"Such, indeed, is the policy of civil war: severely to remember injuries, and to forget the most important services.
Revenge is profitable, gratitude is expensive."
Revenge is profitable, gratitude is expensive."
The Decline Of The United States
- Thread starter GET YOU HOT
- Start date
Foreclosures Soar 63 Percent over Last Year
RISMEDIA, April 19, 2006—RealtyTrac(TM) (www.realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released its March 2006 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which shows 101,597 properties nationwide entered some stage of foreclosure in March, a 13 percent decrease from the previous month but a 63 percent increase from March 2005. The report shows a March national foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure for every 1,138 U.S. households.
States with most new foreclosures
Texas documented the most new foreclosures of any state for the fourth month in a row even though foreclosures there decreased for the second consecutive month. The state reported a total of 11,951 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure for every 674 households -- 1.7 times the national average.
California reported 11,073 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in March, the second most of any state, and the state's foreclosure rate registered slightly above the national average thanks to a 22 percent increase from the previous month.
Florida foreclosures decreased 7 percent from the previous month and 12 percent from March 2005, but the state still reported 9,283 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in March -- the third most of any state and a foreclosure rate 1.5 times the national average.
RISMEDIA, April 19, 2006—RealtyTrac(TM) (www.realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released its March 2006 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which shows 101,597 properties nationwide entered some stage of foreclosure in March, a 13 percent decrease from the previous month but a 63 percent increase from March 2005. The report shows a March national foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure for every 1,138 U.S. households.
States with most new foreclosures
Texas documented the most new foreclosures of any state for the fourth month in a row even though foreclosures there decreased for the second consecutive month. The state reported a total of 11,951 properties entering some stage of foreclosure, a foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure for every 674 households -- 1.7 times the national average.
California reported 11,073 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in March, the second most of any state, and the state's foreclosure rate registered slightly above the national average thanks to a 22 percent increase from the previous month.
Florida foreclosures decreased 7 percent from the previous month and 12 percent from March 2005, but the state still reported 9,283 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in March -- the third most of any state and a foreclosure rate 1.5 times the national average.
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts By JOHN KIFNER
Published: July 7, 2006
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
Published: July 7, 2006
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
Interesting thread,
also declining moral values and financial common sense.
also declining moral values and financial common sense.
tahbasco said:
The latter part of this statment revisited, and just mere months later...we are that much closer to the reality. Bush is stuck on Stupid, dumbfounded by the past days events with N. Korea, talk about a monkey wrench...
Let me get str8 to the point.
The music industry is losing money because of the MP3.
The only decline that america does face is the decline of the Democratic Party. So in a sense, in the Democratic party point of view, we are in a decline. Only because they are losing MORE power, and if the Democrats are losing powers THE WHOLE SHIP IS SINKING *in their point of view*. So watch who is saying, "we're declining" because you might figure out the truth.
The music industry is losing money because of the MP3.
The only decline that america does face is the decline of the Democratic Party. So in a sense, in the Democratic party point of view, we are in a decline. Only because they are losing MORE power, and if the Democrats are losing powers THE WHOLE SHIP IS SINKING *in their point of view*. So watch who is saying, "we're declining" because you might figure out the truth.
Oh yes, the decline of the United States is based on MP3 sales & the Democratic Party 
GET YOU HOT said:Oh yes, the decline of the United States is based on MP3 sales & the Democratic Party
The Democrats do support Illegal Immigration.
This is true...however, my answer was to address a specific^^^ statement...
"At present, we have no way of knowing how frequently these attacks on civilians are taking place."
Count on about everyday............the US has become a modern day Roman Empire. Things are fucked up in a big way. Manipulative wars, greed, deliberate oil dependency, slow economy with shrinking wages..............the recipe is all there fellas.
History has taught us that when any successful society loses it working middle class because the wealth gap spreads to far between the rich and the working poor---that society collapses. Check it out.
Count on about everyday............the US has become a modern day Roman Empire. Things are fucked up in a big way. Manipulative wars, greed, deliberate oil dependency, slow economy with shrinking wages..............the recipe is all there fellas.
History has taught us that when any successful society loses it working middle class because the wealth gap spreads to far between the rich and the working poor---that society collapses. Check it out.
My Mella said:
I forget where, I saw a statistic where for those considered wealthy...their income increased 41%, and for those considered poor their income decreased 29%. It's this disporportinate income that is dissipating the middle class.
@ One of Many...I have/had a Federal Reserve thread...tells about its history and how it's top guy has been warning the Government about a collapse for YEARS!! See also Does the future belong to China? thread...
Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State
By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast. Posted May 26, 2006.
>>From secret detention centers to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Co. give
free rein to their totalitarian impulses.
>>Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may
well be the case.
1. The Internet Clampdown
One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate
conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed
predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the
truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative
reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was
only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in
the sky.
Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately,
coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass
legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to
themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an "Information Operations
Roadmap" in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as
network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US
propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans
via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling
regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child
pornography and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation
that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.
2. "The Long War"
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away
what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it
meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it
outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are
pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what
are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military
expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This
short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to
change any time soon."
3. The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting
power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look
through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp
warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections.
Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause
for purposes of prosecution. No, they're not going to take it back, ever.
4. Prison Camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary
Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the
United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new programs." Of course, the
obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding
up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously detention facilities
are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but
it's, you know... secret.
5. Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built
to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting
landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of
corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security
testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to
be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold
attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch
the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections
Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at
the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill
its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors,
Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by
HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if
he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it
will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done
less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy
theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but
nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American
democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an
interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting
integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they
almost surely will if everything is kosher.
Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We
really need to fix this problem soon.
6. Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply
nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over
700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A
few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals,
courtesy of the Boston Globe:
--Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise
subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive
the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will
assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by
government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress]
uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold
any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair
foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive
branch.
--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any
combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of
US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can
place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch
will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for
itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new
Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no
matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones
he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden
by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.
7. Warrantless Wiretapping
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What
are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls
of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think
that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything about history, you know that no
government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day
they're listening for Osama, and the next they're listening in on Howard
Dean.
Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no
judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn't they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour
Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a no-brainer. Speaking
of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on
them. They don't care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.
8. Free Speech Zones
I know it's old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious?
9. High-ranking Whistleblowers
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet
members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about
being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when
these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en
masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds.
Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living
tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay
attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the
entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the
press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn't you listen?
10. The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or
Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they
wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss was
probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense
contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some
hookers.
If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is
confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military
control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is
clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at
least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for
"intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly
emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of
Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved
to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.
Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about
deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it?
Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with
Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire
organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly
minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move
intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the
next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And
the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform."
Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?
By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast. Posted May 26, 2006.
>>From secret detention centers to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Co. give
free rein to their totalitarian impulses.
>>Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may
well be the case.
1. The Internet Clampdown
One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate
conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed
predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the
truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative
reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was
only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in
the sky.
Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately,
coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass
legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to
themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an "Information Operations
Roadmap" in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as
network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US
propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans
via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling
regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child
pornography and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation
that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.
2. "The Long War"
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away
what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it
meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it
outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are
pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what
are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military
expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This
short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to
change any time soon."
3. The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting
power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look
through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp
warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections.
Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause
for purposes of prosecution. No, they're not going to take it back, ever.
4. Prison Camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary
Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the
United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new programs." Of course, the
obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding
up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously detention facilities
are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but
it's, you know... secret.
5. Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built
to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting
landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of
corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security
testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to
be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold
attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch
the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections
Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at
the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill
its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors,
Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by
HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if
he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it
will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done
less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy
theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but
nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American
democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an
interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting
integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they
almost surely will if everything is kosher.
Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We
really need to fix this problem soon.
6. Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply
nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over
700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A
few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals,
courtesy of the Boston Globe:
--Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise
subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive
the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will
assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by
government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress]
uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold
any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair
foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive
branch.
