This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Requiem For America

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by a reader

Requiem for America

America, that grand experiment created to probe the limits of human freedom, liberty and equality, has succumbed to its many injuries and passed away.  The exact time of death is uncertain, the causes many.

America was always, until its demise, a work in progress, but that progress stopped.  The country lost its way, forgot where it was headed, and fell prey to a host of enemies, all of them coming from within.

The coroner has yet to announce the cause of death, not yet sure if it was murder or suicide.  That almost does not matter, however, since dead is dead.

I’ll admit I had a hand in America’s death, but I’m not taking all of the blame, nor even the lion’s share. Like original sin, you, too, share the guilt, if you claim the deceased as your next of kin.  For those of you who do not know the pecking order of sin in the Catholic faith, there are degrees of wrongdoing.  Most of us are guilty of minor transgressions, the venal sins.  Though small in a relative sense, we are not absolved of responsibility for America’s death.  We also committed another type of sin, called the sin of omission, which means we failed to do the needful when the survival of our country demanded it.

The greater responsibility, however, rests in the hands of those who committed the mortal sins.  They struck the fatal blow, though we stood back and let them do it.  In a just and fair Universe their punishment would exceed our own, but such a Universe does not exist.
We all die the same death, no matter the extent of our individual culpability.

The mortal sins, and those who committed them, are well known.  The list is too long to relate in totality here, but some of the key players and their acts deserve special attention.

Those who abused the trust of the people and abrogated their responsibility to the state and the citizenry are most guilty.  They go by the names of Bernanke and Greenspan, Geithner and Paulson, Rubin and Frank, Bush and Obama, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and many more.  They are guilty of a host of crimes and failings.  Some lied.  Some are corrupt.  Some are hypocrites.  Some suffer from bloated egos.  Some are simply fools and incompetent.  Some are all of the above.  All abused their power, quite often simply for their own personal gain.

Our elected and appointed leaders are not the only ones guilty of mortal sins.  Private individuals---some fools, some psychopaths, and all self-serving and avaricious---had a hand equal to our leaders in America’s death.  That list, too, is long, but special mention must be made of one named Dimon and one named Blankfein.  One seems to be a psychopath, while the other just a fool blinded by his own greed, though that does not excuse him.

As individual citizens we helped facilitate the wrongdoings of the leadership and the elite.  We gave in to the siren song of false gods.
 We came to believe, because we wanted to believe, that growth could exceed input, that reward could exceed effort.  Indeed, we came to feel that reward should exceed effort, because…well…we deserved it.

We took on debts we could not pay, merely to accumulate things we did not need.  We found money where it did not really exist, such as in the delusional value of our homes.  We lost patience.  We had no discipline.  We suspended logic.  We rationalized that it was all okay because everyone else was doing it.

We had good teachers, and even better facilitators.  Our leaders, beginning with a fool named Reagan, told us debt did not matter and that the appearance of wealth was all that mattered, repayment be damned as that would fall on someone else.  Every leader after him tried to tell us that the bills never came due and that sacrifice was just a quaint and outdated concept.  One of our leaders started a silly war, with an undetermined goal, with an ever-changing justification steeped in lies and deceits, then told us all to go shopping, as if both the dying and the payment were someone else’
responsibility.

We let them get away with it because we wanted to believe.  We spent our days adding to the list of unalienable rights our founders had enumerated for us.  Two hundred some odd years ago those men had given us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We came to like the last one best of all, and redefined it as needed.  We assumed a right to live beyond our means.  We took a dream, the so-called American Dream, and not only determined it was a reality, but that it was a birthright.

We became hypocrites along the way, something illustrated to perfection by a man who long has had an active hand in our demise.  We came to believe our own hype, that we were the best, and that we knew best.  We forced others to accept our way of life when force was in our own interest, and we lectured when force was not a viable option.

We made no friends either way, leaving destruction most everywhere we tread.  We did to others as we would never want nor allow others to do to us.

Regarding that illustration noted above, consider Timothy Geithner, now our Treasury Secretary, but late of both the New York Federal Reserve and the IMF.  When East Asia stumbled as a result of its own failings in 1997, Geithner demanded that they face up to their own errors and accept their earned pain.  Budgets were to be balanced, interest rates raised, and the weak and incompetent allowed to fail.

Years later, as both Fed Governor and Treasury Secretary, Geithner’s prescription was the exact opposite.  The weak, corrupt and incompetent were to be saved at the expense of the innocent, and economic policy should be a continuation of the very things that led to the economy’s collapse.

In partnership with an equally incompetent Fed Chairman named Bernanke, America engaged in the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world, from the most innocent to the most guilty.

These two men, along with those who appointed or confirmed them, had the audacity---or stupidity---to tell us that the solution is the problem is the solution.

A collapse resulting from excess debt was to be solved…with more debt. A country suffering from excess spending was to…spend more. The people whose actions had been the prime cause of the collapse…were to be made more than whole again with someone else’s money.  The existence of institutions whose enormous size afforded them a finger on the financial nuclear trigger…were not only to be allowed to remain too big to fail, but they actually were encouraged to become even larger.

We were told this was a necessary evil and that it was for our greater good.  We were intimidated.  We were threatened.  We were spun in circles so that we’d be too dizzy and confused to see the many ways we were all on the hook for someone else’s crimes.  The contempt of our leadership was so great that they dared to say that those who were forced to pay for others' corruption were actually making a profit on our unintended and unwilling generosity.

Many lost faith early on.  Some saw all the lies, and that affected them so deeply that all they could see was lies, even when they were told the occasional truth.  While I personally take exception to what this complete loss of faith has bred, I understand its genesis.
Without going into detail, I trust the reader knows what I mean.

As of this writing, nothing has changed.  We are still being taken for fools.  The guilty continue to run free, and for them times have never been better, though even for them it will be temporary.  The wealth transfer continues unabated, and the prescription given to the masses is as it has always been:  spend more.  So isolated is the leadership and the elite, or so callous and cold is their soul, that they act unaware that more spending is not a option.

We’ve just embarked on something called QE2, with the association of its name (a cruise ship on vacation) a cruel joke.  QE2 is an academic’s solution to a problem whose only real solution is a realization that real gain only comes from real sacrifice.  QE2 is an economist’s answer.  Like most every economic theory---economics is a dismal science at best, alchemy and fraud at its worst---it starts with an assumption.  In the case of QE2 this is:  assume infinite money.

So far the reaction is such that the economists are patting themselves on the back.  They not only think they are correct---despite the historical fact that they, from Bernanke to Greenspan to Summers have never been right once in their entire lives---they continue to take the masses for fools.

Maybe we are fools.  Certainly we are lazy.  We are probably also cowards.  We are lazy because we failed to demand real change, not the silly change that spews from a politician’s lips as easily as all of his other lies.  We let them do this to us.  We let them fool us.  We let them put the final stake in the heart of America and guarantee its demise.  We are too late.  That is our sin.

Talk to your neighbors.  Read the press.  Watch TV, especially the business shows.  Do you see anything different this week that you have not seen before?  Do you feel the mood, even among the most optimistic, is different than it was a year, or even two years ago?

