Did Our Fathers and Sons Die for the United Corporations of America?

Adam Smith Reexamined:

I had a recent e-mail exchange with D. Doty, an ardent supporter of Adam Smith's idea—that the unintended consequences of "unregulated" markets" was by and large, beneficial to society and far outweighed the negative effects. In light of that exchange I began to explore some of the most cherished myths of Capitalism. Which led me to the question...

Does Unregulated Capitalism Contain the Seeds for the Destruction of America Democracy?

In his treatise, Adam Smith's, The Wealth of Nations, there is an often misquoted and not well understood passage. It still raises debate even among "expert" economists who claim that—man's greedy economic self interests provided unintended benefits for the public at large when "left unregulated" in a domestic market.

It is often referred to as the "invisible hand" of the market place.

It was, in its time, considered a brilliant observation of human nature and revolutionary, in that it elevated what was widely considered to be a sin—"Greed"—to be something that could be used to benefit men.

It was akin to asking. Can something as powerful and potentially dangerous as the atom be used to solve man's ever increasing demand for energy? Can something as powerful and potentially dangerous as unregulated greed be used for the ultimate good of mankind?

The difference is of course are obvious in order to "harness" the power of the atom it "must be rigorously controlled"—and regulated. The key word is harness as in tethered and under control.

So the question is: Is unregulated "greed" any less destructive and any less in need of regulation. You might be inclined to say: It can't kill you. Or can it?

Unregulated, It can produce ever more cunningly diabolical weapons of war that unleash the power of the atom in an uncontrolled explosion and produce massive deaths. And It can sew the seeds of conflict that make war a never ending cycle. And thereby create a never ending market place for those weapons it makes. [See Smedley Butler War Is A Racket] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_Racket

Unregulated, it can decide to move elsewhere—say China—depriving you of, the job it gave you and take with it your means to provide medicine, food, shelter and clothing, leaving millions to fend for themselves when they have forgotten how to survive in our post agrarian society. It can choose to ignore large segments of the population and leave them in utter poverty to starve from famine, and to die from unmet medical needs. It can exploit poorer nations for their resources, leaving a dictatorial ruling elite enriched and the general populace destitute. [See Globalization]

Unregulated, it can rob millions of their homes, their life savings and their hope, even leading the most desperate to commit suicide. It can kill. Without feeling or remorse. [See the "Inside Job"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

Unregulated, it can buy what it needs to preserve itself even representation in a government of the people, to the detriment of the people, even overturning elections with corruption. Unregulated it can pollute the environment and destroy the earth.

There are flaws in the theory that go beyond those I've already pointed out when you consider other factors. In its the modern adaptation of the theory—other theories that have been attached to it such as Ayn Rands' idea of "economic darwinism" which is Adam Smith on steroids—add libertarianism and it takes it to the level of sadism with the intentional infliction of damage on the weak—at its extremes. [See ENRON the "Smartest Guys In The Room"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron:_The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room

Those ideologies—Unregulated and Combined—impart a brutal disregard for the "unintended"—as in the case of ENRON— and the "intended" consequences of its "unregulated" effects of wantonness.

Decoding Smith
I have intentionally left out a part of Smith's idea—that is largely ignored by modern adaptors of his theory. It contains the idea of mitigation. In the context of his theory he spoke of domestic vs foreign marks and the natural preference of domestic markets over foreign markets. But he only used the word unregulated in reference to domestic markets. In order to mitigate the effects of greed he was suggesting that this idea was applicable only to domestic markets. That without saying it—was his idea of "regulation." That still begs the question is unregulated capitalism on a massive scale under any circumstance a good idea?

The whole enchilada
In his treatise, The Wealth of Nations, Smith made reference to "the invisible hand" and stated:
[quote]
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Nor is it "always" the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good. [emphasis added].
[end quote]

A further analysis
In an the afore mentioned exchange of emails with D. Doty I went into some other aspects of its—in my opinion—obvious flaws:

[quote]
Dear Doty, RE: Adam Smith;

Because all men are flawed in their thinking—all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. 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. The flaws in economic theory and political thought are at best attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can.

E=mc2 is a brilliant theory but explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.

This is no less true in the area of political and economic theory. In the 18th century Adam Smith wrote his economic theory based on the prevailing economic theory of that age "mercantilism" a forerunner of Capitalism which is the dominant economic theory of the 21st Century.

Mercantilism stated a belief in the economic benefits of trade protected by government protectionism. And with protectionism come "strings" or if you will "regulation." His argument was in favor of "deregulation" of domestic markets without the strings.

Like everything written by men it is: 1. open interpretation and 2. contains flaws 3. it was written in the context of the history of his time.

Three variables that make it difficult to use as an theory that can be trusted in today's world.

