmorphine
economicmorphine's picture

Let me rephrase your question.  What does Texas lose if it secedes?  What does New York or Washington offer Texas?  The answer, according to approximately 8 million Texans, is nada (that's nothing to guys like you).  We have oil.  We have geography.  We have a huge ag industry.  We have our own electric grid.  The joke here, pan-the-ist, is that you need us more than we need you.  I'm not advocating leaving, at least not yet, but if people start throwing out incendiary comments like yours, it's only a matter of when, not if.  



Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:07 | 453238 Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:10 | 453667 Lower Class Elite
Lower Class Elite's picture

Aw, c'mon.  They did produce Stevie Ray.  Of course, Stevie Ray is gone. 

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:14 | 453245 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture


Do you really think that the decision to  secede would be based upon verbal insult?  My closest living relative is in Texas and several friends are there as well.  Those that I know are moderate, rational and would (IMO) think of such a move as crazy.

It is one thing to talk something that extreme, another to do it.   

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:14 | 453294 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I'll admit that Texas does have the illegal immigrant thing figured out.  No payroll tax just sales tax, that gets the illegals to pay their share.  The rest of the country hasn't caught up yet.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:12 | 453380 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Oh, the illegals do pay SS taxes, just with O P SS#'s.........they get no credit for it.

Unless their doing side work,off the grid,then this is bypassed.

Construction workers,any stable business, long lived, must provide SS#'s.......or no workee'.

Unless it's the small yard,painting, etc business's w/ 3-10 owner/workers.

Where the real costs come is medical..................and job loss for American citizens,and small /med companies that do like work.(that DO pay all the taxes/SS/business Licenses, etc, etc...........)

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:44 | 453580 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I read recently that the fishing industry in the gulf states probably won't receive a dime from BP because they cannot figure out how to reimburse them because none of them pay taxes and work for cash.  I can't help but think that most illegals are in a similar boat (pardon the pun) but honestly I have no first hand knowledge because I don't use them for gardening or lawn mowing and certainly haven't picked any up at home depot to help with home remodeling.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:20 | 453304 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

Any state that leaves loses.  That new country would not have a military/defense, etc..., which means taxes.  You think that new country is truly independent?  Wait to see what happens when you got something the US wants (oil).  And if you did leave I dont see why the US would want to bend over backwards to be nice to you - look what happens to every other country in the world that has stuff we want.  Fine, you got your oil - but for how long, and how long before an 'american' company comes in to work your oil.  Think it wouldn't happen?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:33 | 453320 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Texas would need to nationalize all of the companies working within it's borders or the wealth would flow out.  Like a tiny little Venesula.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:23 | 453391 Pope Clement
Pope Clement's picture

I'm trying to figure out if pantheist is a DNC troll or a un peu lourd sur les bords (i.e. a fucking moron) ?

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:50 | 453586 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Probably an 'fing moron.

I am a reformed liberal who recognizes the government can not/should not pay for the social programs we have, but also shouldn't pay for corporate/small business/farm welfare.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:18 | 453174 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

I disagree with you regarding Arizona. Each state is valuable to the USA and each state is by virtue of the tenth amendment is allowed flexibility in it's self governance. If it's not enumerated in the US Constitution, it is left to the individual state to decide. I would not like the "papers please" approach that this new Arizona law takes in my state--but if popular legislation emerges there in response to a problem then so be it. It does not violate the US Constitution and this is why DC cannot do anything about it aside from try to get votes from it somehow.


I believe that behind closed doors, DC really likes the "papers please" standard and wants it to go national. I will oppose it in my state because I see approaches like this as a tightening noose.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:48 | 453218 Hansel
Hansel's picture

I believe DC likes the "papers please" approach, but they are also willing to issue you papers and make you another tax payer if you don't have them.  At least, that is my understanding of Obama's "comprehensive immigration reform".  States like Arizona are trying to enforce our current immigration laws.  Obama wants amnesty.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:13 | 453242 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture


"... but they are also willing to issue you papers and make you another tax payer if you don't have them."

Please to differ with you, should be "... an make you another democrat voter..." and you'd be spot-on.  Evidently, being a tax payer isn't necessary.

- Ned

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:15 | 453296 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Please see my comment regarding sales tax above.  Just wait until you see what democracy does to Texas!

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:17 | 453175 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

State and individual sovereignty. Look it up. 9th and 10th Amendments. Discuss.

Or go back to HuffPost and troll over there.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:01 | 453284 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Arizona offers nothing PERIOD.  Is that better?  I tire of my taxes going to pay for their expensive rural lifestyles and expensive real-estate.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:35 | 453465 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Pan--are you paying the feds to skim their vig before they send money to Arizona?  How much are you tired?  RE is getting less expensive there, would that make you feel better?

- Ned

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:53 | 453588 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Are there any natural resources or agri-busines or anything that isn't government sponsored (defense industry) in Arizona?  Didn't think so.

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:51 | 453867 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

At one time uranium, but currently coal and copper.

Frito-Lay at one time and may still have a significant potato operation around Queen Creek. Probably McMansions by now. I remember back in the mid-sixties there used to be citrus orchards - no foolin'.

