NOBODY IS EXPLAINING WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM- THE PRINTING PRESSES. WHEN YOU PRINT UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF MAGIC PAPER- IT BECOMES WORTHLESS. THERE IS NO GOLD IN FORT KNOX. THERE IS NOTHING BUT I.O.U.s IN SOCIAL SECURITY. IS YOUR 401k INVESTED IN A HEDGE FUND? WHEN THE DOLLAR CRASHES- YOUR GOVERNMENT ISSUED S.S. CHECK WILL BUY YOU A LOAF OF BREAD, FOR A WHILE...

Thank you for your comments, bildad. Indeed my list of times when Nader should run on a third party ticket includes any combination that contains Hillary. I also believe John Edwards is a bad intention in a slick package, and Barrack Obama appears naive and easily intimidated. There are many occassions under which I would support Mr. Nader.

I was not implying that he would have attacked Iraq. I was saying that he would have about the same probablility of attacking Iraq as Al Gore would have, which approaches zero.

Peace, Jackie

Jstevens:
First off, my original comments were originally directed at "all the Nader-haters" on this page not specifically to your post. I admit that this is an emotional issue for me–as it is for most Greens—but you seem to be oblivious of the viciousness of the attacks on us by the Democratic Party, from the DLC power brokers down to the rank and file. Perhaps you have had no reason to follow this history. My outrage at this behavior may seem to you to be over the top, but put yourself on the other side of the fence for a moment and ask yourself how you would feel if the situations were reversed.

I never said that your effort to change someone's mind about Mr. Gore was "coercion." I said that "Democrats have tried to coerce, intimidate and harass Nader and the Greens for over a decade." This is meant to illustrate the fact that Nader-hating Democrats who perpetuate these myths and make personal attacks on Nader (which apparently includes you) are participating in—and jointly responsible for--the perennial attempts BY THEIR PARTY to "coerce, intimidate and harass Nader and the Greens." You cannot deny that in 2000 there was an enormous effort by Democrats to bully Greens into voting for Gore and a similar effort to discredit him--and us--afterward. The links I provided were intended to demonstrate the type of tactics that the Democrats routinely employ to harass and intimidate us. If Republicans did this sort of thing to Democratic candidates (unlikely, since the duopoly has rigged the ballot access game in every state) would you not be outraged?

"A Gore-Lieberman administration would have taken these issues to extremes after 9/11 just as Bush-Cheney has." While Mr. Gore personally might have been Mr. Nice Guy, his running mate, Lieberman—and the majority of the Democrats, as indicated by their performance and rhetoric in the last few years—could easily have passed the PATRIOT ACT (oops, they actually did that) and similar legislation. Al Gore was, and has always been, a prominent figure in the DLC, so how could you doubt that he would have supported and implemented the DLC's position on 9/11 and terrorism?

Your comment that "One could just as easily say that Nader would have invaded Iraq," demonstrates that know nothing of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party or the platform under which Nader ran—not to mention his personal views on interventionist foreign policy. It is much more likely that Nader, as one who actually speaks Arabic, would have used diplomacy instead of military force, and as a lawyer and constant defender of the Constitution he would have made sure that whatever action he took would be consistent with the Constitution and international law (by the way, as an international party, Greens are pretty big on international law).

You are right that Gore, unlike Bush, is not "a truly ignorant man," but he too is "a puppet of the fossil fuels industry." You conveniently ignore his history with Occidental Petroleum. For reference:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

You are correct that the fact that Gore didn't win his home state is "a testament to the bad judgment of the voting public." But it is very rare that a candidate of a major party loses his or her home state. These are the voters who should have known him best, and I think it reflects on the poor quality of his campaign. Also, the 11 electoral votes from Tennessee would have ensured (confirmed, actually) Gore's victory, and all the subsequent scapegoating of Nader would not have happened.

This is about all I can say on this topic right now. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues, but I do hope we can all move beyond the 2000 election and focus on the one coming next year. Of course the Democratic Party will pull out its usual bag of dirty tricks to keep greens off the ballot, to berate our candidates and harass our activists in the field, so we may have to return to some of these subjects at a later time. By the way, Nader and Gore now have a cordial relationship, and Nader has called him a "good citizen," which for Nader is high praise. I hope that you will continue to believe that "there is a time for Nader to run on a third party platform–if the other candidates are truly equal. (Hillary versus Romney)." I hope you will consider that if it is Hillary v. Rudy also.