1. Open to Interpretation: The invisible hand was only mentioned half way through his treatise, hardly a place of prominence for a central principle of his theory, which leads me to believe it has been given more weight than intended. Therefore deserves a very narrow interpretation which leads one to believe that he was talking about the law of unintended consequences as it applies to "regulated" domestic industry vs. foreign industry, thus my emphasis. The "invisible hand" was mentioned in his other works within a different context and meaning which would make it esoteric. Even professional economists have interpreted his work differently.

2. It's Flawed: It eliminates all other human characteristics of human nature except greed—and treats man's intentions as purely involuntary—not understanding or caring about the consequences of his actions. Man is treated as if he is a dumb pig rooting about and unintentionally plowing a farmers field. It does not address the flaw of monopolies that swallow up whole markets and strangle competition. It claims an efficiency that is rarely if ever achieved in any human endeavor. It trusts the fate of many people to the vagaries of speculation and the whim of the few. It is self defeating—at its extremes it cultivates extreme pockets of poverty and wealth which have produced violent upheavals including the French and American Revolutions—thus undermining the stable environment that is the primary prerequisite for markets to function, and the very reason American businesses have thrived while others faltered. What happens when the peasants see no hope and rise up?

3. The History of the times: There was a keen competition between Nations at the time and British Empire Building was nearing its zenith and his reference to the preference of domestic vs. foreign industry. There was a built in bias towards domestic industry—at the time "the sun never set on the British Empire" and all resources were considered "commonwealth" and therefore domestic. It does not apply to the International Markets of today's world he could not have foreseen that.

Those are the reasons I cannot see that Smith ever intended his theory to be applied as broadly as it has been in this modern "World Economy." While Smith's theory was brilliant for it's time—like Einstein's theory of Relativity it does not explain everything that needs to be considered.

Sincerely Mike
[end quote]

Is An Attack On Unregulated American Capitalism—An Attack on American Democratic Republicanism?

As—Father, Tom Matchie, the best teacher I've ever had—would have said: "I call bullshit!
Meaning: That's utter bullshit! Think about what you're saying! Think about what you're reading! Think about what you are writing! Think about the meaning! Think about the Logic!

The short answer is NO!

When there is even a hint of critical analysis of "CAPITALISM" it gives rise to the usual viscous slurs of communist, socialist, liberal in a pejorative tone.

Nonsense! What a ridiculous leap of logic, but it is exactly the rabid response that is hurled at anyone deemed UN-American enough to say unregulated capitalism is flawed. As if there is no other alternative. Man's mind and skill at adaptation belie that simplistic notion. Extreme belief in flawed deeply rooted ideologies, is at the heart of most human conflict.

What's the difference?

Capitalism and Republicanism are two different disciplines.

What Capitalist do to protect themselves from critical examination is wrap themselves in a political doctrine they hate—American Democratic Republicanism. Capitalists and capitalism self identifies as fundamentally inseparable from American Democratic Republicanism and therefore an attack on capitalist and capitalism is an attack on America. And any suggestion to the contrary engender a vitriolic flurry of personal slurs.

My contention is that just as Communism was deeply flawed and unsustainable. Capitalism too, is an economic theory, that 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 contained the seeds of demise for their political hosts. I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both.

But another question remains: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism inseparable?

Again the answer is no!

I repeat 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.

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

A better question is: Is Unregulated Capitalism an Attack on American Democratic Republicanism?

When Unregulated Capitalism is detached from "American Democratic Republicanism" and its interests are different from "American" interests then a resounding, YES, is the correct answer.
Like a parasite that consumes its host—capitalism has permutated and is now a danger to its American host. It has slipped it's host after devouring it's assets and has now in pursuit all of the World's remaining wealth. A cancer cell out of control would be an obvious analogy.

There are other differences.

What are the Nature, Objectives and Principles Of These Two Different Theories

Unregulated Capitalism, is by its nature is—sociopathic—as stated by Smith: it is the rigorous pursuit of self interest oblivious to the consequences of its economic activity good or bad. As we all know a sociopath in terms of individuals is a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior marked by a decided lack of conscience. Furthermore, Unregulated Capitalism according to Smith has only one objective personal enrichment. It is narrow and fixed. Unregulated Capitalism can be summed up as: The self is greater than than the whole. Its overriding principle is greed. It is Individualistic and anti-social at its core. And when you add in Ayn Rand's idea of "social darwinism" it can be brutal and ruthless.

Contrast that with:

American Democratic Republicanism, is defined as the belief that all men are created and of equal value—none greater than another—in the eyes of their creator and in the eyes of their "government", which consists of—their fellow men elected by the people to regulate differences among various "factions". By its nature it is Social experiment based on a community of caring for the "general welfare" an all inclusive, concern about the "needs" of its people. Its objectives at the time of its birth were to end the oppression of the rich and powerful who controlled men's lives without regard for their human rights. It was "tolerant", "forward looking", "progressive", "open-minded"—it was based on—"enlightened thinking" in an age of suppression and oppression. It at its core is an experiment in "liberal democracy". At best it appeals to "the better angels of our nature." It was based on respect of all men not the few.

