Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#32880 - 12/13/09 09:01 PM What's Obama's Economic Policy
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi to all the members, particularly the American’s

Lately I have been thinking about the United States and its current economic condition.

Can anybody let me know what Obama is up to? What is his economic policy and will it produce the goods?

Where does he stand on healthcare reform, the welfare state and on the maintenance of the Military/Industrial Complex?

From what I understand the U.S federal debt is now running at about ten trillion, which I believe is about 60% of GDP?

Is the fiscal black hole still about 50 trillion (that is unfunded government outlays, particularly Medicare and Medicaid?)

I also believe that the trade deficit is growing as well and that China and Japan and the oil producing countries are gaining a larger and larger slice of the American pie?

No doubt you guys have some tough times ahead, but I believe that the American’s can come back and still kick some ass.

What’s that Obama up to? What’s the goss?

Top
#32881 - 12/13/09 10:39 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
google?

cnn?

new york times online?

What country are you from Matthew?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#32893 - 12/14/09 01:17 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Morgan]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Morgan,

Thanks for your comment.

Yes indeed it is quite true that I could research this topic through Google, through the online American media, and through other online resources.

There are two reasons why I am bringing this to the table in this lair:

• I am interested in gaining not only factual information, but also personal perspectives and opinions from members here in relation to these questions.

• I am hoping that member’s who have an interest in economics, and indirectly in politics, will find this post of interest and it will generate discussion among those interested members.

You may ask: well if you were after member’s personal perspectives and opinions than why didn’t you just say so?

And I would answer:

• Politics and economic well being tend to be emotive issues for many individuals, so the post itself tends to provoke personal perspectives and opinions as well as factual information.

I am an Australian.

You may ask: why would an Australian be interested in such questions?

There are four main reasons:

1. Because the United States and Australia share a perceived common bond, forged from the Second World War onwards.
2. Because the United States and Australia have entered into strategic alliances, such as ANZUS; and because the United States maintains vitally important military bases here.
3. Because America owns a fairly significant chunk of Australia.
4. Because there are Australians, such as myself, who are interested in what happens to the American people.

I hope this clarifies my initial post.

Top
#32904 - 12/14/09 02:53 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Obama's economic policy is rather typical of liberal (socialist) ideology. Quite a few of his advisers are socialists. Now that I sound like McCarthy here...

Basically, you can sum this administration's policy up to: tax the rich and spend more than you receive. Now, I'm not saying that all socialists would be this irresponsible, but that's pretty much how this administration seems to be working out.

Will it produce the goods? That depends on what you want. If you want economic redistribution, than yeah, this'll work fine for a while, even up to a global scale. If you're worried about failing banks or auto makers or whatever, again, this will work for a while.

He wants pretty much a government run health care plan, similar to Britain or Canada (I have no idea what Austrlia has). Not entirely sure what his stance on welfare is, unless you consider bailing out Wall Street to be welfare for the stupid rich...although at least that apparently comes with strings attached.

National debt is a tad over $12 Trillion right now. Unfunded is still $50 trillion-ish, I believe. Gold is at some $1100/oz. right now, if you follow that kind of thing

From what I can see, and I'm not pinning all of this on the Obama administration, things look pretty grim. The dollar is well on its way to tanking. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, so I wouldn't say he's doing it on purpose, but the long term effects this will have on the economy look pretty grim. If the public option gets approved (right now it's looking like a "no") and cap and trade gets approved (no clue where that stands), taxes will go up, income will go down, we'll have to print more money, which will devalue the dollar, requiring taxes to go up, income to go down, ad nauseam.

I'm quite a bit of a capitalist, so that probably jades me just a tad...anybody with opposing politico-economic views than mine care to chime in?
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32907 - 12/14/09 03:34 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
Damis Offline
pledge


Registered: 12/10/08
Posts: 60
Loc: England
 Originally Posted By: CJB
Basically, you can sum this administration's policy up to: tax the rich and spend more than you receive. Now, I'm not saying that all socialists would be this irresponsible, but that's pretty much how this administration seems to be working out.


That is more or less the exact course of action that the government here, (a Socialist one) has been taking for the last twelve or so years since they came into power. However one of their most irresponsible acts was during the initial beginnings of the economic crisis, they basically stuck their heads in the sand until action had to be taken and recession had to be called.

Their action.. in essence to attempt to dig their way out of a hole. The economic impact in the UK was worse than many other countries in Europe because the economy was propped up on borrowing and credit, the government attempted to kickstart the economy by borrowing even more.. around £20bn to be exact, which roughly translaties into $32.5bn.

Pray that Obama's administration isn't as reckless as ours \:\)
_________________________
Leben ist krieg.

Top
#32914 - 12/14/09 06:39 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Like Morgan said, you can google most of this to include political analysis about what most Americans think.

Never the less, I will take a stab at the specifics.

 Quote:

Lately I have been thinking about the United States and its current economic condition.


?

Is it somehow worse than the rest of the world?

 Quote:
Can anybody let me know what Obama is up to? What is his economic policy and will it produce the goods?


Obama is an International Socialist. If you don't know what that is then google it. History has shown that no good can come of this. Of course, he still needs the support of the Elites so he must pay some deference to Wall Street and his Master George Soros.

 Quote:
Where does he stand on healthcare reform, the welfare state and on the maintenance of the Military/Industrial Complex?


"Healthcare" and "Healthcare Reform" are meaningless buzzwords. They are the contrived memes of Neuro-Linguistic Programing and are designed to elicit a response in the Cognitive Triangle of the target. 'Healthcare' has nothing to do with health. Rather, it is about who pays for medical services and how much individual Liberty the individual must surrender to their masters in govt.

A lot of Americans instinctively know something is wrong with the legislation currently moving through Congress and there is a good chance that 'Healthcare Reform' will die in the Senate.

 Quote:
From what I understand the U.S federal debt is now running at about ten trillion, which I believe is about 60% of GDP?


The number is closer to $12,000,000,000,000 and these clowns now plan to raise the debt limit buy a couple of trillion more. In other words, 'they' are bankrupting their children and their children's children future. And just what are we getting for our $12 trillion?

 Quote:

Is the fiscal black hole still about 50 trillion (that is unfunded government outlays, particularly Medicare and Medicaid?)


Oh yes, it is that dire. Of course, the Social Welfare States of most of the Western world are in equally bad shape if not worse. Things should get right sporting ones all the Baby Boomers start to get really old.

