In article
,
John wrote:
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine...ism/dp/0312427
999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300208360&sr=1-1
(Available at library near you.)
P. 184 - 189

I find the similarities between China then, and America now, are very
disturbing.
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would cut Social
Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. In addition to
entitlement cuts, the so-called "Gang of Six" plan would eliminate a number
of popular tax breaks and deductions, including write-offs for home
mortgage interest and employer-provided health benefits. The savings would
help offset the cost of then lowering the top individual and corporate tax
rates from 35 percent to at least 29 percent.

America is not broke.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-mo...

You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month
term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street. That's all it
would take. Just once.
Vote 3rd Party

Are you referring here to what has happened in the US to the auto
industry, and the banking industry? Do you think the Obama
Administration took over the big 2 auto companies and gave them to the
unions as a way to consolidate power?

Sorry, I just don't see the where these 2 situations line up. Please
clarify.

John

I have no idea what happened with the auto industry bail-out. I thought
that they were given loans (at 0% interest, which quickly go invested in
3% T-Bonds), got there act together, and then repaid the loans. I do
know though, that American home owners never got a bail-out. American
workers never got a bail-out.

The American auto industry has been making large shoddy cars, that gave
large, quarterly, corporate profits for decades. This was good for stock
holders, but ultimately lead to a lack of interest in American cars by
the public. If the UAW took over, I know they would be more interested
in jobs, and hopefully take a longer view on corporate earnings.

No I was referring to Milton Friedman's neo-liberalism which excludes
democracy from the free-markets.

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private
enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no
matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to
international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by
de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won
over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total
freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this
is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to
increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's
like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow
the wealth nrver trickled down.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and
health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance
of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing
government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and
tax benefits for business.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that
could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on
the job.

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to
private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll
highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although
usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed,
privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even
more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and
replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest
people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care,
education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if
they fail, as "lazy."

Lastly, neo-liberalism seems to work best in a police state.

The fish rots from the head down was my meaning. If the top 1%'s proxies
(corporations) were treated like the common criminals that they are, and
were treated as such, they would lose their taste for criminal behavior.
---

http://www.youjustmademylist.com/?p=686
Less than one week after the federal government forked over $85 billion
to bail out AIG, executives of AIG headed for a week-long retreat at a
luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach,
California. Looks nice huh? I wish I could take a week off and relax
with a massage and a leisurely dip in the pool but I’m too busy paying
for AIG CEO Robert Willumstad’s vacation.

The week following the September bailout, AIG employees and distributors
participated in a California retreat which cost $444,000 and featured
spa treatments, banquets, and golf outings.[57][58]

It was reported that the trip was a reward for top-performing
life-insurance agents planned before the bailout.[59]

Less than 24 hours after the news of the party was first reported by the
media, it was reported that the Federal Reserve had agreed to give AIG
an additional loan of up to $37.8 billion.[60]

AP reported on October 17 that AIG executives spent $86,000 on a
previously scheduled English hunting trip. News of the lavish spending
came just days after AIG received an additional $37.8 billion loan from
the Federal Reserve, on top of a previous $85 billion emergency loan
granted the month before. Regarding the hunting trip, the company
responded, "We regret that this event was not canceled."[61] An October
30, 2008 article from CNBC reported that AIG had already drawn upon $90
billion of the $123 billion allocated for loans.

[62] On November 10, 2008, just a few days before renegotiating another
bailout with the US Government for $40 billion, ABC News reported that
AIG spent $343,000 on a trip to a lavish resort in Phoenix, Arizona. [63]
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/liv...r_bailout_aig_
executives_h.html


.. . . it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence or fraud,
because the problem, according to the government, is the defaulting
mortgages, so the money should be directed at refinancing the mortgages
and paying off the foreclosed ones. And that would restore the value of
the mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the financial
institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be over. So
there’s no connection between the government’s explanation of the crisis
and its solution to the crisis.
- Paul Craig Roberts,
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig

The biggest recipients were the Wall Street bankers who gave liberally
to Obama's election campaign, but the bail-out was set in motion by
Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (ex-CEO for Goldman Sachs).
This was in turn due to Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs: member of the
Board, and Co-Chairman from 1990-1992) who oversaw the removal of the
Glass-Steagull Act which allowed commercial and financial banks to
combine, setting up our present financial situation.

Welcome to neo-liberalism, and the 3rd World.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it’s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That’s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don’t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis