Third Party & Independents: Archives

If the US shouldn’t get involved, then what’s up with Venezuela? Doesn’t seem like it’s any of their business if Columbia and Ecuador are having a border dispute. It looks to me like Chavez is looking for a way to prop himself up now that his economy and his socialist utopia have gone into the toilet.

Posted by: Liam at March 4, 2008 05:31 PM

Liam, that’s the point. Both Chavez and Bush are involving themselves into this situation which exists between Ecuador and Colombia, not the U.S. and Venezuela. Why are Bush and Chavez injecting themselves into this fray? That is one of the subjects of this article.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 05:35 PM

Well let me throw out a few thoughts on this mess.

Didnt Columbia’s military fire missiles into Ecuador to kill some FARC members? Seems to me they have a right to be concerned. Chavez on the other hand financially supports these FARC guys and didnt like the loss of one of his guys. Tough luck.

Wouldnt it be wiser to have Columbia return the favor by supporting some right wing extremist group in Venezuela to keep him occupied instead of rushing into anything? You would think that by now we would have learned that throwing money after terrorist (real or imagined)doesnt work that well, let Chavez learn the hard way.

To think that because Columbia is having a dispute with their neighbors we must rush and sign another “free trade” agreement doesnt make sense to me. It just seems like Bush is taking a serious situation and using it for political gain for the multi national corporations at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Why do we have to jump into anything? Dont we pay dues to the United Nations for just such a reason? Let them go referee the thing and if the people of Columbia decide they need our help along with the UN then we can make a decision at that time.
Why lose focus on the Iraq debacle and Afganistan? With a pending recession why should we take on another fight at this point. Let the European Union step up to the plate for us in our backyard as we seem to do for them if we think we need to interfere with these countries and their issues. Who know’s maybe those EU guys could talk sense to all 3 leaders and they could come to terms on a French/German/Dutch style of governing that works for the people of their countries and give up the extremes they seem to be fighting for.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 4, 2008 06:43 PM

j2t2, your services are needed in the State Dep’t. Interesting ideas.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 10:31 PM

Ecuador, like Venezuela, has has a leftist, democratic government with socialist leanings. The United States has a long history of backing the overthrow of leftist, socialist democrats. In the case of Chile, roughly 30,000 “leftists” were killed by the right wing Pinochet government in the name of free markets. Argentina suffered a similar fate during its Dirty War.

Early in the Bush administration, the US backed a coup against Venezuela. The coup failed.

Colombia is ruled by a democratically elected right wing government with close ties to the US. This government has a lot of good things going for it, including an aggressive campaign against drug smuggling, FARC, and so on. It also has a lot of bad things counting against it, including links to death squads.

Columbia went way, way over the line when they launched an attack across the border in Ecuador.

Oh, what’s the point. Once the Bush administration is out of the way we can resume discussions of things like international law, American ideals, etc. Until then, the US counts for nothing more than a powerful country with a lot of money and a very big military. That’s it. As long as Bush is around, we have nothing more to offer, just guns and money, lots and lots of guns and money.

Posted by: phx8 at March 4, 2008 11:32 PM

j2t2
Unfortunately we do pay dues to the UN.
The UN is an ineffective organization. It can’t do anything militarily without it’s members sending their troops. And guess who usually send the most troops.
I don’t see the UN doing anything unless the US puts pressure on it. Then we’ll send 40,000 of our youngsters to die for the UN while the other countries send anywhere from none to a couple thousand.
This is a situation that we have no business getting involved in. Neither country is a territory or protectorate of the US. And I doubt very much that either country likes us very much if any at all.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 5, 2008 12:36 AM

Chavez cannot fight a war. He does not have the capactiy. The Columbians did the right thing. Let the wind bag run out of air.

The free trade agreement is a different story. It is good for us and good for Columbia, unless we fear the competition from Juan Valdez.

Posted by: Jack at March 5, 2008 02:19 AM

Please…can any respondent spell “Colombia” correctly?

Posted by: Rachel at March 5, 2008 08:19 AM

The newest word is that maybe some documents seized on a FARC laptop in the cross-border raid shows Chavez and FARC have a “stunning link”.

For more details…click here

Posted by: Jim T at March 5, 2008 11:22 AM

More interesting is the involvement of one of the current presidential candidates, which is one reason for his endorsement by the President, in the I.R.I.(International Republican Institute) that is directly motivating some of the opposing parties in the area to help stabilze the United States’s interests(see also: http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff02132008.html). And Venezuela is not all that incapable of defending itself given Hugo’s visit to Russia, in June 2007, that settled a deal involving weapons purchasing, and not just small-arms weaponry(see: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174830).

As McCain stated on national television “there will be more wars.”

Posted by: dobropet at March 5, 2008 11:43 AM

FARC has been around since I was in college in the seventies.

It was intially alligned with a populist movement again the big monied interests and landowners. It still has ties to that movement. Unfortunately, the US war on drugs has turned this into a well armed and drug smuggling shooting war. The drug cartels are involved on both sides. The US has poured money and weapons into this area with the usual results: lots of dead innocents and general chaos. We’ve been brewing this war for decades.

Ask why arabs hate us and why South Americans are sick of us.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 5, 2008 11:52 AM

Jim T well at least that is the story. The government of Colombia also claimed the FARC was attempting to make dirty bombs and showed information from this laptop that failed to prove the claim. Hard to tell who is truthing and whose not.

Rachel, you mean Colombia is not named after the space shuttle Columbia? Well it seems you are right.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2008 12:02 PM

j2t2,

Yeah, at least that is the story. I just am waiting for the entire matter to be refered to the UN so the entire affair can be botched and boondoggled and end up supporting Chavez because he’s the 3rd world socialist dictator de jour.

googlumpus said:

“Ask why arabs hate us and why South Americans are sick of us.”

Well, they won’t have to wait for long. As soon as we raise coporate taxes and people get thrown out of jobs and our unemployment rate hits 9 or 10%…and once we bankrupt ourselves trying to pay for “universal” health care, and when we lose our three star credit rating…we’ll fade into a 2nd world country and they won’t have to be sick of us (US) any more. They’ll have to deal with the world’s only superpower…China.

Posted by: Jim T at March 5, 2008 12:17 PM

Jim T,

I thought my question was rhetorical, but it isn’t because they hate freedom or hate us being number 1. It might have to do with us being the largest arms dealer in the world, our intervention for the sake of corporate giants sucking the resources out of other countries without fair compensation, otherwise known as colonialism. Whether we are number one or number 25, we need to avoid these special interest frontier style grabs at controling native peoples.

The naive puritanical roots of our “drug war” are what funds the drug war. Legalize ingesting whatever you want, and deal with addiction as a health issue. It’s cheaper, smarter, and doesn’t cram religious, and racist views down our throats or other peoples who come to hate these bigoted ideas and Americans that foist them upon others.

Ending the drug war won’t stop bigoted colonialization. That also needs to be dealt a death blow. The frontier days of the US ended in the 19th century. It’s time we realized it, and send adventurists like Bush to the dust bin.

We are now addicted to oil, but that isn’t seen as a moral religious issue, though peraps it should be. It IS an economic and military issue and we need energy rehab, a.s.a.p. John D. Rockefellar isn’t viewed as an opium magnate might be today, but it is the same problem.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 5, 2008 01:33 PM

Here’s the free trade and labor situation in America today: Law firms that teach corporations how not to hire qualified Americans, using fake job ads to pave the way for more H-1B Visas). Even Bill Gates, wealthiest person in the U.S. lied before Congress to encourage Congress to raise H-1B limits.

Voters don’t like these Free Trade policies, yet the voters continue to repeatedly re-elect the politicians that are selling us out.

Trade deficits are not only ridiculous, but dangerous. The U.S. is borrowing $3 Billion per day.

How can we spend, create money out of thin air, and borrow our way out of debt and these huge deficits?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 01:35 PM

dobropet wrote: As McCain stated on national television “there will be more wars.”

He’s a war hawk. A lot can happen in 8 months, but I will be totally amazed and confused if John McCain wins the presidential election. Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 04:29 PM

d.a.n, quite right about the trade deficit. It literally exports our money supply in increasing amounts overseas to circulate through other economies. And at a time when America is experiencing a credit crunch and the Treasury and White House fear the dollar falling in value even more due to its inflationary effect.
All way around, this 30 years of near continuous trade deficits is finally severely restricting America’s options to effectively deal with its own economic and financial crises - and it will only get worse with the current Congress and Presidential candidates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2008 05:26 PM

All way around, this 30 years of near continuous trade deficits is finally severely restricting America’s options to effectively deal with its own economic and financial crises - and it will only get worse with the current Congress and Presidential candidates.

We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg.

While millions are losing their homes, jobs, and have falling incomes, we have not yet seen the full consequences of these abuses of the last 30 years.

• No one can tell us how we’re going to get out of this mess.


• No one can tell us where the money will come from to pay the INTEREST on $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of debt.


• No one can tell us where the money will come from to pay the INTEREST on the $9.4 Trillion National Debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $9.4 Trillion of National debt.


• No one can tell us that the plummeting U.S. Dollar will stop falling against all major international currencies.


• No one can tell us how we’re going to raise enough taxes to pay for all the things we want, when the tax system is already regressive, incomes have been falling since 1967 for most Americans, savings rates are negative, personal nation-wide debt is 420 Trillion, and 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth.

Hmmmmm … I wish it weren’t so, but this scenario is looking more and more less far fetched.

Yes, I seriously doubt the next Congress and President will have the will, discipline, or competence to address so many issues, growing in number and severity.
There are signs, and a few people are looking a bit nervious (e.g. Bernanke, Fed Chairman), and some people are practically screaming their warnings (e.g. David Walker, U.S. Comptroller), some financial analysts are predicting an economic tsunami, more and more analysts are recommending people buy gold (not $988 per ounce!) and other currencies, and a few people are predicting the next Great Depression.

Yet, some people are saying …

America as a whole has never been this rich, and it’s getting richer all the time. It’s a great time to be an American

I think (over the next 3 years) we will:

• (01) have more inflation, because of so much debt creating the pressure create more money.


• (02) more falling incomes


• (03) more foreclosures and bankruptcies


• (04) more jobs leaving the country


• (05) more illegal immigration


• (06) more economic instability


• (07) more federal debt


• (08) more personal debt ($20 Trillion)


• (09) more energy vulnerability


• (10) more decay of the public education system


• (11) more poverty


• (12) more wealth disparity (1% that owned 20% of wealth in 1975 now owns 40% of all wealth)


• (13) more pain and misery

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

P.S.

Venezuela is amassing troops, tanks, air and sea forces toward the Colombian border.

Chavez ordered 10 battalions, including tanks and aircraft, to the border, and some of the troops began mobilizing Tuesday, said Luis Reyes, the governor of Lara state in western Venezuela.

Venezuela says Exxon/Mobil’s legal actions against Venezuela are keeping oil prices high.

OPEC meeting: Cartel says it will support Venezuela in dispute with Exxon Mobil.

Oil Rises Above $104 to Record on OPEC Output, Venezuela Tanks

Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 07:15 PM

David,

You wrote:

would go along with yet another ‘Free Trade’ agreement.

Would the price marijuana and cocaine come down? - one way to control inflation…

You also wrote:

Voters in industrial and Rust Belt states are fed up with Free Trade agreements which give away American jobs for free in return for growing international corporate profits.

I coming to realize that the Repubs like these trade agreements precisely because they disadvantage rust belt states i.e. organized labor. It is a good way to stick “it” in our “place.” The winners in these trade agreements are Republican farmers and Republican corporations - the losers, Democratic union members.

Then there is Bush. That fornicate simply can’t live without starting a war somewhere. I pity him if he does leave the White House this January. What is he going to do with himself? It will be like empty nest syndrome except in his case it will be no bloody unnecessary war syndrome…

Jack,
Working men and women do not want to have to compete with Juan Valdez. They do not want to have to work for his wages - not when he is not allowed to form a union. They kill union leaders in Colombia. It is a Republican dream come true.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 5, 2008 09:23 PM

Finally, given Bush’s coup attempt in Venezuela, Chavez has reasonable cause to get a bit nervous when American surrogates commence hostilities in the region.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 5, 2008 09:28 PM

I’m afraid that some of the comments here have more to do with domestic American politics and attitudes than the history and political realities of Latin America.

If you’re talking about international law—yes, crossing borders with hostile intent is generally considered to be against international law. It is also against international law, however, to financially support and/or give refuge to terrorist organizations, and it is not merely a matter of George Bush classifying FARC as a terrorist organization. The Latin American Parliament as well as the European Union classify them as such. It wasn’t something dreamed up by George Bush or the American Republican party.

There are a lot of criticisms, some fair and some not, to be made about US activities in Latin America. But on this one, I don’t see how you can reasonably say the US is acting irresponsibly, and I’d be shocked to hear of any US Democrats who’d take a pro-Chavez or pro-FARC line in this dispute.

This dispute between Ecuador and Columbia is a complex one having to do with weighing both countries rights under international law. It’s not so clear cut. You have a right to sovereignty within your own country’s borders. But under international law there are responsibilities that come with sovereignty, such as preventing your country from being a staging ground for attacks another another country. Neglect that responsibility, and international law becomes more complex; it can even been considered an act of war to allow the kind of cross-border attacks that have taken place. Much less actively support them.

The only part of this which does not have gray areas is the actions of Venezuela, which are openly belligerent in that this matter has nothing to do with Venezuelan sovereignty or any rights Venezuela can lay claim to under international law.

I’d agree that the US should stay out of it too, but I haven’t heard that the US is massing troops on Ecuador’s or Venezuela’s borders or is threatening to invade either country.

Posted by: Liam at March 5, 2008 10:13 PM

Liam,

Even though it is well documented that attempts to stem the Cocaine trade are futile as production increases with attempts to wipe out cartels, the US has massively increased funding for arms and military assistance with the resultant rises in violence and death.

The US funds these wars on both ends. The prohibition era laws, known to fund cartels like Capone are continued. We then fight these groups with military aid. Funny thing is in Colomubia, the regime we funded via governmental aid also moved drugs for profit. Sorta like Noriega, Iran Contra, etc. First we call them drug cartels then we call them terrorists. All along US corporations profit. Funny how that works.

If I lived there, I might be a little beligerant, too. Wouldn’t you?

Posted by: googlumpus at March 5, 2008 10:57 PM

Another link that might be of interest.

Why does America have a right to interfere in civil wars and internal politics such as this?

I suspect the intelligence on the target in Ecuador was directed by US personnel in the CIA or military and the locals know it.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 5, 2008 11:08 PM

Liam,

You wrote:

The only part of this which does not have gray areas is the actions of Venezuela,

But the U.S. has already attacked Venezuela in a coup attempt (an act of war). Colombia is our ally, possible proxy. Countries routinely get nervous when neighboring countries even engage in military exercises, to say nothing of cross border attacks in their region, to say nothing of cross border attacks on their allies by surrogates of their enemy. The whole situation becomes very dangerous.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 5, 2008 11:35 PM

googlumpus, I do know quite a bit about Latin America, their people, history, politics, and their complicated feelings about the US. Some hostile feelings, some very friendly feelings.

One thing I can promise you is that if Chavez got into a war with Columbia over FARC, no matter what the border issue was, the reaction throughout Latin American would be overwhelmingly negative toward Chavez. Even people who don’t like the US wouldn’t buy the line that Columbia is a US puppet that deserves to be militarily attacked by Chavez. You can bank on it. Columbia is not some place far off like Iraq. It’s a fellow Latin American country, and people wouldn’t stand for it.

Posted by: Liam at March 5, 2008 11:43 PM

Liam,
You write: “… If Chavez got into a war with Columbia over FARC… the reaction throughout Latin American would be overwhelmingly negative toward Chavez.”

Wrong. The governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia all harbor quite a bit of hostility towards the US because of policies implemented by the IMF and World Bank. The current president of Chile is a moderate socialist who was tortured under the Pinochet regime. The government in Argentina is also moderately to the left, and likewise harbor a lot of ill feelings towards the IMF and World Bank.

The idea that South American countries are going to side with the US against Chavez is silly. They may not have a very high opinion of Chavez, that’s true. But they’re not about to back the right wing government in Colombia, with its penchant for death squads, if that backing is perceived as supporting a puppet of the US, once again threatening to overthrow yet another leftist government.

In cases like this, the US holds the huge amounts of debt over the heads of South American governments. “Say Uncle.” It is a powerful threat, and if recent elections are any indication, the governments of South American countries have had enough.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2008 12:10 AM

phx8

Chavez likes to make everything about him v the U.S. How do they feel about Chavez v Colombia? That is the conflict. You have Chavez siding with drug dealing terrorist v Columbia.

Those terrorist are really horrible guys. They kidnapped and raped the hostage and then gave the baby away where he lived in squalor until found a couple years later. That throwing the baby away is what hurt Chavez’s big PR plan and ruined Oliver Stone’s new propaganda movie.

It is true that the US and the EU consider FARC a terror organization and Chavez disagrees. But the current problem is a Colombian v Chavez conflict.

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2008 01:09 AM

Jack,
No doubt, Chavez is no saint. Far from it. And FARC is a nasty bunch. I don’t think anyone feels sorry for the FARC guys in Ecuador who got taken out by the Colombians. No one is shedding any tears over them.

But all that does not justify raids across borders, and the reputations of FARC and Chavez do not automatically make the US or the Colombians into good guys. The US has a bad reputation too. In the name of “free markets,” the US has plundered the natural resources of South American countries. Corrupt military regimes have sold the futures of their countries in the forms of enormous loans taken from the IMF and World Bank.

