PART 4 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 I was excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 4: Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right" is the last post defending against his attack on my "Thought for the Day"

They got “their NAFTA, CAFTA and SHAFTA” and “we” lost millions of manufacturing jobs to China. They got “their tax cuts” for “job creators” and “we” lost 9 million jobs. They got “their banking deregulation” and the banks collapsed. They got “their debt reduction” and the stock market tanked. Johnny B. and Tea Baggers got 98% of what they wanted and “we” got a credit down grade. What part of “they get what they want” and “we get the shaft” doesn’t America understand yet?

The goal of NAFTA, CAFTA and SHAFTA was to ship jobs overseas. Real conservatives (not neocons) were against them.

They were lobbied for by banks and passed by a majority Conservative Congress headed by the "Newtster" who is the current darling of the ultra conservatives. Newt was pre-neo-con. Get your history straight kid.

Banking deregulation & banking collapse is a case of Correlation Does Not Equal Causation. The banking industry actually constructed the current regulatory environment to allow banking collapse and to pass those losses on to the taxpayers.

As one of my old teachers would say: "I call Bullshit". You can spread manure but I won't eat it! Your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty is showing .

Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, is a report issued on April 13, 2011 by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The 639 page report was issued under the chairmanship of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn, and is colloquially known as the Levin-Coburn Report.

It said: "After conducting “over 150 interviews and depositions, consulting with dozens of government, academic, and private sector experts” found that “the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” [1]

In an interview, Senator Levin noted that “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”[2]

By the end of their two year investigation, the staff amassed 56 million pages of memos, documents, prospectuses and e-mails.[3]

The report, which contains 2,800 footnotes and references thousands of internal documents [4] focused on four major areas of concern regarding the failure of the financial system: 1. high risk mortgage lending, 2. failure of regulators to stop such practices, 3. inflated credit ratings, and 3. abuses of the system by investment banks.

The Report also said:

"Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks."

"Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks."

"In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages.

"Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages. Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages." source Wikipedia

Republicans on the committee that signed the report are
Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Ranking Member
Susan Collins, Maine
Scott Brown, Massachusetts
John McCain, Arizona
Rand Paul, Kentucky

Furthermore the claim that CRA, Freddie and Fannie were the primary source and cause of the failure—was fabricated by Peter Wallison an advisor to Ronald Reagan and a "scholar" for the right wing think tank American Enterprise Institute—where Dick Cheney is on the board of Directors along with a pantheon of Financial CEO's—and Wallison who has written a book called "Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks" is hardly an honest broker for that point of view. AEI is littered with conservative capitalist and yet it claims to be unbiased, if you believe that—I have beach front property in Arizona I"ll sell you for a thousand dollars a front foot.

In a rebuttal to that big lie, Mike Simkovic, wrote a well researched paper called

"COMPETITION AND CRISIS IN MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION" in which he states:

"This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs—Freddie and Fannie), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting."

"Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is incorrect.

Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations."

"U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea. However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced. Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history - during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s - and every time it has failed. Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis."

Simkovic also states in a section titled:

D. Mortgage lenders lobbied against safe-lending regulations

"Additional evidence that market forces pushed toward greater risktaking

comes from lobbying activity of mortgage lenders."

"If government pressure were forcing lenders to lend imprudently against their wishes, one would expect the lenders who lobbied most aggressively on issues related to underwriting regulation to receive dispensation that would enable them to have more conservative underwriting practices. However, the opposite

appears to be true—the lenders who lobbied most aggressively had the

riskiest underwriting practices, and generally lobbied against substantive

limits on their ability to take risk."

"This suggests that government regulation was for the most part a restraining force that pushed toward more conservative underwriting." Source COMPETITION AND CRISIS IN MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION Michael Simkovic

Plus, there are plenty of extremely qualified economist who DO SEE—a direct cause and effect between deregulation and the bank failures.

The fact that these failures were aided by a bunch of spineless Democrats who were trying pander to the right for votes shows me how pervasive the effects of "unregulated" crony capitalism are.

Your claim of Correlation Does Not Equal Causation is absolute bullshit.

Finally—there is no law on the books that forces any bank to make bad loans, none. To argue otherwise is asinine.