And maybe the final and biggest difference between the two ideologies is:

Unregulated Capitalism treats a human as a "consumer of it's goods products and services without regard for any responsibility, if you can't pay you don't get the services you nee, even if they are life threatening needs, such as medical care. When they have taken all they can from you—they will leave you penniless, homeless and hopeless, you become useless to them and disposable. How will you petition a corporation for redress of grievances. You become just so much human refuse. They will knowingly or unknowingly trample your rights without compunction or remorse.

American Democratic Republicanism as a government, treats its citizens as humans with "unalienable" rights, as constituents who elected those who govern them to look out for the general welfare of the people they govern. It treats you as a citizen and values your contribution of service. A government that will protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The same cannot be said for unregulated capitalism.

The purpose of Government. So let's all get together and play nice.

So, How do you reconcile the fundamental differences of, equality for all and the self interest of Unregulated Capitalism? Government "regulates' by means of laws—controlling the unbridled passions of one group that may try to impose it's will on another group—and establish "a tyranny of the majority"

With that brilliant idea that "all men are created equal" a debate began that is still raging today: How do you balance the special interests of the few or a small group whose interests, intentionally or unintentionally—destroy the rights of a minority. One of the debates from the beginning was should it be a Democracy or a Republic. Madison wrote of his preference for a Republic in the Federalist #10.

As a part of his argument, Madison contended that a strong robust government—consisting of the people's democratically elected representatives, forming a Republic—needed to be big enough to "regulate", disputes between "factions,"—in todays terms—"special interests." A fact that belies the modern Capitalists mantra "Government is Too Big" And the chant to "Deregulate Everything." Without Law (regulation) disorder will prevail. Hence the phrase: law and order—you need one for the other to exist.

Madison's' argument was that a weak government with little power could not in fact prevent one group from dominating another and thereby impinging on the rights of the minority. A weak government is ineffectual. A weak government cannot protect the weak from the strong. A weak government is impotent.

The Open Conflict of Two Diametrically Opposed Ideas

As an example: Take the economic interests of the south and it's dependence on slave labor to manage its "unregulated" agrarian economy—that was in direct conflict with the Constitution. While there are many reasons for not addressing the obvious conflict—the primary underlying reason was pragmatic—in the beginning the government was too small to enforce the Constitution. They could not have ended slavery even though some wanted to—every other reason ever given was subordinate to that glaring fact.

Evidence—as the government grew large enough to enforce the Constitution the country erupted into open rebellion and a Civil War over that issue. The American Civil War at it's roots—was about the injustice of "unregulated capitalist" economics. States Rights, and other so called causes, were, red herrings, meant to confuse the debate.

We falsely assumed that the Civil War ended, but the underlying cause—economic enslavement to unregulated capitalism is still being fought and this, American Democratic Republic is, once again at stake.

From the beginning these two ideologies—one political and the other economic—have been in direct conflict.

Now as during the Civil War Unregulated Capitalism is tearing at the fabric of our government of, by, and for the people and replacing it with a government of, by, and for the rich. Unregulated Capitalism has superseded the will of the people and simply buys what it needs, including representation in our former democratically elected government.

As the bible states: You cannot serve god and mammon because you will love the one and hate the other. Just so you cannot serve two ideologies that are in direct conflict with each other.

My argument is not with "capitalism" per se, it is with "unregulated" capitalism.

Smith was wrong in his presumption that markets are "self regulating" when left alone. The true test of theories is their application over time. American history is full of examples of unregulated capitalism and the devastation that can arise when left to their own—anything goes in the pursuit of profits mentality. As long as there are humans on earth there is a need for laws to regulate their behavior.

Commentary: Capitalists—have used the term "liberal" as a pejorative—twisting the meaning into mean something evil and sinister. They have deliberately associated its meaning to imply that a liberal is a communist.

As in: liberal
1 tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient. antonym narrow-minded, bigoted.

2 progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical. antonym reactionary, conservative.

3 broad-based, wide-ranging, general. antonym parochial, small-minded, provincial, narrow, conservative, illiberal

4 flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite. antonym inflexible, strict, authoritarian, to the letter.

5 abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.

6 generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish; literary bounteous. antonym careful, miserly.

Notice the opposite of everything liberal—narrow minded, bigoted, reactionary, conservative, parochial, small-minded, provincial, narrow, illiberal inflexible, strict, authoritarian, to the letter, careful miserly—speaks to the attributes of a neo-conservative capitalist.

The opposite of liberal is conservative—not communist.

How illuminating when you truly understand a word and its opposite meaning and the information it conveys.

You decide what kind of Nation you want to live in an—Unregulated-American Capitalist Plutocracy Or a Liberal Democratic Representational Republic as laid out by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

Sign me, a proud unabashed liberal.