If you feel that I have attacked you personally without cause, I apologize. But I will do everything in my power to keep the Democrats from achieving their goal of destroying the Greens and I will continue to defend our candidates when they are unfairly attacked by the opposition. Have a good day.

bildad, you have a strange notion of coercion. I am writing about what I think, you are writing about what you think. It is possible that you or someone else could change my mind about Mr. Nader. It is possible that I could change someone's mind about Mr. Gore. Calling this coercion is am example of the hyperbole to which I am referring.

You have done a good job of spelling out the failures of the Democratic Party. The party in general has been a huge disappointment. However, my point was about how Mr. Gore compares to Mr. Bush. You say nobody knew how bad Bush would be--I didn't know he would invade Iraq, but I knew he was a puppet of the fossil fuels industry, and a truly ignorant man. The answers were all there in 2000.

Then you say that Gore would have behaved exactly the same as Bush post 9-11. There is no basis. One could just as easily say that Nader would have invaded Iraq. Both are preposterous and based on nothing.

You have also jumped on the "Gore didn't win his home state" bandwagon. Please get back to me on what states, home or otherwise, Mr. Nader won. The fact that Gore didn't win is testament to the bad judgment of the voting public. Nothing more.

I offered no compliments for the Democratic Party as a whole, only for Mr. Gore.

OK JW: Nothing I wrote is hyperbole. You ARE trying to coerce people into voting for what YOU want, not what THEY want. Yes, they are slurs--and deserved ones--but nothing close to the kind of slurs you and your donkey party cohorts have used against us--because they are true.

But to reply, first, about the 2000 election: Over 200,00O registered Democrats voted for George Bush in Florida (San Francisco Chronicle, November 9-- believe--2000)
2. 94,000 faux felons, most of whom were people of color, Democrats or both were fraudulently removed from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris at Jeb Bush's command. Similar instances of Republican election fraud happened in several other states. (Greg Palast, "Armed Madhouse"). So, even if all of Nader's votes had gone to Gore, Al STILL wouldn't have become president. The Socialist Workers Party candidate received almost as many votes as Nader--why aren't you sniping at him?
3. Gore did not even win his home state, and he ran a pitiful campaign. Although Gore won the election, Bush was named president in a party-line Supreme Court vote after Gore refused to demand a full recount.
4. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Period. Gore himself has said so, so why do you insist on beating that dead horse? He has been demonized by folks like you out of sheer spitefulness and the hatred of Democratic operatives who would rather enable and appease Republicans than to challenge them.
5. "The point is that a principled person should have chosen not to run in an election that pitted Al Gore against the worst President ever." What a load! Nader was the nominee of the third-largest political party in America. Once nominated, it was not for him to decide to dump us after all the hard work, time energy and money WE spent on his campaign. Indeed, he would never have done that. WE did not nominate him so that he could quit and redirect US to vote for our political adversaries. In the second place, only hindsight could reveal that Bush is the "worst president ever." Blaming Nader for us not being psychic is ridiculous.
6. There is NO reason why you should slam Nader--as either an independent or Green Party candidate—for taking a few donations from people who happen to be triangulating Republicans who mistakenly believed that their money was better spent there than in the coffers of their own candidates. You should be more concerned about the quarter of a million Democrats who voted for Bush than a few foolish, triangulating Republicans with a stupid idea. (Well, maybe not that stupid, since YOU seem to have fallen for that molehill posing as a mountain.)
6. Gore agreed with Bush on ALL the issues mentioned in my post to sequoiabison, in the same way that the Democratic Party agrees with the Republican Party on those issues today. A Gore-Lieberman administration would have taken these issues to extremes after 9/11 just as Bush-Cheney has (although I have to admit that NO ONE could have known in 2000 that BushCo would be as bad as they turned out to be). But this neatly sidesteps the point. You are blaming Nader for what Bush did. BUSH DID THIS STUFF-- HE IS TO BLAME FOR WHAT HE DID. Trying to shift the responsibility onto Nader is not only disingenuous; it is typical behavior for Democrats, who always prefer scapegoating their competitors to taking responsibility for their own failures. Are you denying the complicity of the Democrats in everything Bush has done?