--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any
combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of
US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can
place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch
will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for
itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new
Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no
matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones
he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden
by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.
7. Warrantless Wiretapping
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What
are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls
of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think
that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything about history, you know that no
government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day
they're listening for Osama, and the next they're listening in on Howard
Dean.
Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no
judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn't they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour
Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a no-brainer. Speaking
of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on
them. They don't care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.
8. Free Speech Zones
I know it's old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious?
9. High-ranking Whistleblowers
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet
members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about
being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when
these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en
masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds.
Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living
tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay
attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the
entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the
press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn't you listen?
10. The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or
Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they
wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss was
probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense
contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some
hookers.
If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is
confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military
control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is
clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at
least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for
"intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly
emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of
Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved
to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.
Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about
deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it?
Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with
Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire
organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly
minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move
intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the
next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And
the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform."
Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?
There are many warm and fuzzy things going on in the United States 
Flynn makes some valid points, this is a must read, and he proposes some solutions another plus +,+,+...
The Neglected Home Front
By Stephen E. Flynn
A FAILURE TO PROTECT
The United States is living on borrowed time -- and squandering it. The attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon highlighted just how open the United States is to unconventional attacks. The widespread economic and social disruption that flowed from the suicidal acts of just 19 terrorists also exposed the Achilles' heel of the world's sole superpower. The transportation, energy, information, financial, chemical, food, and logistical networks that underpin U.S. economic power and the American way of life offer the United States' enemies a rich menu of irresistible targets. And most of these remain virtually unprotected.
The Neglected Home Front
By Stephen E. Flynn
A FAILURE TO PROTECT
The United States is living on borrowed time -- and squandering it. The attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon highlighted just how open the United States is to unconventional attacks. The widespread economic and social disruption that flowed from the suicidal acts of just 19 terrorists also exposed the Achilles' heel of the world's sole superpower. The transportation, energy, information, financial, chemical, food, and logistical networks that underpin U.S. economic power and the American way of life offer the United States' enemies a rich menu of irresistible targets. And most of these remain virtually unprotected.
Nah, it's better to be pessimistic. That way, when things go wrong (which they do sometimes), they can say "I told yo so". Also, IMO, we have gotten the government we have been asking for. We want a government to take care of us, and boy are they EVER taking care of us. It reminds me of a favorite quote of mine from Thomas Jefferson (I think),QueEx said:
"A government strong enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have".
^^^Did anyone watch the video? Does the truth hurt?
Read my post history, there is no need for negativity to sustain my threads or posts...
>As with any other thread there are comments or articles contridicting opionions, what is so different here>?
Given the pretext, that there are so many wonderful things happening that sustain the existance of the United States of America, if you please Gentlemen...
WHO will start the tread???
Read my post history, there is no need for negativity to sustain my threads or posts...
>As with any other thread there are comments or articles contridicting opionions, what is so different here>?
Given the pretext, that there are so many wonderful things happening that sustain the existance of the United States of America, if you please Gentlemen...
WHO will start the tread???
In a Capitalist Nation, Wealth is Power...
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
February 2006
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
February 2006
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Did anyone notice that 2/3rds of the articles cited are financially based, economics, shift of wealth, federal reserve, capitalization, the national debt...
Thanks for the article, it actually makes a point about what is good in the US. The US actually has the widest distribution of wealth on the planet,or is close to it. THat is good and positive, especially considering we are the first society to actually attempt to implement a free market system.GET YOU HOT said:
BTW, you are wrong to state that the US is a capitalist system. It is not.
This thread is nothing but negativity. It is entitled "The Decline of the US" !!!GET YOU HOT said:
Most of the articles are slanted, if not just wrong. Your statement is delusional at best, insane at worst.
Fuckallyall said:
Don't try you little twisted logic with me.
I'm on top of the financial game, working on my second degree, this time business management
Can you say mo money???Post some articles, video, media whatever you chose.