On a personal note: I mentioned Tom Matchie and I dedicate this post to him. Tom Matchie, energized in me, with an absolute, life long love of language, critical thinking, and the power of words. Unfortunately, he appeared rather late in my academic life, but, the fact that he appeared at all is a blessing—I've been grateful for ever since. He awoke in me a latent intellect, I didn't have a clue, I possessed. He treated me—a self identified, "scarecrow"—as if I had a brain. Something no one else had ever done. Thanks Tom.

An American coup d'etat.

The sudden "discovery" of enough ballots in a Republican county, by a Republican civil servant to overturn the will of the people in Wisconsin is nothing less than an American coup d'etat. Sorry for the french, but, there is no English word for an overthrow of a government, it was a testament to the stability of the British government.

American's in their complacent belief that our democratically elected representational form of was immune from an overthrow have repeatedly ignored the warning signs—and have allowed this final assault on our last vestige of "our" power—"our" vote. Stealing our elections is the last step in consolidating their power. This is class warfare—not started by the under class but by the upper class. They have been waging it since the first man appointed himself king

We are the proverbial frogs in an increasing warming kettle too lethargic to escape our inevitable fate. Living in fascist plutocracy. We have consumed ourselves into corporate servitude.

A small dedicated cadre of right winged fanatics are gradually taking over step by step—they have managed to turn a government of by and for the people against itself. And replaced civil servants at key positions that can in effect entire election outcomes.

The most obvious remedy is a "Nationwide a day of rage" (any community organizers out there) and boycott of all products, multi-national.

If their are any really talented hackers out there that are up "for striking a blow against the establishment" well you get the idea. Can you hack her e-mails? Can you get to her computer? Maybe its time to take back our country from the Koch Brothers and the Wall Street!

Commentary: How about we all stop paying our loans and credit cards an withdraw all of our savings and put them in community credit unions—all at once. Or start a series of flash a mob demonstrations at the NY Stock Exchange, at CitiBank, at Bank of America, in the halls of Congress. Or at their mansions in the Hamptons.
How about we stop paying taxes like the rich have done.
How about we all stop paying our insurance premiums and really take back our health care system from the insurance companies that are the one's really driving health care costs.
How about we show them where the real engine of this economy lays.
How about only shopping at mom and pop shops support the local economy only.
How about we form community credit unions and make loans to each each other with reasonable interest
How about we ignore the pharmaceutical dictates and by our medicine from Canada.
How about we stop buying gas and walk or ride bikes at least once or twice a week until they focus some real attention on alternative energy.
How about we do it all everyday until their get the message.
How about we let them know it's not cool to buy "our country and screw over the American voters.

How about we get off our sorry complacent asses and create some pandemonium, some peaceful non-violent delicious mischief that hurts em where they live. In their...sorry I meant to say "our" pocket books!

I suggest starting with a boycott of all Koch brothers products.

The following products are made by Koch Industries - Democratic Underground

Fabrics:
• Lycra Fiber
• Coolmax Fabrics
Georgia-Pacific paper and wood products:
• Quilted Northern toilet paper
• Angel Soft toilet paper
• Soft 'n' Gentle toilet paper
• Mardi Gras toilet paper
• Vanity Fair paper plate and napkins
• Brawny paper towels
• Dixie cups
• Plytanium plywood

Trump's Birth Certificate Reveals His Jamaican Birth

Double click for larger image.

Clearly, the revelation of Trump's Jamaican birth in 1946 makes him a subject of the British Crown and ineligible for the Office of POTUS. NOTE: the seal of Jamaica at the lower right of the document in this FBI enhanced photo. Please feel free to distribute this photographic evidence as proof of his intended deception of the American people.

Further investigation shows that he is

the leader of a little known sect within Rasafarian culture that subscribes to the belief of "Ever-living" Its members believe that they will live forever on earth in the same body until the judgement day comes therefore must "come as they are" before god. For "the Donald" judgement day has come in the revelation of his "foreign birth."

His Rastafarian upbringing explains the dreadlocks-like hairdo—he has clung to "religiously" even at the expense of great personal ridicule. As a Rastafari he believes that adult males must never cut their hair.

Despondent over a sudden unexplained weight gain and this latest devastating news about his "birth"— "the Donald" flew home to his Rastafarian roots and let down his hair thus explaining the long standing controversy surrounding Donald's hair style. It seems that in Rastian culture adult males are forbidden to cut their hair and are required to Rastify when returning home.

Robbing The Poor To Give To The Rich

Commentary: Something stinks to high heaven in the current economic and political life of this Nation. The inequity of wealth, the suppression of human rights, the small government advocates who want to meddle in our personal lives right down to our reproductive rights . Wisconsin should be a wake up call to all middle class and working Americans and act as a warning that the balance of power has shifted in favor of the rich and powerful who now run this country and own our government by virtue of their growing economic power.