I guess my point is that we need to change our ways, and get away from providing military aid. We need to stop interfering. Being helpful would be great, but too often, the US “helps” by supporting odious regimes. I really don’t think most Americans understand what is done in our name. It is absolutely appalling. We need to stop exporting arms and stop funding foreign militaries. I am ashamed to know the US arms the world. We’re strong, we’re powerful, we’re secure, and we could… we could… stand for something worthwhile. I hope I see it in my lifetime. Because it sure isn’t happening right now.

Posted by: Phx8 at March 6, 2008 01:30 AM

Phx8,

I agree Chavez is no saint, but he was elected because he panders, or at least appeals, to the impoverished masses. The opportunity for him to rise was created by the regimes and US “help” you speak of. The anti US sentiment is a strong undercurrent is South and Central America. They are tired of being bullied and stolen from. Castro arose under similar stupidity.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 6, 2008 07:58 AM

phx8, I mirror your reply to Jack. Well said and thought out. It is a logical pitfall to evaluate oneself by the standards and actions of others. A rapist is not a good guy compared to a rapist/murderer. The Bush administration has not been an international good guy by comparison to the likes of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. Jack constantly falls into the trap of allowing our adversaries to define us and our actions. A very dangerous and flawed way of thinking and evaluating the U.S. actions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 01:26 PM

Liam, You write: “… If Chavez got into a war with Columbia over FARC… the reaction throughout Latin American would be overwhelmingly negative toward Chavez.”

Wrong. The governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia all harbor quite a bit of hostility towards the US because of policies implemented by the IMF and World Bank.

So if Chavez attacked the US, you might have a point. But we’re talking about him attacking Columbia. Yes, there is resentment toward the US throughout Latin America, but you seem to be completely buying Chavez’s line about Columbia being the same as the US. The poor and disenfranchised masses in Latin America, many of whom have socialist sympathies, will get nothing but greater poverty and misery from a war between Latin American nations.

They have absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose from such a fratricidal war, and it’s unthinkable that Chavez’s anti-American bluster would be enough to cause them to support such a suicidal and idiotic course of action. Especially when Venezuela has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, and the way it would all play out is scenes of Latin American armies and citizens killing each other.

Posted by: Liam at March 6, 2008 02:14 PM

Liam,
Would Chavez actually order an attack? I seriously doubt it. Like you said, everyone would lose. But Chavez is making a powerful point. International borders have to be respected, and launching the occasional no-notice strike inside the territory of a weak neighbor is never acceptable.

Venezuela is involved in the dispute, as any neighbor of Colombia must be. The strike was unacceptable, and if one neighbor is vulnerable, so are the others.

The US supports and arms the Colombians. I suspect there’s a lot more going on than is generally reported, because what takes place (?) is happening in remote places. So yeah, it’s bluster, but there’s a powerful point behind the it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2008 02:27 PM

Another link that might be of interest.
…
Why does America have a right to interfere in civil wars and internal politics such as this?
It doesn’t.

What is an Economic Hit Man? Last night, Riz Khan, who is Al-Jazeera’s counter to CNN’s Larry King, interviewed John Perkins, a former economic hit man.

Not sure what an Economic Hit Man (EHM) is? Neither was I until Perkins laid it out for a dummy like me to understand:

“There were two primary objectives of my work. First I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money to Main and other US companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster and Brown & Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans … so they would be forever beholden to their creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we [the US] needed favours, including military bases, UN votes or access to oil and other natural resources.”
- Excerpt from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Yet anohter manifestation of unchecked greed.
Globalization has a dark side too (i.e. corpocrisy, corporatism, selling out America at every chance possible, etc.).
Rest assured, that profits from other nations’ resources and/or cheap labor is the goal.

Most (if not all) of these so-called Free-Trade policies have nefarious goals to pave the way for legal plunder.

When will enough voters wake up to what is happening? Perhaps when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 02:43 PM

d.a.n.,
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by Perkins is available in the library, and relates to this topic very nicely. The book is a little dated, and I think Perkins exaggerates his role in the scheme of things, but still, it’s a very readable and interesting book.

“Shock Doctrine: Chaos Capitalism…” by Naomi Klein is also a terrific read on this topic. It’s also available at the library, although it’s new enough that there may be wait lists. Highly recommended.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2008 04:35 PM

I’m at a loss why ALL of you refuse to consider Ron Paul’s proposals. They fall right in line with what most of you have said.

He is still in this race, you know. Even if the media is purposely ignoring him.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2008 04:55 PM

phx8, Thanks. I may check out the book (by Naomi Klein). Yes, I thought the same thing about Perkins role, but had little doubt about the nefarious schemes. The common thread in much of this is the banks and corporations. How can everyone that works, invents, creates, builds, and produces be in debt to the banks?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 04:58 PM

WW, Ron Paul is a nutcase, though his isolationist position appeals to some. Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 05:00 PM

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Federal Reserve

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2008 05:04 PM

Oops.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Federal%20Reserve

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2008 05:07 PM

Prove it loud mouth!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2008 05:09 PM

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=War%20On%20Drugs

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Business

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=American%20Sovereignty

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 6, 2008 05:15 PM

There are many politicians far, far worse than Ron Paul, but I’m disappointed that someone who claims to be a champion of the U.S. Constitution won’t answer the simple question about Article V.
But, few others in Congress will either, and those that have can’t get their story straight.

Also, Ron Paul’s idea of competing currencies is a recipe for disaster. The world is already full of competing currencies that all have one thing in common: INFLATION

And a gold/silver/commodity backed currency isn’t really the solution either (since that has some obvious problems with flexibile Money Supply growth/reduction).

I do agree mostly with Ron Paul’s position on the U.S. being the world police.
We can’t afford to keep doing that.
We already have $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, and no one can say where the money will come from to pay the INTEREST, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion so that it doesn’t continue to grow larger and larger (already almost half of the nation’s net worth).

Unfortunately, none of the candidates for president are likely to address those any of those issues.
They are too busy making promises about heatlh care, when health care might be more affordable if these other 10+ abuses were seriously addressed (instead of being ignored as they have been for several decades).

The current problems with Venezuela and numerous other nations (many turning against us), and the U.S.’ falling grade on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index are because of the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and other manifestations of unchecked greed. Based on Transparency International, the U.S.’s Corruption Score has fallen from position 11 (year 2004), to 17 (year 2005), and to 20 (year 2006).

It is a despicable practice.
It is the Cheaters Philosoply in action.
It’s not a global village.
It is more like global pillage.
And it isn’t only happening over seas.
It is happening here too (look at trade deficits, illegal immigration, unfair trade policies, H-1|2B visa abuses, etc.).
Also, a lot of foreign nations that have invested in the U.S.’ national debt may be in for quite a shock if our banks start to fail.
And it is not that far fetched.
Bernanke is already telling us some small banks may fail.
Maybe the U.S. won’t default by failing to pay the INTEREST, but it may very likely erode the value of the U.S. currency by printing more and more money to pay the growing INTEREST for the growing DEBT (over $1 billion per day of INTEREST alone only on the $9.4 Trillion National debt).
The $48 Trillion nation-wide debt (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm) is almost 5 times the nation’s income.
And 80% of the U.S. population only owns 17% of all wealth in the U.S.
With falling incomes, which will mean smaller tax revenues, where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on so much debt?

Could it be we (most Americans) have have become the victims of the very same thing the U.S. has been doing to other nations for decades?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 05:34 PM

International borders have to be respected, and launching the occasional no-notice strike inside the territory of a weak neighbor is never acceptable.

I understand your point. But the respect for international borders is founded in a whole body of international law, and those laws place responsibilities on all sides. Columbia’s borders were actually violated first by terrorists crossing them from Ecuador. Why are you saying that only Ecuador’s territorial rights are important here?

It might be illegal for me to trespass onto your yard. But the law will look differently on my trespassing offense if I’m I’m pursuing somebody who just shot members of my family while trespassing on my property first. And who furthermore abducted members of my family and brought them onto your property. Which is exactly what FARC has done—murdering and kidnapping Columbians and then retreating over the border into Ecuador.

Now, we might have different interpretations of the law. But no matter what, I think we could both admit that it’s there’s a debatable point here. Good arguments could be made in both Ecuador’s and Columbia’s favor. But what business is it of Venezuela’s? None at all. They are the only ones clearly in the wrong here. And for all the accusations against the US, I really don’t see what the US has done here except express an opinion. You can drag in all of the history of the US in Latin America if you want (and I’ll agree with much of what you say), but there’s still a lot more to the story than some of you are letting on. It seems like some of you just want to attack Bush, whether this all really much to do with him or not.

Posted by: Liam at March 6, 2008 05:47 PM

“Thus it conclusively proved that the slump, whose appearance the inflationists attributed to an insufficiency of the supply of money, is on the contrary the necessary outcome of attempts to remove such an alleged scarcity of money through credit expansion….This demonstration could appeal to statesmen intent on promoting the enduring well-being of their nation. It could not influence demagogues who care for nothing but success in the impending election campaign and are not in the least troubled about what will happen the day after tomorrow.” ~Mises,”Lord Keynes and Say’s Law,” Planning for Freedom, pg. 68

A thought about competing currencies in that they may not serve the interests of the public at large when confronted with inflation. Having money that is backed by hard assets should be the standard and not a system of credit governed by elite bent on their own gains. Atleast, that’s what I think he meant, I haven’t studied Mises very much but he seems very business ethinically motivated. And Ron Paul’s standards are more intune with Mises’s, what Paul meant by competing currencies maybe the fact that the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. Ever since money was removed from it’s backing in gold, it’s value has depreciated quite tremendously, exponentially if you will. But his idea stems from non-interventionism in the free-market, as it has no place to be interved with. I do agree with that.

