Britons told: Cuts will affect 'everyone'

[1bad65]

Another socialist country is in huge economic trouble. Obama and the liberals should take note...

"David Cameron on Monday warned that public sector pay, pensions and state benefits would face a squeeze as he prepared the country for the "enormous implications" of dealing with the £156 billion ($225 billion) deficit.

With just over two weeks until the Budget, Cameron promised an unprecedented level of public and business consultation before unleashing cuts that would hit "every single person in our country."

Answering questions at the Open University in Milton Keynes, he said: "It will inevitably mean difficult decisions in large areas of spending, like pay, pensions and benefits."

Cameron claimed that Britain would be paying £70 billion ($101 billion) a year to service its debt within five years unless action was taken, and said that Greece served as an example of what happened when fiscal crises developed unchecked.

"This is worse than anything people have had to deal with before," he said.

British Finance Minister George Osborne will say on Tuesday that he is looking at the possible creation of a Canadian-style "star chamber" of senior ministers and officials to grill cabinet members on their proposed spending plans.

Meanwhile, Lord Browne, former BP chief executive, has been approached to head a team of corporate heavy hitters brought in to advise on the Whitehall shake-up, although Downing Street said his appointment had not yet been confirmed.

"Anyone who thinks the spending review is just about saving money is missing the point," said a Treasury official. "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works.",

The moves are part of a carefully choreographed strategy leading up to the June 22 Budget, in which Osborne will set the framework for cutting the deficit and prepare for this autumn's departmental spending review.

Over the next fortnight he will publish independent forecasts by the new Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected sharply to downgrade the Treasury's 3.25 percent growth forecast for 2011.

Cameron gave a foretaste of the likely conclusion when he said: "The overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought."

The bleak rhetoric is an implicit recognition in government that politicians of all parties failed before the election to prepare the public for what Cameron described in The Sunday Times as a period of "pain."

While the election campaign saw skirmishes about whether £6 billion ($8.6 billion) should be cut this year, Cameron is now preparing the public for cuts that will hit all sections of society and include a squeeze on welfare.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, promised that the cuts would be "progressive" and avoid creating the divisions of the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher's government applied harsh economic medicine.

Cameron echoed that sentiment when he said: "As we deal with the debt crisis, we must take the whole country with us."

Osborne sees the next few days as crucial to turning Britain's rhetoric in favor of sound public finances into action. He was delighted by a change of tone at the G20 meeting of finance ministers in South Korea, which ditched the mantra of fiscal stimulus as a route to economic recovery.

"We've achieved a significant success in getting G20 endorsement for the British government's position," he told journalists. He was particularly pleased that the G20 communiqué welcomed "the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal framework and institutions.""

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/07/britain.cameron.economy.ft/index.html

[Hardwork108]

Another socialist country is in huge economic trouble. Obama and the liberals should take note...

"David Cameron on Monday warned that public sector pay, pensions and state benefits would face a squeeze as he prepared the country for the "enormous implications" of dealing with the £156 billion ($225 billion) deficit.

With just over two weeks until the Budget, Cameron promised an unprecedented level of public and business consultation before unleashing cuts that would hit "every single person in our country."

Answering questions at the Open University in Milton Keynes, he said: "It will inevitably mean difficult decisions in large areas of spending, like pay, pensions and benefits."

Cameron claimed that Britain would be paying £70 billion ($101 billion) a year to service its debt within five years unless action was taken, and said that Greece served as an example of what happened when fiscal crises developed unchecked.

"This is worse than anything people have had to deal with before," he said.

British Finance Minister George Osborne will say on Tuesday that he is looking at the possible creation of a Canadian-style "star chamber" of senior ministers and officials to grill cabinet members on their proposed spending plans.

Meanwhile, Lord Browne, former BP chief executive, has been approached to head a team of corporate heavy hitters brought in to advise on the Whitehall shake-up, although Downing Street said his appointment had not yet been confirmed.

"Anyone who thinks the spending review is just about saving money is missing the point," said a Treasury official. "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works.",

The moves are part of a carefully choreographed strategy leading up to the June 22 Budget, in which Osborne will set the framework for cutting the deficit and prepare for this autumn's departmental spending review.

Over the next fortnight he will publish independent forecasts by the new Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected sharply to downgrade the Treasury's 3.25 percent growth forecast for 2011.

Cameron gave a foretaste of the likely conclusion when he said: "The overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought."

The bleak rhetoric is an implicit recognition in government that politicians of all parties failed before the election to prepare the public for what Cameron described in The Sunday Times as a period of "pain."

While the election campaign saw skirmishes about whether £6 billion ($8.6 billion) should be cut this year, Cameron is now preparing the public for cuts that will hit all sections of society and include a squeeze on welfare.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, promised that the cuts would be "progressive" and avoid creating the divisions of the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher's government applied harsh economic medicine.

Cameron echoed that sentiment when he said: "As we deal with the debt crisis, we must take the whole country with us."

Osborne sees the next few days as crucial to turning Britain's rhetoric in favor of sound public finances into action. He was delighted by a change of tone at the G20 meeting of finance ministers in South Korea, which ditched the mantra of fiscal stimulus as a route to economic recovery.

"We've achieved a significant success in getting G20 endorsement for the British government's position," he told journalists. He was particularly pleased that the G20 communiqué welcomed "the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal framework and institutions.""

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/07/britain.cameron.economy.ft/index.html

And the looting of the masses continues and the wealth of the population is being more and more concentrated in a few hands - ultimately the bankers!

[1bad65]

And the looting of the masses continues and the wealth of the population is being more and more concentrated in a few hands - ultimately the bankers!

There is a serious flaw in your argument/theory. Do you see it?

[Drake]

Aww hell yeah... HW vs 1bad!

[brothernumber9]

You mean because so many banks are/were failing? Say it ain't so.
So if the "bankers" don't have the money, who has it? Money? what is that? Is that some wierd out-dated tangible that existed before my value was based on credit and "speculation"? I have some paper in my pocket with pictures of past Presidents on them with different numbers. I found they are really useful for getting sodas and chips out of vending machines at my place of work, or taking public transit, and occassionally to get a drink or few at the local bar.