Just one example of the growing disparity and outright lies being told by the Conservative Right is no where more glaring than the recent example of GE. They Claim: America Corporations are taxed at 35% the "highest tax rate in the world" Truth is: GE. as a U.S. Corporation made 14.6 billion dollars on profits in 2010. They paid $0.00 in U.S. taxes for the last two years—that's ZERO dollars. They Claim: Lower taxes will create U.S. jobs. Truth is: GE laid off 21,000 Americans of its American workers and closed 20 of its American based plants, And is currently asking the remaining American workers to take a pay cut. The result: GE CEO Jeff Immelt got a raise that doubled his salary. To add insult to injury although GE is not technically a bank it received $80 billion in TARP funds and 3.2 billion in tax benefits.

These are the facts and they don't square with what the Right consistently spouts as their core principles—because they are outright lies meant to misled us.

The following is an article I read and found to be illuminating and highly recommend it to you. Back at You, Glenn Beck | Common Dreams

"Inside Job": The Gang That Stole America

Inside Job - Download the FULL Movie by careysanforduj


I just watched "Inside Job", an Academy Award Nominated Documentary, on the Wall Street collapse. It's a stunning look into how this country really operates, and who is really pulling the strings. Hint: Some of the same big-named Wall Street Bankers that helped create the collapse who were in the Bush administration—are still in the Obama administration. There have been no prosecutions, and there never will be. Because, it would expose everybody's dirty hands. I highly recommend that you screen the documentary, and share it as widely as possible. Spoiler alert! There are no good guys—Democrat or Republican—with the exception of some minor players.

With that 20,000,000,000,000 trillion dollars—that's trillion with 13-zeros—worldwide banking collapse, two unfunded wars, and the continued corporate tax splurge give away'—"our so called representatives"— have bankrupted this Nation. And, It really doesn't matter who runs, who's elected, it's all just political theater to keep the mobs at bay, and the charade going until they have looted the country of every dime; including the Social Security "Trust" Fund.

And, if Grover "let's starve the beast and drown it in a bath tub"— Norquist, is to be believed, it was a deliberate act that would make it treason as well.

Their ongoing deception is to keep us at each others throats with divide and conquer tactics—while they and their rich buddies cash out and leave us a third world country—which they are now exploiting at will, as we argue about "the Donald—"I'll screw you"—Trump, or the latest home-schooled, bird-brain, bimbo they can scare up to run to "represent us".

One of their latest attacks came in the form of repositioning Social Security as "an entitlement", with a pejorative connotation. Like they have done with the word "liberal." Recently Republican Sen. Allan Simpson called "the boomers" the "greediest generation", because, they are now retiring and are starting to collect Social Security. As if we want something that in his twisted opinion is the same as robbing future generations.

First—I am sixty-seven years old, and I have been paying into Social Security for over fifty years. I worked my entire life to save that money for the day I could no longer work. Second—on "paper" there is a "supposed" 2.6 trillion dollar "surplus" in the Trust Fund to cover the "boomers." In good faith, we made a contract with our government—that if we faithfully contributed to the Trust Fund—that money would be there for us at in our later years. How does that make me greedy?

The dirty secret is that Mr. Allan—I'll steal you blind and call you greedy"—Simpson won't tell you is in the Reagan years, Mr. Simpson, and his colleagues, made adjustments to FICA contributions that generated a 2.6 trillion dollar "surplus".

It was sold to taxpayers as a fix to "save the Social Security Trust Fund." Perhaps Mr. Simpson forgot that, or maybe because his Senate pension is eight to ten times more—than the average SSI benefit of one-thousand dollars a month—for which he didn't have to contribute a penny of his own money—he just figures screw em.

But, all that extra money was too tempting, and the "Trust Fund" became their private "Slush Fund". With the complicity of the Democrats, they started replacing the money with I.O.U.'s. in the form of U.S. Bonds.

Those bonds are now due, but, after thirty years of corporate largess; two wars; a bank bailout for their banker friends, they have managed to bankrupt this country. There is no money to buy back the Bonds, because they stole us blind to cover their forty plus year binge.

But in the famous words of "the Dick—"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"—Cheney, said, in reference to the outrageous tax cut package, over the objection of the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill. "We won the midterms. This is our due." He fired O'neill that same year. And Allan, you thought "boomers" have a sense of entitlement.

Commentary: There is no Santa—no tooth fairy—no Easter bunny, and you can now add to that list—there is no American representational democracy.

The Financial Inside Job has been going on since the Republican led charge to deregulate the banks began forty years ago. The financial takeover of America is bad enough, but may be even worse is the Political Inside Job by the Right Wing to destroy our democracy—by turning popular opinion against—the government, of, by, and for the people,—they have done irreparably damage with their out right lies. And tactics like stacking the government with their incompetent cronies like Michael—"what hurricane"—Brown at FEMA and then saying see government doesn't work. They create the very examples they use to discredit the government. With the deliberate goal of undermining the electorates trust in it's own government.

They have already destroyed our "democratic republic"—as they no longer represent the interests of the electorate—they only care about where they can get money to keep them in power—that makes this country a plutocracy at best and a fascist plutocracy at worst.

Wisconsin is a very bad sign of things to come. The evidence is mounting that there is an organized right wing junta in key positions in every state in America—ready and willing—when they hold a majority to systematically dismantling of the political structure of this country. They destroying the rights of the working class for the benefit of the wealthy.

Please stand in support the workers of Wisconsin.

Until Americans wake up and start a backlash, like in Egypt—nothing will "really" change except the name of the next ruler they choose.

It's My Money

PART ONE: The dangers of stupidity and greed.
I was watching a Republican "tea bagger" babble on about how taxation was wrong. At one point, she made the statement that "its my money"! The absolute stupidity of that statement struck me, and illuminated the underlying absurdity of the entire Republican argument, which is often based on a series of false premises; like the one this prattling self-identified tea party supporter had just made. While what she meant is arguable what she said is not.

The false premise that—money—printed by the government, issued by the government, backed by the full faith and credit of the government, was" hers and the government was stealing her money by taxing her.

The utter stupidity of the remark was lost on her. Unless she is printing the money, and she is issuing the money, and she is backing the money with her personal promise of payment, not one dollar of currency is hers. And by the way, if she is printing her own money its—called counterfeiting, and she should be arrested. Counterfeiting undermines the value of the "government's money."

If she had said: its the people's money, she may have had a small point, because in theory,—"We the people" authorize the representatives that "we the people" elect to print the money in name "of the people", for the use "of the people", and back it up with the promise "of the people" to pay the debt it represents against the government "of the people". But in effect she or anyone else that repeats this stupidity is saying that—she—the person—becomes more important than we the people—who are the collective government. Or she may have meant "once I earn the money it's mine. But even that would still make her argument self-serving because it ignores the primary function of money, that "we the people" allow our representatives print on "our" behalf.

Taxation as a legitimate governmental tool of regulation.
The second false assumption based on that same false premise is that—money was meant to be accumulated or be hoarded, and that goes to the heart of, and, undermines the very function of money—money it is meant to be circulated, for the "general welfare" of the people.

Just like a blood clot in the human body is devastating when it blocks the circulation—the brain dies, the heart stops. As with blood, money is meant to circulate—without circulation—the function of money—"to facilitate the exchange of goods and services" grinds to a halt. Just like our stagnating economy, it's not that the government takes too much money out of circulation by taxation, it's that all the money has formed a clot around the very rich who are not putting the money back into circulation. The right say its my money and you are robbing me, you're punishing me, you're hindering me, *ignoring the damage they are doing to the rest of the nation. They have put themselves and a small group above the needs of the whole.

With Madison's' model of government in mind—the necessity of regulating special interests for the general welfare of the Nation as a whole without regard for the the desires of the few—taxation is a legitimate tool and an absolute necessity in light of the growing imbalance that threatens us all.

The Right wings' continual denigration of taxation as "redistribution of wealth" and as such, a socialistic idea to be spurned—underscores their contempt for the legitimate function of government—that canard is both self serving and simplistic. The fact that corporations are lavished with taxpayers money in the guise of tax brakes—to the taxpayers detriment—such as subsides to ship jobs over seas—is another example of their duplicity and their own sense of "entitlement".

It is not the poor who suffer from a sense of entitlement—it is the rich and their own exaggerated sense of importance and superiority. When they point the finger at the poor they are employing one of their favorite tactics—to blame others for a sin, of which they, themselves are guilty.

When they call liberals "elitists" its laughable. Have you ever visited a haven where the rich congregate, like the Hamptons, they are are the embodiment of the words, "the entitled elite." Their standard joke is, to ask each other, "I wonder what the poor people are doing?"

In our history they have plucked and isolated the incident of the Boston Tea Party and twisted it mean to mean "all" taxation is abhorrent and should be abolished. When what the founders and citizens fought against was "taxation without representation". They fought for the right to have a voice in that taxation and a voice in what to do with the revenues in generated.

Above all else the founders were practical men, sophisticated and well aware that a Nation needed taxes to survive and it would be foolish to assume they thought otherwise. That is why—after forming the government—they as the legitimate representatives of the people—decided there was a pressing need to raise revenue to preserve the Union—and why George Washington lead an army to suppress a rebellion over the Nation's first taxation of whiskey.

While none of them enjoyed giving up part of their wealth for the good of the whole, most paid their taxes without complaint as part of their civic duty. What is lost on the modern day "tea bagger" is the founders were not opposed to taxation, but, they were absolutely opposed to the lack of representation in the matter.

The primary function of money is as a tool of exchange.
Circulation of money is the primary consideration for a healthy economy. When one person or party hoards too much money and there is too little in circulation everyone suffers except for the hoarder. The result often is the government needs to print more money which causes its own set of problems. In the game of Monopoly, we all know that when one person controls all the money the game ends but, nobody gets hurt. We live to play another day.