And his idea for isolationism is NOT that in any way shape or form. His belief is non-interventionism, as most of the founding fathers were, granted we are beyond their beliefs and motivations than those we have acquired today. But such a stance removes our involvement from such upheavals and political strife encompassing the world today. As he puts it,”we should be the example for others to strive to become here in America.”

I guess our leading by example now means that every nation should intervene into the affairs of other nations, as the U.N. believes. Their sympathies may be just, but their alterior motives are corrupt. As our current administration is.

Posted by: dobropet at March 6, 2008 06:45 PM

dobropet:

Are you familiar with the phrase non-sequiter?

Posted by: googlumpus at March 6, 2008 10:22 PM

WW, Ron Paul does that far better than I could. Consider what it would mean if the U.S. decided to move to the gold or some other commodity standard like oil, while the rest of the world continued on balance of payments and trade surpluses and deficits? Our economy would be flushed down the toilet before we could even pare back the money supply to our commodity based assets.

Let’s take just one simple example, to make this clear. We adopt a commodity based standard which dictates that our Treasury pull in and destroy greenbacks in the hundreds of billions in order to bring the value of our money supply in line with our commodity assets. The value of the dollar rises dramatically. China sees this and holds on to the 1 trillion dollars in greenbacks and treasury notes denominated in greenbacks until their value triples. Then they sell their greenbacks for thrice their original value. Now China can’t gain from this unless someone else loses - that is the nature of money. The millions of people who lose of course are the young Americans entering the work force who will pay three times as much in tax dollars and get much less dollars in wages over a portion of their work lives to make up the difference gained by the Chinese.

The Chinese will triple their greenback wealth and American workers will see the value of theirs rise too, but, will have to pay substantially more taxes to make up the government deficits incurred in buying back the Chinese greenbacks, and their wages will pare back commensurately with the increased purchasing power of their greenback as the prices of basic goods and services rise for years until a balance is achieved between money supply and commodity assets. Net result, 100 million Americans will robbed of their wealth over the course of a decade or more while the transition takes place, and seniors will be driven into poverty by an absence of credit and dramatically rising health care, food, and energy.

Students today are experiencing great difficulty in getting reasonably priced student loans for college. Ron Paul will dry that cash up overnight, because who would want to loan money during a deflationary period of 10 years or more without having anyway of knowing what the deflation rate will be from one quarter to the next? Its nuts.

Then consider that Ron Paul on the other hand says we should not interfere with other nations minding their own business, ergo, we could not move them to follow our commodity based standard.

That is the very definition of insanity. Complete and total idiocy, illogical, impractical, and downright destructive to the lives of a 100 million or more Americans if ever attempted. I call that NUTS!

You support his ideas. So, surely, you have another word for it. But, he is still just as nuts. And his followers are ignorant of the consequences of his ideas, as the followers of all radical and destructive leaders in history were.

However, its a moot discussion. As I predicted months ago, Ron Paul could not acquire more than 10% of the vote or polls. There just aren’t enough radicals like him or totally ignorant Americans about our economy to garner more than a 7 or 8% following. Which points to one of America’s great strengths. We still have strengths, despite all the focus on our weaknesses.

Ralph Nader could not garner more than 10% of the vote as a radical, and much of what he advocated for consumers made enormous sense, and some of it was, is now, and soon will be enacted precisely because it did pass the logic and academic and common sense tests.

It is a great strength of America that it is nearly impossible for radicals to get elected to the most powerful positions in our government, whether their name be Nader or Paul, Goldwater or McCarthy.

Appointments of course, are quite another thing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 02:33 AM

Liam said, “They are the only ones clearly in the wrong here. And for all the accusations against the US, I really don’t see what the US has done here except express an opinion.”

Then open your ears and listen to Bush’s speech on the topic, where he says our national security now rests on rewarding Colombia with a free trade agreement in return for their incursion into Ecuador.

If you still don’t see it, then, its because you choose not to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 03:04 AM

David,

And you don’t consider Neocons radicals?

Posted by: googlumpus at March 7, 2008 09:44 AM

Most of these characterizations are quite invalid. Ron Paul’s idea towards other nations, involvement, is not one deemed nuts. As one who has seen such nonsense spattered about for mere recognition to support illogical thought, the ultimate question I have is how is it that of all the candidates COMBINED did Ron Paul receive the most money donations from the Army, Navy and Air Force. This not only includes the families of these servicemen and women, but the servicemen and women themselves. You disagree with their logic?

And whatever prediction you came to over Ron Paul’s percentage in votes is a moot discussion as illustrated on Black Box Voting, several recounts have been issued and as of to date none have even been allowed to proceed due to an underminded chain-of-custody battle involving the Diebold vote scanning machines. There is more to the picture than meets the eye. In one such incident, in Ron Paul’s home district his congessional seat was at risk to a challenger named Chris Peden. But as the final results were given, Ron Paul defeated Chris with 70% of the vote to 30%. Clearly no such threat was indicated in the voting results yet most MSM gave false information stating such nonsense as “Ron Paul’s congressional seat in serious jeopardy.” Yet in the run for the Presidency, in the same district, he only garnered less than 9% of the vote. That does not add up(http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=8064……and….http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/blog/node/58).

I don’t accept the MSM information on any given subject. They have given false information before.

And, it’s non-sequitur and yes I see your point. Excuse the brain-fart. Anyway, simply implying that his ideas are radical, illogical or whatever does not constitute any fact whatsoever. And how are his ideas parallel to any other point in time involving destructive leaders?

Posted by: dobropet at March 7, 2008 10:57 AM

Liam wrote: And for all the accusations against the US, I really don’t see what the US has done here except express an opinion.

Maybe.

George W. Bush (43) hailed U.S. backed Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for going after the FARC and blamed the tensions on “provocative maneuvers” by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
:ong standing resentments have been growing for decades.
Why is that?

Consider this list of OPEC nations and think about George W. Bush’s (43) influence and effect on the perception of the U.S. in the last 8 years …
Country ________________ Location
Ecuador* _______________ South America (joined 1973-1992, 2007)
Venezuela* _____________ South America (joined 1960)
IR Iran* ________________ Middle East (joined 1960)
Iraq* __________________ Middle East (joined 1960)
Kuwait* ________________ Middle East (joined 1969)
Qatar __________________ Middle East (joined 1961)
Saudi Arabia* ___________ Middle East (joined 1960)
United Arab Emirates _____ Middle East (joined 1967)
Algeria _________________ Africa (joined 1969)
Angola _________________ Africa (joined 2007)
SP Libyan AJ ____________ Africa (joined 1962)
Nigeria _________________ Africa (joined 1971)
Indonesia _______________ Asia (joined 1962)
( * Founding Members of OPEC )
NOTE: First OPEC Conference was held by Founding Members was in Baghdad, Iraq in SEP-1960.

When George W. Bush (43) took office, oil was only $28 per Barrel.
Now because of unnecessary wars, belligerance and alienating other nations on practically every continent, mismanagement of allies and oil friends, oil has now spiked to over $105.97 per barrel (a 264% increase).
It is not far fetched to say the U.S.’ meddling is not partially the cause for current events in Venezuela, U.S. backed Colombia, and Ecuador (seeing how many nations are now anti-U.S.A. nations).
Yesterday, George W. Bush (43) said: “I think it is a mistake [for OPEC] to have your biggest [the U.S.A.] customer’s economy to slow down … as a result of high energy prices”.
How arrogant is that statement?
Nevermind how George W. Bush (43) and the U.S. has treated almost every oil producing Nation (for many decades).
Only yesterday, George W. Bush (43) was threatening OPEC again as oil prices skyrocket and the U.S. Dollar continues to fall like a rock.
Well, DUH!
What are the many reasons for the U.S. Dollar falling like a rock!
Inflation is not only due to rising fuel costs, but that is what some want us to believe.
After all, it’s not easy to create trillions of new dollars annually out of thin air and not cause inflation.
While world-wide demand for oil has increased (e.g. China, India, etc.), the falling U.S. dollar is fueling (no pun intended) rising fuel prices too.
It is a vicious circle.
When ir rains, it pours.