It is.  It is clear in the faces of even the formerly optimistic.
They know it’s over.  They know we’re dead and that QE2---assumed and endless money for real and endless maladies---is the final blow.  They see it in the collapse of the once almighty dollar.  Yes, they are all partying, but they know the lifeboats are all gone and all they’re doing is emptying the liquor cabinet on the Titanic, maybe hoping to be in a stupor when the cold or the water steals their final breath.

We are cowards because we did not do what our founding fathers did to rid themselves of the oppression and corruption under which they suffered.  They put their lives on the line.  They took up arms when such action was the only solution.  What the current leadership has inflicted upon the citizenry is at least as egregious as anything suffered under King George.  All of the debt and none of the glories.

The Founding Fathers never intended to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few people, as now rests in the hands of Ben Bernanke and the Fed.  The system supposedly has built in checks and balances, but it is clear there are none, given that a non-elected official in a semi-private entity can determine our collective fate.  That his mandate, if what mandate he has is even constitutional, is to defend the integrity of the currency and maintain price stability is being ignored.  That he is prohibited from monetizing the government’s debt is also being ignored.  Such is our leaderships’ enforcement of the laws.  We need to be our own enforcers, since those who ostensibly have the job refuse to do so.

As a country we have used violence to eliminate those who pose a real or perceived threat against our well being.  As individuals we have all played the parlor game of asking what we would have done, had we had the opportunity, to eliminate Hitler early in his career.  Most of us, despite our abhorrence of violence, would say Hitler should have been eliminated.  The world would have been a better place.

Some future citizens will play that same game when they discuss the decline and fall of America.  I wonder what they will decide?  I wonder if they will blame us for our failure to act before it was too late, when the system did not allow us a workable solution, and when the only thing that would have saved the country was the elimination through any means those who actions were destroying it.

Is this sedition?  Were the Founding Fathers seditionists?  They would have been if they had failed, but they won.  We are too late, however, so the consideration for us is a moot point, to be debated by our grandchildren in some future parlor game.

What right do I have to even suggest such things?  None, other than the right to defend myself and my country, since our elected leaders fail to do so.  Our democracy---for some reason limited to two virtually identical parties---is but an illusion.  More importantly, our leaders have decided that laws do not apply to them and to those who feed their egos.  They even have decided that we, the people, have no right to know the machinations behind those who manipulate the value of the currency we are forced to use.  We are all supposed to simply shut up and pay so that our betters can prosper at our expense.

Since the law is not applied equally, can it be any surprise that eventually the people will also opt out of obeying the law, too?
Strategic default and squatting are merely the opening shots in the abandonment of all pretense.  As frustration builds, other laws will be ignored, until the time comes when those who should have been responsible will be held responsible.  When all is lost and everything the country was or should have been is gone, the only satisfaction that remains will be taking a pound of flesh from the ones who brought the country down.

Those pounds will be taken, one by one, and a degree of fairness will be restored to the Universe.  That is the law;  the law of the jungle, to which we are now returning.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:13 | 702642 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Some of the founding fathers were idealists and intellectuals, not all. Money was always a big issue. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:24 | 702676 Rasna
Rasna's picture

What's your point... Idealism is irrelevant... The most important founding fathers were realists, pragmatists and visionaries, most notably Thomas Jefferson.

Google Thomas Jefferson and Bankers and see what he warned about, which all came true... We would all still be British Citizens had the crown not raised the tax on tea at the behest of the Bank of England.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:29 | 702693 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

an argument can be made that bush, cheney, etc. were idealists.  twisted ideals perhaps, certainly evil means to whatever ends.  they (we) would have fared better had they been less wilsonian and more coolidgean.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:38 | 702730 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

And the current administration aren't twisted ideologues?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:59 | 702964 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

No because they haven't done anything 'democrat'. It's been ALL REPUBLICAN, ALL FASICST, ALL MONETARISM WHORES, ALL THE TIME.

Even the healthcare (deathcare) bill wasn't what democrats want.  It was the health care affordibility act (for h.m.o.'s)  NOT single payer. Oh yeah, it was put out by the heritage foundation ~1990.  So we passed a republican think tank version of healthcare, keeping the h.m.o.'s, and the perpetually retarded republicans and nuts on the face party don't understand it. 

All Obama has done is 'go right'.  All the legislature has promised, is to 'go right', and all the people want, is to 'not go right'.  So why did they vote right? Because my fellow Americans, 99 percent of them, are fucking NUTS.

They can't think anymore, drowned out by decades of propaganda, that now even right wing shit is called liberal.  Tea partiers are patriots (yeah fucking right dumbasses), and when you choose to suck the cock of the big banks, the big corporations, the whole supply side never trickle down economics you only get more of exactly what destroyed us.

We are fucked, we put the psychos back in office.  Psycho's they are, idiots they are.  Our only hope is with less captured dems, but with NerObama doing his best impression of a republican every hour of every day since he took office, it is funny that what they hated about him was 'right', and they instead picked, even MORE right. 

All Obama has done, is do what reagan did on steroids.  Right wingers should love Obama, he's more Reagan than Reagan.  Only complete dumbasses don't see it.

So we got more of what we hate, with tea partiers and republicans, enjoy the collapse.  Enjoy the no-nothing to dig us out.  Enjoy forrest gump running things, because that's the philosophy of the right, nothing.  They have none.  Obama is doing theirs better than they can, but none of it works, because it was NEVER a legitimate side to take. 

Impeach Obama.  Get a real dem in office.  No one else has the brains or the balls to save anything about America. Not Rand 'idiot' Paul, not Sarah' fucking' palin, not Harry 'dumbass' Reid. 

It's too bad though, pretty much everything that CAN SAVE us, is merely a vote away in congress, already read in, and been sitting there for YEARS.

It's too bad we have so many dumbasses that think so bass ackwards their mental capacity is worse than an uneducated six year old.  Literally.

Glass/Steagall

(which will cancel how many trillions from our debt?)

 

Now how do you create jobs? Well it depends. The average dumbass republican will say, tax policy.  Ok, but what if tax rates were 0, how do you create a job then....crickets for as far as the eye can see.

Well you either have gov't set the rules correctly, and/or create the jobs and WORK ITSELF out of the problem. 

So yes, gov't can create jobs, you've just never seen it, because you've always voted for dumbasses.  So what you think is true, isn't, only because you've bought the bullshit.

Gov't CAN create jobs.  We just haven't tried it yet.  Just extreme trickle down economics.  No WPA, No CCC, no science driver program.  Instead of ramping up space, Obama is shutting it down. 

Everything this country needs to pull out of this, we ain't doing, and haven't spent a dime on.  So we need TONS of spending.  But on WORTHWILE THINGS, not distressed debt that is worth 0.  Not tax cuts for people who don't need them.  That won't stimulate SHIT, which is why we see such a decrease in bang for the buck.  Because it's asinine what we've done.  Only idiots believe in supply side.  It's NEVER worked, it's only APPEARED to, some of the time, early on, and only for the top.  It was never a legitimate option.  But it's the only thing we've used for 30-40 years.  Asinine.  We just voted in MORE of THAT SAME.

 

Right wing corporate fascism.  It's what has got us, republican or democrat.  Too bad, the biggest fascists, just won.  Expect to pay out your nose and your ass for this one.  You surely will.  Enjoy having your fascist country back, but nowhere is 'your country' not completely fascist-world.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama has not done ONE measurable thing for the left, how come the right can't figure that out? Because they can't figure out anything, they are told what to think.