A boat load of golf courses and Tribal casinos. Beautiful sunsets. Some of the best private firearms training facilities in the country. Sun City. Half of Hoover Dam.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:23 | 453182 Coldcall
Coldcall's picture

Its not just one state. Already a bunch of other states have lined up behind Arizona supporting its right to pass this immigration law.

So if a group of states decide to give the finger to Washington it could cause a constituional crisis.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:25 | 453190 Cow
Cow's picture

nullification, here we go!

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:07 | 453237 DR
DR's picture

Oh those uppity states.

Don't they know they will be bankrupted in a decade and that the central government will bail them out on conditions that they give up some of their state rights? The concentration of central power will only become stronger.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:52 | 453222 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Wait. You're kidding right? Where are all the snowbirds gonna go then? As far as buffer states go, the Russians seem to think they have some value.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:20 | 453252 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture

Those "snowbirds" are actually an economic resource.  Their retirement funds move with them.  Would like to keep more of those folks up here.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:04 | 453285 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Absolutely.  They earned their pensions up north, they can spend them up north.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 17:40 | 453476 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Pan-I'd guess that you're an indentured servant proponent.  No, you just said that, sorry.

- Ned

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:55 | 453592 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I'm just sad cuz my Mommy and Daddy moved south after retirement and I have nobody up north to baby sit my kids for free.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:28 | 453572 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Another freedom down the toilet.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:50 | 453139 papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

Frankly, on many levels I see very little difference between the previous administration and the present one. The 2 party mentality has the majority of voters cleverly trapped trying to figure out which is the lesser of 2 evils. Both parties have spent out of control and lack the fortitude to make the poltically unpopular choices to rein in spending, dismantle the fed and change a taxation system that punishes savings and success. they will hold power for as long as possible.

I don't see civil war being a possibility in the near future since most states have their hand out to the government wanting more. Whether it be UE benefit extentions loans in the disguise of government projects or just plain old pork. Too many state governments are in too much financial trouble. The Fed Govt will keep the can bouncing down the street for as long as possible.

Only a massive economical (or other event) that caused the federal govt to collapse or loose control could I see states possibly realigning and civil war breaking out. As long as fast food is available and the cable TV box is working, the masses will sit and continue to bloat.


Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:25 | 453188 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

Don't know why you got junked--looks like a pretty good theory...

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:11 | 453240 papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

no idea either...someone must have sand in their panties.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:52 | 453143 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

The collapse of the West ..this is happening at a glacial there is hope that we can return on the road of freedom and prosperity.

Preparing for the fall is impossible as the result of a total collapse has so many unintended consequences.

We have but one choice..reform our systems to remove the sociopaths who are now in power.

In America we have a system to do so without revolution and a shooting civil war. But make no mistake this is a very real civil war, fought for the minds and souls of each American.

The oligarchs and would be Stalinist stand against us. They control media - congress - judiciary..banks and large corporations.

The people can vote out those who support this corrupt cartel..withhold our money from them..many will go to jail for exercising basic freedoms..those who yearn for the freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the the Bill of Rights..will pay a heavy price. so be it. Those who understand and love the promise of our history will be  branded criminals ..count me one.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:29 | 453193 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

They are indeed sociopaths.  Sociopath defined:

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:33 | 453198 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Human nature is what changes at a glacial pace, if at all. The 40,000,000+ Russian dead would start a shooting war to get the sociopathic Stalin out if given a second chance. But they chose to let it all slide; dying from either starvation or a bullet in the face. Maybe we can learn something from them - they paid a heavy price for complacency.

The Founding Father's were not wrong in announcing they would defend themselves until death because, well, it was either that or die on their knees.

This fatalistic view:

Preparing for the fall is impossible as the result of a total collapse has so many unintended consequences.

is why most that are Americans by birth only will die by either:

  • starvation
  • bullet in the face

Others take control and acquire silver, rifles, garden seeds and storable food (for the transition; don't want to gamble on food supply).

Look at the South. Weird stuff going on with their plants now. Maybe it has something to do with the oil spill. Maybe. I wouldn't wait to find out because I remember what I learned in Publik Skool about earth systems.

The people can vote out those who support this corrupt cartel

No they can't. And yes they will go to jail for resisting - that's why we have the 2nd Amendment. Holding up angry signs and staging a "die in" only furthers the control of the state at this point. Didn't you see the mass arrests and unnecessary violence directed towards ordinary people at the G20 in Toronto and every other event. If the police are putting out agent provocateurs to incite civilian action it's over - it's a police state. If you aren't sitting in front of your teevee or buying an iPhone right now you are a criminal.

Get prepared or die.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:28 | 453316 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

Human nature is what changes at a glacial pace, if at all. 

It does not.

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:59 | 453150 economicmorphine
economicmorphine's picture

Not sure I agree with this statement:

"Moreover, the populist, short-term response to the major oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico was clearly geared toward (a) transforming a crisis into an opportunity to pursue a green energy agenda by highlighting the evils of the fossil fuels on which the US remains dependent; (b) ensuring that the President was not blamed for the poor crisis response; and (c) ensuring that the Democratic Party did not suffer from the crisis in the November 2010 mid-term Congressional elections.  "

Why stop with pursuing a green agenda and holding onto a few seats when you can use such a crisis as a stepping stone to a Venezuelan, Mexican, Brazilian type of nationalization of the oil and gas production and exploration industry.  Methinks that is Barry's grand vision.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!