 Quote:
I also believe that the trade deficit is growing as well and that China and Japan and the oil producing countries are gaining a larger and larger slice of the American pie?


Well, sort of. We developing a growing under class here in the US as we continually export our economic prosperity overseas. Of course, there will be (is?) a leveling point where our under class can no longer support the growing middle class of China and India.

Fortunately for the oil rich states, Obama is still in the back pocket of Saudia Arabia. Since Obama likes a weaker America, he has made no real move toward energy independence despite his rhetoric.

Japan is still in fairly rough economic shape as they are still recovering from a decade long recession where they too pumped a lot of stimulus money into the economy to little effect.

South Korea on the other hand is a sleeping giant and they are the ones to watch. The smart money is hedging on all things South Korean.

Oh, and did you ever wonder what China did with all of that money we send them? Well about 6% of it is going toward building their military.

Of course, in the end we may have snookered the Chinese after all. The USD continues to dive in value and they are truly worried that they may not get paid back on all of that money they have lent us.

 Quote:
No doubt you guys have some tough times ahead, but I believe that the American’s can come back and still kick some ass.


Obama has said more than a few times that he doesn't like the idea of a 'kick ass' America. As an International Socialist he wants America to be too weak to do anything without the consent of 'Global Community.'

 Quote:
What’s that Obama up to? What’s the goss?


The short answer? He is an empty suit - a product of good marketing. I believe they call it 'vaporwear' in some circles.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32918 - 12/14/09 07:29 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Australia has its own federal based and funded health scheme called Medicare and has had it (in its modern form) since the early 1970’s.

There has been a strong push from right wing Australian governments, particularly the recently deposed Howard government, towards a private health insurance industry.

Tax incentives were offered and many Australian’s took up private health insurance.

Australian’s tend to take up private health insurance because it covers gaps which exist in the Medicare system, and because the public hospital system is a bit of a mess with under funded public hospitals.

However, under the current Rudd Labor government there seems to be a swing back towards more government support of Medicare. I don’t know if other Australian member’s would agree with that.

I am not sure how Obama will proceed here in relation to American healthcare reform?

I am not sure how the American federal government can afford a comprehensive government based system with universal healthcare as its goal.

How effective is the private health care industry in America? I can understand that these businesses are profit making enterprises and as such they make more profit by reducing the cost of claims and the number of claims, but what other affordable alternative is there? How much government regulation is there of the private health industry and is there a federal/state watchdog?

One thing – when we are talking about American Medicare and Medicaid, what are we talking about?

It seems that the majority of the federal fiscal hole is Medicare and Medicaid?

Does the following seem reasonable? Costs have to come down if the debt is going to be paid.

I just don’t know how monetary policy or re – distributing wealth can help, if savings are going to remain low and fiscal ill - discipline will remain high.

How did Clinton balance the budget and start reducing federal debt?

Top
#32919 - 12/14/09 08:10 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Hahahaha! So you guys are looking at how terrible state-paid hospitals are and half of our government wants to go forwoard with it.
You know, I really wouldn't have a problem with someone, even if they have an opposite ideology to me, if they would see what didn't work and try something different.

The American Government can't afford to pay for public health care. Taxes go up, more money gets printed, dollar goes down, etc. etc. etc. I'm not entirely sure if America should go back to a gold standard (I recall someone telling me that we wouldn't have enough gold to pay all of our dollars right now, not sure if that's true or not but it wouldn't surprise me), but the way we're making paper money now has seriously got to go.

Private health care in America? From what I recall is pretty nice. I'm military, so I don't really have private healthcare. It's a tad on the expensive side, I would say, but that comes from how much it costs to be a doctor. I'd rather have a great expensive private doctor than a shite cheap public one.

American Medicare: After you turn 65, the government pays a portion (or all?) of your hospital bills. Apparently they underpay, but that's another story.

Medicaid: Health care for poor people! Don't really know too much about Medicaid, but that's the gist of it.

Redistribution of wealth could theoretically make money if you take from someone who doesn't use it well and give it to someone who will use it well. However, the juggling act that would have to be, I don't want to think about. Just randomly taking from the rich and giving to the poor will do nothing good on the long term.

How did Clinton get a budget surplus? Well, it was like that a bit before he got into office, but that's rather immaterial. He did raise taxes a bit, cut spending a bit, and he also happened to be president during the dot-com boom. Today, the government is far too addicted to rampant spending to have a hope of balancing the budget.

Maybe in the next Republican Revolution it'll get better? Depends on whether or not some actual economic conservatives get elected.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32921 - 12/14/09 08:42 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
When discussing the cost of anything, it is common to do what is called a 'fishbone.' You list the problem and then you draw 'bones' coming off it that contribute to the cost. This includes drawing smaller 'bones' off of the main spines.

The high cost of US medical care come from (among others) the following:

The high pay of medical professionals. Which, is linked to the high cost of medical training. If you go to Harvard Medical school you will find all sorts of people supporting 'free' medical care. But you wont find them supporting 'free' medical education. Med schools want to get paid!

US tort laws. We have the most litigious system in the world. I have yet to meet a European who was not horrified by our system of high paying frivolous law suits. The have an idiom in German which means "it's your own fault." We believe that culturally here but not in the courts. Doctors routinely practice 'defensive medicine' just to make sure they don't get sued for malpractice. On average, they provide way more treatment than is needed.

No competition between insurance companies. Competition in ANY market lowers costs. In the US the individual states regulate insurance. The states have a very controlled market (as opposed to a free market) that keeps costs high. It is a Constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Congress can fix this in one day!

Third party payments. The normal relationship between buyer and seller has been destroyed. People get all of the treatment they can and doctors are more than willing to provide this treatment because NOBODY has any idea what this all costs. It is paid by some nebulous insurance company. Contrast this to veterinary medicine where you buy your service a la carte'. Laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery also work this way and costs are kept down due to market competition.

The best thing we can do with our healthcare system is to treat it like auto insurance. Everyone should have catastrophic 'collision' insurance. But oil changes, tires and gas are on you. People do no preventative maintenance on their bodies for years and years and then they want a new car when the engine seizes.

 Quote:
I can understand that these businesses are profit making enterprises and as such they make more profit by reducing the cost of claims and the number of claims, but what other affordable alternative is there?


It is called 'rationing.' Every modern healthcare system rations care. You don't get everything you want. In the US we ration care based on how much money you have. In Europe they ration care by way of some bureaucrat telling you what the govt will and will not pay for.

We have the best care in the world. It is also the most expensive. Funny how that works.

 Quote:
How did Clinton balance the budget and start reducing federal debt?


Short answer? He didn't. Ever here of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America? Clinton had to deal with a very hostile Republican Congress. They set the agenda. The economy was roaring, the Fed had a weak dollar policy and they were printing money as fast as people wanted to borrow it, unemployment was at historic lows, taxes were low and govt revenues were up. Bottom line, the govt was taking in more money than it needed to operate from year to year.

The problem was, the Fed was monetizing the debt at a hearty clip, and nobody cared about how much debt we were holding. The looming Social Security and Medicare problem seemed miles away.

In basic household economics speak, it looked like this -

We got a big raise. We were able to pay all of our bills, our car loan, our mortgage, and the monthly minimum on our 9 credit cards we were holding at 21% interest . So we thought we had all of this 'extra' money because we could pay our bills. So we continued to run up our credit cards and got a home equity loan! What we should have done with all of that 'extra' money is pay down our debts.

There never was any extra money. There never was a 'surplus.' We were like a college kid with their first credit card. We thought we had money because people kept giving us credit.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32922 - 12/14/09 09:05 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thanks for the info Fist,

Good luck with it all.

I certainly would agree with you in relation to the claim that the U.S is a highly litigious country. I am aware of that as it relates to my work.

Hmmm the best health care in the world, but the most expensive.

I believe that greater competition would be useful given the way the system seems to be set up in the U.S.

For myself I'll stick with promoting and using Medicare and in later life will acquire a modest and affordable amount of private health insurance.

Top
#32924 - 12/14/09 09:12 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Economic plan?

Well, here is what I have seen so far: Some railroad tracks in my town were pulled up and moved about 15 feet. I don't know what damn bit of good that does for the economy but they did it. There was even a sign next to it that said "Putting Oregon back to work". The funny thing is that at max there was 20 people working on it. And currently the unemployment rate in Oregon is 11% - not counting the people (myself included) who aren't looking to collect unemployment.

To be quite honest I haven't been following anything Obama has been saying for awhile. So I can't tell you what he says he is going to do. All I have to offer is what I see. It has been a year since he was elected and I haven't seen much of anything. Except for those railroad tracks being moved over about 15 feet.

I am going to have concur with something Fist said in another thread: "given the current state of affairs I'd say keep the change."
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#32925 - 12/14/09 11:31 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Heh, as 6 points out, a lot of the economic "work" being done is make-work programs. Pouring money into something that doesn't create wealth is a big problem. Too much like the broken window scenario (look up "broken window fallacy" if you care). When you put money into something that makes more money (anything from starting a logging company to building a Wal-Mart in an area that doesn't have one), then the communitee will prosper (which means each individual in that communitee will have the opportunity to prosper). However, if you're moving the railroad tracks fifteen feet, that provides no economic benefit and ends up wasting money that could otherwise be spent making money.
Breaking the window does get the money moving, but the overall wealth of the communitee is lower by the cost of one window. As far as I've been able to tell, the current policy is to break as many windows as possible and hope nobody notices how much poorer we are until after election day.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32926 - 12/15/09 01:11 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I thought I might provide some information on Australia for those members who are interested and also, just to balance things, so America is discussed, but Australia is known as well.

There are some basic tendencies to Australian political thinking and policy making from Australian federation on, which are quite interesting I think.

I won’t pull any punches either

One the most basic characteristics of Australian political policy from January 1901 (Federation) until the mid 1960’s is racism.

There was a consensus on all sides of politics, at Australian Federation, that the country needed a ‘White Australia Policy,’ and this racist policy was to be enforced through three main vehicles:

• Through the legal fiction of ‘Terra Nullius,’ which was used - along with a sustained campaign of genocide - against the Australian indigenous people to guarantee white supremacy and “legal appropriation.”
• Through the Immigration Acts from 1901 onwards, which were used very effectively to exclude peaceful incoming foreigners.
• Through a rabid love for, belief in, and adherence to the British Empire. This was not only a cultural and historical identification for Australian’s, but tactical as well. It is under the protection of the Royal navy that we make our plans and keep out any violent incoming foreigners.

The second major characteristic of Australian political policy from Federation onwards is related to the question of government intervention in the economy and the question of class relations, and the view of the state from a Marxist perspective.

At settlement no one major political party could actually get enough parliamentary control to form a long standing and influential government on its own, so the first critical decade was characterised by coalition governments and shifting alliances.

Deakin, who was the greatest of the Australian prime ministers of the foundation era, made his most effective alliances with the Labor party.

It was under the influence of this relationship that Australia acquired its most lasting political guidelines. Those being:

• Government protectionism
• Federal and state arbitration systems
• A ‘Fair Go’ for all ethos
• Formidable union power

Of course these are general guidelines, so they don’t absolutely determine individuals and their particular lives and struggles, but they were certainly important on policy and policy makers.


Was Australia a socialist country – possibly?

In the late 1940’s the Labor government of Ben Chifley (Chif) attempted to nationalise all the trading banks of Australia!

Chif must have gone mad and his government was thrown out.

Keynesian thinking and the welfare state were implemented through Chif’s government and through ‘Nugget’ Coombs and his Department of the Post War Reconstruction in the late 1940’s and then handed over to prime minister R.G Menzies to perfect in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Anyway in the mid 1960’s Labor leader Whitlam got rid of the ‘White Australia Policy’ from the Labor platform and Menzies and his predecessors of the 1960’s did away with the ugly thing on the other side of politics.

Australia is very multi – cultural today and has great tolerance and a lot of affection for its diversity.

It still has not resolved its issues with its indigenous people.

In terms of the second characteristic mentioned above we had the Labor Hawke and Keating Government’s of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and then the Howard government of the 1990’s and early 2000’s to thank for the changes here.

• Protection peeled away
• A weakened arbitration system
• The end of the ‘Fair Go’ point of view in many parts of the country
• Unions are broken and limping

Hawke, Keating and Howard just loved big business.

Anyway that might give you a better sense of what’s gone on over here.

Oh yes and I should mention the role of war as well. We basically fight other people’s wars in order to secure protection from great and powerful friends. Much Australian identity was built here, though it is an older one now.