You may not want Nader arrested, but your Democrat buddies in Pennsylvania—to choose just one example--sure want to "make him (and all the Green Party candidates as well) pay" for running in 2000 and 2004. To refresh your memory: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/11/2460/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/16/2549/

This is only one recent example of how Democrats have tried to coerce, intimidate and harass Nader and the Greens for over a decade. You are part of that contemptible effort, and your equivocation on this issue is hypocritical—as is your assertion that you are not trying to squash democracy, when that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Who said Ralph did not have the RIGHT to run? The point is that a principled person should have chosen not to run in an election that pitted Al Gore against the worst President ever.

A large percentage of Mr. Nader's campaign contributions came from loyal Republicans who undoubtedly were trying to keep Democracy alive by facilitating a third party and "more choices for voters". Not only did Mr. Nader happily accept the money, he also accepted help from the Republican Party in the form of signature gathering for petitions.

In your defense of Mr. Nader, bildad, you resort to hyperbole and slurs. If you had a better case to make you could allow the facts to speak for themselves. I said Nader should have refrained from self-serving falsehoods: Gore = Bush.
I didn't say he should be arrested. I also think that there is a time for Nader to run on a third party platform--if the other candidates are truly equal. (Hillary versus Romney).

Trying to squash Democracy? I don't think so.
Trying to prevent another Junior? Definitely.

You Nader-bashers are just political bigots too intellectually lazy to learn the truth about the 2000 election and too devoted to destroying democracy to realize that we need more voices and choices in this country--not fewer. All you are doing is regurgitating the stale canards of the Democratic Party Slander and Scapegoat Machine, which have been completely repudiated by the facts and the statistics. Carp all you want about Nader's ego, but remember that he was only the messenger and that he represented the views and political philosophy of millions of us Greens and other true progressives. We will continue to demand our right to participate in the political discourse and no amount of harassment from totalitarians like you is going to stop us.

You and your fellow apologists for the corporate-imperialist duopoly want to deprive third-party and independent candidates of the right to get on the ballot and run for office, and you want to deny people the right to vote for the person who best represents their values and interests. Can't you see that your intolerance and your willingness to deprive your fellow citizens of their constitutional rights is an ugly form of political Jim Crow? This is about as un-American as you can get.

WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO DISENFRANCHISE US!
WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY--IN FACT OUR NUMBERS ARE GROWING!
GET USED TO IT!

P.S. Run Ralph, RUN!

It is easy for Ralph to sound like the liberals' dream candidate. He has never been elected to anything so he doesn't have any questionable votes or policies. He can rail at length on big corporations, knowing that in reality he is their best friend. It looks like he will be their best friend again in 2008.

Thanks Ralph!

He doesn't have to be coy or cautious or moderate like the candidates who are actually serious about being elected. His devoted following keeps him forever relevant even though he is unelectable.

Al Gore and George Bush are the same????
Mr. Ego needs to apologize for the statement and for the election.
Mr. Ego needs to look at the reality,not the idology of his candidacy Who has time for ideology right now.

Ralph may or may not be right but he is still the biggest hypocrite on the planet. He lost his moral authority to lecture us in 2000.

Check out "The Money Masters" on Google Video, for more information. Perhaps not a "lefty" video, but historically accurate and comprehensive 3.5 hour look at the situation we find ourselves in as a nation.

mrraven500 August 19th, 2007 6:00 pm

"We sorely need a long and exhaustive book about the Fed and fractional reserve banking from a lefty perspective. If there is one available please let me know. While I am wading through Secrets of the Federal Reserve now by Mullins and while it has some fascinating historic information I also fear Mullins may be animated by a far right anti-Semitic agenda."

As you probably know, Mullins traveled far and wide to obtain information on the Federal Reserve. Another book I've read on the subject is: "Vultures In Eagles Clothing" by Lynne Meredith. She's an attorney who spent a couple of years of her life researching this. If you haven't read "Rule By Secrecy" (Jim Marrs), you might want to check it out.

Sorry folks, for getting off-topic here, but...