Who knows what this guy means with the rest of the rant – it’s a bunch of unrelated events, and besides, the Tea Party has failed to deliver on any small-government promises. Heck the Tea Party candidates even helped renew the Patriot Act!

"The RANT" was in response to John Boners (misspelling intended) expressed delight over nearly bringing the country to a halt when he refused to pay the bills he and his CONservative crony capitalists ran up under GWB. HE said—"I got 98% of what I wanted" Shortly after that "victory"—US credit was downgraded which ironically raised the interest rate America has to pay which adds billions to the debt which he is so concerned about—did I mention—a debt he helped incur under Bush.

Regarding NAFTA, CAFTA and (SHAFTA—which is made up to drive home the point of their intended purpose)— the only person I remember who spoke out, clearly against those trade deals at the time was labeled a looney tune—Ross Perot—the fact that I supported his candidacy and was also against the trade deals and the undue influences of "special interests" (lobbyists) must make me a looney tune and "real" conservative. Whatever the hell that means.

I was outraged by the implementation of Patriot Act and the fact that it was not repealed. I was against gutting Glass-Steagall.

This is the end of PART 4

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Thought for the Day: If taxation of the rich is a “redistribution” of wealth?— What is cutting taxes on the wealthy with money borrowed from China?

I think Weber is really confused about what a tax cut is; he seems to have tax cuts confused with subsidies. Maybe it’s the terminology used: “giving a tax cut” sounds like you are giving something to someone, but what it actually means is gov’t is letting that entity keep what it already owns.

Dear Mike, Under the current monetary system which is corrupt and I believe unconstitutional the banks "own" the monetary system lock stock and barrel. Under the original Constitutional mandate—the Congress alone had control of the currency. Its printing and distribution. That money was and still is printed by the Treasury Dept. and is backed by the full faith and credit of government of the (taxpayers) people.

It is—NOT—backed by the full faith and credit of "the FED", and it is —NOT—backed any one particular individual citizen, or private bankers. The American dollar has value—solely because—it is—backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government—meaning the people.

Your assertion is that because an individual holds a dollar its his is absurd—without the collective power of America that dollar has no value to anyone you may as well wipe your butt with it.

Try putting your mug on a dollar and spend it, e pluribus unum, is on the dollar for a reason. The strength of the dollar lies in "One out Of Many" THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The government should take back control of the monetary system like it did under Lincoln. *see "History of the Moneychangers"

Your rather simplistic assertion makes taxes sound like the government is stealing "your" money—when in fact—the government is loaning you their credit worthiness and on tax day is sending you a bill for services rendered.

Finally Smith made his position on taxation crystal clear when he said:

”The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.” source Wealth of Nations Adam Smith

Which cuts the legs out from under your specious argument that the government is stealing from you—it can't steal what it is owed. No more than you billing for services rendered makes you a thief.

I've already said I advocate stopping ALL NON-ESSENTIAL CORPORATE SUBSIDES.

Finally, every dime taken out of the "system" must come from someone else—US Bonds—which are sold as debt instruments and are a promise to pay back the money lent plus interest, that money comes out of future tax revenue. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not revenue neutral—as you so smugly imply—they are real and they do come out of the pockets of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

Or maybe you think the tooth fairy magical pays off those bonds.

This is the end of PART 3

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so I am going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. In that vein I have used a graphic that is more in keeping with his more antagonistic tone.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

On December 2, 2011, by Mike (last name unknown) responded to my blog

PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

If Capitalism is the principle upon which we were founded— did our forefathers die for The United Corporations of America?

Not really, they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses, and generally left everyone alone.

Dear Mike, At one point in your rebuttal you say: This guy can’t tell the difference between a free-market Capitalist and a crony capitalist, or monopolist. Not true, but, because there is not much difference between them—I choose to ignore the minuscule difference you find so compelling, but there is a glaring difference that you don't get—it's the difference between Capitalism and Representational Democracy which you seem to hate and are constantly attacking as the "government" the foundation of which, is the Constitution.

If you had stopped at "they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers" that's a rather dull but, acceptable answer, but then you add, "that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses" Your tortured logic aside. The Constitution doesn't say anything about capitalism being the economic model that had to be followed.

