The FBI had to take over the garbage business. Not many people know this, but the Mafia (known within the inner government as the Crime and Control Bureau) is a sister unit to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The CCB lost this rich franchise...because it wasn’t doing a good job of it.

After all, the Crime and Control Bureau only used the “wealth” index as denominated against the “accessibility to blackmail” factor when they studied your garbage. This is a poor use of infinitely well-mined information. When our branch of the FBI sifts through your garbage, subjecting the data to post-doctoral analysis, we know everything that’s going on in your house, not just how rich or vulnerable you are.

Why did we take over the garbage business? Our government has more immediate and overriding concerns for this data, most of it having to do with how much of a criminal you are and how much longer you can be allowed “to be yourself” before you need "to be in a cell.” Cheers!

China has a government-controlled market. Why are they doing so much better than we are, if capitalism is such a great motivator? Apparently, it's more a motivator for crooks to steal from the masses. The government-controlled market, such as they have in China, summarily executes CEO's and entrepreneurs who take advantage of the system. Fear of execution for greed is why China is surpassing America economically. So, once again, the Invisible Hand of the markets doesn't rule...like it used to.

The problem with housing is not supply but that demand has been artificially retracted. Why have three empty houses on one block when those three families are living with their neighbor, all in one house. This is a ridiculous situation. We have to put those people back into their own homes, not burn them down.

We all heard Newt's "illegal aliens" position last night. Believe me, there's this sort of thing against him and a lot more, including his "historical" lobbying for Freddie Mac. It too wasn't illegal, but let's be nice and simply say it wasn't nice what he probably did. We know what he's done, because he's the devil we know, who's been investigated more than anyone. Ron Paul is clean, I grant you that; but that's the best thing I can say about him, because he's scared of everybody and everything. Can't you see him as a little kid telling his little friends, "Don't go down that block to school, because there's a bully there; and don't go that way either, because there's mud in the road; and don't go that direction, because there has to be a reason why you shouldn't." He's obviously paralyzed in his decision-making. His answer for everything is "Don't do anything. Let them do what they want." I can't have that pipsqueak for a president.


If you don't want Obama, then, of course, I endorse Huntsman who is a better human being, possibly as clean as Ron Paul, and as intelligent as any of our good past presidents, which excludes Bush II. Huntsman would have made America great in the 20th century, just like a Kennedy. But, he's certainly not the thinker that Gingrich is. He thinks within the box, and that box is what he considers the American standard of excellence, which suggests we have unparallelled virtues. Maybe once we did, but I doubt it. Just like the 20th century, that time has past. I like him, but the situation in America is too grave for a president only as good as any of our previous presidents. (Remember Carter who believed more in virtue than pragmatism.)

For his part, Ron Paul is an isolationist, and the last time the US chose isolation, we wound up in the midst of WWII which Roosevelt (whose claim to fame up to that point had been that "He kept us out of the War") engineered getting us into the war to save us from a unified Nazi Europe and a Japanese imperial Asia, complete with China and India. We'd have been stuck in the middle of two crush-heavy powers and eventually caved. Likewise, Ron Paul would have us create a global vacuum by pulling our troops out of 135 countries. That vacuum would be filled by China foremost, which would dominate all of Southeast Asia (Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc), as well as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. You might even include Australia in that. They've already said they control the South China Sea and are already challenging our hegemony in the Malacca Straits. According to military intelligence, they're building a blue-water navy far larger than our own. Why do you suppose they need a navy larger than ours?


Add to that scenario the fact that Russia, two days ago, threatened us with an attack on our missile bases in Europe, which shows they've re-surged enough to feel comfortable in threatening the US and, in the process, their former Soviet satellites, like Poland and the Ukraine. If we retreated to our shores, Russia would swallow these countries back and, with a NATO that no longer has American might, add the rest of Europe to their new empire. Then, without us around, Pakistan, a great regional power in their own right (economic, demographic and military strength within the second tier) would simply march into Afghanistan and a bunch of other -stans in the region so that terrorists would now be mass-produced under the protection of their nuclear umbrella. Iran, meanwhile, with its Shia Islamists would march into Iraq, which it virtually controls already through the vast Shia population and Shia government we installed there under that idiot Bush, thereby imperiling our oil interests in the Arabian Gulf. While most of our oil comes from our own hemisphere, the European economy relies on Mideastern oil and Russian oil and gas. And on and on and on. Ron Paul scares the **** out of me with his naive solution of withdrawing our troops to our shores...just because the world is such a scarey place. He's an isolationist, a gadfly in the hell on stage, as ridiculous as Cain at the other end of the spectrum.