In real life, when someone holds an inequitable share of money, it throws the entire balance of society into turmoil—it means that people get thrown out of their homes and families starve. It—in extreme cases like pre-revolution France, that imbalance can cause a violent backlash. That principle in modern times remains the same and is at the heart of the current revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and a growing number of Middle Eastern countries. The growing chasm between rich and poor.

In an illustration of the current monetary imbalance Bill Maher said: "it's as if one hundred people are sitting at a table and together order a pizza with one hundred slices. One person is faster and hungrier than the other ninety-nine diners and he grabs eighty pieces of pizza in a flash. The other diners look in amazement at him, and ask that he give back at least one piece. Angrily he says: Socialists! Why are you trying to steal my pizza? In effect saying "you eighty greedy bastards can fight over the twenty pieces that I left for you! That's what is happening in this country right now. One percent own eighty percent of the wealth and the eighty percent are left to fight over the twenty percent of the wealth that's left.

The problem is not the "greedy unions" that just want a fair share which is their right. It's that the mega-rich who want an ever increasing share, leaving only scraps for the rest to fight over.


PART TWO: What rights? You ain't got no stinkn' rights!
During that same show, the same right wing "tea bagger"' made another statement that was even more egregious. Which was: "that the right of a union to collective bargaining" is not listed in the Constitution—and by her logic it didn't exist, of course she was stone cold, serious. And I found myself sputtering with outrage that this self proclaimed "pundit" would make such an glaringly ignorant statement.

It called to mind the utter lack of knowledge of the Constitution by another ranting right wing "tea bagger", who, boldly challenged someone else she was debating, "to prove that there was a clause in the Constitution about "the separation of church and state." Mercifully that remark, exposed her ignorance and she lost the election.

If its one thing the founders understood it was the hubris of human nature and in letters; and the Federalist they talked about that very thing. And they wrote the Ninth Amendment that speaks to that very issue. The ninth amendment reads: The enumeration (listing) in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed (understood) to deny or disparage (dispute) others (rights) retained (held) by the people.

To paraphrase the letters they exchanged on the subject in modern English…Madison to Jefferson: Tom, ya know down the road there is going to be some dumb ass that will say that if it ain't listed as a right, it ain't a right, so we had better spell it out for them—that if it ain't listed—it's still a right. Jefferson to Madison: Yup! I hear ya Jim, there are a lot of stupid people out there. I think we'd better add a ninth amendment...Problem is—those right wing "lovers" of the Constitution have either—never read the Constitution or—lack the comprehension to understand it.

So to clarify it even further—A "right" doesn't have to be listed as a "right" to be a "right". Because—in the first place—people's rights are from their creator and are infinite and limitless, therefore its impossible to list them all. And in the second place peoples rights, can't be written in or out of the Constitution by the government—if they do no harm—because they are "unalienable" anyway.

So I'd like to say on the record what I shouted in privacy: "YES IT IS YOU DUMB-ASS! THEY DO!" Too bad I can't make it loud enough for her to hear! But, she probably wouldn't get it anyway! People like her seldom do.

Commentary: The Constitution and its democratic underpinnings were borne out of concern for the welfare of the downtrodden masses that fled from a political system of cruel despotism that was rampant in Europe.

A system of upper and lower class, with the lower being subjugated by the wealthy and privileged and made to fight over the scraps discarded by the wealthy and privileged. Remember "let them eat cake" that sparked the French revolution; it is that injustice and the kind of thinking that is at the root of the enlightenment that also inspired our own Revolution.

In that sense—if— the Constitution smacks of socialism in its concern for the "general welfare" of "the people" without consideration for the privileges of the few—its because it is—at its heart a socialistic document—written before the founders had the words to describe their vision in terms used in modern political discourse.

The primary function of government is maintaining balance between "special interests" so that one group can't injure another by impinging on their rights or imposing their own beliefs. It's primary function is to "regulate" those imbalances where it finds them. Such as abolishing slavery.

The Constitution demands equal treatment and redress of grievances, and if that isn't social justice what is? Yet the reactionary right wing talking heads who are a prevalent fixture on cable, like Glen Beck, who decries social justice as evil and denigrates the very Constitution he claims to love—because it was written to ensure social justice. Is Glen Beck ignorant, stupid, or a "judas goat" spewing his noxious hatred at the call of his "wealthy puppet masters", a traitor who will betray his country and its founding principles for money? By the way, Beck you dumb ass, if you were a real Christian you'd know social justice, was the number one item on Jesus' to do list. Good luck on judgement day!

The founders saw that while all men "are created equal in the eyes of god"—men were not seen or treated as equal "in the eyes men"— especially those who would become modern day self aggrandizing monarchs of superior education and abilities, the greedy, the clever, the cunning, the amoral, the cruel, or the privileged, using their natural advantage of privilege to prey on decent hard working common man.