[1bad65]

You mean because so many banks are/were failing?

Nope. Try again...

[Hardwork108]

There is a serious flaw in your argument/theory. Do you see it?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Tell me, who do the US and British governments owe money to? I mean Cameron was talking about the huge debt? Who is this debt to?

Why are all of this rich countries in debt and to whom? Why did they bail out "inefficient" banks, who then turned around and rewarded their top managers with millions of dollars of bonuses?

NOw we have on one hand the government getting bigger (read, more taxes/extortion), while at the same time infringments on personal freedoms continue, together with, at least in the US, government ownership of big business. Is this pseudo communism or fascism?

As I see it the wealth is transferred to the few and big government facilitates this.

[Hardwork108]

Aww hell yeah... HW vs 1bad!

At least 1bad is his own man, while you are just a brainwashed brown nosed, "Don't blame me, I was just following orders", kind of a guy.....!!!

[RenDaHai]

Much as I disagree with Hardworks Conspiracy theories (He's one step away from believing the Jews are a race of lizard people from space who rule the world from behind the scenes)

He does raise a good point, exactly WHO do WE (England, one of the most powerful nations on Earth, with THE most poweful history) WHO do WE owe money to?

Where does that 70 billion go this year?

[Hardwork108]

Much as I disagree with Hardworks Conspiracy theories (He's one step away from believing the Jews are a race of lizard people from space who rule the world from behind the scenes)
To be honest, I have not even hinted at going there. The fact is that we are being coaxed into giving up our freedoms, accepting wars and mass murders and as you would put it, given "dodgy" explanations of even dodgier "terrorist" attacks!


He does raise a good point, exactly WHO do WE (England, one of the most powerful nations on Earth, with THE most poweful history) WHO do WE owe money to?
You are not just powerful but also one of the richest nations on earth. London is the financial center of the world. British Multinationals have interests in almost every mining operation in the world. Billions of pounds go through London' s financial centers; Britain has its own oil resources (as well as other mineral resources); Britain has an enviable industrial base; Britain has an enviable technological base and on and on.

Now the British people are told that recessions just happen because of some "mistakes" by banks????? The sad part is that many people buy the "fantasy" explanations? And that is even more ironic when all of the justifications for loss of pensions and higher taxes come from none other than dishonest politicians who could not say a single sentence without throwing a couple of lies into it.

Why do politicians at the for front of conspiracies lie? Because they are paid to do so. That is their job!

What happens for a job well done? They, the politicians, are awarded great and cushy careers when they leave politics in the corporate or the financial sector.

Others, such as Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who repeatedly lied, among other things, about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, and whose lies contributed to the bloody war where hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, not to mention innocent Allied soldiers,died.

What was his reward for a job "well done"? He was chosen, by the powers that be, to be a MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATOR!!!

Yes, the corruption is immense and it is as dirty and sick as it can be.


Where does that 70 billion go this year?

I believe the final destination will be the pockets of international bankers who ultimately ,in the UK through the Bank of England [and the City of London], choose the Prime Minister, and in the US, through the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve choose or select the President.

This information is coming out more and more because many people are waking up to the con-job. Some people, like you, are starting to ask about where all the money is going?

Some researchers say that the New World Order (I really hope that you don't think that NWO is a "conspiracy" theory. IF you do then I can prove to you, even here, that it is not, just ask me) plan is to get rid of the middle class and just have a one world government elite and a worker class. Having seen what the middle class have been through recently then one must consider this to be a real possibility.

In the UK, some people are paying up to 70% tax (direct and indirect), yet people still hear about there not being enough money for hospitals, schools and other government social programs. Yet there are always billions of pounds to put CCTV cameras all over London and other city centers, to "stop crime" apparently...LOL

There is always money for wars as well.........

Now, in my younger days, i was always under the impression that in richer countries one paid less tax. Doesn't that make sense? If your country's coffers are full, then why should the public pay high taxes? Yet, this is not so!

I don't know about now, but long time ago one used to hear of oil rich countries whose citizens hardly paid any taxes. The US and the UK (together with Germany and and other industrialized countries) were and are much richer than the oil rich states. Yet, the people are taxed up to their necks and they are programmed since a young age to accept this.

A lot of food for thought..........

[RenDaHai]

Living in England you have about the best quality of life one can find in the world. This is because of our high taxes. That way the middle pay to bring the poor almost the same quality of life as they enjoy. So i agree with high taxes. In England no one is starving, everyone has free medical care and everyone has the same rights. Corruption is abundant but at least mildly hidden from public view. You can never for example slip a policeman a tenner to get off a speeding ticket.

So high taxes are good and neccessary for a civilised country. Being English we pay these taxes to be part of one of the best clubs in the world, and the membership fee is worth it. But I'd still like to know who we owe all this money to? They should publish some list that actually tells us exactly who we owe this 70 billion a year to. I mean, thats a lot of money.

[Hardwork108]

Living in England you have about the best quality of life one can find in the world. This is because of our high taxes. That way the middle pay to bring the poor almost the same quality of life as they enjoy. So i agree with high taxes. In England no one is starving, everyone has free medical care and everyone has the same rights. Corruption is abundant but at least mildly hidden from public view. You can never for example slip a policeman a tenner to get off a speeding ticket.

So high taxes are good and neccessary for a civilised country. Being English we pay these taxes to be part of one of the best clubs in the world, and the membership fee is worth it. But I'd still like to know who we owe all this money to? They should publish some list that actually tells us exactly who we owe this 70 billion a year to. I mean, thats a lot of money.

Again, if the UK was a poor country then what you say would have made sense, but people there are brought up to think that there is never ever enough money, in one of the richest nations on the planet. There is something definitely wrong with the accounting here and a lot fo other rich countries. In the UK it seems to be given that once the government establishes a new tax then they will continue with it even when it is not necessary anymore, why "because they never have enough money", or perhaps a better reason would be because they are thieves an steal from their own people to line their and their masters' pockets, while keeping the financially struggling masses in control.

On top of publishing a iist of where the 70 billion is going the British government should also publish a list of where your taxes go to. I have lived in England. I still believe that the taxes are extortionate, but then England is not alone in this. As I mentioned, or at least implied, in my previous post, more than enough tax is being paid by the population to have first class health service; first class schools; effective crime fighting and so on....but when I was living there the government never seemed to have enough money for the hospitals, the schools and for effective crime fighting.

However, the same government has always had the money for wars, and I don't know if you know this, but to also subsidize arms purchases by Third World countries who cannot afford British arms. This is how it works. The British government will give a given, lets say, African government, a certain amount of money (in millions) to buy arms from British arms manufacturers. That money comes from you, the British tax payers and ends up in the coffers of British Arms manufacturers. I don't know about you, but I see a lot of corruption there. Anyway, the US government has a similar system.

Also, as I mentioned before the British government somehow has billions of pounds to quickly and many times silently put up CCTV cameras in almost every major road in London and many other cities, yet, and at least when I was living there, the street crime rates were going up and not down, despite the very sophisticated surveillance equipment installed all over London.

Why was the crime not going down? Because, "the police force was over stretched", apparently. AND, the revolving door prison policy was not really a deterente. Why put up cameras if you know that not punishing violent criminals is not going to deter them from committing crimes?

I sincerely believe that all the hi-tech cameras were installed to keep an eye on the public, and not to primarily, deter crime. Anyway, nowadays with the Global Warming hoax at full swing, people will be asked to pay more taxes and government officials, on local council level, are allowed to snoop around inside one's dust bins and to hand out fines for those who do not dispose of their garbage as the state requires based on an international hoax. This is going on at the same time as this climate hoax is being torn apart. LOL

The problem is that once this generation gets used to paying even more extortionate taxes, and fines, while having heir privacy torn apart, then the next one will see this as the norm, as they will be born into it, so the system will invent other reasons to clamp on their political, economical and financial liberties, and this will continue until the trap door shuts on the human race.

In the light of the technology available, a scenario such as the one I have described is down right scary. People used to laugh at "conspiracy" theorists who for many years were warning about the authorities micro chipping their populations, nowadays however, certain people are already being microchipped because of their jobs and so on. These people, or "pioneers", I believe are used and promoted to get the mass human mindset accustomed to the idea of having micro chips under their skins. These are chips that will be carrying different types of info about a person, and will also be able to locate them.

All the stuff I mentioned above are not conspiracy theories but facts. There are a lot of researchers out there and the relevant facts are in the public domain. There are many well researched documentaries out there that don't talk about lizards or Martians, etc. I

hope that you will take the time to do some research on your own so that it won't be a case of my word, or "his word", or "their word", which in the end turns into a battle of words, egos and even agendas, while everybody involved ends up loosing the plot.:)

Hey, sorry for the long post.:)

[1bad65]

I am not sure what you are getting at. Tell me, who do the US and British governments owe money to? I mean Cameron was talking about the huge debt? Who is this debt to?

Not sure about England, but we owe billions to China.


Why are all of this rich countries in debt and to whom? Why did they bail out "inefficient" banks, who then turned around and rewarded their top managers with millions of dollars of bonuses?

They are all in debt because of their oversized governments and their massive entitlement programs.


NOw we have on one hand the government getting bigger (read, more taxes/extortion), while at the same time infringments on personal freedoms continue, together with, at least in the US, government ownership of big business. Is this pseudo communism or fascism?

True. But how you can you blame business/banks?


As I see it the wealth is transferred to the few and big government facilitates this.

And where is the wealth being transferred to? ;)

[Hardwork108]

Not sure about England, but we owe billions to China.
I know about the US debt to China but I was referring to the trillions that the US owes to the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.



They are all in debt because of their oversized governments and their massive entitlement programs.
I agree to a point, but the irony is that both the US and the UK are rich enough to afford an oversized government. Of course, I am not saying that such a centralized system is necessarily a good thing.

I would say that if you look more into the workings of the Federal Reserve in US then you will see why so much money is owed to it.



True. But how you can you blame business/banks?
Don't get me wrong. I am a self employed capitalist, however, I see that things are not alright on the top of the business "food chain", where big business interests buy and even select political leaders who in turn bale those businesses out during the current "difficult" times using billions of dollars of tax payers' money.



And where is the wealth being transferred to? ;)

Well if you take billions of dollars that are collected as taxes from the common man and give to filthy rich bankers, then your money is being transferred ultimately to those who own the banks and the banking cartels that have so much influence on our economies, hence our lives. To add insult to injury some of these same banks have been paying out millions of dollars in bonuses to their top management just after having received their "bailouts" from their politician employees.

Generally speaking, the US government is and will be transferring more wealth to the bankers through taxation because of what it owes them, that is trillions of dollars. Why the rihest country in the world can owe so much money or needed to borrow so much money is a mystery to many but not all of us.....

The best way I can explain and make it short is that the top segments of given societies in the world have always done their best to control the large bottom and majority segment. Throughout history this has been done through, wars, military power, political manipulation, religion and so on. However, there are a few ways that come even close to control by DEBT.

And in my humble opinion that is what it is all about. Once you have a nation (or people)under your debt then you have them by the b@lls and that is what has happened to the US and other rich countries who had never had a need to borrow a dime from anyone, but have somehow ended up in a no win situation under trillions of dollars of debt.

Of course, brunt of that debt is suffered by the common man in the street, who is kept in ignorance of this sad reality by the politicians (selected for him by the same business interests that are screwing him), who lie and manipulate the masses with the help of the mass media and the intelligence agencies (owned by the same business interests).

By the way, the trend that you see towards big government, collectivism (Communism) and control did not start just now, it has been in the works within the US, as a long term agenda, since at least the early 1900s, independent of whose political party happened to be in power. If you need more info then I can give you references.:)

[1bad65]

I know about the US debt to China but I was referring to the trillions that the US owes to the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? He is for abolishing the Federal Reserve.


I agree to a point, but the irony is that both the US and the UK are rich enough to afford an oversized government. Of course, I am not saying that such a centralized system is necessarily a good thing.

No country is rich enough to support oversized governments. The USSR was the largest country in the history of the world, and the richest in natural resources. And look at what happened to them.


Don't get me wrong. I am a self employed capitalist, however, I see that things are not alright on the top of the business "food chain", where big business interests buy and even select political leaders who in turn bale those businesses out during the current "difficult" times using billions of dollars of tax payers' money.

Well if you take billions of dollars that are collected as taxes from the common man and give to filthy rich bankers, then your money is being transferred ultimately to those who own the banks and the banking cartels that have so much influence on our economies, hence our lives. To add insult to injury some of these same banks have been paying out millions of dollars in bonuses to their top management just after having received their "bailouts" from their politician employees.

Generally speaking, the US government is and will be transferring more wealth to the bankers through taxation because of what it owes them, that is trillions of dollars. Why the rihest country in the world can owe so much money or needed to borrow so much money is a mystery to many but not all of us.....

The best way I can explain and make it short is that the top segments of given societies in the world have always done their best to control the large bottom and majority segment. Throughout history this has been done through, wars, military power, political manipulation, religion and so on. However, there are a few ways that come even close to control by DEBT.

And in my humble opinion that is what it is all about. Once you have a nation (or people)under your debt then you have them by the b@lls and that is what has happened to the US and other rich countries who had never had a need to borrow a dime from anyone, but have somehow ended up in a no win situation under trillions of dollars of debt.

Of course, brunt of that debt is suffered by the common man in the street, who is kept in ignorance of this sad reality by the politicians (selected for him by the same business interests that are screwing him), who lie and manipulate the masses with the help of the mass media and the intelligence agencies (owned by the same business interests).

By the way, the trend that you see towards big government, collectivism (Communism) and control did not start just now, it has been in the works within the US, as a long term agenda, since at least the early 1900s, independent of whose political party happened to be in power. If you need more info then I can give you references.:)

Some of the above makes some sense, but I want your opinion on this statement. FYI, I saw it posted on a discussion on another site. These are not my words, but I do agree with the poster's point.

"Do you think if the "ruling elite" controlled the elections, that we would have Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge? The "rich elite" got where they are by building businesses, creating things, investing in things--this administration is blatantly anti-business, anti-wealth. The only "elite" they don't want to destroy is the "hollywood elite!" Get out into the fresh air."

Another thing to consider is how the Obama regime bailed out GM, and it's effects. Obama fired the CEO they had pre-bailout and replaced him with a new CEO Obama chose. Obama also set the new CEOs pay, he did not get to enrich himself (or the Board of GM) with the bailout (ie the taxpayer's) money. The ones who got the money were not the rich guys, it was the union workers. Without the bailout, they would have lost everything, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. So it was not taking from the taxpayers and giving the rich. It was taking from the taxpayers and giving it to union workers.

And what Obama did with Chrysler is even worse. He took the stock from the investors (the rich) and GAVE it to the people of his choosing! Lawsuits were filed by those whose stocks were literally stolen from them, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is assigned to emergency motions arising from the United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, in a one-sentence order, stayed the orders of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale, pending further order by Justice Ginsburg or the Supreme Court.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/09chrysler.html?_r=1

[Hardwork108]

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? He is for abolishing the Federal Reserve.
From what I have seen, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. IMHO, the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve is a con-job on the American people. I would love to know the major shareholders of this organization are. I have heard that their names are not in the public domain. Do you know if this is true?




No country is rich enough to support oversized governments. The USSR was the largest country in the history of the world, and the richest in natural resources. And look at what happened to them.

I know what you are getting at,but look how long they survived and one can only wonder if they would have survived a whole lot longer if they were not involved in that crazy arms race during the cold war, and had concentrated their efforts at exploiting their natural resources and developing their non-military industry.

On the other hand one can look at countries in Scandenavia where the system seems to be a pretty healthy marriage of socialism with capitalism.





"Do you think if the "ruling elite" controlled the elections, that we would have Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge? The "rich elite" got where they are by building businesses, creating things, investing in things--this administration is blatantly anti-business, anti-wealth. The only "elite" they don't want to destroy is the "hollywood elite!" Get out into the fresh air."

IMHO, the elite have been choosing almost every president for the last century and beyon, I don't think that they would suddenly say "hey, lets just let the people decide this time".

The elite that I talk about are not just rich businessmen. These people eat rich businessmen for lunch. I also believe that their real wealth (power and influence) is never revealed in the public domain, that is the "richest men in America", list, because if it was, then people would start asking questions.


Another thing to consider is how the Obama regime bailed out GM, and it's effects. Obama fired the CEO they had pre-bailout and replaced him with a new CEO Obama chose. Obama also set the new CEOs pay, he did not get to enrich himself (or the Board of GM) with the bailout (ie the taxpayer's) money. The ones who got the money were not the rich guys, it was the union workers. Without the bailout, they would have lost everything, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. So it was not taking from the taxpayers and giving the rich. It was taking from the taxpayers and giving it to union workers.

Very true, but again he is keeping a business enterprise alive. That enterprise is ultimately owned by the banks and not the US government, because the US government owes trillions of dollars to them.

This is a debt that cannot be paid, at least looking at it at the present. So, in effect the creditors, the BANKS, or more correctly, non-elected BANKERS, whoever, they may be, own the assets of the US government, so the more Obama takes over businesses in the name of "rescuing" them, the more collateral he provides for his creditors to lay claim to. To make matters worse, Obama is INCREASING the government debt by spending even more money that the government does not have.

This is a huge fraud and scam on the American people. It is basically a transfer of wealth to the banking elite, while the government plays the role of the dishonest middle man, lying through its teeth and using sugar coated slogans to carry out as much as this con-job as it can and as soon as it can, as probably it fears people awakening to the scam.



And what Obama did with Chrysler is even worse. He took the stock from the investors (the rich) and GAVE it to the people of his choosing! Lawsuits were filed by those whose stocks were literally stolen from them, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is assigned to emergency motions arising from the United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, in a one-sentence order, stayed the orders of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale, pending further order by Justice Ginsburg or the Supreme Court.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/09chrysler.html?_r=1

The looting will continue until America turns into a two class level society. The elite on top and the working class on the bottom, living in a country whose national identity and true independence has been eroded for a long time, make it end up as just another state in a regional community of countries..
This is a real possibility.

Obama was brought in to do a job and follow an agenda which has been in existance for a long time and which through different governments has been brought to its fruition. The "War on Terrorism", "Global Warming" scam and others, are also playing their part in centralizing world power and turning once powerful countries into relatively insignificant members withing regional powers, that is the New World Order.

The European Community is one such example and element of what I am talking about. we are having a New World Order installed, but somehow, no one asked the people if they wanted to be controlled by a centralized world dictatorship, owned and ultimately controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by private banking interests (families that own them) and their politician yes- men.

1bad65, from reading your past posts, I have noticed that you are no lover of socialism nor communism, but this system has been in the works for the West for a long time, going back to at least the early 20th century..

A communist style systeme is one of the best ways to control the sheep, in a manner of speaking, and every authoritarian regime is looking for ways of controlling the masses as best as they can.

I hope that people snap out of this state of hypnotism that is stopping them from seeing where their being herded!

[1bad65]

From what I have seen, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. IMHO, the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve is a con-job on the American people. I would love to know the major shareholders of this organization are. I have heard that their names are not in the public domain. Do you know if this is true?

I really don't know much about the Federal Reserve to be honest. I did know that Congressman Paul was for abolishing it though.


I know what you are getting at,but look how long they survived and one can only wonder if they would have survived a whole lot longer if they were not involved in that crazy arms race during the cold war, and had concentrated their efforts at exploiting their natural resources and developing their non-military industry.

On the other hand one can look at countries in Scandenavia where the system seems to be a pretty healthy marriage of socialism with capitalism.

Well, Reagan did say the arms race would bankrupt them, and the man was right.

Socialism/communism has always failed, even in countries where there is no arms race. The premise of socialism, that people will bust their butts for others, is a premise doomed to failure.

Many socialist European countries are facing financial implosions as we speak. None of the Scandinavian ones are YET, but the Dutch just gave the far right Party a huge victory. It appears they do not want to end up like Greece, England, Portugal, etc.


The elite that I talk about are not just rich businessmen. These people eat rich businessmen for lunch. I also believe that their real wealth (power and influence) is never revealed in the public domain, that is the "richest men in America", list, because if it was, then people would start asking questions.

True. That's why I disagree about the "rich" being behind big governments. They have NEVER been the big winners in big government/socialist countries.

Look at Cuba, for example. You do have rich people in Cuba, but they are not "Big Business" guys, they are ruling class guys.

Rich people who call for big government fall into one of 3 categories: 1) the useful idiots-these are the guys who are like the chickens helping out Col Sanders. They are cluless. 2) The ones who think the socialists will allow them to keep their money for helping them win power. These guys are just one step up from the useful idiots. 3) The ones who plan on entering the political class.


Very true, but again he is keeping a business enterprise alive. That enterprise is ultimately owned by the banks and not the US government, because the US government owes trillions of dollars to them.

The UAW got a huge share of both Chrysler and GM. Don't forget that aspect. The "banks" really did not get much out of those bailous.


This is a debt that cannot be paid, at least looking at it at the present. So, in effect the creditors, the BANKS, or more correctly, non-elected BANKERS, whoever, they may be, own the assets of the US government, so the more Obama takes over businesses in the name of "rescuing" them, the more collateral he provides for his creditors to lay claim to. To make matters worse, Obama is INCREASING the government debt by spending even more money that the government does not have.

This is a huge fraud and scam on the American people. It is basically a transfer of wealth to the banking elite, while the government plays the role of the dishonest middle man, lying through its teeth and using sugar coated slogans to carry out as much as this con-job as it can and as soon as it can, as probably it fears people awakening to the scam.

Agreed, but only somewhat.

It's not the bankers who are benefitting, it's the "political class". The banks are losing their abilities to engage in many forms of commerce that make them money, and Obama is now wanting to set their salaries. How is that the banks winning? Obama is not out for the rich, he is out for the political class, people like himself. Notice Obama has never worked a job in the private sector that produces anything.

To me, the political class has become way too detached from reality. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Joe Six-Pack knows this, but yet somehow a brilliant (their words, not mine:)) man like Obama doesn't know this? Obama truly frightens me. If his policies are enacted and allowed to be in place for an extended period of time, we will financially implode. This is a fact. My only questions is this: Is he doing it because he is flat-out wrong and unwilling/unable to see this or is he doing it on purpose? :eek:


The looting will continue until America turns into a two class level society. The elite on top and the working class on the bottom, living in a country whose national identity and true independence has been eroded for a long time, make it end up as just another state in a regional community of countries..
This is a real possibility.

You are 100% correct here. Of course we may disagree on who is on top. I say the elite will be the "political class", not the rich. This is how it ALWAYS ends up when socialism is allowed to run its course.


Obama was brought in to do a job and follow an agenda which has been in existance for a long time and which through different governments has been brought to its fruition. The "War on Terrorism", "Global Warming" scam and others, are also playing their part in centralizing world power and turning once powerful countries into relatively insignificant members withing regional powers, that is the New World Order.

This is a part I'm not willing to buy into however.


The European Community is one such example and element of what I am talking about. we are having a New World Order installed, but somehow, no one asked the people if they wanted to be controlled by a centralized world dictatorship, owned and ultimately controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by private banking interests (families that own them) and their politician yes- men.

But recent elections are showing the people in many of those countries are voting to now move in a different direction, a conservative/free direction.