SEQUOIABISON: Just for the record, would you please remind us of any REAL, SUBSTANTIAL differences between the two wings of the corporatist-imperialist duopoly?

Let's see, AS PARTIES (noting that there are a few individuals in both parties who have somewhat different views) they agree on the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the death penalty, the war on drugs, media consolidation, NAFTA-style trade deals and the WTO, abortion (remember that the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to oppose late-term abortion, so erroneously labeled "partial birth"), keeping pay-to-play politics and corporate personhood safe and secure, denying gay people the right to marry, protecting the PATRIOT Act, handing out welfare to corporations and making it harder for poor people to get public assistance, supporting agribusiness and genetic engineering as opposed to protecting family farms and organic agriculture, making it harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy, but easier for corporations, ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry, the HMOs and the insurance industry will continue to make huge profits off the sick and dying while dismissing single-payer national healthcare as "socialized medicine," continually increasing the military budget--as well as refusing to allow IMPEACHMENT proceedings to begin. That is to name but a few areas of agreement between the corporate parties.

Oh, and one more thing: They BOTH agree that is OK to use dirty tricks, baseless lawsuits, misinformation, slander, harassment and intimidation to prevent candidates from other parties who dare to compete with them in the political system from getting on the ballot or participating in debates.

I've just pointed out a few things which the two major parties agree on. I'd like you to give me a few examples of how they REALLY differ if you can. Democrats agree with the Republicans on almost everything—and even then it is only a small matter of degree. Greens on the other hand, disagree with BOTH of them on ALL the issues above.

Frankly, I think your comments about Nader show that you don't care much about either truth or democracy. You are merely a political bigot who wants to disenfranchise anyone who dares to challenge your beloved donkey party. Instead of bashing Nader, why don't you just admit that you simply hate what we Greens stand for, and that you deny our right to participate in the political system and to choose candidates who represent what we believe in and what we stand for?

mrraven,

I'm not an economist. I probably don't know any more than you on the subject. From what I understand, the Fed has been creating new money like never before, diluting the value of the money. Only a fraction of money is actually paper currency, most of it exists only in abstract terms. Their strategy seems to be to decrease national debt by deceasing the value of those dollars we owe. And above all to avoid a "liquidity crisis." The interest rate cut last week reversed a pretty rapid downward trend in the Dow that had lasted for several days. There may also be at work, what has been called the plunge protection team. Their existence is controversial, but you can google to find out more. Now if you have a billion dollars net worth and the dollar devalues by 1/2, qualitatively your life doesn't change much. On the other hand, if your net worth is a few hundred thousand and you're counting on that money for retirement you will suffer.

Mr. Nader, I'm seeking to work with a politician who will present to the public the idea of building a network of arcologies on Earth and in Outerspace as a way to overcome our serious global crisis. If you go to the below URL, you can read my proposal to you.

http://www.lovolution.net/MainPages/arcology/nader.htm

Broken robot what does "injecting" mean EXACTLY? Does that mean the Fed is printing more paper money? Does it mean they are reducing the reserve banks have to keep on hand so they can loan out more money without assets i.e. create it out of nothing? And do we tax payers have to pay interest for this "injection?" I sure would like some concrete information on this in terms a layman can understand. Thanks!!!!!!

I think the fed will keep injecting money in to forestall the collapse until after the 2008 elections. I don't know if they will be successful, but if so you can bet the corporate media sewer-hose will blame democrats for the inevitable recession/depression that will follow.

BTW Kucinich's economic adviser is Michael Hudson. A very interesting fellow. Check out some of his commentary on the web.

Nader thank you for running in 2000. My vote for you was a protest vote for our broken two party system. My vote was for a candidate who I continue to believe in and one who has devoted his entire life to protecting the people as a consumer advocate. Thank you Thank you for all that you do.

PS I am so glad I did not vote for the Gore--Lieberman ticket. It would have been the same mess. Look at Lieberman's urging of the US to attack Iran!!! Although I must say I do like Al Gore I wish he had chosen a better running mate. He should have called you up.

Dr. Zimmerman Robert,

Those two Russians have a great point. I'd like to add one note to what the second Russian said. The Moderate Independent points out that CONSERVATISM IN AMERICA IS THE NEW COMMUNISM

Rebel Farmer, the Euro and the dollar will tend to parallel each other. Look at the Danes. They rejected it and their economy is stable, with a very narrow ratio of rich to poor. Look at France. They embraced it and are now having to increase work hours to keep afloat.