Fuckallyall said:
F, are you challenging the words of an economist who not only studies facts and figures but also trends! Come up with some solid contridictory proof, that the United States economy, way of life(cuts, cuts, cuts) is not in decline...
Fuckallyall said:
What is the minimum wage?
AArnold is raising State of California's to $8.00/hr.
Weath in the United States is highly concentrated...
In my homestate, 1% owns 40%(+/-) the wealth, 25%(I)own 50%(=/-), and the 74%(+/-) own 10%...
Don't try you little twisted logic with me.
I am now, on top of the financial game, working on my second degree, this time business management. Can you say mo money???
Post some articles, video, media whatever you chose.
YEah, we're on our way on becoming a third world country, we borrow 2 billion dolllars a day from china, CHINA for crying out loud, and how the fuck will we pay them back? you know know. America is going to have the shortest empire in history. only two hundred some-odd years, too bad, I was starting to like this country
The US trade deficit with China ballooned in 2005 to US$202 billion, more than one-quarter of the total deficit. Rising trade imbalance between the US and China in recent years has given rise to intense pressure from the United States on China to revalue the fixed exchange rate of its currency, which had been pegged at 8.28 yuan to a dollar within a narrow band of 0.03% for a decade, from 1995-2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC22Ad02.html
The US national debt stood at $8.4 trillion as of April 13, 2006, or 65% of forecast GDP. About $4.9 trillion of the US national debt is held by the public and $3.5 trillion is held intra-governmentally. US national debt is about 20 times China's on a nominal basis, five times on a purchasing-power-parity basis, almost four times on a debt-to-GDP basis, and 100 times on a per capita basis. US per capita income is about 35 times that of China in 2005, which means each US citizen is carrying almost three times the national debt-to-income ratio as his or her Chinese counterpart. On average, US wages are about 50 times those of China because of higher income disparity in China.
The national debt
The national debt is a financing bridge over the gap between a nation's fiscal policy and its monetary policy.
Fiscal policy determines government revenue and expenditures, while monetary policy determines money supply and short-term interest rates. A prudent fiscal policy can moderate the need for national debt by either cutting expenditures or raising taxes or both.
Monetary policy can also reduce the need for national debt by the issuance of more fiat money, which is an instrument of sovereign credit backed by government's authority to collect taxes payable in fiat currency. A rise in the money supply lowers interest rates in the short term, but the resultant rise in inflation may cause interest rates to rise in the long term.
A tax increase takes money from the private sector into the public sector and unless the government spends all the tax increases back into the economy, it in essence reduces the amount of sovereign credit in the economy. Unless there are excessive inflationary trends going forward, a government that desires an expansionary economy has no business running a fiscal surplus, particularly if the economy is plagued with overcapacity. The controversy is how the surplus revenue should be spent to yield the most beneficial and equitable effects for the economy.
The national debt serves other important financial purposes for the economy. A government securities market allows the central bank to carry out open-market operations to meet short-term interest-rate targets and to provide a credit-rating anchor for the nation's debt market.
Dollar hegemony eliminates default risk
Because of dollar hegemony, a peculiar phenomenon of the US dollar, a fiat currency, assuming the role of a key reserve currency for international trade and finance, US government securities do not carry default risks, as the United States can print dollars at will with little short-term penalty. The only risk US government securities carry is inflation, a prospect that the Federal Reserve, its central bank, can control through interest-rate policy. High Fed Funds rates can reduce dollar inflation under normal circumstances, unless the economy is plagued by a debt bubble, in which case high Fed Funds rates can actually add to inflation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HE27Cb01.html
In 1950, the United States imported US$11.4 billion of goods and services and exported $12.7 billion, for a foreign-trade total of $24.1 billion, constituting a mere 7.3% of a gross domestic product (GDP) of $329 billion. There was no trade with China because of a Cold War embargo by the US. The US trade deficit for 1950 was $1.3 billion, which came to an insignificant 0.4% of GDP. It was an amount the US could easily sustain as World War II had left the country the richest and most productive economy in a war-torn world.