1bad65, from reading your past posts, I have noticed that you are no lover of socialism nor communism, but this system has been in the works for the West for a long time, going back to at least the early 20th century..

I'll die before I live under socialism/communism, you are right. Of course the socialists have been at EVERY country since they read Marx's garbage. They just haven't gotten as much traction over here as they have in Europe. And that's good, as americans can now look at Europe and see our future if we keep electing people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And I truly hope (and pray) that November will bring a change. If not, I fear we are in HUGE trouble. It's getting dangerously close to the point where it's gonna be too late, our debt is only getting bigger while the Democrats are furiously ramping up entitlements simply to guarantee their re-elections over and over again. But they have failed to see the problem staring them right in the face: Who wants to be the rulers of a bankrupt kingdom?


A communist style systeme is one of the best ways to control the sheep, in a manner of speaking, and every authoritarian regime is looking for ways of controlling the masses as best as they can.

I hope that people snap out of this state of hypnotism that is stopping them from seeing where their being herded!

Agreed 100%

[Hardwork108]

I really don't know much about the Federal Reserve to be honest. I did know that Congressman Paul was for abolishing it though.
Ron Paul has good and solid reasons for wanting to do so, including the fact that the existance of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. There is actually an interesting story on how the FD came into being.

Anyway, these are Ron Paul's own words on this specific subject matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8


Well, Reagan did say the arms race would bankrupt them, and the man was right.
Agreed.


Socialism/communism has always failed, even in countries where there is no arms race. The premise of socialism, that people will bust their butts for others, is a premise doomed to failure.
I don't see a totally socialist or Communist system working but an intelligent mix of capitalism with socialism can work, such as in Sweden. However, that does not mean that all countries should follow their model. There are always cultural and historical factors that are at play here. What works in Japan will not necessarily work in Mexico, for example.


Many socialist European countries are facing financial implosions as we speak. None of the Scandinavian ones are YET, but the Dutch just gave the far right Party a huge victory. It appears they do not want to end up like Greece, England, Portugal, etc.

True. However, I believe that the financial crisis is not totally due to the system nor to "careless" lending by the banks. I believe that there was some intent to cause this crisis to get the governments the excuse to bail out banks and businesses, hence to increase in size and give cash handouts that ultimately benefited the owners of the banking cartels who were also enjoying the takeover of the assets of the people whose land and businesses they took over (through foreclosures), because of this crisis.

I have at least one banker friend in London who seems to agree with this, that is, she believes that the crisis was an artificial creation that was long time in planning. Of course, one or two people's opinion does not make that a fact, but I personally, based on my readings and research, believe this to be likely - create problem then offer the solution, and the current "solution" seems to be the increasiing the size of the government in the US and in some European countries.




True. That's why I disagree about the "rich" being behind big governments. They have NEVER been the big winners in big government/socialist countries.
True, but what is different nowadays is that the "rich" elite, at least from what I can see, seem to be creating it.


Look at Cuba, for example. You do have rich people in Cuba, but they are not "Big Business" guys, they are ruling class guys.
I guess in Cuba and other countries cases where there has been violent takeover, the political class becomes the rich business class. So, it kind of works in reverse of what I am seeing in Eurpoe and the US. Or at least, this is my perception.


Rich people who call for big government fall into one of 3 categories: 1) the useful idiots-these are the guys who are like the chickens helping out Col Sanders. They are cluless. 2) The ones who think the socialists will allow them to keep their money for helping them win power. These guys are just one step up from the useful idiots. 3) The ones who plan on entering the political class.
LOL, there is a lot of truth in that.

To be honest what bothers me is the rich people we don't see. They are there, they have the money and the power to lobby and influence, which in my humble opinion they do, to get their people elected. Personally I believe that they are the bankers for the most part.



The UAW got a huge share of both Chrysler and GM. Don't forget that aspect. The "banks" really did not get much out of those bailous.
The way I see it, no matter how big the government gets acquiring business assets, those assets are still collateral for its creditors.

So, if in theory the creditors were to foreclose on the US government, then they would be entitled to the government assets such as GM and so on. Of course, we don't hear about foreclosure on that level, but what if that is next on the agenda?

I ask because the US and some European countries are inside uncharted territories where theoretically anything is possible, and that is really worrying.



Agreed, but only somewhat.

It's not the bankers who are benefitting, it's the "political class". The banks are losing their abilities to engage in many forms of commerce that make them money, and Obama is now wanting to set their salaries. How is that the banks winning? Obama is not out for the rich, he is out for the political class, people like himself. Notice Obama has never worked a job in the private sector that produces anything.
I see what you are saying but what about the major shareholders in the main banks? Families such as the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, etc. I really don't think that they loose anything but stand to gain a lot and IMHO they have been in control of the political class for a long time.


To me, the political class has become way too detached from reality. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Joe Six-Pack knows this, but yet somehow a brilliant (their words, not mine:)) man like Obama doesn't know this? Obama truly frightens me. If his policies are enacted and allowed to be in place for an extended period of time, we will financially implode. This is a fact. My only questions is this: Is he doing it because he is flat-out wrong and unwilling/unable to see this or is he doing it on purpose? :eek:
I believe that he knows very well what he is doing. The plan may be to implode the economy and blaming Capitalism for it, hence justifying their Communist, Socialist, even Fascist solutions that they so desire to implement. Or doing enough damage to create unrest for the same purpose.

In some ways fascism seems to be a better definition of where they are going, but to me there is not much difference between the far right and the far left. So possibly you will get the big centralized government (as in communism) but it will be "married" with big business, as in fascism. That may be the plan.



You are 100% correct here. Of course we may disagree on who is on top. I say the elite will be the "political class", not the rich. This is how it ALWAYS ends up when socialism is allowed to run its course.
We may disagree about who is on top but we know where we are headed if Obama's madness continues. So, that puts us ahead of a lot of people. :)



This is a part I'm not willing to buy into however.
To be honest, I see it as the truth but I wish that I didn't see it that way. The New World Order is being mentioned by major politicians nowadays. They do this in relation to worldwide regulations to handle yet more "problems" such as the "Global Warming" (scam!), "Terrorism", "Pandemics" and of course economic crisis.