There is substantial evidence (which would fill volumes) of U.S. meddling (which is putting it mildly) and abuses abroad (for many decades) that has led to where we are today.
This is not mere “America hate” speech.
The U.S. is still one of the best 26 (of 195) nations in the world to live, and the U.S. still scores higher than most nations on Transparency International Corruption Score (although the U.S. has fallen from position 11 (year 2004), to 17 (year 2005), and to 20 (year 2006).
The U.S. is not the most evil nation on the planet.
But having the potential to be one of the most dangerous nations on the planet justifiably raises concerns among other nations around the world; something that should be recogonized; not abused.
So, please don’t try to twist this into accusations of being an “America hater” and “America trashing”.
However, despite Hugo Chavez’s meddling and trouble-making too (recently told to “Shut Up!” by Spain’s King Juan Carlos), the fact is, the U.S., and George W. Bush (43) are not without culpability for many of these problems (due to incessant medding abroad), the war on drugs, and the increasingly negative perceptions of the U.S. world-wide.
And many Latin Americans have the opinion that there has been interference by the U.S. in their affairs for a very long time.

And you don’t consider Neocons radicals?

There are radicals in BOTH parties (neocons, liberals, etc.).

What ever they are, what ever their labels, they are BOTH of little benefit (if not actually harmful), and the partisan-warfare (which they love to fuel) is a grand and extremely effective, circular, divisive, distracting, and mechanism to distract voters from substantive issues; allowing them to grow worse; not better; allowing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in BOTH parties to continue to enjoy very high 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
But the larger problem is wide-spread and growing lawlessness by most politicains in BOTH parties, the Executive Branch, and rubber-stamped by the Supreme “Catch-22” Court, resulting in these abuses getting worse; not better.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2008 11:08 AM

dobropet said: “I don’t accept the MSM information on any given subject. They have given false information before.”

The MSM has ALSO provided 95% of true and verifiable information on a daily basis. The trick is to be able to reserve judgment until corroboration on what is reported is forthcoming and the source can be determined as reliable. Not always possible, but, in general, the MSM is indispensable for knowing ANYTHING about what is going on in our country outside our immediate neighborhood.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 12:27 PM

Goo, no, I don’t consider the NeoCons radicals. A minority, yes, radical, no. There is nothing radical about the idea of world hegemony through military might and making that the number one budgetary priority. Such thinking has existed in our Parties and government for centuries or at least back to Andrew Jackson. Such views are held by a minority and if fully enacted pose serious dangers to our nation, but, they are not radical. No more radical than socialized policy wonks in the Dem. Party whose ideas have been around for over a century.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 12:32 PM

The report on David Walker(http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/23469) and his belief that our society is in for a serious economic disaster points to the fact that our society needs redirection and/or demands to be addressed.

Posted by: dobropet at March 7, 2008 01:30 PM

dobropet, the MSM has covered David Walker’s warnings for several years now, and I have written many times referencing the Comptroller’s warnings.

It’s not for lack of MSM coverage of Walker’s warnings, nor the MSM’s misrepresentations of them, that folks have not heeded his warnings to date. It is a general disinterest and political incentive to not act as acting on those warnings could jeopardize reelection for incumbent politicians precisely because action will cost the American taxpayers. (Though far less than inaction in the long run.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 7, 2008 01:44 PM

Yes, David Walker (U.S. Comptroller) has many valid points.
And that article is from Sep-2006 (18 months ago).
Yet, if fell mostly on deaf ears.
Some people are still trying to tell us that …

America as a whole has never been this rich, and it’s getting richer all the time. It’s a great time to be an American.

Americans have an intuition that something is wrong, but they don’t really understand the root causes and ramifications.
David Walker is not a crack-pot, but he appears to be largely ignored.
People would be wise to at least consider what David Walker is warning us about is not far fetched (… more … ).
The signs are there.
We will probably get through this next recession (as usual), but unlike most recessions, not without more inflation, more record-level debt, more record-level weatlh disparity, continued falling incomes (since 1967 considering more workers per household, more federal debt, and more regressivie taxation, etc.), and more of these abuses that have already taken a large toll for the last 30 years.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2008 01:56 PM

Don’t know if you guys have seen this as it relates to the post here.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1156/68/

Guess I’ll have to tell my colombia(colon-via-colon) source to watch my shipments of ____ more carefully. Damn tourists.

Posted by: dobropet at March 7, 2008 02:52 PM

(alleged or actual) U.S. backed coups …

Year(s): Country

1945-1953: Korea

1947-1949, 1964-1974: Greece

1949: Syria

1950-1973: Vietnam

1952, 1959-present: Cuba

1953: Iran (www.democracynow.org/2003/8/25/50_years_after_the_cias_first)

1953-1964: British Guyana

1953, 1963: Guatemala (archive.nacla.org/Summaries/V1I1P3-1.htm)

1955-1973: Cambodia

1957, 1987-1994, 2004: Haiti (www.pww.org/article/view/4880/1/205/)

1958,1959,1960: Laos

1960, 1963: Ecuador

1963: Dominican Republic

1963: Honduras

1964, 1970: Brazil (archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/13/cia.chile.02/)

1964: Bolivia

1965: Zaire

1966: Ghana

1972, 1980-1992: El Salvador

1970-1973: Chile (archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/13/cia.chile.02/)

1975: East Timor Indonesia (www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0915-Indonesia.html)

1978-1989: Nicaragua

1980 Liberia

1982: Chad

1983: Grenada

1987: Fiji

1989: Panama

2002: Venezuela (failed coup in 2002 ; www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2008 06:18 PM

Not to mention the continued involvment in Iraq, a pre-emptive war based on flawed and/or trumped up, or false intelligence.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2008 06:22 PM

d.a.n.

While I agree with most of what you’ve said here I do somewhat disagree with this:

David Walker is not a crack-pot, but he appears to be largely ignored.

I think while what he says has a basis, it often is stated in extreme ways with a bit of chicken little overtones, that sounds more like he’s trying to get attention, rather than provide solid and sound opinion.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 7, 2008 08:55 PM

So, the South Americans have resolve thier differences with a handshake it appears. Good on them.

Meanwhile, Bush is going to veto a bill outlawing waterboarding by the CIA. He’s just shameful.

Bush to veto bill banning waterboarding

Posted by: womanmarine at March 7, 2008 09:32 PM

I am trying to see how any of this diatribe has any value.

The same posted by:’s have been saying the same thing for the years I’ve been here.

What has been accomplished?
I see nothing being accomplished, and it’s a shame.

Ralph Nader has been campaigning for years against corporate domination of our economy and he’s excluded from the process by being labeled an outsider.

Our fair haired champion lawyer, what’s his name, rails against corporate domination and he falls by the wayside.

Anyone who challenges the corporate domination of our government is labeled a crack pot or a nutcase and is delegated to the ranks of the failed without a chance to explain themselves.

I’m denied my freedom of speach because I am not eloquent with words. I cannot back up my thoughts with quotes from prominent figures that agree with me. I am shoved to the rear because of my education and my experience. My experience and my education is rendered null and void because of a lack of connectivity. A lack of common interface with the liberal remer, daugherty, democratic, point of view.

Would I be held in high reguard by my liberal counterparts if I were to agree again and again?

No! I wouldn’t be held in high reguard. I would be set aside in the plus column and used as an example of how the liberal point of view is correct.

I refuse to be a shill for the status quo simply because dominate figures disagree with me. I refuse to bow to an opinion simply because that opinion is the dominant opinion. My opinion has led to incarceration, humiliation, degredation, but not subjugation.

I’m letting you know your words of condesention are not a valid arguement. Your method of belittlement will not replace my freedom. I have a right to speak and I will not submit to your constant badgering.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 7, 2008 09:59 PM

David,

You wrote:

The Bush administration has not been an international good guy by comparison to the likes of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. Jack constantly falls into the trap of allowing our adversaries to define us and our actions.

I agree in principal. But I think that Jack is using the idea that “you know a man by his enemies.” You can know a man by his enemies, but his interpretation of what that means is overly simplistic. He probably thinks: If your enemy is bad, you must be good. This is not true. Sometimes the good guy (John Wayne) stands up against the bad guy and is defined by his standing against evil. Often however, it is bad guys fighting with each other over the spoils of evil (gang wars). In both cases you are defined by your enemy. In one case you are his opposite, in the other his mirror image. Of course, there are many gray areas in between the two.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 7, 2008 10:31 PM

Liam,

You wrote:

Especially when Venezuela has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, and the way it would all play out is scenes of Latin American armies and citizens killing each other.

I agree generally. I don’t think Chavez intends war. He is probably doing a little grandstanding for the domestic and international audience. He is probably trying to support his friends by putting military pressure on Colombia. He is probably trying to defend himself from another American coop attempt that might occur in the midst of regional instability. He would be foolish to actually go to war, but people have miscalculated into war before. Especially, you don’t mess with the BushCheneyHaliburtonExxonWorldbankIMF administration. Those guys are nuts. Don’t give em any excuses…

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 7, 2008 10:43 PM

womanmarine,

Unfortunately, the victors write history, but an honest historian ever arises; what will be said of a President who uses his power maintain the “right” to torture. Does he think that torture is “an inalienable human right.” Even as recently as ten years ago, could you imagine a President daring to do that without millions of people pouring into the street. There should be riots in every city of America. It is like… like… like… water torture. They have done so many outrageous things, one after the other, that drop by drop they wear us down, until we break down and accept the totally unacceptable.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 7, 2008 10:59 PM

My opinion is based on what the person says. What the person I’m looking in the eye says to me. Not what some news man says on the half hour.