Also, at that time the US was the world's only creditor nation, with a gold-backed dollar serving as a reserve currency for international trade as mandated by the Bretton Woods international finance architectural regime. The gold-backed dollar with fixed exchange rates ensured that war debts incurred by US allies would be duly paid back without dilution. Thus a US trade deficit was quite necessary for restoring a world economy severely damaged by war. And the dollars that the surplus trading economies received were returned to the US to pay for war debts but not to buy US assets, as foreign-exchange and capital controls were the order of the time. The minor payments imbalance was paid with a transfer of gold holdings between the trading economies. There was no foreign-exchange market beyond government exchange windows. In that arrangement, dollar hegemony was not a serious problem, as cross-border flow of funds were strictly controlled by all governments and the US was obliged to redeem dollars with gold.
The end of the Cold War in 1991 enabled the globalization of deregulated financial markets to allow cross-border flows of funds to be executed electronically with no restrictions for most economies. Since then, a huge foreign-exchange market has grown to more than $2 trillion of daily volume around the benchmark of a fiat US dollar. The reserve-currency status of the dollar has not been based on gold since 1971, but only on US geopolitical prowess, which managed to force all key commodities to be denominated in dollars. Finance globalization since 1991 has allowed the US to become the world's biggest debtor nation, with the largest trade and fiscal deficits, financed by a fiat dollar that continues to serve as a key reserve currency for not only international trade but, more important, for international finance.
Imbalance of payments and debt bubble
Dollar hegemony emerged after 1991 to allow the US to neutralize persistent trade and fiscal deficits that otherwise would lead to an imbalance of payments between it and its trading partners by erasing the payments imbalance from its trade deficit with a US capital-account surplus.
Separate from the trade deficit, the US fiscal deficit is financed by the Federal Reserve's monetary-easing policies to increase the money supply, causing an asset-price bubble that can absorb the rising debt without altering the debt-equity ratio, causing de facto but stealth inflation, renamed as "growth". This phantom growth is touted by neo-liberal economists as the reason foreign investment is attracted to US assets. What dollar hegemony does is to transform the dollar-denominated payments imbalance of the United States into a dollar-denominated debt bubble in the US economy. Holders of US debt and assets are rewarded with high nominal returns provided by a high growth rate reflecting rising asset prices denominated in money that constantly loses purchasing power.
World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars by fiat and the rest of the world produces things that fiat dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture dollars needed to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD01Cb05.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC22Ad02.html
The US national debt stood at $8.4 trillion as of April 13, 2006, or 65% of forecast GDP. About $4.9 trillion of the US national debt is held by the public and $3.5 trillion is held intra-governmentally. US national debt is about 20 times China's on a nominal basis, five times on a purchasing-power-parity basis, almost four times on a debt-to-GDP basis, and 100 times on a per capita basis. US per capita income is about 35 times that of China in 2005, which means each US citizen is carrying almost three times the national debt-to-income ratio as his or her Chinese counterpart. On average, US wages are about 50 times those of China because of higher income disparity in China.
The national debt
The national debt is a financing bridge over the gap between a nation's fiscal policy and its monetary policy.
Fiscal policy determines government revenue and expenditures, while monetary policy determines money supply and short-term interest rates. A prudent fiscal policy can moderate the need for national debt by either cutting expenditures or raising taxes or both.
Monetary policy can also reduce the need for national debt by the issuance of more fiat money, which is an instrument of sovereign credit backed by government's authority to collect taxes payable in fiat currency. A rise in the money supply lowers interest rates in the short term, but the resultant rise in inflation may cause interest rates to rise in the long term.
A tax increase takes money from the private sector into the public sector and unless the government spends all the tax increases back into the economy, it in essence reduces the amount of sovereign credit in the economy. Unless there are excessive inflationary trends going forward, a government that desires an expansionary economy has no business running a fiscal surplus, particularly if the economy is plagued with overcapacity. The controversy is how the surplus revenue should be spent to yield the most beneficial and equitable effects for the economy.