DCB, quit being part of the problem. Stop badmouthing Kucinich. You are just enabling the corporatists. Kucinich is more viable each day the current administration bows to the marketeers. If you have nothing good to say about him, then don't say anything.

Excellent discussion it's really good to see my fellow lefties starting to look into the horroshow that is the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately it has been the far right doing the research on the banks for way too long. We sorely need a long and exhaustive book about the Fed and fractional reserve banking from a lefty perspective. If there is one available please let me know. While I am wading through Secrets of the Federal Reserve now by Mullins and while it has some fascinating historic information I also fear Mullins may be animated by a far right anti-Semitic agenda. :(

I also third the question above how does this cash injection by the Fed for 200 billion work. Do the taxpayers yet again get stuck paying the interest on this loan. It's infuriating how intentionally obscure any MSM articles on global finance are.

Preach on brother dbc!

Just as the public got to see the way OJ "bought" justice putting on full display a different justice system for the wealthy than for the poor, so, too, are there parallel economic SYSTEMS. So we have the Enron debacles, the S & L crises, the airline bailout after 911, and now this... the rich feather their own nests, but guess who gets plucked for those thar feathers?

Yes, kloro, I have the same question.

If the problem stems from no one wanting to buy these mortgage-backed securities, thereby having a "liquidity crisis," where and to whom does this Fed pumped money go?

why are we not seeing more articles on what it means when the financial news says that the Fed is 'pumping' money into the system? is this in the form of loans to the financial institutions that receive the money?

Trickle down economics, the rich peeing on the poor, the pee-ons.

If big business and finance are "back stopped" over and over again from taking any real risk of any size, then they will continue to gamble with our futures.

The government was never intended to indemnify these loan sharks with our tax dollars. These are the same people that say smaller government and less regulation is best. It is best for them until that same government is called upon to cover the losses brought on by their greed.

What they have now is a system where they take the wins and WE take the losses. You only have to go as far as the Savings and Loan mess of the late 80s and early 90s to see a prime example of this.

The Republicans keep harping on less regulations, then loot the place and say that the government now has to pick up the pieces. This has to stop NOW!

As usual, Nader's hit the nail on the head–socialism for the rich, capitalism for the chumps (that is, the rest of us). - Wakefield

Yeah, but the chumps buy it. I saw a rusted out Chevy yesterday with a Mitt Romney sticker on it. This 'chump', who obviously was poorer, is ready to cast his ballot once again for the man who will pick his pocket and stuff it into the accounts of the rich. As long as 'chumps' keep putting the robber barons back in office they're going to keep watching as the socialism for the rich is financed by their hard earned dollars.

I love you Ralph for being the consumer advocate that you are. But must question your decision to run as a third party candidate. Do you still believe that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Dems and the Repubs?

Thanks for helping to put Mr. Bush and his gang of thieves in charge of our country. You should have been on the campaign trail touting the only sane choice at the time Al Gore. But instead you allowed your ego to get in the way of making a wise decision. Could you be so blind as to not see that a Bush presidency would turn out exactly as we foolhardy liberals predicted??

And now you are thinking about running as a third party candidate again. Despite your good intentions as a consumer advocate it is all meaningless in the face of your untrustworthiness as a politician.

I still hold you and your ridiculous lie that there is no difference between the two parties, responsible for helping to empower the neo-cons. Thanks to your actions we are now straddled with a fascist government who is robbing our treasury and giving our tax dollars to their rich friends and cheating the majority of the American people by allowing corporations to take advantage them.

I know your heart is in the right place but your brain has gone on vacation now for a very long time with no sign of it returning.

criminals and poseurs.....scumbags=American Govt....

"Our best bet is Kucinich. A man whose record speaks for itself and his policies are progressive and are tied to a major party." ~ryobi7

I've read COMarc and some other posters' comments along these lines, that the Democratic party is wholly irredeemable, that Kucinich and his staff roll over far too easily when the DLC name its chosen candidate, that Kucinich et al lack the necessary courage to really go all the way with their political platform. In the end, Kucinich is just a bit of eye candy to draw idealistic people into the jaws of the corporate dem machine. That is, Kucinich is merely a foil, someone to make us think that maybe, MAYBE there will be a democrat someday who will represent the people of the USA instead of our corporate masters on Wall Street.

I'm sorry, Dennis. You can have my $50 -- best wishes, you keep some good ideas alive. But I'm a Green because I need a clean house for my aspirations to take hold in. And I need a candidate who actually WANTS to win.

Why don't you pair up with Nader and run on a Green or Independent ticket?

You can't go any farther in your party. The game is up. The people of the Middle East, the people of Latin America, the people of Africa -- none of us can wait a day longer for the faux liberalism of the democratic party to save the day.

Another Clinton in the White House and we're doomed. More than the continuation of the neocon's ruinous foreign policies, it is the coopting of liberalism itself that is promised by another Clinton that poses the greater danger. To give voice to our dreams, and to use that lofty idealism as cover for oil companies and the super rich to continue to suck this nation dry...for this to occur with a democrat in the White House is worse, in my opinion, than having a repeat of the last 8 years.

At least with Bush we know he is insane, a corporate Christian puppet. But to have a "liberal" continue the same disastrous policies would fuck up our moral compasses.

I need to know what is good, what is bad, and who I am. Hillary would seek to strip me of even that.

The question is, what solution do you have for this problem, Ralph?

It certainly is not a recent development in the military/corporate/congressional complex called the US Government.

What do you propose to do about this rigged financial system?

Our best bet is Kucinich. A man whose record speaks for itself and his policies are progressive and are tied to a major party. I don't believe in political parties but right now that is the only format in which, with the right candidate, we can get a real man or woman in the white house. After that, hopefully, we can begin to undo all the damage done to the integrity of what it means to be American and introduce policiies that represent the people and not corporations. The buzz terms such as "big government" are used to scare the ignorant whom are too lazy to educate themsleves, however, big government is used all the time by the "right" to preserve their economic interests. Our unwillingness or inability to figure out a way to share prosperity will go down in the history books as a study of what not to do. In generations to come, we will be seen as a society of greed and narcissicm.

Run Ralph Run!! Please give us someone to vote FOR.

It's funny that the major premise of capitalism is that market forces will solve all problems. Then when market forces negatively affect the hip pockets of capitalists they want the government to bail them out.

But, of course, the fortunes of right-wing governments is tied up with capitalists because they make huge political donations to such governments and they also own the MSM that feeds and grooms the minds of the sheeple.

And so the merry-go-round of greed for money and power turns and turns!

"Brother Henry M. Paulson, formerly with the Goldman-Sachs investment giant and now U.S. Treasury Secretary just said: "The markets are resilient. They can absorb those losses. We? Paulson is a government official who is supposed to be worrying about the people first – such as the millions of homeowners who are slated to lose their homes in the next 18 months."

We do appreciate your sense of humor, Mr. Nader! However, we also know that Goldman Sachs, according to researchers R.E. McMaster (The Reaper) and Eustace Mullins (Secrets Of The Federal Reserve), is one of the shareholders of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank which has the power to issue currency and control our economic system.

Now, as a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, does anyone in their right mind believe that Brother Paulson would jeopardize Goldman Sachs or the millions of shares that were given to him as CEO of that company? Of course not! So, when Mr. Paulson says, "we", he obviously means the taxpayers who will ultimately absorb the "capital market" losses which can be attributed to the "irresponsible" lending practices of the Central Banks.

"Krugman, an economist, believes that the current real-estate bubble was "both caused and was fed by widespread malfeasance."

So do I Mr. Krugman, and this belief continues to grow as more and more people become aware of how this banking system works.

So, does anyone have a prediction for what is going to happen over the next month or so? What is going to happen to the value of the dollar against the Euro?

This is pretty scarey stuff? Should I be stocking up on rice and beans while my dollar, the few I have, still have some worth?

I like that if the stock market soars the common working man sees no benefit but if it were to crash, as much as I'd like to see that happen, the regular joes will get the brunt of it. Meanwhile, for the Wealthy it's just like the Kennedys during the Depression. JFK said, "I didn't know there was a depression until I read about it in a textbook."