The point is there are many capitalists who equate Capitalism with Representational Democracy—treat them as though they are one and the same. When I have challenged capitalists and pointed out flaws of "unregulated" capitalism—I have been labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, a liberal, a socialist and a communist.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Its human nature to question the things we rely on the most, that's what always drives humans to reinvent everything that touches their lives and try to improve on them. That includes "unregulated" capitalism.

Because in the final analysis, all men are flawed in their thinking—and all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. Scientific, spiritual, economic, and political. The human mind can not anticipate all the variables that surround him or all the variables that his mind cannot perceive—at best he can detect patterns from which he can extrapolate some but not all outcomes.

Scientific, economic, spiritual and political theory are at best—attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us—and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can. We attempt to "regulate" the chaos.

As a scientific theory E=MC2 is brilliant but, even it, explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.

Communism was deeply flawed an unsustainable theory which combined a unified economic and political theory. On the other hand, American Republicanism and Capitalism are two separate theories. One is—economic the other is political—they are ideologies that work in symbiosis, but under deeper analysis—are—at their extremes the antithesis of one another.

Democratic Republicanism guarantees the rights of individuals by choosing who represents "our" best interests and regulating the eventual conflict between competing interests. Unregulated Capitalism promotes self interests without regard for the interests of others.

Like Communism—Capitalism as a theory, when pressed to its ultimate logical conclusion—is unsustainable. It consumes everything and "conserves nothing." An obvious irony lost on the ultra right wing "conservatives."

Even more ironic, is that the "unregulated" consequences of both ideologies—in their final extremes, enslave the people and take away their liberties. One through brute force the other through economic enslavement. And both contain the seeds of demise for their political hosts. A critique of "Unregulated" Capitalism does not make me a socialist or communist.

I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both—especially when they attack the foundation of "our government" and the Constitution".

So the real question is: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism one and the same and therefore inseparable—as the ultra right unregulated free trading capitalists would have us believe?

The answer is no!

They are not inseparable! And a critique of one is not an attack on the other.

The real problem I have is between "regulated' and "unregulated" capitalism.

Ayn Rand styled, Darwinistic unregulated capitalism leads to economic anarchism—the recent history of the banking failure is proof. Which you dismissed as some kind of leap of logic—thereby glossing over the most devastating financial meltdown since the Great Depression by ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

In another comment you called me a "statist"

In the Federalist #10 written by James Madison the second most brilliant of the founders, said:

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

To put it more succinctly—the prime function of government as stated—is the "regulation of factions" or in modern jargon "special interests"—if my agreement with James Madison about the necessity for regulation—makes me a "statist" I wear that label proudly, as a mark of distinction and a badge of honor.

Finally Madison's words fly in the face of your contrived cockamamy idea that the government should leave you alone and unregulated.

This is the end of PART 2

Part 1: Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 I was excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so I'm going to publish my response in nine parts under my: "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: as Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. In that vein I have used a graphic that is more in keeping with his more antagonistic tone.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded this blog post as follows: the post he critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 1 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"

Since when does a “Christian Nation” rob the poor to give to the rich?

Well, since 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment, giving the rich power to directly tax the citizens of the United States. That’s also the year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, giving private corporations cartel monopoly power over the money supply of the United States, and the 17th Amendment was passed giving the Senate to the richest candidates.

Dear Mike, I am no lover of the Congress—which abdicated their sworn fiduciary responsibilities to —as you put it—the "rich." Your words not mine. The US monetary system should never have been "privatized" — it belongs in the hands of the representatives of people. The fact that government has the sole responsibility for issuing the currency of the nation, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the government (the people) and is then charged for the use of that money, by private banks is on its face ludicrous.

A case in point was a period leading up to the Civil War when the Bankers were betting on the side of the South and refused the Union credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

Banks rob the poor with usurious predatory rates of upwards of thirty percent— on money which virtually costs them nothing, and at "unregulated lenders" its even worse for returning soldiers at payday lenders. They (the banks) are the rich, to whom I was referring.

When they have privatized everything, how will you petition a corporation for redress of grievances?