Yeah, Gingrich has baggage. You'll probably find more suitcases with skeletons in the closet. But, there's no one else out there, not Santorum, Romney, Bachman, Cain or Perry. Gingrich is not only the smartest and most experienced candidate, but he knows how to lead and he has such radically interesting ideas to solve the massive number of problems we're facing. Yeah, the world will look different under Gingrich; but America won't be impoverished (because the Bakken oil fields from the Dakotas down through Colorado have more oil than Saudi Arabia and will allow us cheap energy for our factories so that we can have high wages and still compete with Chinese factories which have cheap labor but use expensive imported oil, which we'll also be exporting to them to whittle down our balance sheet with them) and we also won't be isolated behind a deteriorating defense shield at our borders while quaking in our boots, as Ron Paul would have us.


There's an old adage: better the devil you know. We know Newt from when he took all those welfare cheats and put them to work. Yeah, that's my boy.


Wulfe N. Straat

The best way to get us out of this recession is by fixing the housing problem, which will fix the job problem. [After all, we all know that the American Jobs Bill is essentially just a stop-gap measure that can't fix the economy, which is why Congress continues to balk, which simply allows Barack some talking points about the "Do-Nothing" Congress. Seriously, that's just game, a waste of valuable time.]

Here's the solution: Let's unleash thousands of dollars from every household, which presently feels financially constrained, so that goods and services can be bought again at normal levels. How? Let's have a TARP for homeowners. Let's express confidence in the American people. We did it for Wall Street; it's time to do it for Main Street.

Let's start with a simple fact: Freddie and Fannie bought most of America's home loans, am I right? If the loans go bad, Uncle Sam is on the hook. So, let's not let those loans go bad. Easier said than done, you think?

How about having Freddie and Fannie become a partner in ownership with the people who presently own the homes that are now underwater or nearing it. If Freddie and Fannie had a program where they would take partial ownership of a home (let's say 25% to 50%) with the present owners, then these owners would keep their homes off the overburdened housing market and, in addition, have more money to spend on a monthly basis in our local and national economy.

It's not only workable but a win-win proposition all around, including for the embattled Fannie and Freddie who have already sustained tremendous losses, especially since there's another huge stock of homes that may go into foreclosure and further worsen the housing market. As before and as always, a healthy housing market can save us from a recession, even the balance-sheet recession we're in.

When the original owners sell their homes in several years after the economy has recovered, Fannie and Freddie acquire the government's share of the equity in the home: the entire amount of our investment with a 6% cumulative interest or, if they prefer, our 25% to 50% ownership stake. (Home repairs, re-designs and additions are the original owners' contributions in the partnership of the home; after all, they get to live in the home and Freddie and Fannie, who are also owners, do not get to benefit in this fashion but benefit from the later improvements to the home.)

If the original owners ever want to buy their homes from Fannie and Freddie, as the economy booms again, they simply arrange to buyout their Uncle Sam at the fair market value. In this way, nobody gets something for nothing. Homeowners who stayed within their means won't feel so totally ripped off, as the present system makes us feel, which has been rewarding speculative buyers with lower interest rates than others who played by the rules.

Write to Bernanke, who has run out of ideas and is begging for something to do to fix the economy. He'll tell you how he can make it work.

SeaKolony, just lusting for you. How have you been? How's the east coast after the hurricane? How have you been?

wulfe

Hmm? What do you make of this? Bernanke has promised to stop controlling inflation in this country, which is one of the only two legs he has to stand on. He admitted as much when he said he would not raise interest rates until 2013. Am I to assume then that it’s the wild west again, inviting a killer (of wealth) to kill a killer (of jobs). But then, again, it might be the only thing Bernanke can do to fulfill his prime objectives, controlling inflation and/or creating a prosperous economy), essentially his raison d’être. And so, we have hyper-inflation.
The reasoning is: If you want people to start spending again so that a larger demand of products and services will create more jobs, tell these so-called “job-creators,” both great and small, that their money is in the process of being devalued through hyper-inflation. They’ll believe you, believe me. If the retiree is sitting on a bankroll and holding off from fixing his roof, let him know that those services will soon require twice as much of his nest egg and fixed income as it would if he did it now. He’ll spring; he’ll slink like a slinky. He’ll do it now in 2011, because his nerves require him to act now. Why are his nerves so frayed? All he has to do is look at the rising price of groceries to know that his wealth is being diluted by hyper-inflation, that it’s all going away in a “poof” of smoke. Remember: every old geezer is more than just a potential job creator participating in the full functioning of our economy, he’s often the ignition. At least, he will be this time. He’s the one who needs to be actively engaged by the media, by the government, by the gonads. Ultimately, grandpa and grandma are the ones who require the sort of help that, once set in motion, benefits us all by a better economy.
Well, you just saw the little guy freak, when he thought his money was disappearing. That’s just the old guy down the block who can provide someone from main street with a temporary job, whether it’s fixing his roof or getting his wife false teeth. Now, imagine the unimaginable figure of “four trillion dollars” just sitting in bank accounts, doing nothing, because these “big” job creators are leary, if not scared, of investing in something that may not pay-off. Well, let’s get them off their butts then, like Truman would...like Obama should. Who required that American entrepreneurs trust their judgment in regards to what is good for America. Was it Truman, or was it Obama? If, at this point in history, our entrepreneurial class needs to be prodded to do their jobs and to trust their judgment in creating American jobs, then let it be so upon their heads. Let them do it under this threat. Under hyper-inflation, if they do nothing, those trillions will evaporate, as surely as if they’d made a bad judgment on a particular investment. Laugh at the fools! Ultimately, these old boys are nothing more than smart gamblers. They “will” take the risk. They’ll rush to create new jobs by buying up so much “stuff” that it will create more demand for more products and more jobs in what might be regarded as the misguided Republican world-view of wealth “dribbling to the bottom.” In this case, it will be so; and it will be good.
Anyway, it’s all pretty simple and rather obvious under what Bernanke has set in motion. Next, I’ll tell you how China is going to react to this, as our inflation hits their inflation. You may not want to know this, but you need to know this. You yourself have to take a certain number of risks as an American. This is one of them. I’ll tell you more. I’ll also tell you how our old geezers, who will soon be depleting their nest eggs to spur on the economy, are prepared to shoulder their responsibility for the sake of future generations.

Hmm? What do you make of this? Bernanke has promised to stop controlling inflation in this country, which is one of the only two legs he has to stand on. He admitted as much when he said he would not raise interest rates until 2013. Am I to assume then that it’s the wild west again, inviting a killer (of wealth) to kill a killer (of jobs). But then, again, it might be the only thing Bernanke can do to fulfill his prime objectives, controlling inflation and/or creating a prosperous economy, essentially his raison d’être. And so, we have hyper-inflation.

The reasoning is: If you want people to start spending again so that a larger demand of products and services will create more jobs, tell these so-called “job-creators,” both great and small, that their money is in the process of being devalued through hyper-inflation. They’ll believe you, believe me. If the retiree is sitting on a bankroll and holding off from fixing his roof, let him know that those services will soon require twice as much of his nest egg and fixed income as it would if he did it now. He’ll spring; he’ll slink like a slinky. He’ll do it now in 2011, because his nerves require him to act now. Why are his nerves so frayed? All he has to do is look at the rising price of groceries to know that his wealth is being diluted by hyper-inflation, that it’s all going away in a “poof” of smoke. Remember: every old geezer is more than just a potential job creator participating in the full functioning of our economy, he’s often the ignition. At least, he will be this time. He’s the one who needs to be actively engaged by the media, by the government, by the gonads. Ultimately, grandpa and grandma are the ones who require the sort of help that, once set in motion, benefits us all by a better economy.

Well, you just saw the little guy freak, when he thought his money was disappearing. That’s just the old guy down the block who can provide someone from main street with a temporary job, whether it’s fixing his roof or getting his wife false teeth. Now, imagine the unimaginable figure of “four trillion dollars” just sitting in bank accounts, doing nothing, because these “big” job creators are leary, if not scared, of investing in something that may not pay-off. Well, let’s get them off their butts then, like Truman would...like Obama should. Who required that American entrepreneurs trust their judgment in regards to what is good for America. Was it Truman, or was it Obama? If, at this point in history, our entrepreneurial class needs to be prodded to do their jobs and to trust their judgment in creating American jobs, then let it be so upon their heads. Let them do it under this threat. Under hyper-inflation, if they do nothing, those trillions will evaporate, as surely as if they’d made a bad judgment on a particular investment. Laugh at the fools! Ultimately, these old boys are nothing more than smart gamblers. They “will” take the risk. They’ll rush to create new jobs by buying up so much “stuff” that it will create more demand for more products and more jobs in what might be regarded as the misguided Republican world-view of wealth “dribbling to the bottom.” In this case, it will be so; and it will be good.

Anyway, it’s all pretty simple and rather obvious under what Bernanke has set in motion. Next, I’ll tell you how China is going to react to this, as our inflation hits their inflation. You may not want to know this, but you need to know this. You yourself have to take a certain number of risks as an American. This is one of them. I’ll tell you more. I’ll also tell you how our old geezers, who will soon be depleting their nest eggs to spur on the economy, are prepared to shoulder their responsibility for the sake of future generations.

This is your government speaking.

What the H is wrong with this site. The whole beginning is about a post number. Now, it's whether this thread was "regurgitated" in plagiarism. What the F is wrong with you people.

Exactly. What's it matter to begin with? What's it mean? Why are we off discourse? New modes of censorship?

I didn't write it and wasn't defensive about it. I just assumed the site had forgotten what I'd done here and started me fresh with post #1. When she claimed exception, it made me wonder the importance of whether it was post 131 or 132. And, I "never" wrote "post #1. That was their program that included it. I didn't see it until after I posted the message. Until then, it had either been underneath the screen or was added at the moment I posted the thread. That's what happened.

What's it matter what post? Are you an accountant?

Of course. It's a New Age.

When you get right down to it, identifying yourself by your chronological age is overt dissimulation. Virtually no one is her chronological age. There are 60-year-old women who do not fit the stereotype of a 60-year-old woman. We all know that. If she says she's 60-years-old, she knows she's putting a mental image of a 60-year-old stereotype into our minds, we who are her potential friend or mate.

If she tells you her chronological age, she's telling a lie. She doesn't fit that stereotype and should not use it as an identifier of who she is. Instead, she may actually fit the stereotype of the 50-year-old woman better than she does that of the 60-year-old. Consequently, she would be communicating a better and more accurate representation of herself, if she identified herself with the stereotype she most resembles rather than the stereotype of the age-delimited class she was formerly bound to identify herself with.

This is a new era. Her chronological age no longer holds her in thrall to the schoolmates and other peers she grew up with. If they're now old before their time, they're old. That's them. It doesn't mean everyone else in that peer group is old. It also doesn't mean that any singular one of them should now serve as the poster girl of what a 60-year-old woman should be. In fact, these poster girls are all the exception, the rare oddity for decreptitude that originally attracted the media to identify as what a 60-year-old is.

If you don't think and act the way your former schoolyard friends now think and act and live their lives, then you're obviously of a different age...usually younger, of a higher caliber. In the final analysis, a woman is simply the age she knows herself to be. She knows this by easily identifying herself with the age-group to which she knows she belongs. Ultimately, age-ist thinking is based on erroneous stereotypes and, like other lies, needs to be challenged with the following mind-set: "Don't ask how old I am, just accept how old you think I am."

Post #: 1

And, no; fezzes aren't cool. There's not much about Turkish, Iranian or Arabic culture that I admire, certainly not the way they hide their women.

I just want the Turks, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Alawites among the Shiites to enjoy their God-Given freedom to live their lives as they themselves see fit, which definitely means we won't actively interfere in trying to change them. As Americans, we try too hard; we're un-subtle. We do more than necessary and more than what is right. We can't and shouldn't try to make them like/like us.

Because the truth is that as much as we try to propagandize a new vision of world-citizenry upon them (which, of course, is the same glorious vision that illuminates the civilized world), this state of affairs is necessarily tilted off-kilter, our viewpoint of the world washing over them. As in all balanced systems, this means we are likewise impacted by the muddied backwash from our own propaganda. In short, if we try to make them wear a baseball cap, they are going to try jamming a fez on top of our heads.

They just want us to leave them alone; and we're better off if we do. We just want to be left alone too, to enjoy our own God-Given freedom to live our lives as we see fit. We'll be better neighbors too. As we're fond of saying, "We welcome you with leis/lays," (thereby innoculating them with anti-jihadist responsibilities to the rest of us).

Hear Hear