The national debt serves other important financial purposes for the economy. A government securities market allows the central bank to carry out open-market operations to meet short-term interest-rate targets and to provide a credit-rating anchor for the nation's debt market.
Dollar hegemony eliminates default risk
Because of dollar hegemony, a peculiar phenomenon of the US dollar, a fiat currency, assuming the role of a key reserve currency for international trade and finance, US government securities do not carry default risks, as the United States can print dollars at will with little short-term penalty. The only risk US government securities carry is inflation, a prospect that the Federal Reserve, its central bank, can control through interest-rate policy. High Fed Funds rates can reduce dollar inflation under normal circumstances, unless the economy is plagued by a debt bubble, in which case high Fed Funds rates can actually add to inflation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HE27Cb01.html
In 1950, the United States imported US$11.4 billion of goods and services and exported $12.7 billion, for a foreign-trade total of $24.1 billion, constituting a mere 7.3% of a gross domestic product (GDP) of $329 billion. There was no trade with China because of a Cold War embargo by the US. The US trade deficit for 1950 was $1.3 billion, which came to an insignificant 0.4% of GDP. It was an amount the US could easily sustain as World War II had left the country the richest and most productive economy in a war-torn world.
Also, at that time the US was the world's only creditor nation, with a gold-backed dollar serving as a reserve currency for international trade as mandated by the Bretton Woods international finance architectural regime. The gold-backed dollar with fixed exchange rates ensured that war debts incurred by US allies would be duly paid back without dilution. Thus a US trade deficit was quite necessary for restoring a world economy severely damaged by war. And the dollars that the surplus trading economies received were returned to the US to pay for war debts but not to buy US assets, as foreign-exchange and capital controls were the order of the time. The minor payments imbalance was paid with a transfer of gold holdings between the trading economies. There was no foreign-exchange market beyond government exchange windows. In that arrangement, dollar hegemony was not a serious problem, as cross-border flow of funds were strictly controlled by all governments and the US was obliged to redeem dollars with gold.
The end of the Cold War in 1991 enabled the globalization of deregulated financial markets to allow cross-border flows of funds to be executed electronically with no restrictions for most economies. Since then, a huge foreign-exchange market has grown to more than $2 trillion of daily volume around the benchmark of a fiat US dollar. The reserve-currency status of the dollar has not been based on gold since 1971, but only on US geopolitical prowess, which managed to force all key commodities to be denominated in dollars. Finance globalization since 1991 has allowed the US to become the world's biggest debtor nation, with the largest trade and fiscal deficits, financed by a fiat dollar that continues to serve as a key reserve currency for not only international trade but, more important, for international finance.
Imbalance of payments and debt bubble
Dollar hegemony emerged after 1991 to allow the US to neutralize persistent trade and fiscal deficits that otherwise would lead to an imbalance of payments between it and its trading partners by erasing the payments imbalance from its trade deficit with a US capital-account surplus.
Separate from the trade deficit, the US fiscal deficit is financed by the Federal Reserve's monetary-easing policies to increase the money supply, causing an asset-price bubble that can absorb the rising debt without altering the debt-equity ratio, causing de facto but stealth inflation, renamed as "growth". This phantom growth is touted by neo-liberal economists as the reason foreign investment is attracted to US assets. What dollar hegemony does is to transform the dollar-denominated payments imbalance of the United States into a dollar-denominated debt bubble in the US economy. Holders of US debt and assets are rewarded with high nominal returns provided by a high growth rate reflecting rising asset prices denominated in money that constantly loses purchasing power.
World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars by fiat and the rest of the world produces things that fiat dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture dollars needed to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD01Cb05.html
Sucks for those who went, those on their way and those there, Bush recently mentioned that the U.S. will not be pulling out for as long as he is president...
There's so much craziness going on in the world, it's hard to keep up. I find myself having difficulty figuring out who to listen to with all media being biased to some degree (international included). What it all boils down to is that I hope that we've learned our lesson and come Nov. 2008 we make some smarter decisions about who we want to put in that house on Pennsylvania Ave.
Similar threads