Easy – you’ll file a warranty claim for faulty goods, or a civil claim for severely faulty or harmful goods, or a police report for criminal activity. What’s the problem?

Dear Mike, You're lack of understanding of the deeper moral issues and your flip answer about consumer products, to prove how clever you are—are the problem.

It tells me that you don't fully comprehend the dire unintended consequences of rampant "unregulated" capitalism, especially when it comes to "privatizing" government functions.

Case in point, is the recently passed Arizona Anti Immigration Law that was written by a, "private for profit capitalist corporation" (the Corrections Corporation of America*) that builds and operates prisons. That law required that any Arizonian stopped and asked for proof of citizenship could be arrested if they failed to produce said documentation and sent to prison. I wonder who they were going go to ask for ID and to which prison they'd be sent?

That law was written at a conference of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)—that pays the way of state legislators, such as Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, who introduced the law, and is a member of ALEC—to be "educated" by for profit businesses—who are interested in privatizing government functions—its funded by the uber capitalists Koch Brothers.

That same issue of privatizing government functions was headline news in Pennsylvania where: [quote]"Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella used children as pawns, locking them up unjustly in a plot to get rich. Ciavarella is accused of taking nearly $1 million in kickbacks from capitalist Robert Mericle, the developer of the PA Child Care Centers, owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes". [unquote]

In one instance, he sentenced a college-bound high school girl to three months in juvenile detention for creating a website that made fun of her assistant principal. So much for free speech.

*CCA in their own 2003 Annual Report painted an industry rife with inefficiencies and corruption of State Lawmakers to get favorable laws passed that benefited CCA. A direct quote from that report said: [quote] "The private prison business represents a problem disproportionately larger than its current size. The existence of an industry based on incarceration for profit creates a commercial incentive in favor of government policies that keep more people behind bars for longer periods of time. CCA has been active in trying to influence correctional policy in the United States. As described in Chapter 3, it has done this through its ties with public officials and legislators, its extensive campaign contributions and its involvement in a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that promotes a conservative criminal justice agenda to state legislators around the country."

I would think a real "libertarian" would be repulsed by such intrusion and obvious breach of the Constitution. You know—that "god damn piece of paper" GWB referred to when challenged about torturing prisoners of war.

After 20 years of tax cuts for the rich— where are the jobs they created? China?

"Well, there are jobs everywhere, including China.

Dear Mike, DUH!

First of all there are two elements that have had a devastating impact on the loss of American jobs. Deceptive "free trade" policies and tax cuts—both sold as job creating measures.

Both "free trade" agreements and tax cuts—that are promoted and endorsed by, and pushed through a"real conservative" Congress, by "real conservative" lobbyists for the "real conservative" so called American Corporation, and that were supposedly predicated on opening foreign markets to US products—are really about finding "cheap labor" which would destroy American labor unions and starving the beast—to cut the social safety net.

In other words it was about making American workers compete with foreign workers who were paid a pittance in wages under intolerable conditions tantamount to slavery.

NAFTA is a case in point—Ross Perot warned that if they were passed "the giant sucking sound we would hear"—would be jobs going to Mexico." And for the average American it became a race to the bottom. The second part of the plan was "the big lie"—that if we taxed "capitalists" at a lower rate—that "the job creators" would create millions of jobs and the wealth would trickle down to the average American. After tax cuts from Reagan until Bush 2—the net effect is a stalled economy and we lost millions of jobs instead.

Under 30 years of Republican management—who strategically created the current debt crisis with the aforementioned trade agreements and tax cuts meant to decimate the American work force and "to starve the beast—we have lost Americans jobs by the millions. In fact the economy lost 3.78 million private sector jobs in 2008 under the real conservative management of GW. So the question based on those two big lies remains: "Where are the (American) jobs?"

What Weber should be asking is: After 20 years of increasing corporate taxes, increasing regulations and restrictions on doing business in the U.S., increasing costs associated with hiring and employing citizens, increasing restrictions and penalties for hiring immigrants, increasing complexity from municipal, county, state, and federal governments in this nation, TSA agents strip-searching and sexually molesting travelers everywhere, where did the jobs go?"