NWO is basically a system of world Collective government, where the world is divided into regions so as to make their governing easier. That is why we are seeing the socialistic trends.

The NWO seems to be a cross party agenda. Bush and Clinton, among others in the US have referred to it and James Cameron and Tony Blair, among others, have done the same in the UK.

It is a good idea to research this and keep an eye on how things are developing in regards the NWO, as this is no longer a "conspiracy theory" anymore.


But recent elections are showing the people in many of those countries are voting to now move in a different direction, a conservative/free direction.
I hope that the people are waking up. You can have friendship with neighboring countries with friendly trading agreements, without turning a whole region into a dictatorial centralized block.


I'll die before I live under socialism/communism, you are right. Of course the socialists have been at EVERY country since they read Marx's garbage. They just haven't gotten as much traction over here as they have in Europe. And that's good, as americans can now look at Europe and see our future if we keep electing people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And I truly hope (and pray) that November will bring a change. If not, I fear we are in HUGE trouble. It's getting dangerously close to the point where it's gonna be too late, our debt is only getting bigger while the Democrats are furiously ramping up entitlements simply to guarantee their re-elections over and over again. But they have failed to see the problem staring them right in the face: Who wants to be the rulers of a bankrupt kingdom?

November will be a chance to start the changes. Unfortunately, Obama will do his best to implement as much damage as he can before then. Also, we need to see the direction the non Democratic winners will take. I say that because I have stopped trusting politicians...LOL




Agreed 100%

Going on with this mysterious trend toward communism, I can say that this is not a recent development and it was in the works for a long time.

I came across this interview from 1982 with one Norman Dodd, the late Congressional Investigator of Tax Exempt Foundations. This guy is no tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist and inspite of the sensationalist heading of the interview, the man makes some sobering revelations, that are very relevant today in light of the way politics have developed since his interview, and Mr Dodd's death (shortly afterwards), over 25 years ago.

Please, please, watch it if you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

[1bad65]

Not gonna reply section by section, its getting too long. ;)

I do see the trend becoming a bit more like facism than communism/socialism as well. Keep in mind, the Democrats who ran as anti-greed are in bed with (or they themselves are) some very rich people/corporations. Obama and BP Oil comes to mind. And we've all seen the Democrats and Obama slam oil companies, and now we know they are benefitting big time from their money.

To me, the main difference between facism and communism/socialism is who is allowed to have welath. In a fascist state there are rich non-political people allowed to keep their money, such as Porsche, IG Farben, and Krupp in Nazi Germany. But in the communist countries, the only ones allowed to be wealthy are members of the political class. Of course in the fascist countries the rich allowed to keep their money are also in bed with the leaders. It's very scary to see Obama is doing EXACTLY this.

I agree that some socialism can work succesfuly with capitalism, but it's a balancing act. Our problem is that we have one political Party who is actually trying to get as many voters on the dole (ie increasing the socialism) to ensure their re-elections. This is what is getting the US dangerously close to tipping the scale.

On to the bank crisis. ;) It's very hard for me to determine if it was planned, or if bad decisions alone caused it. The Democrats did pass (during Carter) the Community Reinvestment Act. This FORCED banks to make a certain percentage of loans to high-risk borrowers. This was done under the guise of increasing minority home ownership. Of course the banks had to do it now, and so they were forced to come up with ways to still be profitable when they were FORCED to make bad business decisions. Of course this got way, way out of control. Banks were making way too many bad loans now (even more than they were forced too), but they had found that since the Federal Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing the loans, they could sell the bad loans. And people bought the bad loans knowing the Government would cover them if the loans could not be paid back. But there was a huge problem, Fannie and Freddie did not have the money to cover all the loans, only a percentage. The Rupublicans in 2002 (with Bush) tried to force Fannie and Freddie to open their books so the banks could see this, but they were beaten back in Congress by the Democrats (who played the race card). Once more homes went into foreclosure than Fannie and Freddie could cover, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The only question is was it done by sheer ignorance, or on purpose? That's the million dollar question....

As to Obama's role, I'm really looking at it this way; either he is the most ignorant President we've ever elected in terms of knowledge of how the private sector works, or it is indeed being done on purpose. But I look at it this way; right now, it doesn't matter why. Period. It just must be stopped, and fast. After (assuming we do) we diffuse the ticking time bomb he has set on our economy, then we can figure out why it was done. But Priority #1 should be stopping him, and those like him.

[Hardwork108]

Not gonna reply section by section, its getting too long. ;)

I do see the trend becoming a bit more like facism than communism/socialism as well. Keep in mind, the Democrats who ran as anti-greed are in bed with (or they themselves are) some very rich people/corporations. Obama and BP Oil comes to mind. And we've all seen the Democrats and Obama slam oil companies, and now we know they are benefitting big time from their money.

Obama might even use this ecological disaster to increase "green" taxes for "clean up" operations.


To me, the main difference between facism and communism/socialism is who is allowed to have welath. In a fascist state there are rich non-political people allowed to keep their money, such as Porsche, IG Farben, and Krupp in Nazi Germany. But in the communist countries, the only ones allowed to be wealthy are members of the political class. Of course in the fascist countries the rich allowed to keep their money are also in bed with the leaders. It's very scary to see Obama is doing EXACTLY this.

That is why I am worried as his assault on big business, at least in my humble opinion, may not be what it seems, specially in view of the fact (in my belief) that elements among the business/banking elite/establishment were the ones who put him in power, to start with.

It seems that this trend towards collective big government "in bed" with big business has been an agenda that forgoes party political differences. That is what the links I provided in my previous post to you indicate.

It seems that many people are in on it and they are not restricted to one party. I really believe that the political parties in the US have been infiltrated by people who ultimately think that big government, together with restricted rights for US citizens and the destruction of the Constitution, is a good thing. I believe that this fascist/communist trend has strong support from powerful people, who hope to be sitting on top of the pyramid if this plan succeeds.

I would suggest a little bit of research on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission in the US and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in the UK. This political organizations have as their goal, the promotion and implementation of the New World Order. They have members from ALL political parties.

The Trilateral Commissiom, was founded by none other than David Rockefeller, the head of Chase Manhattan Bank - an elite banker - by all definitions!

Among its members this organization can count on people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger,both of whom are nasty pieces of work, as far as I am concerned. The Trilateral Commission includes members from the THREE grouping of the US, Europe and Japan.

Just so that you get an idea of where Brzezinski comes from, so to speak, I will give you a quote from his book, "Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era". In the book he says, "National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept", suggesting a movement in stages "toward a larger community of the developed nations....." READ: Europea Community; a North American Community; South American Community, and so on..

I don't know about now but at one stage Brzezinski was selected as Trilateral Commission's Director by the Banker, David Rockefeller.

I have written all this info to back up my belief that when political leaders come to power and follow a certain agenda, it is not because it is their agenda but that it has hidden and powerful backers.

Politics is truly a can of worms. LOL

Since the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations, every president up to George Bush senior, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, had been its member. I don't have the data on others who came after, but I guess that they will follow the trend. That is why I don't buy too much of the inter party political sparring. How can one buy those conflicts when the same guys belong to the same semi-secret political organizations?

One of the elements that makes me believe this theory even more is the fact that the US security agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.) are silent about this takeover. Can you imagine what these same agencies would have done during the Cold War era, if they had suspected a Soviet infiltration of US political parties?


I agree that some socialism can work succesfuly with capitalism, but it's a balancing act. Our problem is that we have one political Party who is actually trying to get as many voters on the dole (ie increasing the socialism) to ensure their re-elections. This is what is getting the US dangerously close to tipping the scale.

Agreed.

And as far as any system working is concerned, before anything else, you need a leadership that cares and is not corrupt. Then they will work for the good of the population, meaning if they see that a certain political approach is not working, then they can adapt and change, until it starts working, for the BENEFIT of the man in the street. We rarely see a government that way inclined, anywhere, nowaday.


On to the bank crisis. ;) It's very hard for me to determine if it was planned, or if bad decisions alone caused it. The Democrats did pass (during Carter) the Community Reinvestment Act. This FORCED banks to make a certain percentage of loans to high-risk borrowers. This was done under the guise of increasing minority home ownership. Of course the banks had to do it now, and so they were forced to come up with ways to still be profitable when they were FORCED to make bad business decisions. Of course this got way, way out of control. Banks were making way too many bad loans now (even more than they were forced too), but they had found that since the Federal Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing the loans, they could sell the bad loans. And people bought the bad loans knowing the Government would cover them if the loans could not be paid back. But there was a huge problem, Fannie and Freddie did not have the money to cover all the loans, only a percentage. The Rupublicans in 2002 (with Bush) tried to force Fannie and Freddie to open their books so the banks could see this, but they were beaten back in Congress by the Democrats (who played the race card). Once more homes went into foreclosure than Fannie and Freddie could cover, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The only question is was it done by sheer ignorance, or on purpose? That's the million dollar question....

Well, you know what I think. Also, due to the influence and lobbying power of big business, I would think that it is very likely that the banking elite "bought" the Democratic decision that "forced" them to lend more. I say that because they made bundles of money for many years and that money is still in the pockets of the shareholders and the real owners of these banks.

So, some banks may close, while others cut down on staff and people may lose their jobs in those banks, but the multi billionaire owners are still laughing all the way to one of their other banks. We must also remember that many of the banks made forclosures on assets of their debtors during this crisis. As a resut the debtors ended up homeless, which we hear about all the time, while the banks ended up with their assets, which we don't hear about that much. Then some of these same banks were given billions of dollars of aid. This means even more transference of wealth into the hands of the few, than we are told.


As to Obama's role, I'm really looking at it this way; either he is the most ignorant President we've ever elected in terms of knowledge of how the private sector works, or it is indeed being done on purpose.

I believe that Obama is intelligent enough to know what he is doing and for whom. After all, nobody is that stupid to do what he is doing without seeing where it is going to end up. I am of the opinion that he was brought in to do a job and he is doing it, and him being intelligent does not mean that he is a good person or that he cares, because he isn't good person and he doesn't care.

He probably has psychopathic tendencies not unlike many other selected leaders in the world. That means, he does not care about the human damage that are caused by his decisions, or rather, the decisions of others that he is implementing.


But I look at it this way; right now, it doesn't matter why. Period. It just must be stopped, and fast. After (assuming we do) we diffuse the ticking time bomb he has set on our economy, then we can figure out why it was done. But Priority #1 should be stopping him, and those like him.

Very true. It is in the voters' hands but those same voters have to vary of whoever replaces the Democrats, and keep a close eye on their performance, because as I implied , I believe that the NWO has very strong support across the different political parties inside the US (and Europe).

Did you know that there are those who are forcasting total economical collapse in 2010? It is d@mn scary, I tell you, specially in view of the fact that on both side of the Atlantic, big government has been getting bigger and has been spending trillions of dollars/Euros (borrowed money) on "bail outs" and so on.

[1bad65]

Once again, we do agree alot, but I'm still not in on all the conspiracy stuff just yet. I notice you said Reagan was not part of it, if true, thats not surprising. And the good news is that Reagan won 2 landslide elections. In 1984, he carried 49 States! There really is hope, we just need someone who can spread the message like he did. He stated conservatism and the benefits of small government simply, and in words people could easily grasp.


Did you know that there are those who are forcasting total economical collapse in 2010? It is d@mn scary, I tell you, specially in view of the fact that on both side of the Atlantic, big government has been getting bigger and has been spending trillions of dollars/Euros (borrowed money) on "bail outs" and so on.

I have noticed how both America and Europe are in big financial trouble. Now Europe has been socialist for a long time now, and we are still lagging behind them there (which is good).

But notice which country has an economy that is prospering right now...

And then notice in what direction they recently took their economy...