To listen to the Republican right, you'd think that they, and they alone, are "the only American patriots". The truth is they consider themselves superior, an elite aristocracy in every way and they are superior to the average American and that they, and they alone, are meant to "rule"—not lead or govern but "rule, by right of their superior nature—like the monarchs of old who claimed "the divine right of kings" as their due.

Their actions belie their words. They hate this America Democracy that they "want to drown in a bath tub". Or like G.W. Bush, who called the Constitution 'just a god-damn piece of paper" when confronted by its prohibition on torture.

Inflamed with self-absorbed hubris and with no rules or regulations to rein in their unbridled greed, they trample on rights of good and decent hard working people whom the Constitution was intent on protecting, like Union members right to collective bargaining, or gays right to solemnize their personal partnerships, or a woman's right to decide her reproductive future. Their actions belie their "small government" mantra. They want to regulate others without any regulations on them.

They are fascists in the true meaning of the word. Their greed is what made the banks fail, their greed is what has caused thousands to lose their their homes—in some cases the only wealth the middle class will ever know. Their unbridled greed has caused the suffering of millions of Americans. They don't love this Country they loath it. And their every attempt to stifle its noble vision are the proof of their hatred. They worship at a different altar, that of greed.

"Deficits don't matter!"

Remember the good old days of Bush and Cheney as they ran up the national debt by billions—and Cheney—famously said to Paul O'Neill: "Deficits don't matter"

"The then, Secretary of the Treasury, O'Neill, was fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, after he also raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said Bush balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. You remember the whole ENRON corporate crime thingy.

In the aftermath, O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due", referring to tax cuts for multi-millionaires, like himself. (While he was at it he threw a few billion dollar no bid contracts to his cronies at Haliburton.) A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Since Ronald Reagan, a majority of Republican politicians gradually came to conclude, as Vice-President Dick Cheney famously told former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, that "deficits don't matter."

Supply-siders believed deficits didn't matter because tax cuts would boost investment and productivity and that the economy would grow its way out of debt.

The opposite, "starve the beast" faction, epitomized by—"I'd like to drown the government in the bathtub" Grover Norquist—wanted huge tax cuts that would indeed create deep deficits that will then force spending cuts. The fact that both things couldn't be true didn't seem to bother them. Because,"Deficits didn't matter" either way.

Between the two "so called Republican fiscal conservative" factions, that merry ideology played out over eight years, as it called for tax cuts in all seasons for all reasons—and—at the same time massive spending on corporate "entitlements", for all the corporate pigs at the government tit, financed by loans from China, to be paid later by the middle class taxpayers and the Social Security trust Fund that had a surplus of 2.3 trillion dollars."

Luckily their plan to borrow an additional 2 trillion dollars to "privatize Social Security" was stalled by an angry voter backlash when Americans woke up long enough shout NO!

Flash forward nearly a decade later and the American public has put the Republicans back in charge. Even after their drama filled exit from the White House two years earlier—when Bush bailed out Wall Street—the very same Wall Street—that the Republicans had spent several decades deregulating for their banker friends.

Since the mid-terms they have completely transformed themselves into—"Superdebt-slashermen"—each and every born again, Republican radical, Tea Baggin' hatchet man is to a man blaming: the size of government, the liberal elite, "big tax and spending" democrats, unions, the working class, and the middle class for the "debt crisis"—and are hell bent on stemming the financial crisis the backs of the afore mentioned usual suspects.

Hoping you will forget (and apparently you have) that their Republican predecessors—starting with Saint Ronnie—engineered this "debt crisis."

Commentary: The only conclusion I can come to—this Democratic Republic called America—is doomed to succumb to the excesses of a small group of super greedy self-serving plutocrats (that's "very rich fat cats for all you Tea Baggers"), with the help of every corrupt amoral politician that has sold out his constituency, and a mentally lazy and complacent "dittohead" electorate. If “Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance” then the average conservative voter is blissfully ignorant and deserves to live under the heel of the new fascist American aristocracy. They already own all the worlds resources they may as well own your dumb asses too.

BREAKING NEWS: They are still looting the Social Security Fund of its 2.3 trillion dollar surplus, behind closed doors, and they want to blame it on the deficit crisis. The reason they are telling everyone its broke is they've been stealing from it since Reagan came into office—and there is nothing left except a bunch of worthless I.O.U.s—and they now see a away to cover their asses with this phony debt reduction blitz before the public finds out the truth and lynches them. And they have the balls to lecture Afghanistan about corruption. But, then what can we expect from Republicans who—for example—claim their marital infidelity was inspired by their "intense passion" for America. I'm not making this shit up. I can only imagine that their ardor is aroused when the see the exposed backsides of the American taxpayer. I wonder who they will try an hump next? Union workers maybe? Naaaah, they wouldn't do that!