Dear Mike, Your assertion—that corporate taxes have increased in the last 20 years—is patently false they have in fact gone down over the last twenty years—as a percentage of GDP—which is a large contributor to the "deficits" many of which were run up under your "real conservative philosophies"—a deliberate strategy to "starve the beast "for the sole purpose of under cutting the social safety net.

According to 2010 OMB data 81.5 % of tax revenue comes from individual payroll taxes and individual Income taxes an additional 9.6% comes from other sources less than 9% comes from corporate taxes. Source OMB.

And what does TSA strip searches have to do with anything about jobs? Which by the way came in under GW Bush who created the Department of "Homeland Security" as part of the :"war" on terrorism—a"real conservative" president who also authorized secret monitoring of American citizens a violation of the fourth amendment and referred to the Constitution as a "god damn piece of paper" in regard to the use of torture. So much for real conservative "small non-intrusive government."

When the rich and powerful oppressed us in 1776—didn’t we revolt?

Sure we did. And we all remember this line from the Declaration of Independence: He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Dear Mike, Your spin is showing--your reference to king George's imposition of troops, hardly pertains to the Constitutionally elected government of the people as the oppressors, and it conveniently ignores the current plutocracy that is now governing this nation through its bought and paid for congressmen.

Doesn’t that remind you of the last paragraph?

No.

When corporations finish privatizing our government who will represent you? Koch Industries?

What does that even mean?

See above Read my response to: When they have privatized everything

Dear Mike, More specific to your response is the current situation in Wisconsin where—the Koch Brother's stooge—Scott Walker has all but disbanded Unions by taking away the one thing that gives them strength, their ability to negoitate as a block. However an under reported part of that bill--* was a provision that privatised Wisconsin's gas and oil piplines along with state owned power plants--a total sell out of the people of Wisconsin--guess who the benefactors were? The Koch brothers.

For more on the subject:

* "

It will allow the Koch Brothers to buy or contract to operate state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants in Wisconsin without a solicitation of bids."

Daily Kos: The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin and:

Did the state of Wisconsin receive compensation for turning over their piplines and utilities to the koch brothers - Google Search

This is the end of PART 1

A Series of Letters from the Left to The Right: Dear Charlie

Commentary: This is a continuation of a series of exchanges between myself and conservatives who have taken issue with comments that I have made through FB. I call it: Letters from the Left to the Right". If I think they are justifiably angry but wrong on the facts of the issue I put the name calling aside and try to engage them in a rational dialogue.

In response to an article in The Huffington Post about how small businesses are suffering while global giaints' prosper in the wake of the financial meltdown I posted a comment that we had nationalized the Banks Debt but didn't Nationalize their profits or cap their bonuses and that that is exactly what we should have done Nationalize the Banks starting with the Fed. I got an angry responses from a man I didn't know and he accused me of being a radical socialist and that i was anti American. After reading his response I took a chance and wrote him directly on his FB page. The following is a series of exchanges that took place over several weeks.

Michael February 18 at 11:23am

Dear Charlie,

Sorry you have misconstrued my meaning. I am talking specifically about globalized corporations and large monopolistic banks that brought this country to its knees with their phony "too large to fail" excuse to rob the American taxpayers. All the players in that scenario were Wall Street insiders. The reason the average American worker is out of a job is that globalized corporations have found cheaper labor in foreign countries and they get paid by the American taxpayer to do it. I am not a champion of Communism. I am a champion of restoring the balance of power. In The Federalist #10, James Madison said the most destructive thing a republic could face is an imbalance of power where one faction imposes its will to the detriment of everyone else. Certainly just an objective observation by anyone of the current American political scene shows that in the past 30 years that power has shifted heavily in favor of the super rich. They pay no taxes to speak of in fact their are the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts over the past 30 years. All of those tax cuts are borrowed money and are being paid for by you and I. Today in this nation 1% of the population control 95% of the wealth. If you have ever played Monopoly as a kid you know that when everyone else is bankrupt you are the winner and the game is over. In real life that means families become homeless and are torn apart. I know that the propaganda of the Right is appealing, but I challenge you to find one program they endorse that will help create jobs. They claimed that the tax cuts for mega rich would create jobs. In fact their mantra of more and more tax cuts have had the opposite effect, there have been an exodus of jobs. The playing field is not level its been tilted by the influence of corporate lobbyist who have sold Americans a toxic mix of poisonous propaganda and bought every politician that has no morality. I am an ardent student of American history and have read many of the documents that were the underpinnings of this democratic republic. most of the claims made by the republicans are contrary to what the founders intended. They didn't want a small government as the Republicans insist, the wanted a large robust government that protected the people from the tyranny of the majority or minority. Why would they rewrite our history? When someone lies to me I start looking for their ulterior motives. It usually comes down to greed. Why did they want to deregulate the banks? They got their wish and look what happened within ten years the banks bankrupted this country. In closing I hope you will take an objective look at the current American political scene and reconsider what is really going on in this country.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 18 at 4:42pm