Sorry this was right wing ideology we went for, not me, not real democrats, but every democrat in power, and every republican who was in power or voted for them. 

It also wasn't JUST from within, what is this ideology we used.  Where did it come from? Britain.

So we had British minded Americans, named mostly Republicans, but also and including Obama, who took us down this road.

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:03 | 702980 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Alright. Who spiked your K00l-Aid?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:34 | 703119 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

In other words, we can change the word democrat to our suiting so that none of the mess can be blamed on democrats...  got it.  When a theory faces a paradox, its creators may retreat and retrench the idea, thereby refining it to take into account the paradox...  or, they may scrap it.  I suggest the latter.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:46 | 703153 Bankster Bug
Bankster Bug's picture

The American People Can Close the Fed, Demand United States Notes
Freedom League

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion.

To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters.

Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."

This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459.

Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.

The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59.

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.

Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large."

It is the VOLUNTARY use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.

However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying Allodial title.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins.

One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980).

If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the banksters. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy.

This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was deemed ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source.

So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a bankster's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark banksters and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the banksters to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act.

The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974).

Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.

The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur.

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.

Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided.

If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income.

It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, banksters have over extended, making banks quite illiquid.

Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate banksters to redeem private credit.

When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the bankstering system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115).

The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316.

According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution.

We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government (Corp. US). The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government/Corp US is founded upon private law and funded by private credit.

What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to banksters via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution.

The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution.

Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV.

Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund.

It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution.

The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy.

The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed.

Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:38 | 703708 RECISION
RECISION's picture

Try posting a link rather than polluting the thread with verbage you cretin.

:-(

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:01 | 703907 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

Was that original or copy and paste because that was brilliant.  This is where it all rests because i am not american but what the rest of the world loves about america is the original idea of freedom.

 

  

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:45 | 703155 RacerX
RacerX's picture

step awaay from the kool-aid.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:46 | 703161 Bugman82
Bugman82's picture

Oh, I think I get it!

Democrats became republicans and republicans stayed republicans and so every American is republican and so everything can be blamed on republicans!?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:54 | 703187 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Clinton and Carter did just as much as Obama in the cause of fascism.  The results just weren't as immediately apparent.

There hasn't been one good president since Coolidge. 

There is no need to differentiate between the two parties, because both are the same.  Cut down on the party-specific vitriol, and join a third party.  You'll feel a lot better.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:15 | 703199 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

You are a moron who loves to live off other people's money. To "go right" means less government in our lives. It means more individual freedom to pursue self interest whether that be economic or religious. To go right means real free markets  where one is able to succeed or to fail based on ones own merits.  Not to be have the failures propped up and bailed out because they can throw enough cash around to buy themselves a senator or two. Governments sole job is to provide a secure nation for us as Americans to pursue economic prosperity based on our merits.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:00 | 703493 SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

+1

Sat, 11/06/2010 - 04:20 | 704853 CitizenZeus
CitizenZeus's picture

So how come "go right" in our country has done the exact opposite of all those things.  I appreciate your attempt to equate Ron Paulism with the "Right" but that is simply a fantasy bearing no resemblance to actual empirical reality.  The "Right" is the tea-partiers, Reagan, Bush, and McConnell all of whom love to lard cash (and take some scraps) from ultra-rich robber barons and corporations and never hold them accountable.  If the "Right" were about accountability then every Republican would be clamoring for investigation of the Fed, faudclosure, the derivatives market, and insisting on mark to market.  They have instead done everything in their power to obstruct it. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:06 | 703220 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Here we have conclusive evidence of what happens when the media and educational institutions are corrupted by an oppressive tyrannical movement like marxism.  This guy and his beliefs are the total manifestation of the outcome intended by the 6th and 10th planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:43 | 703720 RECISION
RECISION's picture

Buzz - sometimes it is better to stay quiet and chance being thought a fool - rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:30 | 704370 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Matthew 5:22

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:13 | 703230 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

You just convolute everything even worse than it already is.

 

There is no more "Right".  Everything shifted left.

 

Liberals became Socialists and Republicans became Liberals.

 

The Tea party is the best hope for the Country because their goal is to reduce Government to as small as possible.  THAT is the way to freedom.

 

The only problem is, too many Republicans managed to HIJACK the Tea Party.

 

The result?  While many Republicans got into office due to the backlash.....STILL NOTHING WILL GET FIXED.

 

You want to fix the problem?

1.  STOP feeding Americans lines of BS and tell it like it is.  Many people will not accept this and you face the real possibility of not getting elected.  However in the end we all get the Representatives we deserve.  Which is little comfort to those of us who actually have some skin in the game.

 

2.  Get rid of the Federal Reserve.  How can anyone call us a Capitalist Society when we SET INTEREST RATES AND MONEY SUPPLY?  That is just assinine.

 

3.  Restore accountability.  You don't have a job?  Get one.  You want to go into debt to get the latest iPad?  You pay the price for that debt.  You didn't get a fair start like that other lucky guy over there?  Sorry, now you have to run harder to get what you want.  Life is not fair and legislating it will never make it so.

 

People can do amazing things when they have skin in the game.  Likewise they can accomplish incredible feats of apathy and laziness when the world is handed to them.

 

Isn't it time to end this madness?  If you all want to destroy yourselves taking eachother's money and calling it "progressive" go ahead.  But leave us smart one's out of it.

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:07 | 703924 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

there will come a time in the future when being hetrosexual will be a revolutionary act

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:02 | 703348 ugmug
ugmug's picture

The fact remains that allowing intellectual jerks to make people poor by some sort of ‘Marxist’ design is economic genocide. Why is it that all the idiots that try to perpetuate their college achievements (boozing and snoozing) by destroying capitalism seem oblivious to the fact that they’ll eventually need to earn a living in the real word like everyone else. You know, that cold cruel world of hard work.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:18 | 703376 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

Reneging on all free trade agreements, switching to a new currency backed by something other the lies and deception of bureaucrats and pulling all our military and all the equipment on foreign bases (except 'key' ones numbering < 20) and pointing all the weapons outward would be a step in the right direction.  Alas I dream of a nation that cares about itself and its own people ... what a dream ... instead of the nightmare we currently have.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:56 | 703489 Blano
Blano's picture

Somebody needs a nap.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:34 | 703699 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

+1

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:10 | 703928 cdskiller
cdskiller's picture

+1000 You fucking rock, my friend. Exactly right, exactly what I've been thinking and I've never read it anywhere else.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 23:17 | 703214 Alexandre Stavisky
Alexandre Stavisky's picture

.

Sat, 11/06/2010 - 03:26 | 704822 malek
malek's picture

you mean idealists in a Colonel Kurtz kind of way?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:46 | 702928 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The tax on tea is one of the more ridiculous historical inaccuracies. It was the King's decision to stop colonial advancement and guarantee indian territorial claims that riled the forefathers- especially George Washington- the largest landowner in America. 

Further, the taxes endangered illegal trade through the west indies and black market profits of the wealthy. The same wealthy that pushed the revolution as they paid fees for stand ins. 