The news guy is spouting the latest, not the best. He’s spouting the most catching not the most productive. Why is the news guy the most influential of all?

Because he is the most easiest to access.
Just like the democratic point of view. It’s the easiest to get, the most available, the dominant opinion.

That doesn’t mean the democratic point of view is the best. It means the democratic point of view is the dominant point of view and it allows no other to be available. Unless another point of view can troubleshoot a crisis instigated by the democratics.

We’re experencing the crisis management of the democratic party’s manipulation of world affairs over the last 100 years now. It’s not pretty trying to hold onto dominatation. Not pretty at all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 7, 2008 11:00 PM

Weary,

You sound like you are sounding off pretty freely, to me. The only restriction here is not attacking the messenger.

As to the Democratic dominance of issues, that’s simply a crock. The Republican or conservative point of view has dominated American culture since the rise of Reagan. It’s a false point of view, in my opinion, and has fallen on it’s own phoneyness and the corruption of it’s proponents, in recent months.

It’s the wealthy man’s justification for unjust distortions of compensation inherit in capitalism, wrapped in puritan theism, something for which foolish Americans have always been eager to fall.

Railing against education is waving a banner for ignorance and is about the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. conservatism’s rise was in part due to William F. Buckley, a true intellectual. While I often didn’t agree with his viewpoint, he was seminal in my own education, having watched shows like Firing Line from childhood.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 8, 2008 04:30 AM

googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. While I agree with most of what you’ve said here I do somewhat disagree with this:

d.a.n wrote: David Walker is not a crack-pot, but he appears to be largely ignored.

googlumpugus wrote: I think while what he says has a basis, it often is stated in extreme ways with a bit of chicken little overtones, that sounds more like he’s trying to get attention, rather than provide solid and sound opinion.

Do you have any facts to support that conclusion/opinion that David Walker’s warnings have “stated in extreme ways with a bit of chicken-little overtones”?

I don’t know David Walker (or many people in government for that matter) well enough to defend his (or anyone’s for that matter) reputation 100%.
However, can you show us anything that David Walker has done that is irresponsible, or merely designed only to get himself “attention”?
Perhap you have seen something we haven’t?

After all, in case you haven’t noticed, people seldom do themselves a favor by trying to give credence to the potential for dooms-dayish predictions. Wall Street hates it, the IN-PARTY hates it, stock brokers hate it, retailers hate it, and anti-anything-not-rosy optimists hate it. Doomsdayers are almost always painted as nut cases, even when eminent fiscal and economic melt-down is truly close or already upon us. Therefore, playing chicke-little is rarely advantageous.

I’ve noticed many times that David Walker (U.S. Comptroller General) on many occasions, when some reporter or journalist has tried to back him into a dooms-day prediction, he was careful to say “if we stay on this course”, and that is true. He is not the only economist or analyst that has stated the very same thing. If we stay on the current course, the following problems (below), growing in number and severity, will get worse; not better.

Therefore, I don’t see anything chicken-little about that.
David Walker has put out several videos (one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Videos) to help educate Americans about the U.S.A.’s fiscal situation, and it appears (for the most part) to be responsible and accurate.
The following is not mere chicken-little, dooms-day, sky-is-falling rhetoric:

• the $9.4 Trillion National Debt is costing over $1 Billion per day in INTEREST alone;


• $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security (leaving it pay-as-you-go with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching);


• Trillions are being spent on the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;


• the PBGC pensions are $450 Billion in the hole;


• federal taxes are regressive (one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes)


• incomes have fallen for decades (one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Income);
• __TOTAL U.S. Debt and National Income__(2006 Dollars)
  
• T=Trillion
  
• $50.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D (Debt=$48T)
  
• $47.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D
  
• $45.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $42.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $40.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $37.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - D
  
• $35.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $32.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - D
  
• $30.0T | - - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $27.5T | - - - - - - - - - - D
  
• $25.0T | - - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $22.5T | - - - - - - - - - D
  
• $20.0T | - - - - - - - - -D
  
• $17.5T | - - - - - - - - D
  
• $15.0T | - - - - - - - -D
  
• $12.5T | - - - - - - -D
  
• $10.5T | - - - - D - - - - - - - - I (Income=$10T)


• $07.5T | - - D - - - - - -I


• $05.0T |D- - - - I


• $02.5T |I


• $00.0T |________________________YEAR


• _______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22


• _______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00


• _______5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 00


• _______7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 56


• The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 1957 was 200% (($5T/$2.5T)=2.0 x 100)


• The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 2006 was 480% (($48T/$10T)=4.8 x 100)


• That is, in 1957, total debt was 2.0 times national income.


• Energy vulnerabilities, despite the Dept. Of Energy’s annual budget of over $27 Billion.


• The total $48 Trillion nation-wide debt is 4.8 times national income; where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on that debt? Much less the money to reduce the DEBT so that it doesn’t grow ever larger?


• Since year 2006 (money.cnn.com/2006/03/22/real_estate/homeownership_study/index.htm), home ownership has fallen for middle-income and lower-income people. Currently, home ownership is in a record plunge (money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/home_ownership_vacancies/index.htm?postversion=2008012913), and the 4th quarter of 2007 saw the biggest one-year drop (1.1%) since tracking began in year 1965, as current mortgage problems and rising foreclosures take their toll.


• home equities have fallen below 50% since year 1945;


• the current wealth disparity gap has never been larger since the Great Depression; 1% that owned 20% of all wealth in 1976 now owns 40% of all wealth in the U.S., and 80% of all Americans only owns 17% of all wealth in the U.S.;


• jobs are leaving the country by the millions; there are more jobs in the severely over-bloated government than all manufacturing in the U.S.


• personal nation-wide debt ($20 Trillion) has never been higher (also as a percentage of GDP);


• middle income Americans are losing an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses due to illegal immigration;


• astronomical health care costs (too many middlemen and government meddling); (one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#HealthCare)


• declining quality and rising cost of education;


• trade deficits are at record levels and have been growing worse for decades;


• the U.S. is borrowing $3 Billion per day;


• incessant inflation and the falling dollar;
• ____INFLATION_______
  
• CPI (CPI=100 for year 1967)


• 700 + - - - - - - - - - - - X (=665: JAN-2008)


• 650 + - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 600 + - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 550 + - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 500 + - - - - - - - - - - X


• 450 + - - - - - - - - - - X


• 400 + - - - - - - - - - - X


• 350 + - - - - - - - - - -X


• 300 + - - - - - - - - - X


• 250 + - - - - - - - - - X


• 200 + - - - - - - - - -X


• 150 + - - - - - - - - -X


• 100 + - - - - - - - -X


• 050 +XXXXXXXXXXX


• 000 +_______________________YEAR


• _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22


• _____8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 00


• _____0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 00


• _____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07


• While the U.S. is still one of the best 26 nations (of 195) in the world to live, and the U.S. still scores higher than most nations on Transparency International Corruption Score, the U.S.’ grade has fallen from position 11 (year 2004), to 17 (year 2005), and to 20 (year 2006). Starting a pre-emptive war based on flawed and/or trumped up intelligence didn’t help much.


• increasing lawlessness; crime rates rising again after falling for several years;


• etc., etc., etc.

In my opinion, and based on dozens of economic factors (above), others in the federal government should be echoing David Walker’s warnings.
There is no doubt that David Walker has his own political leanings (i.e. he was appointed by former president Bill Clinton), and some will accuse him of wanting to denigrate the current administration, but David Walker is far from being alone in denigrating the current admininstration, and it is the facts he is reporting that should be scrutinized.

What ever David Walker’s motives may be, perhaps it would be best to first address the accuracy of his public statements?
googlumpugus, perhaps if you could point precisely to some statements, or videos, or some evidence to prove David Walker is chicken-littlish, then your statement may have some credibility.
But then, that would also require a lot of explaining to also explain away those not-so-rosy economic issues listed above to put a dent in David Walker’s warnings.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 8, 2008 11:41 AM

WW said: “I have a right to speak and I will not submit to your constant badgering.”

I think you just did! :-)

Of course you have a right to speak in a public square, at home, or even here provided the rules are complied with. I love WatchBlog for that, rules that insure civility of discourse regardless of the passions that may underlie the discourse.

Your comments have however for years, been a shill for the GOP majority opinion right or wrong, and still are amongst your Right Column cohorts. Me think thou dost protest too much! It is understandable for folks to seek a group to belong to when they feel threatened or inadequate. It is a very natural tendency.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 8, 2008 05:52 PM

googlumpus said: “I think while what he says has a basis, it often is stated in extreme ways with a bit of chicken little overtones, that sounds more like he’s trying to get attention, rather than provide solid and sound opinion.”

I think you mistake his intent. Facts and figures bore the hell out of people. He is right, we are heading over a cliff IF we do not act to prevent it. His bits of melodrama are intended to motivate inertia into action to prevent the realities his facts and figures portend.

For this, I regard him as one of the great unsung heroes of our time. And he will be even more highly regarded as our government continues to ignore his warnings, much like MLK’s voice came to be so highly regarded as riots and racial violence dominated our cities and headlines in the 1960’s.

Some ignorant folks of MLK’s day tried to claim it was MLK’s voice causing all the rioting, despite the fact that the exact opposite was the case. I see this happening now with David Walker. Some are claiming he is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, when in fact, his efforts are quite the contrary, to avoid it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 8, 2008 05:58 PM

d.a.n.

Something that got a lot of play recently was this (paraphrased) statement:

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

I believe he was a history major. He likes to make comparisons to historical scenarios and I have read several that are equally false.

What expertise does the comptroller have in these fields? What is his basis for this hyperbole? I have to conclude it’s to get attention, because it isn’t based in fact, and is ludicrous on it’s face.

Somehow I’m not expecting the Barbarian invasion anytime soon, are you?

I haven’t accused anyone of talking us into a recession, but there are psycological effects. Yes we have a serious credit crunch at hand. Belt tightening is exactly the wrong answer. Responsible spending amd easing of monetary policy is in order here. We don’t need a trade war with Canada regarding NAFTA, or letting the capital markets fall on their own pitard because they deserve it. When someone begins to throw reason out the window and panic, I tend to ignore them. I’m not accusing Walker of that, but getting a headline isn’t all that helpful.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 8, 2008 06:47 PM

Willie,

“It means the democratic point of view is the dominant point of view and it allows no other to be available. Unless another point of view can troubleshoot a crisis instigated by the democratics. “

After the last 6.5 years of people bantering the words “treason, and traitor” about like they were meaningless, I can’t see how anybody could make a comment like that with a straight face.

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2008 09:51 PM

googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n Something that got a lot of play recently was this (paraphrased) statement: … Mr. Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

Is that it?

Is that all of your evidence?
And what’s wrong with those statements?

David Walker compared the present-day United States with the Roman Empire in its decline, saying the U.S. government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, expensive overcommitments to government provided health care, swelling Medicare costs, the enormous expense of a prospective universal health care system, immigration, and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.

Notice the word if ?
David Walker is right. He said the fall of the Roman Empire (one of the longest lasting in history) fell due to:

• No. 1: Decline in moral values and political civility at home.


• No. 2: Overconfident and overextended militarily around the world.


• No. 3: Fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

What is false about that?

And yes, all 3 of those apply to the U.S. today. Especially No. 3.
Therefore, there are some parallels.
History often repeats itself (though not always exactly; hence the phrases “striking similarities”, “parallels”, etc.).

googlumpugus wrote: I believe he was a history major.

He has degree in Accounting from Jacksonville University (FL), a Senior Management in Government Certificate in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

googlumpugus wrote: He likes to make comparisons to historical scenarios and I have read several that are equally false.

Not true.

You have not yet proved anything as “equally false”.

googlumpugus wrote: What expertise does the comptroller have in these fields? What is his basis for this hyperbole?

He has a lot of experience, if you look at his resume and history.

googlumpugus wrote: What is his basis for this hyperbole?

What hyperbole? Where?

googlumpugus wrote: I have to conclude it’s to get attention, because it isn’t based in fact, and is ludicrous on it’s face.

What facts were false, much less ludicrous?

You have a right to your opinion, but it does not yet appear to be based on any facts.

googlumpugus wrote: Somehow I’m not expecting the Barbarian invasion anytime soon, are you?

Where did David Walker say anything about the U.S. “expecting the Barbarian invation soon”?

Talk about hyperbole.

googlumpugus wrote: I haven’t accused anyone of talking us into a recession, but there are psycological effects.

But you are now accusing David Walker is responsible for it?

googlumpugus wrote: Yes we have a serious credit crunch at hand.

It is a little more serious than a credit crunch …

• $9.4 Trillion National Debt, with over $1 Billion per day in INTEREST alone on the National Debt (never higher, and never larger as a percentage of GDP since after World War II);
• $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching (never worse, and if combined with the $9.4 Trillion National Debt, the total federal debt has never been worse ever, including as a percentage of GDP);
• the PBGC pensions are $450 Billion in the hole;
• state and local governments have over $6 Trillion of debt;
• the nation-wide personal debt is over $20 Trillion (never worse ever; and never worse as a percentage of the $13.86 Trillion GDP since the Great Depression);
• there are hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) of unfunded liabilities for the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• the nation-wide debt is over $48 Trillion (almost half of the Nation’s total net worth; never worse since the Great Depression);
• but 80% of Americans only own 17% of the Nations total wealth (never worse since the Great Depression); only 2% of all Americans owns most of the wealth in the nation a trend that has been worsening since year 1976, and has never been worse since the Great Depression;
• the U.S. Dollar has been falling fast against all major international currencies for the last 7 years; the U.S. Dollar has been falling fast against all major international currencies for the last 7 years; we’ve had incessant inflation since year 1956;
• illegal immigration has never been worse, costing middle class Americans an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in annual net losses; there is also the untold cost of crime by illegal aliens, who are encouraged to commit more crimes by being anonymous, and repeatedly arrested, released, and deported over and over and over;
• taxes are more regressive now than they have been for many years; we don’t need higher taxes; we need fair taxation; (what a few people have said about my tax plan);
• the monetary system has two problems:
  • the issue of usury, which is moral issue
  • a mathematical flaw; it is a pyramid scheme (a 9-to-1 fractional banking system) and all pyramid schemes are doomed to eventual collapse; where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST in the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL of $48 Trillion of debt; and the Federal Reserve is creating more money to bail out banks, as if we can borrow and spend our way out of debt;
• Unemployment is rising since Dec-2007 (101,000 lost jobs in the last few months); finances are contracting; Jobs are going to China (1.3 Billion people), and India (1.1 Billion people), and Asia;
• Jobs are leaving the country in droves; here’s a law firm that teaches corporations how to avoid hiring Americans;
• Incomes have been falling since year 1967 (when also adjusting for more workers per household, more government debt, more taxes, and more regressive taxes, more illegal immigration; job displacement, and replacement jobs paying less than previous jobs, etc.);
• The wealth disparity has been growing worse since 1980, and has never been worse since the Great Depression.
• The wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth in the U.S. (up from 20% in year 1980; never worse since the Great Depression).
• The wealthiest 2% of the U.S. population owns most wealth; more than the remaining 98% of all Americans.
• The wealthiest 10% of the U.S. population has 70% of all wealth in the U.S.
• The poorest 20% of the U.S. population has negative net worth (i.e. debt)
• 40% of the U.S. population has (on average) essentially zero net worth.
• 80% of the U.S. population has a mere 17% of all wealth in the U.S.
• Education is declining in quality while rising in cost; causing climbing property taxes (and tens of millions of illegal aliens is exacerbating the situation);
• HealthCare or DangerousCare?: Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Once again, part of the problem is government meddling, the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and other manifestations of unchecked greed. Health Care Solutions are needed. While government is not necessarily responsible for providing universal health care, it is responsible for protecting consumers from some greedy corporations that will do anything for a buck. Also, illegal immigration is placing huge burdens on the healthcare system. Illegal aliens are over-running our ERs, hospitals, Medicaid, and welfare. If the 9 problems (above) were adequately addressed, it would reduce the pressures on the healthcare system, and make healthcare more affordable. Healthcare and pharmaceuticals; in their greedy dash for money and profits, pharmaceutical companies and corporate hospitals are killing 195,000 people per year due to preventable medical mistakes. 195,000 deaths per year is appalling; another manifestation of unchecked corporate greed. Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the U.S. troops killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), the war in Afghanistan, and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), combined! Average savings rates in the U.S. have been negative since 2005, which have only been negative for over a full year once before for one year, which was during the Great Depression, when Americans were struggling with huge job layoffs during the Great Depression;
• Average home equities fell below 50% (a 16 year low);
• Home foreclosures are at record levels. Greedy banks are raising bank fees, fines, and Adjustable Rate Mortgages to usurious double digit rates. Predatory lending and fraud are part of the problem. Since year 2006, home ownership has fallen for middle-income and lower-income people. Currently, home ownership is in a record plunge, and the 4th quarter of 2007 saw the biggest one-year drop (1.1%) since tracking began in year 1965, as current mortgage problems and rising foreclosures take their toll, and more and more people find themselves with upside-down mortgages in which their homes are worth far less than the debt owed on the home;
• Stock market volatility (which is a lagging indicator of economic instability);
• Gold spiked to $988 per ounce;
• Oil spiked to $106 per barrel; and the U.S. also has a very bad situation with urban sprawl and long commutes (also see book: Sprawl Kills - written by Joel S. Hirschhorn, coFounder of FOAVC)
• Energy vulnerabilities, despite the Department Of Energy’s (D.O.E.) $28 Billion annual budget;
• Incessant government bloat and waste, growing to nightmare proportions; there are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing; trade deficits are at record levels; we can’t only be a nation that consumes (spends and borrows), but has no manufacturing or industry … eventually, we will be crushed by the debt; the U.S. is borrowing $3 Billion per day; what do Americans expect if they keep selling each other out, and repeatedly reward the irresponsible incumbent politicians for all of it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates? For example, did you hear last week that the U.S. Airforce (7-Mar-2008) awarded a major portion of the contract to build airborne refueling planes to a European maker of Airbus planes (delivering a major blow to Boeing Co.);

googlumpugus wrote: Belt tightening is exactly the wrong answer.