The extremes you speak of are not the answer. But a Deli closing portending the end of the world is .....well......way too fanciful.

Michael February 20 at 5:18pm

Dear Charlie,

Thanks for the reply, however I would take exception to your assertion that my ideas are extreme. For example, if you think my idea of Nationalizing the FED is extreme or radical it might interest you to know that there were other American Extremists who thought that it was a good idea—they were: Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln—from a book by Andrew Hitchcock "The History of Money Changers"

http://www.iamthewitness.com/book /Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

James Madison stated,

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will ... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres."

Jefferson later made the following statement,

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

President Jackson vetoed a bill to renew the Charter of The Second Bank of America and in his veto message he stated the following,

"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of the Bank are held by foreigners ... Is there no danger to out liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence ... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower the favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

In the act before me there seems to be wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."

After the Bankers refused America credit to fight the war and Lincoln began issuing "Greenbacks" Lincoln said:

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

In A History of American Banking under the Title:

Deregulation, Bank Failures, and New Technology

it states that:

Several deregulatory moves made by the federal government in the 1980s diminished the distinctions among various financial institutions in the United States. Two major changes were the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980) and the Depository Institutions Act (1982), which allowed savings and loan associations to engage in often-risky commercial loans and real estate investments, and to receive checking deposits. By 1984, banks had federal support in buying discount brokerage firms, and commercial banks were beginning to acquire failed savings banks; in 1985 interstate banking was declared constitutional.

Such deregulation was blamed for the unprecedented number of bank failures among savings and loan associations, with over 500 such institutions closing between 1980 and 1988. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), until it became insolvent in 1989, insured deposits in all federally chartered—and in many state-chartered—savings and loan associations. Its outstanding insurance obligations in connection with savings and loan failures, over $100 billion, were transferred (1989) to the FDIC.

Further deregulation occurred in 1999, when Congress overhauled the entire U.S. financial system. Among other actions, the legislation repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing banks to enter the insurance and securities businesses. Supporters predicted that the measure would permit U.S. banks to diversify and compete more effectively on an international scale. Opponents warned that this deregulation could lead to failures of many financial institutions, as had occurred with the savings and loans.

That's from a objective third party. What bothers me is that when deregulation failed and brought about the "financial crisis" that has brought this country to near ruin—the Republicans didn't bat an eye or even acknowledge that their policies to deregulate had failed—they brazenly stuck to their guns and blamed everyone except themselves and tried to block legislation to Banking reform, which is the primary function of government to regulate "special interests" or as Madison referred to them "factions".

The Fed creates money and gives it to the banks interest free the banks turn around and charge you and I as much as 20-30%. That my friend is why we are up to our eyeballs in debt. Its private banks that set the interest rates, its not the, poor who need help with heating oil, teacher unions in Wisconsin or any other targeted group the Republicans go after. Its the banks and the corrupt politicians they own. We bailed them out and now they are sitting on boatloads of money and they won't lend it to keep the economy afloat. That should tell you something about their morality or lack thereof. I don't know about you but, I am a Christian and the oppression of the poor leaves me enraged.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie February 20 at 6:32pm Report

Mike....you are amazing me with the stuff you are aware of. The unions are being targeted by Republicans for a good reason.....their benefits are out of whack.

Michael February 21 at 1:57pm

Dear Charlie,

WOW! I am almost speechless I just laid out why the bankers have nearly ruined the economy with "credit default swaps" and how the Republicans have given the banks a pass and tried to block new financial reform and you say the Republicans need to regulate unions because their benefits are out of whack. So in essence your telling me—Republicans are willing to regulate teachers and firefighters wages but not monopolistic predatory banks—who are the real cause of this mess. I have a news flash—the unions are not the cause of the economic problems that face this nation—the Republicans are attacking unions because they are part of the democratic base and they are trying to eliminate any and all Democratic support. Charlie I am sure you are a good decent man, but let me just say that the downfall of this Nation will not come from the Left and some "commie plot" it will come from the Right just like it did in pre war Germany after Hitler disbanded all political opposition. This Nation as the Founders intended it —a democratic republic—is already dying and is in its last days—if the Republicans have their way, we will all be servants of the "upper class" and I will stake my life on the fact that the "upper class" does not include me or you and our families or anyone that you or I associate with. They think Americans are stupid and will blindly follow them when they spout their simplistic propaganda and hatred. They counting on Americans being prejudiced, lazy and ignorant. There is a reason Rush Limbaugh refers to his audience as "dittoheads" In his arrogance he is telling them they can't think for themselves—so as he might—say—"let me do your thinking for you". It is a reflection of the real distain he has for people that are swayed by him. I urge you my friend to really pray about this instead of blindly supporting the people that are going to destroy this country. As a veteran I pledged an oath to defend this country from enemies—outside and inside—this country, the real enemies as I see it are NOT Unions, but the people who want to suppress them.

Sincerely, Michael

Charlie March 3 at 8:00am

Jesus said "The poor you always have with you". By seeking to replace jobs with redistribution the Feds have spent trillions to no avail. The tyrannical bouguise is now the university-government elites who are NOT the super rich but make millions and billions feeding at the government trough. If you want someone to fight against.... fight against that entangled web of bureaucrats and tenored socialists.

Michael March 3 at 9:40am

Dear Charlie,

Are you talking about the bourgeois causing this crisis? I am having trouble with understanding how the middle class are the culprits in this financial meltdown. The Banks were deregulated and started creating predatory loans that have put middle class families into foreclosure and bankruptcy. Tenured "socialists" and government bureaucrats—whoever they are—didn't do that.

Just so there is no mistake and I understand you—the word "bourgeois" is defined as a noun:

1. A person belonging to the middle class.

2. A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.

3. In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

as an adj.

1. Of, relating to, or typical of the middle class.

2. Held to be preoccupied with respectability and material values.

Is that correct? If that is the definition of "the bourgeois" you are talking about, isn't that the American Dream to become a property owner? A person of respectability? A contributor to society? A person of means? Are you saying the American Dream is dead? And only the the mega-rich should survive?

Furthermore, the context of the quote—"the poor will always be with us"—was the night of the Passover Seder or the Last Supper as we Christians refer to it. A poor woman came in and anointed Jesus with expensive oil which the disciples objected to as a "waste of money"—that could be given to the poor.

Please note that if the money hadn't been spent on the oil it would have been given to the poor instead.

Jesus chastised them and said, he would not be around much longer, but that the poor would always be in need of charity. He didn't mean to say what you seem to be implying that we should ignore the poor because they are an endless affliction on society. To the contrary his entire mission was focused on the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, and sinners like me and you.

By the way the full quote about the poor is found in Mark 14:7

7“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

In fact in one of his most famous teachings about who will be saved Jesus said:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these , you did not do for me.’

Matthew 25:31-45

The "least of these" are: the poor, the sick, the hungry, the naked, everything the democrats have done in the area of public policy—health care, social security, food for the poor, heating oil subsidies, education programs to lift the children of the poor out of poverty, are a in proper alignment with what Jesus commanded us to do—love one another as I have loved you. We've spent trillions on the poor and there are still poor—so to hell with em? What?

You sound like a man of principle and a christian—if what Jesus said is true and you believe him as I do—then my advice to you is—if you have one crust of bread left give it to someone that has none. Because my friend, you can't lay up earthly treasure that will help you where we are all going. "What profit a man who gains the world and loses his soul?"

Sincerely, Michael