Instead, read complete histories. It is difficult to understand the game without a lineup  and player biographies.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:50 | 702941 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Yes.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:18 | 703240 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Here is another example of a victim of the 6th and 10th planks of the communist manifesto.  He thinks he knows because someone told him.  He has not taken the time to check the soruces of the "facts" with which his "teachers" formed his opinions and beliefs.  He then makes the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that everyone else is stupid and uninformed if they disagree with his opinons and beliefs.  There are two lies in his paragraph which he could easily disprove if he were truly interested in the TRUTH.

What he does not realize is that he is being used.  The end dose not justify the means as Alinsky and so many other marxists have claimed.

Note to Sean, they are lying to you.  It is a part of their game plan.  To them the end, marxisim, is justification for the means, lying.

 

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:32 | 703279 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Note to Buzz: my facts check out just fine.That is the beauty of monarchial decrees.  Your allusions? Not so much. Your attempt to slander by association is just pitiful. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:06 | 703506 SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

Sean, your 'facts' do not check out just fine. Yours, Maverick , a Revolutionary war student.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:39 | 704391 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

I am guessing you are not familiar with the 6th and 10th planks of the Communist Manifesto or Saul Alinsky's little book, Rules for Radicals.  Please begin to inform yourself.  Your indoctrination is showing.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:55 | 703485 Snake
Snake's picture

You are absolutely right.

Sat, 11/06/2010 - 22:21 | 705921 fleur de lis
fleur de lis's picture

Sean, I never heard that story about the King and the Indians' claims--very interesting. Can you please provide more information or recommend a source or book? Thanks. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:49 | 702939 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

My point was simply that we should never hold the "Founding Fathers" in so much reverence or as prophets as to not see their potential for human errors too. There is a lot of talk out there about how the US has strayed from the original ideals of the signatories of the Constitution. 

I'm not bashing the article, just saying we have to put them in context and be open to a new system, though I admit right away that now would be a difficult time to write a new constitution. I think the only chance for a restart is to get back to functional units where the number of people involved are smaller. This idea is in itself idealistic since there are over 6 billion of us, and at the risk of sounding pessimistic, I think there are just too many of us for democracy to work. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:07 | 702989 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

We indeed have scalability issues.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:58 | 703616 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

yup,

i've thought the same...that Democracy in America was well suited to a smallish, agrarian, fairly homogenous group of europeans starting afresh in a new world.

A multi-culti scrum of ethnic tribes competing for "resources"....eh, not so much...

the center will not hold.

But whether "latino, "black", "hmong", woman, handicapped, native american, gay, WASP, muslim or jew there's this: John Philpot Curran in a speech upon the Right of Election (1790)):

 

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

 

Dontcha hate that word?  "Resources"

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:36 | 703014 RichardP
RichardP's picture

No restart.  No start over.  Only morph.  Constantly.  From Jamestown.

I think there are just too many of us for democracy to work.

A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government ... In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy ...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Representative democracy is flexible enough for our current needs, even with the expanded population.  The problem is not so much our form of government as much as it is our desires.  The financial system was created as a support for the producers.  It has become a game in its own right, decoupled from producers (overgeneralization; see comments in the following posts for specifics).  We could vote in folks who would force the change in the financial system that is needed.  We just don't do it.

We could solve the problem faster perhaps if we were governed by an enlightened dictator.  Problem is, who gets to say who that enlighted dictator should be?  Answering that question properly is the achilles heel of any form of government.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:35 | 703288 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

All forms of government reward the tyranny of the few and enslave the majority. Some are better than others with more fringe benefits, but the chains are all the same.

Individual sovereignty is the only system that guarantees the liberty of all people. No government is the best government.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:41 | 703301 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Since history, and experience, demonstrates that the alpha male will always gather a group of lackeys and take over as much as he can rule, no government is not ever possible.  Enlightened dictatorship is the best anyone can ever hope for, but it occurs rarely.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:48 | 703319 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Actually it is possible. No matter how alpha the leader, it is only through the codification of authority that rule is possible. As long as people limit laws to the protection of private property, each alpha will be taken down. Dynasty is defeated. 

You speak from a history written by the alpha ruling group. As it has always failed to benefit the majority of people- it is time to change the ruling paradigm, unless you enjoy insanity-I don't.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:28 | 703405 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Suppose we were to identify this "alpha" behavior as a mental illness and began casting down those who exhibited it?  I mean, wife beating was once accepted in American society, perhaps we can get past this "control freak" problem we have now.

Sat, 11/06/2010 - 04:12 | 704850 RichardP
RichardP's picture

I was responding to the proposition that No government is the best government.  Both of your responses assume some sort of organizing force (government) is in place.  I'm talking about a situation where no government exists (the proposed ideal that I am responding to).  In real life this vacuum is never allowed to exist.  With no system of force to oppose him, some dude will always take over a group as large as he can control.  If you disagree, you are too far removed from real life.  There is no territory in New York City or Los Angeles that is not controlled by some gang leader.  The alpha male always rushes in to fill a vacuum in leadership.  Government.  It will never not exist for any significant period of time.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:41 | 703303 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

It comes down to whether ownership is a fundamental right. If so, most systems result in the more you own, the more power you get, and the more leverage you have. The distribution of wealth is on a log-normal scale by the look of things, so we're seeing the ultra wealthy simply doing what you would do if you were ultra-wealthy: protect your interests. It's not "evil" as much as akin to the second law of thermodynamics or something. Wealth concentrates, like gravitation.

Smaller groups of people are capable of sharing but the more remote people are from the recipient of their sharing, the less they want to do it. That's because the "share-er" likes to feel good about giving, just be told they are bad for owning.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:36 | 703589 tired1
tired1's picture

One would think that reading ZH is akin to reading the Federalist Papers.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:41 | 703446 aerojet
aerojet's picture

You and I were making basically the same point but got junked by the cult-of-Founding-Fathers member who just can't get his head out of his ass.

There is no way, NO WAY that people who lived in 1776 and on through the 1790s could have ever imagined the complexity of the world as it exists today.  It also astounds me that the people of this cult never seem to bother to read any history books or think deeply about the matter at all, it's all just quotes from Jefferson and Franklin.  Here's a hint, Jefferson went broke as President because he had to pay for most of the functions of the office out of his own pocket! 

 

The Republic didn't make it past Lincoln.  So forget it, okay?

 

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:23 | 703386 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Your comment is bullshit because Thomas Jefferson was talking about his own time, not hundreds of years in the future.  Jefferson and the other founders did not give a shit what happened 200 years later.  While there may be parallels, because human nature is constant, it is up to us to do what is right and not be expecting some outmoded form of law be some kind of ultimate trump card against tyranny.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:45 | 702740 Mako
Mako's picture

"The Founding Fathers never intended to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few people, as now rests in the hands of Ben Bernanke and the Fed."

I have no idea what the author is talking about the First Bank of the United States was formed 1791 when most of the signers still lived.

You lemmings are not in this position because of the Fed or central banks.... it's all you Banks that I call Lemmings that think you can steal from the future at an exponential rate  forever, sorry guys.

Nothing the so called Founders did had has any effect on the problem you are currently about to be in.  Matter of fact, they were too busy taking on loans from France and in return paying interest.  Sorry guys, start a system based on the need for exponential growth it will eventually expand, then collape, then liquidate.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:32 | 702894 Larry Darrell
Larry Darrell's picture

I'm not sure why someone would flag this post as junk.