BTW, thanks for all the wonderful insight. It's refreshing to see so many intelligent people with something meaningful to contribute to the dialogue.

"Ownership Society" is defined as the rich owning the rest of us.

This country has for the most part, always been for the rich and connected. Re-read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the US"

It amazes me tht those bankers did not know that people with no job, no income, no assets (NINJA) could make mortgage loans to these people just to rip the rug from under them.
Bush/Cheney crime family only helps the rich. The people are on their own. It's called the "Ownership Society"

Two Russians were talking. One Russian said to the other, "You know what they told us about communism was a lie." The other Russian replied, "You know what's worse, everything they told us about capitalism is true."

You really do have to read the socialists and Marxists regularly for the sake of the caity of their analysis of capitalism, if you ever hope to gain a "big picture" understanding of the workings of our system. Marx's "historical materialism" is still the best analytical tool out there -- bar none.

To use a medical metaphor, I read the socialists for the sake of their diagnosis; I'm not entirely convinced their prescription is the best possible cure for the disease. On the other hand, who's going to tell you the truth about capitalism? The capitalists themselves?

Capitalism is a system riven with irresolvable, inherent contradictions that careens from crisis to crisis. Hang on to your hats -- we're in for a bumpy ride.

Hi pattmarty,

Good comment, and thanks for saying it.

In our lifetimes, I don't think we'll ever eradicate these greedy assholes, so it's imperative that Social Security remain intact, in place, and definitely not "privatized".

Makes my head spin to think about all of this. But I feel it's coming.

And by the way, mikep, FDIC does not insure most of the investments that our 401k funds are in. Unless you have your 401k assets in an ordinary passbook savings account (very unlikely), chances are, you're on your own if things crumble.

Well, let's give thanks that these ass holes didn't get hold of "our" Social Security. YET...........

"I've always maintained that the next treasure that Wall Street will go after is…our 401ks. "

When people tell me 401Ks were 'safe', I ask how that bridge over the East River is paying off for them.

I think Dover is correct. They're definitely targeting the 401K accounts, and probably regular bank accounts as well. Democrats as well as Republicans of course. These people are just gangsters and thieves, all they care about is stealing money. They are monsters who recognize absolutely no legal, ethical or moral limits. I mean, is it likely that people who aren't in the least bothered by raping and murdering children are going to care about stealing money?

Do people really think that the FDIC has enough money on hand to bail out everyone's bank accounts? Of course not. If there was a financial collapse bad enough to cause bank runs and other problems serious enough for there to be a need for the FDIC to step in, then it would be affecting the FDIC itself.

RichM, thanks for the easy-to-understand explanation. I hope people read it.

We really need to do everything we can to protect ourselves.

It's a rigged game we're in, and unless you believe this, you could sustain huge losses in the future.

It's worth taking a moment to wrap your mind around what really happened in the last 2 days -- a great example of what Nader's father used to tell the kids at the dinner table. It's "Capitalism 101."

A group of large Wall Street interests devised the scam now referred to as "sub-prime mortgages" (and, needless to say, profited immensely on it, via fees, markups, trading spreads & so on). They also bribed (or otherwise infiltrated) agencies like Moody's to "rate" the resulting repackaged versions of the mortgages. It was of no concern to them that the underlying value of these pseudo-securities was itself a Ponzi-style scam: loans made to unqualified buyers for wildly overpriced houses. As long as the market was rising & interest rates low, all the "right" people profited, so the scam was able to sustain itself for a few years.

But eventually the Law of Consequences intervened. Until an hour before the close of stock market trading on Thursday, the market was headed for a collapse (richly deserved, from the perspective of real economic value). Suddenly, out of the blue, emerged a titanic magical 350-point rally. It's safe to assume that those who got in on this rally knew for sure that the Fed was about to bail the market out. But no one else knew, or could know. By the time the market opened Friday, it was already too late for those not in the know to get in. // So much for "a fair level playing field" in the financial markets. So much for "competition" in the free enterprise system, where the "genius of the market" weeds out inefficient economic performance.

The real beauty of it, though, is that it's THE SAME PEOPLE who control the Fed, who also prosper from keeping the market inflated to absurd levels, and who invented the sub-prime scam in the first place!! Isn't that beautiful? In other words, the very criminals who created the sub-prime market, with its predatory lending practices, and who bribed Moody's to rate the resulting debt obligations "AAA", are the ones with the power to rescue the stock market when their own criminality has brought it to the verge of collapse.