Oh yes and one more thing - ‘Terra Nullius’ was destroyed by the High Court of Australia. The court handed down the Mabo Decision and pretty much wrecked that legal fiction.

P.S. remind me and I will tell you the story about the ‘Big Fella’ and his particular brand of madness. Great stuff!

Top
#32930 - 12/15/09 09:05 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:

There was a consensus on all sides of politics, at Australian Federation, that the country needed a ‘White Australia Policy’


And? You say that as if something is wrong with that. What does Aboriginal culture bring to the table?

I remember reading that the Abos originally liked Western law because it was much less harsh than tribal law. New Agers have engaged in quite a bit revisionist history but Abo law had a lot of penalties that ended in death or ostracism that would ultimately lead to death in the harsh wilderness.

 Quote:

Australia is very multi – cultural today and has great tolerance and a lot of affection for its diversity.


Yeah, how's that working out for you? Look at your rates of rape, murder, robbery and theft. Any particular ethnic group(s) stand out? What value added are you getting out of 'diversity' for it's own sake?

 Quote:
Hawke, Keating and Howard just loved big business.


Right? And how many poor people have ever opened a business, hired employees, produced a useful product, or paid taxes?

 Quote:
• Unions are broken and limping


And? What happened to unions was a self inflicted gunshot wound. Union bosses got fat off of the union dues of the membership and gave little back in return. Unions continued to support the political Left - not their union membership! Unions allowed millions of jobs to leave for China all the while supporting candidates who supported 'Globalism.' Domestically, unions told business they must pay them more and more money for less and less work. No longer was Union Labor the best skilled labor at any price, rather it became the most expensive and least productive form of labor.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32952 - 12/15/09 08:09 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Do some reading and listening here.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32953 - 12/15/09 08:41 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Fist,

Ummm… some interesting points here, I guess?

First up, I am not a racist (though you appear to be).

The ‘White Australia Policy’ was also used to exclude Asian’s from Australia, but you don’t address this?

You show that you have almost no understanding of the history of the indigenous people of this country and their politics.

The western belief in private property and freedoms negotiated between elites meant nothing to the aboriginals of this country when the English arrived.

The aboriginals here liked Western law? How could they like Western law, when the Westerners only brought genocide and stole their land?

You mention that the first Australian’s had a lot of penalties that ended in death or ostracism, that would ultimately lead to death in the harsh wilderness. Don’t some Western countries still do the same thing?

You still have the death penalty over there in some states, don’t you?

How do you think they managed to live in a place as harsh as this for 40,000 to 80,000 years?

Oh yes! Let’s give up our ways because they are proven and the English are offering a system, which is so much better, where we as a people, can be murdered and lose our precious land.

Oh, and what do they bring to the table? How about the most powerful form of abstract art ever produced. Only Pollock, Newman and Rothko’s work and the mature work of Mondrian comes close to it in the Western canon. That’s just one thing.

Their art probably does not impress you or count, from your perspective, but for the majority of educated and cultured people I have met (and I have met and worked with many) it does.

Your diagnosis of multi – cultural Australia is a bit strange. We have criminals from all cultural backgrounds.

I will say this, though, that we have a very low crime rate in Australia and we do not have too many nutcases wondering around shooting up schools etc.

A multi – cultural society is working well for us, thanks. This is a relaxed and tolerant society in the vast majority of cases.

Plenty of inter – racial marriages and children here and your racial stereotyping won’t have an effect on our good quality of life.

You have misunderstood the intention behind my post completely. It was not to take a political position in regards to the relative merits of left or right wing thinking, but to rather document the main thread of Australian political thinking since Federation for interested members.

You mention that poor people do not open businesses, hire employees, produce a useful product or pay taxes.

Do you think I was going to argue with you over this definition of the poor, or the usefulness of the poor, or even support for the poor?

Why do you think I was being critical of the Hawke, Keating or Howard governments and their relationship with the big end of town?

Stop making assumptions before you actually understand the intentions and emotions behind discourse.

And another thing: don’t assume that you actually know much about the history of a country you do not actually live in.

And yet another thing: don’t assume that the political and social constructs, you may personally employ, are actually or necessarily useful or absolutely right for Australia and Australians, who are trying to understand and explain their experience, identity and history.

In regard to unions - you are again assuming that I am advocating unionism when I am, in fact, attempting to provide historical information, from what is supposed to be, a politically neutral point of view.

Your position on the specific, and even the general effects of unionism, reflects the position of your community and yourself, and as such may not even be relevant to Australian conditions.

“Unions supported the political left instead of their own membership.”

“Unions got fat off the dues of the membership and gave little back in return?”

“No longer was union labor the best skilled labor at any price?”

Who cares, I am not a member of a union and have never been a member and will never be a member of a union in the future.

The unions are pretty much dead here and that’s just the way it is.

Top
#32956 - 12/15/09 10:50 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Ok....

From time to time I have to go though this with new members who fancy themselves travelers of the LHP.

To wit: The Socratic Method.

Have you read "Might Makes Right"? It was written by an Australian don't you know.

If you have not read it - read it. It is a foundational piece of modern LHP thinking. I would also recommend looking at our "Books of the LHP" thread.

If you have read it, what did you think?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32957 - 12/15/09 11:32 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thanks for this opportunity to discuss with you.

Okay, from what I understand 'Might Makes Right' was written by a New Zealander and not an Australian.

I understand that Dr. LaVey used a portion of 'Might Makes Right' in the first part of The Satanic Bible.

To be honest I have read other portions of the book itself, but have not read the whole thing in a long time. From what I recall Redbeard was a racist and also sexist if I remember rightly.

Yes, I will try to get to the core of it and I do not know if this is right, as far as you and other members are concerned.

The contention here is that of course might is right - legitimacy is determined and established through victory, through successful campaigns against the enemy, through the outcome of violence.

In this sense moral or religious convictions are irrelevant as not only do they have no objective validity, but instead impede evolution or the quality and needs of individuals or a race or a state.

So, if there is no moral or religious objectivity or validity than the only basis (after discussion or diplomacy) for interaction and the resolution of disputes and the pursuit of objectives is acts of strength, aggression and violence.

Okay, so I am assuming that we are again talking about the Australian Aboriginals and the issue of race?

First up Dr.LaVey does not refer to Redbeard's racial thinking in The Satanic Bible. This aspect of Redbeard's thought is not included by Dr. LaVey. And in fact Dr. La Vey mentions a number of times that an alien elite will not be determined on racial grounds. If this is the case, then how would you justify Racism Satanically?

Next up, in order for Australian's to pursue their rational self interest, they need to ensure that their society is harmonious, and nothing damages a society like Racism or fundamental religious beliefs.

It is true that the English came here and imposed themselves on the first Australian's and won legitimacy.

That legitimacy has been successfully contested in the High Court.

Sorry Fist, I can't do it, I can't justify racism.

Am interested though how you have justified it.

Top
#32958 - 12/16/09 12:12 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
If I may jump in...

Racism works both ways. You have people that think that a group of people based on an arbitrary standard (race, color, creed, religion) are lesser than they are based on their own arbitrary standard (race, etc.).

Using Indians in America as an example, as I don't know much about Australian aborigines, nor do I care to.

There are white people now, as there have been for over four hundred years, that believe that because we are white we are better than Indians. By the same token, you have Indians now that think they are superior to white people simply because they are Indians. Neither one of them is right.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr. (and I promise not to make a habit of it), you should judge a person by his individual merit, and not the color of his skin. Neither the racist white people nor the racist Indians really do that, and because of that, both groups are weaker.

Multi-culturalism? That's a misnomer. All it really means is that all cultures are equal, and no cultures are greater than others, which is an outright falsehood.

White people didn't take over America because they're white, but because their culture was more advanced and better than the Indians. Whether you see this as might makes right, or something more of a market of ideas where the best idea wins is your prerogative.

Modern Indians, in today's America, have two choices: integrate themselves in modern culture or retreat into their own. When they integrate, they can even bring some of their better ideas with them. Whatever great Indian ideas survive the transition would have the result of improving both the individual that brought such changes and American culture as a whole.

For an Indian to try to impose his (crushed) traditional culture on us is laughable. Were we not all bleeding hearts, we could try to impose our culture on them. However, it's probably more "harmonious" just to let them have their own way on their specks of land until they either decide to join the greater culture or die out.

How to figure out which culture is the greatest? Whichever one wins. Survival of the fittest and all that. American culture as it is now will one day be taken over by a greater culture. That greater culture might come from America itself, or it might come from an outside source. It may be from a war lasting a couple of years bringing the country to its knees, or it may be a slow transition as the new ideas are integrated until eventually what we have is no longer recognizable as what we once had.

Going further...arbitrary racism, where I hate all Indians, or aborigines, or black people, gains me nothing. Non-arbitrary "racism", where I hold in contempt a culture that gives me nothing and costs me much, can give me much.

A black man that believes he is superior to me because he is black, and that his culture (whether it be "hip-hop" culture or some weird Al Sharpton culture) is something to be despised. An Indian who thinks that I stole my land from his ancestors, and he is the rightful owner of that land merely because of that, should be mocked into submission. A muslim that thinks that I should fall under Sharia law because it is the will of his imaginary friend earns nothing but my contempt and hatred. The white man who believes his culture to be the best because of HIS imaginary friend and believes that all black, Jews, hispanics, or what-have-you should be rounded up and shot does me no favors, and should be laughed at.

A black man that takes his culture, integrates into and perhaps improves my culture, is to be praised. The Indian or the Muslim who do the same should likewise be applauded. The white American who looks at these people from other cultures, and can decide what about their cultures is worth integrating into his own and what should be left out, should also be praised.

If the black guy or Indian or Muslim believes their culture to be better, than they can fight for it. This goes on throughout all cultures, with the end result being the same: the greatest, strongest culture will win over the weaker ones. I can't really blame them for fighting, as I would do the same. By the same token, I feel no pity for them, either, were they to lose and die. Even in the fighting an exchange of cultural ideas take place, hopefully with the best ones winning out in the dominant culture.
Indians today are not the Indians of yesterday due to an accumulation of knowledge from use white devils. Sure, they can dance around their little fires in buffalo costumes all they want, but they still have knowledge that they didn't when we first arrived (the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, whiskey is fun times, etc.). If this makes their culture strong enough that some day in the future they overthrow us poor white fools, then so be it. If their culture is good enough, maybe even some of those white devils will join them against their brothers.

I don't know if Fist shares similar thoughts (or even if anybody here does), but as far as I can tell, that's the best way to advance as a species, and as individuals. Take what is good, leave the rest behind.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32959 - 12/16/09 01:57 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



This, in my opinion, is a comprehensive statement on many of the issues of racism for sure.

I don’t think anybody would suggest that a conquered (and submissive or resentful) race is in a political position to dictate terms on anything to the conquering and dominant race.

An individual or group of a conquered race may choose behaviours, which an individual or group of the conqueror’s race may view as contemptible or commendable.

It is patently obvious to me that if one intends to evaluate individuals on the basis of race rather than on quality, individual merit or intelligence than they will not be very smart at all.

I certainly do not celebrate the murder of people, because we were the superior race, due to a more technologically advanced and scientifically knowledgeable society.

The society we have now is, but I don’t see any pride in how it was really established.

You may state that this is just the way things are or were and you are right.

I can’t see the point in continuing to engage in the sort of 19th century racial theories, which Redbeard based his racial thinking on.

It is critical to my self interest and I believe Australia’s self interest that Australia continues to pursue a policy of celebrating multi – cultural diversity.

Why? Take a look at the world map and you will see why. Australia must continue to engage with Asia as Asia is our closest neighbour.

We want to enjoy an affluent society and also dispel those parts of our past which continue to haunt us.

We want cohesion and we should, in my view, be recognising our past and addressing it and moving forward.

How do we address it? By acknowledging it and making reasonable compensation or meaningful gestures if we can.

Last up, I agree that our nations may disappear as a result of future war or violence or cultural deterioration or replacement, but I doubt that anybody will be using violence against the white races any time soon, especially while the nuclear deterrent exists.

Top
#32976 - 12/16/09 07:36 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
I would argue that most people who use the words 'race' and 'racism' have no idea what those words mean.

Perhaps you should define terms before going any further.

 Quote:

First up Dr.LaVey does not refer to Redbeard's racial thinking in The Satanic Bible. This aspect of Redbeard's thought is not included by Dr. LaVey. And in fact Dr. La Vey mentions a number of times that an alien elite will not be determined on racial grounds. If this is the case, then how would you justify Racism Satanically?


Just a reminder, the LHP predates man. Like I said before, you really need to ground yourself in an understanding of metaphysical reality. Have you look at my recommended reading list? Howard Bloom cover this subject quite well in "The Lucifer Principle." Nature is a bloody bitch. LaVey did fine work bringing these principles to the masses, but he was simply codifying observable metaphysical reality. He didn't invent this reality, he simply pointed it out. Redbeard presents us with essential truth, LaVey presents us with the essential truth wrapped in the veneer of a certain aesthetic.

 Quote:

The contention here is that of course might is right...


*sigh*

No, not really. It is the celebration of a metaphysical reality. Much like relishing in the fact that water is wet. Most would be 'satanists' are little more than White Light Secular Humanists in dark clothes. Their personal moral code is little more than a poor reflection of the Judeo-Christian morals they claim to reject. Satanism is about self-deification - about creating your own values (albeit through the lens of enlightened self-interest).

If man is an animal like any other - no better, no worse - this then begs the question, what moral code does nature follow? Redbeard gives us the answer.

So, again, to Socrates...

Are there cultures that are clearly superior and cultures that are clearly inferior?

Is Aboriginal Culture superior, inferior, or equal to Western Culture? Show your work...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#32978 - 12/16/09 08:04 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I wanted to make a few final comments and then leave this thread alone.

I have never had the pleasure of visiting the United States or Norway. I have certainly been exposed to the United States through the Australian and American news media and through books, movies and television programs.

Whether these sources of information and opinion regarding the United States somehow paint a picture of the United States, which is accurate and reflects the experiences of American citizens is up for debate.

Norway is almost a blank canvas to me. I would like to visit and study it along with a million other places and things in the world which interest me.

One thing, I would like to therefore claim: I may not really be in a position to know how an individual American and an individual Norwegian may view their culture, history and their national or personal interest and experience.

Primary historical records, consensus and our lived experience overwhelmingly state that the white races of the world, built a more sophisticated and effective machine of war and then drove it through one country after another until the white races ruled most of the world. The indigenous populations of the countries, which the white races conquered, of course suffered as a result.

The justifications or propaganda used for these actions during the late 18th and 19th century tend to rest upon racist and religious assumptions.

These actions are fact as has been pointed out.

For Australia I would suggest the following to you and I will not try to talk about America or Norway or any other country.

The ‘White Australia Policy’ was one of the most strategically dangerous pieces of policy ever adopted by this country, considering who our nearest neighbours were and are, and considering how far away Great Britain was and considering our “real value” as an “important asset” of the British Empire worth fighting for.

I did not start or continue the process of genocide in this country, but I am saddled with its consequences. This whole country is saddled with it at some level.

Keep in mind that these “racially superior gentlemen” were actually killing children of all ages and these killings were not somehow “humane,” but were rather so horrible that they would make the average person sick.

Do you think this was Satanic? What do you think Dr. LaVey’s opinion would have been?

I want to briefly articulate what I personally believe to be the real vision of Dr. LaVey and why I believe he excludes racism from his philosophy and consequently from Satanism.

We seem to me to have the following problems to deal with at some future time:

• Over population and rampant consumerism and the Malthusian nightmare.
• Environmental disaster due to over population and rampant consumerism and a mode of production we continue to insist on employing.
• Overwhelming stupidity in the vast majority of the population and at all levels of our political and economic society.

These problems have been willed into existence by the very white race, which assumed that it was in fact racially superior, to the other races which it conquered.

And yet these so called “inferior races” had lived for tens of thousands of years, according to their own standards, without threatening their own long term survival or the resources they needed for survival.

How smart are we whites really? It’s time for clarity and not arrogance in my opinion.

I believe that Dr. La Vey was not a racist and I believe his philosophy excludes racism and he had very good reasons for excluding racial issues from his philosophy.

We need a highly stratified society and we need an elite human species as soon as possible.

We need Social Darwinism for sure, but not based on the 19th century belief in racism.

The stupid must perish for sure, but who are the stupid ones?

The elite needs to be composed of the most intelligent and creative people possible and it must not be based on racial considerations. Those old racial prejudices will not produce the goods.

We need ‘Pentagonal Revisionism’ in my view and we need it now.

Anyway no more from me on this.

It’s going to be a very hot day where I live today with temperatures over the 40 degree Celsius mark. No doubt we will have bush fires and problems with the transportation systems.

Top
#32979 - 12/16/09 08:48 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Fist,

Sorry I should have responded to you.

I know that after moral and religious worldviews are discounted or put out of commission, or recognised as mystifications than one is left with a world the way it really is and that world is a "cruel" world based on domination and submission and dog eat dog as it were. A survival of the fittest as it were.

Have studied Darwin himself who is the real authority here.

Trust me I know Dr. LaVey's and/or Redbeard's ontological position.

It is obvious that such a world has always been.

It is also obvious that in such a world than one's own self or godhood is the basis of ones own actions or positions or view of the world.

Anyway we differ on the issue of race.

Best wishes to you Fist.

Top
#32981 - 12/16/09 09:10 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Hmm, just one thing and then whatever...if you wanna respond go ahead, if not, well, I guess I wasted five minutes of my life.

 Quote:

We seem to me to have the following problems to deal with at some future time:

• Over population and rampant consumerism and the Malthusian nightmare.
• Environmental disaster due to over population and rampant consumerism and a mode of production we continue to insist on employing.
• Overwhelming stupidity in the vast majority of the population and at all levels of our political and economic society.


This world is hardly overpopulated, and probably won't be any time soon. Our technology advances with our population, so there won't be a food shortage (unless a stupid country rejects that technology). I remember in another thread talking about great blankets of cloned(?) cow meat, and that's just one prime example. Genetically engineered crops and the like will keep the technologically advanced nations afloat. Such a Malthusian catastrophe, if it does happen, will occur globally in the far-flung future, or possibly locally in countries that don't have the technology to adapt. Those countries that face such a Malthusian catastrophe or some other population and/or food related catastrophe in the nearer future are actually, to a one, not western (white) countries.

I am curious as to the mode of production you're referring to here...not really sure I know what you're talking about. Unless you mean oil, maybe?

For the last bit...yeah, I'd have to agree with you on that. Stupid people with stupid policies don't come from just the Great White Race though.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32982 - 12/16/09 10:17 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: CJB]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, most people have no idea what they are talking about when they use the word 'race.'

Never the less, most certainly we could use a great culling among the people who are phenotypically 'white.' The most obvious place to start would be with the ones who reject Western culture out of hand. They can usually be found with their hats on backward and listening to hip-hop.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#34332 - 01/21/10 01:06 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1


Can anybody let me know what Obama is up to? What is his economic policy and will it produce the goods?


His policy, like all other post Depression Presidents, is to kowtow to and/or collude with the Fed to make certain that the majority of the people of the US have enough means to get by (some comfortably) in such a way that the system is largely perceived to be working.

Since the economy is largely smoke and mirrors (no gold standard)I perceive the Fed and all Presidents who continue to allow it to exist as it is as co-conspirators against us (We the People).

By raising and lowering interest rates, creating money and using a few other tricks, the Fed can either stimulate or slow down the economy.

The larger balance of the population is completely vulnerable to the dollar. For the most part, unless we can buy something from the store we will starve if something interrupts the status quo as we are not (again, in large part) self sustaining separate of the dollars we earn.

This President and any other 'choice' we get in the polls will strive to maintain the status quo, despite what they say.

Notice how the President is the focal point for the economy and NOT the Federal Reserve? Ask yourself why that is and see where it leads you.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34334 - 01/21/10 01:22 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Psychotic Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 16
Loc: New York
i dont exactly know what hes up to. i persionaly dot care much about the government. but from what i heard hes trying to end the war in iraq
_________________________
http://www.artabus.com/psycochild

Top
#34345 - 01/21/10 04:15 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Psychotic]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
The cattle don't much care about the slaughterhouse either until they get a six pound sledgehammer to the forehead.

He may be trying to end the war in Iraq but he's also trying to amp up the one in Afghanistan. Why? Because nothing stimulates an economy better than a good war!
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34352 - 01/21/10 09:01 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Psychotic]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
At your age, small wonder you don't care about the government. Why should you, anyway? You're technically not even a citizen until you turn 18. It wasn't until I hit my 20's when I started caring about where my vote went, and paying attention to politics (not to be confused with paying attention to the "political experts" on every news channel!).

There is no WAR in Iraq. The proper term is a CONFLICT. A war has clear, objective goals, and we just went in there all willy nilly and trashed the place, only to have to put it back in order after we were done playing with it. Obama's only downsizing our troops there, so he can shift forces over to Afghanistan (which is how we got to Iraq in the first place--thank you, Dubya). But just like every other country we've trounced, we will MAINTAIN a military presence in order to keep a hold of things for our own peace of mind. Just like in Germany (Rammstein Air Force Base) and Japan (US bases on the Mainland and in Okinawa). Those once-enemy countries have become our allies (not like they really had a choice in the matter), and I'm sure strategists are figuring that Iraq will turn out in the same way.

Afghanistan is a tough bitch, and we need to make sure that we're leaving Iraq in a relatively stable condition before we fully commit troops to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans (lol). After all, we're fighting against the monster we created back in the 70s.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#34353 - 01/21/10 09:48 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Nemesis]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis

There is no WAR in Iraq. The proper term is a CONFLICT. A war has clear, objective goals, and we just went in there all willy nilly and trashed the place, only to have to put it back in order after we were done playing with it.


True, to an extent. War was declared in Iraq under Bush Sr. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement(UN resolution 687) with the US and with the UN contingent upon Iraq adhering to some strict resolutions, which they did not do. Authority is granted under the UN resolution to enforce compliance with military action should the need arise. Iraq was in violation of several of those resolutions, the most egregious being the stockpiling of arms (acquired from Russia).

You do speak the truth in a broad sense though about it all being a bad idea to begin with.

I wouldn't blame it all on Bush though. There is ample and easily locatable evidence that the large balance of Congressmen & Senators fully supported this effort after 9-11 looking at the same evidence that Bush looked at. Most of them had the luxury of backpedaling after the fact. Bush did not have that luxury but, hey, he wanted the damn job.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34384 - 01/22/10 07:36 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I'm not entirely blaming it on Bush. Just like Obama has become the shooting target taking the brunt of criticism about the Health Reform Bill (which may be scrapped!), Bush was just the figurehead. The so-called "lawmakers" were indeed the ones who were also pushing for a target to unleash our anger upon.

What I find interesting is that, after 9/11, Americans were justifiably outraged and going to war in Afghanistan was a logical step. But when Bush turned his eye towards Iraq and moved the bulk of operations to that country, everyone was in an uproar.

Now that Obama is finally down scaling the troops in Iraq and shifting them over to our original target, the American public cries, "No!".

The mob is a fickle beast.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#34392 - 01/22/10 09:44 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Yeah, I hear that! There is a ton of vital intelligence to be evaluated by the CiC and his advisors in connection to the war on terror. We don't hear a tenth of it, or even a hundredth. It would mean releasing highly classified information to the public, which would sort of defeat the purpose.


Most people take a hard position on this sort of thing without taking exactly that into consideration. I'm always wary of people who are so certain of things while lacking large pieces of information. For one thing it shows that they've bought into the false dichotomy of the opposing political parties in the US. It's wise to be skeptical, as you've shown.


 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Since there is oil in Iraq, the US must be after oil, right? All the circumstantial evidence is there, and even a few bits and pieces that are downright damning.
Those operations would most likely still have been taking place no matter the name tag on the President's chair.

That certainly could have been an original intent. However with so much focus on that potential motive there was no way to realize it without alienating most of the world. It's no secret that when a US president says something about protecting US interests what they mean to say is that they wish to do all in their power to ensure that the US maintains cheap and replenishable fuel. Without that the US economy would fail. Back in the 80's the Russians and the Afghans were at war for reasons deemed 'indeterminable'. Of course there's the usual religious conflict that seems to underlie most of the trouble but why two superpowers got involved isn't something that's entirely clear. *I* suspect that Russia was going to try to emulate the US's cheap fuel model by dropping a pipeline across Afghanistan and tapping into the abundance of oil to the south. Russia + cheap fuel would not have boded well for US interests at the time.

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
.... they needed to be concluded unambiguously. This is proving to be more tricky than anticipated.