The only wording I would change is the last sentence because the system doesn't even have to be based on exponential growth.  If it is just based on limitless growth, even at a constant pace it will fail, albeit further out the timeline.  You cannot have limitless wealth growth in monetary terms without also having limitless growth on labor and supplies.  This planet provides us with neither of the last 2 requirements.

2+2 != 5.  You cannot forever pull forward the value of something (future labor/supplies, which we call interest) because at some point in the future, the labor or supplies (or both) run out.  And even if they don't run out, their rate of inflow declines past the promised rate dictated by pulled forward demand (the interest).  It is mathematically unsustainable.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:43 | 702913 Mako
Mako's picture

The reason it gets marked as junk is because many Lemmings who are presented the Truth and don't like what it will mean, would rather live the lie.   The Lemmings are running from the Truth, always have been. 

They simply like to put on a show pointing fingers before the black pit has them for lunch.... great entertainment though for us sane people

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:02 | 703648 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"Matter of fact, they were too busy taking on loans from France and in return paying interest."

It got junked because France got PAID BACK

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:58 | 702957 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

It really is curious why people don't see the simple natural truth. Something is created, it grows, exhausts its resources, and dies. then repeat.

Doesn't matter if its mold on an orange, an economy, a people, a religion, a star.

Its a law. Like gravity. The only exception is the universe itself.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:09 | 702998 Mako
Mako's picture

The universe grows and contracts as well. 

At first even Einstein thought the universe was static, he corrected his wrong assumption.  Of course, it seems like it would be an impossibility for us to see the complete contraction. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:20 | 703046 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Then you'd have to accept the space outside the universe bubble not part of the universe?

Hang on..  Gotta grab my bong..

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:43 | 703150 RichardP
RichardP's picture

What space?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 18:32 | 703832 RECISION
RECISION's picture

Then you'd have to accept the space outside the universe bubble not part of the universe?

YES - and don't go on like somehow you know better.

At best, you've got a theory.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:30 | 703969 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

    YES - and don't go on like somehow you know better.

Are you the thought police? How shall I carry on?

There is no "truth" only belief and cognitive dissonance. The American Experiment neither passed or failed. We're exploring the results of tweaking variables during this experiment. When we exhaust enough resources the experiment will be over and we'll begin anew.

As for my theory... I believe that there is a point at which something is either so large or small that it becomes impossible to prove its existence or significance. The threshold of comprehension at each end is as individualistic as thumb prints.

Both the universe and energy are infinite. Matter has the cyclical timeline..

just what I chose to believe.

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:13 | 703016 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

+1.  On a long enough timeline...

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 20:32 | 704127 CH1
CH1's picture

The first Bank of the US was Hamilton's scam. Read Jefferson's recounting of the dirty deal.

Details here, if you are interested: http://www.ascolibooks.com/vera-verba/words_of_the_founders.html

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:44 | 702741 IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

The real issue is that the US is not willing to accept the real solution -- i.e, rejigger the global financial system to preferentially fund genuine demand that currently exists mainly in the emerging countries. By insisting on retaining control of the reserve currency status, the US is preventing natural forces of currency devaluation that existed in a bilateral trading world (demanding rest of the world to appreciate their respective currencies while US continues to retain the reserve status will not achieve this goal nor will endless QEs when there are holdouts like China). Switching to a synthetic currency like SDR or formal recognition of gold as reserve currency to be used for international settlement is ultimately the only way to bring back the jobs for the majority of US population (the current arrangement appears to only benefits a small elite minority while providing living level handouts but robbing the dignity of the majority). 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:46 | 702748 Mako
Mako's picture

False.  Simple Math is the reason the system will collapse and liquidate.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:33 | 702896 Minion
Minion's picture

I know of at least one religious group / ethnicity that forbids lending at interest to their own.  They do consider it lawful, however, to charge interest from the gentiles.  Over a few generations, it really adds up.......

They also have a reputation of buying value on the cheap, waiting for just the right time. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:44 | 702921 Mako
Mako's picture

Any system that attaches interest to their medium of exchange will have a limited duration before peak, then collapse and liquidation.  There is no avoiding this result if you use the equation.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:29 | 703090 israhole
israhole's picture

Is that before or after he knocked up his own cousin, then stole submissions to the Patent Office?

Read up, Einstein isn't the genius he's been credited.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:18 | 703237 Mako
Mako's picture

I never said any such thing, actually I said he was wrong and he admitted it.  I fail to see how your post is relevant to that.  Heck, he can knockup his mom I don't give a crap.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:45 | 702923 Peak Everything
Peak Everything's picture

Math, physics, and geology. Real wealth is generated by work. We increased the work per person with fossil fuels. And we maximized this by borrowing from future wealth (fractional reserve banking). Net energy of fossil fuels is in decline due to geology. We no longer generate enough wealth to pay the interest on our debts and our system is imploding.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:22 | 703032 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

No. It's not exclusively a math problem. To say the collapse of America is a math problem is equal to saying Saddam Hussein suffered a Tomahawk problem.

If it was a math problem, the system would have already collapsed. With regard to the collapse of our country, what is the difference between $14 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in debt? If it was a math problem, please show me the equation, and explain why that equation is valid now and not two years ago.  

The debt only matters when the collateral behind the debt fails.  The collateral behind American debt is the American military. I am not trying to trivialize debt or the laws of mathematics, but the collapse of a country is far, far more complex than simple mathematics.    

It's a faith problem - faith in America, its people, its leaders and its ability to maintain its independence (military strength).  And faith is a massively dubious abstraction. 

Ultimately, it's a people problem - like the rise and fall of everything.  If you deny that, then you must believe that the fall of man was an apple problem.   

The collapse of a country is not a mathematical equation.  If it was, the game would have ended in October 2008.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:30 | 703096 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Faith can help suspend disbelief for a time, but he is right... it will eventually be math.  I would go even further than you and October 2008.  It should have ended back in 2000 or so, but the fed made a very conscious decision to blow up a housing bubble.  People want to believe... which makes the fed's job a little bit easier, but time seems to be running out.  Hell... Elvis Costello was talking about it on Colbert last night... end times are upon us (not biblical, but it might end up feeling that way).

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:32 | 703102 trav7777
trav7777's picture

np, man...

you have bacteria in a bottle which is empty except for one bacteria at noon and the bottle is full at midnight.   The bacteria double in population every minute.  At what time is the bottle half full?

At every time other than that time, the bacteria do not face a headroom constraint.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:54 | 703179 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Always see the question.  Never the answer.  I'm assuming that if the number of bacteria double every minute going forward, we could also say that the population is cut in half every minute going backward.  So a full bottle would have been half-full a minute before.  Did I miss anything?

I would add that, the minute the population starts doubling every minute, they faced a headroom constraint whether they knew it or not.  The end was determined by the manner in which they started, the minute they started.  Ultimately, it comes down to the math.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:38 | 703534 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

trav7777

I don't think your analogy properly synchronizes.  Your bacteria/volume analogy is a two dimensional geometry problem.  Our corrupt monetary system/thievery is not.

I've got a question.  Consider this:

What happens when pocket A (the Fed) forgives the debt of pocket B (the Treasury), and the massive transfer of wealth from the American laborers to Wall Street has been completed with the tap of a delete button?

If the Treasury buys garbage from Wall Street with money loaned by the Fed, and then the Fed forgives the Treasury's debt (or some portion of it), does this bring us back to square one?

If you're your own debtor and creditor and you also create/print the entire money supply, can you balance the aggregate money supply (both paper and digital) in a God-like manner to balance the scales when necessary?

Similarly, what happens when a giant Wall Street bank is suppose to go insolvent due to the laws of mathematics?  Answer:  it doesn't. And I'm sure there are numerous bacteria/jar/volume metaphors that would have suggested otherwise.  The laws of mathematics work, but they rarely account for cheaters.

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:34 | 703117 Peak Everything
Peak Everything's picture

Magical thinking. I bet you also believe in heaven.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:58 | 703338 Punderoso
Punderoso's picture

The collapse has already occurred in my opinion, but declaring when the collapse occurs is completely subjective, people strangely think there is going to be some atomic bomb go off or something to signal the collapse. 

The collapse in my view = loss of freedom, replacement of natural law with political law, destruction of the currency, lowered standard of living, centralized government up inside your rectum, debt slavery, endless wars and nation building, government controlled education, and a powerful banking-political elite just pulling the strings.

Do we really need to have something like a hyperinflationary event before someone declares the collapse has occurred?  If the dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the birth of the Federal Reserve in 1913, is this not good enough for anyone?  Is it not enough proof that the millions of lobbyist dollars passing through DC shows that there has been way too much centralization of power and that the fedral government has usurped so much power from the states that the Constitution is nothing but a joke.  Is it not enough proof that if you take an airplane flight today that you, your wife, and kids are touched by TSA agents in a way that would cause anyone else to do so be charged with sexual assault or molestation charges as proof in how far our freedoms have been eroded?  It is the slow cooked frog, at what point do you declare it cooked?

We can argue all day about collapse, but I am sure we all have different definitions of "collapse" so we are just a bunch of stupid clucking hens arguing with each other while we are being eaten by the wolves.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:36 | 702899 bugfixx
bugfixx's picture

Hardly a solution to replace fiat paper with different fiat paper - one kind of debt for another.  National currency monopolies and fractional reserve banking must be destroyed and the soil on which they once stood permanently salted so they never arise again.  Currency must have intrinsic value, not just be a promise to pay which by human nature in a finite world must eventually become worthless.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:02 | 702975 Cojones
Cojones's picture

They were not Idealists! Idealism is imposing your idealistic views on others  with force and taking away individual choice.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:03 | 702981 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

Many of them knew it was a experiment destined to fail. They also knew about how long it would take. Many of them were members of secret societies and they knew the real reasons why this nation was founded and what was to become of her. Now we are in the year 2010, and we see now ,that the usefulness of this nation has come to a end. So now it is being dismantled. The land of the free and the home of the brave always was just one big lie. As Janis Joplin said one time, Freedom is just another word for nothing less to lose.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:15 | 703541 Billy Bob
Billy Bob's picture

actually, Janis Joplin sang it, Kris Kristofferson wrote it. 

 

Just say'n

 

Besides, this thread needs a little lite banter!

 

 

Bill

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 20:14 | 704088 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Not to be persnickety Bill Bob, but Kris sang it too.  But Kris sure nuf weren't no Janis Joplin.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:14 | 702643 functionform
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:31 | 703413 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

Your life is just fine. Look at this wonderful country called India, average income/yr? ~ 3800.000 usd's

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filthy-india-photos-chinese-neti...

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:16 | 702654 kato
kato's picture

it is actually true that Reagan was the original big spender.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:23 | 702673 Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean's picture

And Nixon, in my mind, with the ultimate sin:  cutting the dollars peg to physical gold in international transactions.

1971 is the moment the bullet hit the brain.  Since then it's been halucinations while on life support.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:32 | 702701 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

They could not make the dollar king through forex trade ect... without cutting the dollar peg no securitization banking boom with gold peg holding them back.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:31 | 702702 Crab Cake
Crab Cake's picture

It was also Nixon, and then Reagan, that birthed the police state.  The War on Drugs is the War on the People. I don't care what you think of controlled substances, but in a free country whatever an idiot wants to do with their own body should be their own damn choice; simple as that.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:55 | 702787 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I'm generally with you, being a libertarian at heart.  Problems arise from keeping impaired people off the highway or from getting deadly weapons.  It's a real dilemma and seems to skew to the overly oppressive when the government gets involved.  Higher population levels cause more loss of liberty (China anyone?).   The thresholds are tricky.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:11 | 702844 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

You can no more prevent people from driving under the influence of "illicit" substances than you can prevent them from driving while they are tired. I believe in criminalizing the action, not the intent. Therefore in my view it is not a crime to drive while intoxicated. Should you kill someone the crime is homicide, not driving while drunk and homicide. Criminalizing a substance is a very slippery slope.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:00 | 703205 RichardP
RichardP's picture

The criminalization is meant to act as a deterent.  Far more drunk drivers are caught driving than are caught killing someone.  I don't think we have any statistics that show whether the criminalization actually deters as it is intended.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:14 | 703231 i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

+++ rr and pmcp

guilt until innocence proven, or innocent until guilty proven?

in a country/culture where we cannot not sue to prevent damages (even if we're sure they're inevitable), how does one protect one's self?

i see the financial mugger, sharpening his financial machete, with a trail of bodies and separated heads behind him, and he's looking at me real funny... but our laws say i cannot act until he has auditably committed a crime. and i understand the intent of the law when i look at the KGB in the old USSR.

yet here he comes.

in my life, i've driven both under the influence of alcohol (illegal) and without enough sleep (legal). i was far more dangerous to those around me when i needed the sleep.

our government needs to get some sleep, methinks.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:32 | 703585 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

All of the above comments have validity -- ain't that a bitch?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:14 | 702853 Mike7.62
Mike7.62's picture

Really? It was all Nixon and Reagan's fault? I suppose that Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, FDR, and LBJ had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of the Republic. You need to expand your scope of political actors and their legacies before trying to paint the blame on two that you find politically reprehensible.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:40 | 702910 bugfixx
bugfixx's picture

The blame list is very long and includes the entire political establishment for several decades.  You could even fault Paul Volcker for being too good at his job and prolonging this Federal Reserve Note Ponzi scheme for 2 more generations instead of letting it collapse in the 80's.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:44 | 703311 Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean's picture

You are making an assumption.  I'm a Republican.  I was just following the line of the article.  I'm not saying it was Nixon's FAULT.  Ending Bretton Woods I'm sure was not even Nixon's IDEA.  But it was his sin in an endless and very long line of sin.  The first historical reference I have of the same sin is in the book of 2 Samuel when the Israelites asked for a King "who would go out in front of us and fight our battles." 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:31 | 702703 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

It was a parade of tools after JFK.

Reagan was when they really got ballsy:

"Put an actor in there. With our best speech writers at work, these idiots won't know the difference"

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:49 | 702762 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Let me be more specific: A parade on tools followed blindly by moronic trolls that throw junk anonymously.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:59 | 702963 LoneCapitalist
LoneCapitalist's picture

Ripped.  I junked you.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:19 | 703045 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

And I care?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:15 | 703015 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

I have to agree with Mako. The folks are in denial.

But keep junkin' bitches. When the time comes your heads will still be up your asses as they lead you to your mass graves. Makes it easire to roll you down into the hole. We have made it easy for them to take everything thus far. Why stop now?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:32 | 702705 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

i think fofoa has a good point.  it's not so much gold backed currencies but free gold and floating currencies.  get the central banks, et. al. out of the gold manipulation game.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:48 | 702753 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

It all started much earlier.

Wilson forged the bullet; FDR put the bullet in the revolver, spun the cylinder, and aimed it at our head...

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:49 | 703322 Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean's picture

Agreed

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:00 | 702794 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Getting off the Gold Std was not the problem.

The RULE of NO COMPROMISE EVER on a balanced budget was.

Also, the Ace in the Hole, was The Progressives.

FDR, WILSON,and LBJ.

Look at what just those three Presidents did, and if reversed, where we would be today.

WITH a MANDATORY balanced Budget.

A 4.1 Trillion budget, and 50% of it is in 10sq miles.(useless Federal Jobs)and agencies.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:41 | 703603 Mike7.62
Mike7.62's picture

I have to disagree, getting off the gold standard was one of the problems, as it took away external fiscal discipline from the political class and began the theft of purchasing power from the citizens.

I also have to say that you left out the Progressive that got the whole ball rolling, and that was Teddy Roosevelt. Everyone always seems to leave him out and regard him as some type of hero, when he was in fact the Father of the American Progressive movement.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:02 | 702809 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

Don't forget the Supreme Ct; Nixon used to keep the budget in check by refusing to spend some money appropriated, called rescissions. The S.Ct ruled that the President couldn't do so, opening the way to much larger deficit spending.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:11 | 703012 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

Nixon like all of our Presidents was chosen to do a task. He more or less fulfilled his duties to his puppet masters. But in his second term, he started wandering off of the reservation so to speak and started wanted to do what is right for the land of his birth. He became nationalistic and patriotic, not in the false sense but in the real sense. He was planning to remove all those who did not care about this land, from government by force if necessary. This was what he wanted and this was what he planned. However, due to this activity, it was discussed what to do with him. Some wanted to kill him. It was decided to not kill him, since it had not been that long since the last time they killed a President, so they decided on the Watergate hotel scheme and its subsequent stupid cover up. So Nixon instead of being assassinated , was "watergated". Nixon was not a very likable person and he had many flaws as a man, but he did finally start to do the right thing and for this , he was removed from office. This is the story of any man, who is in office and wants to do the right thing for his people and for his country. As George Carlin used to talk about, how he long ago quit voting because he realized it meant nothing. I have not voted in a very long time. Its all a smoke and mirrors show designed to make you think you have a choice. You don't. Perhaps we never have either. But again, I say, there is hope. There is much work that needs to be done. The line of no return is in the distance coming toward us now.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:25 | 703066 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Reagan was Iran Contra'd. Bubba was Lewinsky'd. No real scandal during the Bush admin. Maybe these puppets are leanring to play the game the right way?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:46 | 703160 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

They control Obama because he has a baggage train a mile long and he is easy to control and manipulate. Not to mention that he is gay and prefers the company of men. His wife is just a beard that he uses to make himself look "normal" . Closeted gay men are very easy to control. Obama is a complete creation. He has no past and nobody remembers him while he was in college. Yet stupid Americans lined up to vote for him because they wanted "change"  Oh they got change alright.  Bush 43 was also someone who had (in my opinion) a manufactured past. I have never heard anyone say that they knew Bush while he was at Yale or Harvard for that matter. Weird. Reagan was always one of their boys since the days of his youth when he use to run errands for the Chicago mobsters that plaed pool , in the pool parlor that was located under the apartment where he and his family lived. When he grew up, he followed his friends out to Hollywood and they got him a job as a actor. When it was seen that he sucked as a actor then they started thinking about what else to do with him and all of a sudden Reagan was a "conservative" and running for the governorship of California. And the rest as they say is history.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:39 | 703131 kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

i am glad to read your post. i know nothing about anything, but you make some sense for me. i had no idea "they" killed kennedy. now i believe it. "they" got nixon out. now i believe the arrangements are true.

for once in my life i am not registered to vote in any city or county. does that mean i won't be called for jury duty?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:17 | 702655 peripatetic86
peripatetic86's picture

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within"

 

Will Durant--in reference to the Mayan empire.  Now America....

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:40 | 702733 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Mayan's overpopulated beyond their ablility to feed themselves.

And they were pretty good at math but............

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:49 | 702758 Crab Cake
Crab Cake's picture

Ummm... If you might do some research you would find that they overpopulated based on good, or more ideal, climactic conditions, and then ran headlong into a hundred year drought which made them disperse from their urban areas to survive.  That's based on tree ring analysis, and it's the same for the disappearing Anasazi tribe as well.  You're free to think what you want though I guess.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:54 | 702780 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

I agree, it clearly was the climate. I was just down at Mesa Verde a couple of weeks ago. Amazing place to see. But the best planning can still go wrong. It is hard to stop poulation growth. And even though they did keep climatic records, you just don't really know what is coming.

But anyway, thank you Mr. Helper for pointing out how stupid I am and how brilliant you are.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:45 | 703159 kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

i to have been to mesa verde a lot. but also some cave dwellers abodes in arizonia. we would talk about the reasons they left or were evacuated. i can't remember what this particular site was named. but you had to be quite fit and strong to walk around them on steep mountain trails. i would dream of being such a person. wanted to be such a person. to be physically tired to fall asleep at night, exhausted from your daily chores of ssustaining life. walk, build fires and hunt and gather your food. that is what life should be about. are you physically fit to take care of your personal needs. a lot needs to be learned about your bodies needs, and certainly your mind is included. well good day, sir.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:42 | 704007 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

That sounds like a paradise to me Kathy compared to sitting a desk all day presiding over a collapse.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 20:58 | 702659 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

deleted.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:23 | 702660 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

America, that grand experiment created to probe the limits of human freedom, liberty and equality, has succumbed to its many injuries and passed away.  The exact time of death is uncertain, the causes many.

 

The liberal scum/drug pushers kicked things off in the 60's. We have been heading downhill with no brakes ever since ...

Now they run/work all the big drug factories pills for all ... kids no problem !!!

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:52 | 702779 Crab Cake
Crab Cake's picture

Is that as opposed to the conservative scum/drug pushers that dumped crack cocaine on urban areas in the 80's?  Me thinks you forget to quickly the Iran/Contra affair, and the CIA's involvement with the drug trade.  Don't get me wrong I hate big pharma too, but don't think the Republicans are any better.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:06 | 702826 Bob
Bob's picture

The glorious orgasms of divide and conquer. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:21 | 702872 Idiot Savant
Idiot Savant's picture

That it still works so well today is the truely scary thing. I'm amazed at all the idiots still towing a party line.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:06 | 703190 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

The tactics have been perfected in professional sports.  Look at the fools, I mean fans, that never played the sport, or any sport, yet yell and cuss and spend to support "their" team.  Does their cheering affect the outcome?  Do the team owners despise each other?  No.  

Doritos and playoffs are the new  bread and circuses. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:31 | 703277 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Don't talk to me that way, I'll JUNK your ass....