Capitalism 101.

For a background reading of how we got here despite heroic efforts of a few good men,
read:

America, Inc.: Who Owns and Operates the United States. New York: Dell Publishing, 1971. 424 pages. Mintz, Morton and Cohen, Jerry S.

Morton Mintz, a Washington Post reporter, and Jerry S. Cohen, former chief counsel of the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee, teamed up in the 1970s to write two blockbuster books -- America, Inc. and Power, Inc. -- on corruption in the U.S. Both cover the same territory: bribery, profiteering, special-interest lobbying, politicians, regulatory agencies, monopolies, concentration of power in the media, white collar crime, lack of accountability, government and corporate secrecy, influence of big money on elections, the national security state, and self-dealing in the professions (doctors, dentists, accountants, banks, unions, insurance). Both also use the same technique of making a point my naming names and giving specific examples culled from news accounts and other sources.

Remember, this was the 1970s when corruption wasn't an issue in America. Two decades later the infrastructure is collapsing, the economy is sick, and the shrinking middle class is wondering how their kids will afford an education and be able to buy their own homes. The dollar value of the examples provided in these books provokes barely a yawn these days -- after the deficits, savings and loan scandals, junk bonds, and golden parachutes of the 1980s. But Mintz and Cohen saw it coming, and it's not their fault that no one addressed the issue while there was still time.
ISBN unavailable

"My father many years ago asked his children during dinner table conversation: "Why will capitalism always survive?" His answer: "Because socialism will always be used to save it.""

The father had the same incisive wit as the son!

I've always maintained that the next treasure that Wall Street will go after is...our 401ks. What we've seen in the last couple of weeks in the USA is how they're going to do it.

Imagine what will happen when the masses get "Enron'd".

In all seriousness, I ask those of you with 401ks to think about this. If there is a way for Wall Streeters to steal your money, they ARE going to do it.

The corporate welfare that Nader discusses above is just scratching the surface of everything that ails the USA. But you can bet your last 401k dollar that the corporations will survive long after the little guy/gal is left in the dust.

I'm just saying, don't believe the BS about your 401k being untouchable until retirement. Wall Street laughs at that idea because it knows: The joke could be on you.

As usual, Nader's hit the nail on the head--socialism for the rich, capitalism for the chumps (that is, the rest of us).

For a brief twenty year or so window following WWII the American middle class enjoyed a time of opportunity enabled by the GI Bill and by a post-war climate which made displays of greed and selfishness seem uncool and uncouth. The rich were taxe d at 90%, mortgages were 3%, and things went quite well until the mid-60's and Vietnam and the Lyndon Johnson guns and butter economy. That was the beginning of a return to true-to-form American economics which are always based on irresponsibility and long-term unsustainability. The entire 70's saw stagflation--economic stagnation and inflation at the same time and the gradual sapping away of the post-war confidence about the US economy. Then the election of Reagan began the real return of traditional American casino economics in which financial shenanigans replaced real economic activity, and the real economy began to falter. Remember the Savings and loan debacle of the 80's and the huge multibillion dollar bailout? In the 90's the new shenanigans allowed investment bankers and hedge fund directors to become obscenely rich while the middle class was reduced to a new sort of debt peonage--maxed out credit cards, bills that can't ever be paid off, never getting ahead of the game, etc. This was a new form of social control of the American masses (including the middle classes of course) so that they wouldn't have time to inform themselves and rebel against the unjust system. And now we find ourselves on the brink of a truly colossal financial meltdown which the Fed and market insiders are frantically trying to put off a little longer to give time for the financiers to move their money into safer harbors while we the "little people" will as usual pay the price for their criminal irresponsibility.

pattmarty,

Don't be so sure. Currently, the "free" trade scams being MISused in Latin America to privatize social security to DEATH can and will likely be applied to the US.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/58089/

Wall Street sure makes even Al Quaida look less "terrorist" in pale comparison. I guess the 19 hijackers were "smart" enough to leave Wall Street intact and let them ECONOMICALLY TERRORIZE and FUCK America to DEATH !