Always assuming the intents/motives behind them would withstand the light of day. They certainly had an ambiguous beginning to those who don't just believe what the media says (Us). Tricky, indeed! Oh what tangled webs we weave!
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35590 - 02/13/10 12:33 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Give this a listen if you have an hour to spare; I think it will be available as an archive for at least another few days.

KPFA is our local Pacifica station, which means slightly to the left of Karl Marx, and "Guns & Butter" is one of its conspiracy-theory shows. Nevertheless I'm impressed by Hudson's piecing together of the macropuzzle, and I'll be interested to hear what people here think.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35662 - 02/14/10 11:00 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thanks for this link Dr. Aquino.

Unfortunately my computer is playing silly buggers at the moment and I can't listen to it.

Sorry could you give a quick re - cap of it?

Top
#35813 - 02/19/10 11:03 AM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Thanks for posting this link Dr. Aquino.

I'd started educating myself on how the Federal Reserve works by reading Ron Paul's book End the Fed which came to me by way of watching the Zeitgeist film on the federal reserve (available on youtube starting HERE).

I'd started becoming interested in the workings of the Federal Reserve when I started becoming suspicious that the US is not a Democracy, but rather an Oligarchy.

This interview really ties up the loose ends for me. In practice, I had noticed that the 'housing bust' was representative of less than 1 billion dollars in the economy. It made no sense to me that it took nearly 300 billion to fix a 1 billion dollar problem until I heard this interview. NOW I finally get it. I'm sure the info is available elsewhere, or probably it had been right in front of my face all along, but the way Dr. Hudson explained it all made it finally click into place.

The interview proved to me that I had been on the right track. I think the elections that we have in this country (the ones that matter) are largely fanfare and are false at the core. I think any "choice" presented to the voters are pre-screened and pre-approved by this shadowy Oligarchy to maintain the status quo. This means, of course, that the richest will stay that way, the poorest will largely stay that way and the middle class will foot the bill no matter what party the suit in office claims to belong to. The party system is straight out of Sun Tzu's Art of War and the ever clarifying sides in this war are us (We the People) against them (the controlling standard, whomever they may be). One public face of the "Them" side is clearly the Federal Reserve and another public face is Wall Street.

I think the only way out of all of this for the normal person is to become as autonomous as possible. Stockpile cash, learn to garden, buy land and don't depend on banks or government for anything.




Diabolical(humorous)Aside:
We could start revolting in Legion. Ta2zz could hook us all up with the mark of the beast and we could start making Revelation 13 a reality ;D
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35816 - 02/19/10 12:01 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
I'd started becoming interested in the workings of the Federal Reserve when I started becoming suspicious that the US is not a Democracy, but rather an Oligarchy.


Right. So, given that reality, the real question then becomes "Now what?".

To which, I would respond read this book. Your next course of action should then be somewhat obvious.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#35817 - 02/19/10 12:06 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Yessir, have that one under my belt already (with a few re-reads).

I do admit to doubting its applicability, in part, in modern society. I'm coming to realize that it was my own coloring of reality that was slightly off kilter in the equation. I'd taken to giving people the benefit of the doubt more often than not... much to my own peril.

Sound advice, thank you sir.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35818 - 02/19/10 12:25 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:

I do admit to doubting its applicability, in part, in modern society.


?

Only if you lack imagination. What do you think taxes are? What about the bank bailouts, TARP, and 'The Stimulus.' Quite simply, this was all an act of theft.

Our rulers know the game is up. At this point they are simply trying to horde as much loot as they can before total collapse.

Again, the only real question is when do you get yours?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#35819 - 02/19/10 12:40 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Fist

?

Only if you lack imagination.


Nope, just wired into the practicalities of making a living and raising a family and all that it entails.

I didn't recognize the value of some of the information I already had.

Guilty of that.

The rest of your statement I agree with.


Edited by Fnord (02/19/10 12:52 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35823 - 02/19/10 03:23 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Fnord]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
Random replies to random bits of this thread:

 Quote:
War was declared in Iraq under Bush Sr.


Probably a technicality, but war was not declared - there was an authorization of military force (H.J. Res. 114, October 16, 2002).

 Quote:
I'm not entirely blaming it on Bush.


I am. He was the Commander in Chief, responsible for the armed forces, and he backed the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes, which is what got us into Iraq.

 Quote:
What I find interesting is that, after 9/11, Americans were justifiably outraged and going to war in Afghanistan was a logical step. But when Bush turned his eye towards Iraq and moved the bulk of operations to that country, everyone was in an uproar.


Afghanistan was easy to understand - they were accomplices, harboring fugitives. That maps directly in most people's minds. Iraq did not make sense to people, and was justified not under the "accomplice" motif, but as preemptive, with vague goals.

Note that I'm not necessarily against it - what I am against is that it was half-assed, which really pisses me off. If you're going to undertake something significant, especially when it involves sending citizens to die, you'd better fucking have your ducks in a row.

 Quote:
Since there is oil in Iraq, the US must be after oil, right? All the circumstantial evidence is there, and even a few bits and pieces that are downright damning.


My understanding is that this is not circumstantial, it was actual national security policy that the US would fight to protect access to that oil. I'll see if I can dig up something solid on this.

 Quote:
I'd started becoming interested in the workings of the Federal Reserve when I started becoming suspicious that the US is not a Democracy, but rather an Oligarchy.


The US has never been a democracy - we are a democratic republic.

 Quote:
It made no sense to me that it took nearly 300 billion to fix a 1 billion dollar problem until I heard this interview.


Try this one, too: http://crisisofcredit.com/
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#35824 - 02/19/10 04:27 PM Re: What's Obama's Economic Policy [Re: Autodidact]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact


The US has never been a democracy - we are a democratic republic.


That, like all of the rest of it, is up for debate as well. Some say the very reason for penning the Constitution was to squelch a Democracy in favor of a Republic (so the wealthy could stay that way) which bodes well for your argument. There are a couple of Supreme Court cases that deal with the specific use of the word 'Republic' with regard to its application to the US. The gist of those is that all citizens should have equal rights and that all should have the right to choose their government which makes what we have a Representative Democracy.

Either way I was wrong to use the word 'democracy' alone. I do that casually and probably shouldn't.

Also, based on all available evidence to date, whether it's a Representative Democracy or a Democratic Republic on paper it's still an Oligarchy in practice.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.609 seconds of which 0.547 seconds were spent on 54 queries. Zlib compression disabled.