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:32 | 702663 SMG
SMG's picture

"Maybe the world breaks so we can have work to do.  People think there aren't frontiers any more.  They can't see how frontiers all around us."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YyvOGKu6ds

The dream that is Amercia, that's worth saving.  One day all the corruption and oligarcy will be gone and things will start working again.  You have to beleive that.

Yeah things are bad, but maybe the collapse will give us a chance to really fix things.

We've all got a whole lifetime's work to do rebuilding.

 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:38 | 702728 Rasna
Rasna's picture

Spaulding, please stop it with the attacks...

Liberals AND Consertavive, Republican AND Democrat...

These are false choices that we have been brainwashed into accepting.  Go read Butlers book "War is a Racket" written in 1935 to begin to get a grip on how the Banking/Corporate oligarchs wanted to push America toward facism.

Go read the "Creature from Jekyll Island" to find out who was behind the creation of the Fed back in 1912/13.

What you will find is that the oligarchs would hardly be classified as liberals... I'm not sure that they would accept any label.  It's all about greed and power.

Until we get that, and refrain from the convenient labels and blame game, which has been programmed into the population, we won't be able to turn the tide.  If we continue to choose the easy path of blaming liberals or blaming conservatives, we will be lost.

Liberals, conservatives,Democrats, Republicans, black, white, red, yellow and brown.  We are all in this together as Americans against the viscious and morally bankrupt banking and corporate oligarchs.  That's the enemy.

It's time to cowboy up as Americans united against these bastards.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:44 | 702743 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

There are no liberals or conservatives, demicans or republicrats, those are all just words that mean nothing.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:45 | 702745 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

+10,000  Anyone who believes the Liberal vs. Conservative, Dem. vs, Repub. show that airs 24/7 needs to step back a bit. It is the equivalent of WWE Wrestling (She spent big, she lost. Ha ha ha!!)

Divide the masses is the oldest form of control as both a military strategy and a thought control strategy.

Once again:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=related

Carlin: "Our Owners"

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:51 | 702775 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

Sorry Rasna -

The liberals brought us the grey area/pc crap. They brought us the free your mind, no structure, drugs solve all issues bla,bla,bla ... The tv shows, the classes in school, everything has changed, for the better ?

Look around the country is a mess. The liberals mindset has been driving the bus for 40 something years. Its been a total failure ...

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:58 | 702793 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Wrong.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:04 | 702814 Bob
Bob's picture

Dogma is the problem, then?  Or is it just the wrong dogma?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:06 | 702988 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

Having a moral compass is the problem most do not ... look around ? Nope.

Lust,greed is good,keeping up with the jones'z,let me drink from the lake of debt to enjoy today ..... ect ....

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 19:06 | 703920 Bob
Bob's picture

Perhaps you never learned that a mirror is not an adequate compass. 

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:20 | 703039 sethco
sethco's picture

you're a blind idiot. Liberalism died in the late 70's. Are you fucking serious? This is the most out of touch comment I have ever seen on here.

the traditional Lib/Con paradigm is dead. Corporate Neo-conservatism has been the law of the land (now literally) since 1980. Get your head out of your ass.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:55 | 703135 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

the traditional Lib/Con paradigm is dead. Corporate Neo-conservatism has been the law of the land (now literally) since 1980.

The grey area/ pc world. The lib's won call it what you will, they can change the title I dont care. They all have the same birth place, enjoy ...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:46 | 703165 Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

Not liberalism- nihilism. Progressives who claim to support everything and everyone (same as supporting nothing and no one) are only one branch of this.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:05 | 702825 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said rasna.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:19 | 702664 oddjob
oddjob's picture

you constantly refer to 'we'...do you have tapeworms?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:59 | 702796 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Along with the author and several dozen folks I know, and me, yeah.  It's "we".

You can opt out any time.   Just go away.  Done.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:29 | 702888 oddjob
oddjob's picture

I have opted out.Your system is done.You looted until there was nothing left.You now want change.Too fucking late.

So if 'we' means you it should be I.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:33 | 703109 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

You've opted out? Looks like your still here to me

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 13:48 | 703173 oddjob
oddjob's picture

So this is your sandbox?...that explains the stench of urine.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:28 | 703263 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I have opted out. Your system is done. You looted until there was nothing left.You now want change.Too fucking late.

So if 'we' means you it should be I.

It's always interesting seeing these comments.

So, when did you opt out? How exactly did you opt out? What "system" do you use where ever you are that has allowed you to opt out? Do you still use a bank to transact simple purchases via credit card, debit card, prepaid card, checking account etc? Or do you use currency? Or do you use precious metals? Do you barter? Are you self sufficient with regard to food, shelter, water, human waste material disposal?

Do you live on the planet Earth? If so, do you think that there is some place on the planet Earth you can re-locate to in order to opt out? How will you deal with people who might live within 20 miles from taking what you have from you? How will you deal with people who are passing near you from taking from you?

That's a good start. I believe your comment was made in good faith. Please consider my questions asked in good faith. I really do wish to understand what you mean by opt out.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:32 | 703417 Minion
Minion's picture

Such is the conundrum of living inside an empire.  No one is really free and there is no frontier left to escape to, other than poverty, self-denial, and persecution.  Ironically, several religions agree that this is necessary for spiritual growth, leading ultimately to freedom from self, desire, jealousy, strife, violence, and hate. 

Stated another way:  "the things you own, own you"

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:36 | 703590 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Ooops.  Look like you can't get a reasoned response, CD.  Surprised?

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:12 | 704326 oddjob
oddjob's picture

I just don't sit at my pc all day...I was outside chopping firewood.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:11 | 704321 oddjob
oddjob's picture

I had a very profitable plumbing business that I shut down after realized I spent all my time dealing with workers compensation board, inspectors,accountants,engineers,safety people....all these dickheads scalping a living off me.Not anymore.I live on Vancouver Island.I know all my neighbours,its at the end of the road,we know when strangers are here.I have PM's and some PM stocks .I use cash for everything.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:20 | 702665 upkamath92
upkamath92's picture

Seeds of demise is in the birth. Possibly too many checks and balances that have pushed US up have fixed it in a gridlock.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:01 | 702805 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I think it is forgotten all too often that the system is designed to implode upon malfunction.   Seeds of demise is in the birth -- true.

Checks and balances were designed to clog up at the right time.  This may be that time.

Kinda like constipation, it is uncomfortable and requires attention.  If not, the patient dies.   So it goes.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:13 | 703229 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Hah. Yes.

You go slowly toward a solution. You go quickly toward annihilation.

Speed bumps. They are good things.

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:32 | 703280 i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

QE2 seems more like diarrhea, methinks. but the point stands :^)

Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:22 | 702666 Racer
Racer's picture

Yes I agree with you, this whole madness is obscene. But what can the people do? In the UK there were many many protests and marches against the illegal Iraq war to be... but the politicians lied and gave false reasons and went ahead anyway despite the numerous protests. Many years ago there were strikes and protests against the massive tax on fuel in the UK... now they are going to increase VAT again in Jan and have again had more tax increases on it so that fuel is now not far all time highs when oil was $135! Most of the price of it is not the cost of oil but just plain tax.

they have organised the voting system so that one party can have say 40% of the vote and have a majority in power, yet another party has to get around 60% to have a coalition!!

How you fight against that? When they will just make laws so you can't protest or will use the police against you and put you in prison? They can pretend you are a terrorist and can hold you a long time!

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