When you see people manipulating money on a computer it isn’t as tangible as someone stealing something physical.

When someone steals a loaf of bread they challenge the rightness of the system and obviously have to be brought back into line. The same idea on a larger scale is when Japan was doing well with it’s semi-socialist system and showing up the U.S. system. They had to be smacked down so Wall Street could keep control of the system.

However, when the lawgivers argue amongst themselves it isn’t so easy for one to smack down the other — though Paulson put Lehman out of business.

I think we are in an interesting new time which politicians are faintly aware of and Wall Street only hears as an echo from a great distance, that the Internet is letting the public have their say and driving politics and influencing Law which does relate to Wall Street. The Public is saying they’re the new Mob and everybody had better listen up.

Whether the Depression will wipe us all out (a la 1930s) and quiet our dissent or perhaps something else new and different happens is yet to be seen.

Of course it’s ok for us to disagree. You and I often do, but I enjoy the discourse. If everyone here were just ‘yes men/women’ to all liberal/progressive causes, FDL would be far less interesting.

great. we’re good then. i was getting a little worried about the republican talking points thing.

how else do you explain the actions of the dems in congress then – if they don’t share core beliefs with the republicans?

Not defending all dems in congress, just addressing Obama here.

is there a correlation between being a good parent and being a good president? between raising lots of money and being a good president?

The point I was trying to make is look at the whole of the man; how he’s gone about his business I think tells you a lot about his judgment thus far.
It gives me confidence in him going forward. And if it turns out I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it.

i don’t think obama is not “progressive enough” – i don’t think he is progressive at all (except his tech policy that lessig wrote – that one seems pretty good).

As I’ve said before, I think you are wrong about that, but I hope we will get a chance to find out who was right over the next 4-8 years.

To effect the type of change I think you and I both want, you have to win first. Throwing stones from outside the building only takes you so far.

And as I said before, progressive as he is, Kucinich is back here with me in Ohio.

most importantly, isn’t it ok for us to disagree? can’t we still be allies even if we don’t support the same politicians so long as we agree on a lot of things (health care as a right, economic and social justice, etc)?

Of course it’s ok for us to disagree. You and I often do, but I enjoy the discourse. If everyone here were just ‘yes men/women’ to all liberal/progressive causes, FDL would be far less interesting.

We’re in this hand basket and heading where? I have my theory (you may need some tinfoil) where the first line in the sand was drawn in 1913. The hidden agenda of the elites had a double whammy that year. First, the 16th amendment — now, twice before there had been income taxes imposed, justified by war … but this amendment was a long-term stealth attack on non-elites. What was described as a “class tax” fooled ordinary citizens into believing it could not happen to them.

And then, right at the end of the year, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. This fiendish device enabled, among other things, the U.S. involvement in World War One. First, in setting up the ‘allied war bonds’ to assist the British. Which certainly assisted the JP Morgan outfit — first, empowered to issue the bonds, and thus earning a fee. And then, being assigned as procurement office to arrange goods for shipment. Another fee … and a tidy profit in assigning supply contracts to Morgan owned or controlled companies.

Of course, the Fed, set up to stabilise the economy, did its best to create the Great Depression. But to cut to the chase …

The next paramount event came in 1940. What would one expect from peace talk even as the 1940 conscription act was passed? And yes, despite the Neutrality Act, there were overt and covert activities again to the aid the British. Even with money that did not exist. Thus, into the American entry into World War Two. Yamamoto was somewhat right in saying after the Pearl Harbor attack: “We have awakened a sleeping giant.” Indeed.

U.S. manufacturing capability ramped up warfare production. Something like 40% of GDP during the war years eventually was balanced out — against claims that the U.S. held 80% of the world’s gold reserves.

Now, the wartime production was actually the start of what Eisenhower later cautioned the country against in his farewell speech: ‘the military-industrial-congressional-complex. (see wikipedia) Ike was persuaded to drop that one unfortunate word … at any rate, I perceive the MIC origin in the 1940s and never going away.

I believe post-WW2 American prosperity was bought with the gold reserves. All was well until those damned foreigners started to redeem U.S. dollars for gold. And Tricky Dicky smashed Bretton Woods, breaking the final link to gold, floating the dollar. Really, the US$ has been sinking ever since 1913 in real terms. Busy lad in 1971, that Nixon. He also gave us the ‘war on drugs. But I digress.

Every step on the way has been part of that elitist agenda.

And now, while everyone was distracted by the ‘look over here’re the bailout bamboozle, in excess of 5 trillion dollars was wafting about in various ways, courtesy of Ben the Barnacle and Pontiff Paulson. There was a chart in the NYT last month breaking down much of this. I doubt we will ever know the whole extent of the interventions.

Sigh. The trouble with a long life, living through history that many people only ever read about — you grow beyond the myths you were taught when young, and decades later, still look for The Answer. It’s not 42.

is there a correlation between being a good parent and being a good president? between raising lots of money and being a good president?

i don’t think obama is not “progressive enough” – i don’t think he is progressive at all (except his tech policy that lessig wrote – that one seems pretty good).

most importantly, isn’t it ok for us to disagree? can’t we still be allies even if we don’t support the same politicians so long as we agree on a lot of things (health care as a right, economic and social justice, etc)?

house is better, there are a few – maybe a handful.

i’m not making him anything, just trying to understand what’s happening. i threw it out there to be shot down if possible – but not because it’s unpleasant, because it’s wrong.

Your comment can’t be ’shot down’ for being ‘wrong’; none of us know what he’ll become if/when he assumes office.

So all that’s left to comment on is what you correctly assumed I found to be ‘unpleasant’. I look at a set of facts regarding his background and come to one conclusion, you look at them and conclude “elite appeal”, which sounds an awful lot like a Republican talking point.

I found that ridiculous when McCain said it, I find it ridiculous now.

and btw – he didn’t vote against the war. he gave a speech against it.

Of course you are correct here, and I knew that.