“Belt Tightening is the wrong answer.” ?

What do you suggest?
Creating more money out of thin air, borrowing, and spending our way out of $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

And IF the severely over-bloated federal government doesn’t stop the waste, pork-barrel, spending, excessive money printing, wars, and these other abuses soon, this recession will last a long time (or worse).

googlumpugus wrote: Responsible spending amd easing of monetary policy is in order here.

But you just said “Belt Tightening is the wrong answer.”

Yes, responsible spending is always needed.
And what are the chances of that when most voters continue to reward Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?

googlumpugus wrote: … easing of monetary policy is in order here.

AAAHHHhhhhhh … like the “hair of the dog”, eh?

By creating more money out of thin air, and making credit easier to get, when the nation is already swimming in $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?
Creating more out of thin air will only make things worse later, and the U.S. Dollar has already been falling for 7 years.

googlumpugus wrote: We don’t need a trade war with Canada regarding NAFTA, or letting the capital markets fall on their own pitard because they deserve it.

We need fair trade. And we don’t need to be subsidizing or rewarding corporations that move jobs out of the U.S.

googlumpugus wrote: When someone begins to throw reason out the window and panic, I tend to ignore them.

Hmmmm … it might be difficult to ignore one’s self.

googlumpugus wrote: I’m not accusing Walker of that, but getting a headline isn’t all that helpful.

You still provided nothing convincing that David Walker was only looking for headlines.

As stated before, people seldom do themselves a favor by trying to give credence to potential dooms-dayish predictions. Wall Street hates it, the IN-PARTY hates it, stock brokers hate it, retailers hate it, and anti-anything-not-rosy optimists hate it. Doomsdayers are almost always painted as nut cases, even when eminent fiscal and economic melt-down is truly close or already upon us. Therefore, playing chicken-little is rarely advantageous.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I haven’t yet seen anything to substantiate it.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 9, 2008 05:38 PM

Thank’s d.a.n. for your phoney and unfactual analysis.

You didn’t answer the one question I asked.

Are you expecting barbarians? No? Then I rest my case. This is a silly discussion of a serious subject. If the answer is yes….well, I think that would make my case as well.

Hey, if you want the comptroller to be your morality and history professor, you are free to idolize him.

There IS no factual comparison on these points between us and the Fall of Rome, there is only what I consider to be, hyperbolic conjecture.

The problem with long range economic forecasting is that it involves assumptions, that, historically, are almost always wrong. If we were good at predicting economic outcomes we’d all be rich and recessions would never occur.

Yes, we have economic problems and I am thankful when David Walker addresses these.

As to a history degree, it wasn’t a significant fact. I misrembered a comment of his in something I read or viewed. I think he may have said he was a history buff. He DOES often make historical references, that in my opinion, are off the wall.

OK!! You think we are in moral decline and ready to be sacked and burned. I’ll gladly play the fiddle or teach GW for you…are you happy? Nope, no hyperbole there.

Me, I like to keep my feet on earth and I stopped drinking too much coffee long ago.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 9, 2008 08:16 PM

D.a.n.,
OK, I drank a pot of coffee…pull up a chair…

googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n Something that got a lot of play recently was this (paraphrased) statement: … Mr. Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.
Is that it?

Yes, that’s what you asked for.

In case you forgot, you asked: Do you have any facts to support that conclusion/opinion that David Walker’s warnings have “stated in extreme ways with a bit of chicken-little overtones”?

Where are the declining moral values and political civility as compared to the fall of Rome?
I haven’t seen a Caligula or Nero appointed as an all powerful emperor, horses in the Senate, or prostitution of Senate wives. Have you? Are assassinations between parties going on during the Senate? Did I miss this?
Is there really a comparison with excessive military spending and power projection between us and Rome? Do we require the same type of force to maintain our economic status as Rome did? Do we import slaves from our outer provinces as spoils of war?
Ok I’ll grant you fiscal irresponsibility. I’m not sure you can compare Rome’s economy with ours….but I’ll give you that one to be nice.
Do you have any facts to support your ridiculous supposition that we are about to fall like Rome? You already listed numerous economic problems, caffeine aside, listing them twice doesn’t count. I’ve given you that there are economic problems (as I did in my original post) Where does this add up to the fall of Rome?

However, can you show us anything that David Walker has done that is irresponsible, or merely designed only to get himself “attention”?

I never called David irresponsible. That’s YOUR phony straw man.

As to his desire to get attention, I’ll let him tell us:
“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on…..

Perhap you have seen something we haven’t?

Nope I think you saw it when you backed up and said you couldn’t support everything he says….. and what’s with referring to yourself as we? Have you become royalty now? Really…. please cut back on the caffeine.

After all, in case you haven’t noticed, people seldom do themselves a favor by trying to give credence to the potential for dooms-dayish predictions. Wall Street hates it, the IN-PARTY hates it, stock brokers hate it, retailers hate it, and anti-anything-not-rosy optimists hate it. Doomsdayers are almost always painted as nut cases, even when eminent fiscal and economic melt-down is truly close or already upon us. Therefore, playing chicke-little is rarely advantageous.

We agree on something here. Could it be the doom and gloomers are usually wrong? At least, since 1929 they generally have been. Minor little fact there, that could have some significance.

I’ve noticed many times that David Walker (U.S. Comptroller General) on many occasions, when some reporter or journalist has tried to back him into a dooms-day prediction, he was careful to say “if we stay on this course”, and that is true. He is not the only economist or analyst that has stated the very same thing. If we stay on the current course, the following problems (below), growing in number and severity, will get worse; not better.

Because his message is about long term economic issues. When he spoke about the Fall of Rome…..guess what all the headlines read? They generally breeze over the economic details of what he says, but they all squeeze that quote in. He knows that he’s saying something over the top. The point is to get attention. Noble? Not really. A cheap trick to get a headline, which buries his real message.

Therefore, I don’t see anything chicken-little about that.

Fine. See Ya, after the Barbarians invade. Or are they going to fall from the sky?

Caffiene attack.

I didn’t dispute the economic data. Lotta facts. Irrellevant to what I posted, but Okey Dokey!!

In my opinion, and based on dozens of economic factors (above), others in the federal government should be echoing David Walker’s warnings.
There is no doubt that David Walker has his own political leanings (i.e. he was appointed by former president Bill Clinton), and some will accuse him of wanting to denigrate the current administration, but David Walker is far from being alone in denigrating the current admininstration, and it is the facts he is reporting that should be scrutinized

I made none of these arguments. Who are you arguing with? Yourself?

What ever David Walker’s motives may be, perhaps it would be best to first address the accuracy of his public statements?

No, because I wasn’t arguing with you about the economic issues.

googlumpugus, perhaps if you could point precisely to some statements, or videos, or some evidence to prove David Walker is chicken-littlish, then your statement may have some credibility.

I did, but you think we are in Rome with Barbarians at the gate…..

But then, that would also require a lot of explaining to also explain away those not-so-rosy economic issues listed above to put a dent in David Walker’s warnings.

I only argued with his hyperbole. Economics IS boring. But if you can’t get past that, you aren’t going to understand it or educate anyone about it. The problem is the public heard about the fall of Rome, not the real economic issues. Panicking people doesn’t educate them.
I don’t worship at the feet of David Walker and don’t recommend others do. We’ve had this debate before on one of David Remer’s doom and gloom, impending depression posts. The real secret of David Walker’s discussions are that there IS time to react, and there are SEVERAL choices that a government and people may make about what is socially responsible.
We are entering a period of economic turbulence ( to use a Greenspan term), overreactions that contract the money supply could have serious impact. I encourage calm and reasoned debate, not discussions about impending depressions or the Fall of Rome. That is irresponsible in my opinion.
Ultimately I only said I didn’t like the way David Walker used hypebole to make a point. You disagree. Did we really need to go through all this? The only facts that were relevant were the hyperbole. I never disputed the economic data.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 10, 2008 03:37 AM

googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n You didn’t answer the one question I asked.

Are you expecting barbarians? No? Then I rest my case. This is a silly discussion of a serious subject. If the answer is yes….well, I think that would make my case as well. Talk about silly hyperbole.

Forgive me. I was not aware that you actually wanted a answer to such a stupid question …

googlumpugus wrote:(i.e. Are you expecting barbarians?).

googlumpugus wrote:
Fine. See Ya, after the Barbarians invade. Or are they going to fall from the sky?

googlumpugus wrote: