Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.

Posted By: Not fooled by fake remembrance. on 2008-09-11
In Reply to: I knew it was too good to be true. Remember 9/11. - ANON

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

I knew it was too good to be true. Remember 9/11. - ANON
- Who put you in charge? - Free to Choose
  - I took the original poster for observing 9/11 ...sm - ms
- They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened. - Not fooled by fake remembrance.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.

About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout

by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

5
votesBuzz up!

SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES

The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:

1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources

I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.

Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers� bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.

The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.

Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.

I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled �The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.� Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.

This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?�. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.

What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?

The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:

Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.

Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.

There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.

The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.

What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.

I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2

by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

3
votesBuzz up!

SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES

The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.

To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:

... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....

the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...

There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.

Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:

Criticism 1 � This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable

Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.

One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.

Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.

Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.

Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.

Criticism 2 � This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.

All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.

Criticism 3 � This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.

Criticism 4 � The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.

January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2

by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

3
votesBuzz up!

SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES

Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following

Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..

Criticism 5 � This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..

Criticism 6 � This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.

We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.

Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation

------------------------

What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:

James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.

Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.

she must have her quota in for the month
x

I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.

and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.

keep your head in the sand - a month ago

they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....

1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.

i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x

Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.

I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X

If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.

How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm

It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?

Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?

Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x

What happened?
Oh geez..what happened? Where are all the attack posts?? They are gone!! Or maybe Im just hallucinating this morning, LOL. OMG!! Now we can have soulful, fruitful, progressive and caring debates and ideas and maybe even possibly make a difference, without being attacked on everything we post. Halleluiah!!

What I think happened
I believe the other short, nasty post was deleted and in doing so it automatically deleted the other posts below it, which unfortunately included yours.

Yes, let's. What happened to all that
You used the "little people" reference to illustrate how elitist my concerns are. Those were not Obama's words, they were yours. You are not as good at spin as you think you are. Your choice to skip over the points about what KIND of executive experiences is another casual dismissal of issues far to vital to ignore, as you evidently would have us do. Those concerns will not be repeated here since you are trying to side-step them, as republicans inevitably do when faced with intellectual challenge, except to say that CEOs are executives, but keep themselves far out of touch with the "little people" beneath them. Sarah what's-her-name has also demonstrated a tendency to be a bit out of touch when it comes to using her office to elevate herself from ethics maid to VP.

Be impressed by that December 4, 2006 to now executive title. You obviously cannot cite any substance behind the title and neither can she. Most of us will not be voting for a title or a label, despite your party's best efforts.

Side-stepped everything about the token selection and Stepford Wife delegation, I see. So much for celebrating women's progress in the political arena.

First chair? Hopefully not (God help us if she ever is). Fact: That possibility is considerably more real under McCain (especially over an 8-year term) because of his age. Again, you have side-stepped the difference between the experience of Biden and the absence of same in what's-her-name. So much for being ready to lead the country. No problem. Says all it need to. 80% approval rating unheard of? You got that right. Nobody beyond Alaska has heard about it and it does not mean anything in view of the issue I raised that you are ignoring.

If you want to continue to make an utter fool of yourself by insisting her experience matches Obama's, go for it. I won't need to answer that lunacy again anytime soon. I'll let the media take care of that one for me and besides, rational minds will prevail over this lame claim.

What ever happened to
all those scathing protests over "redistribution of wealth?" How do all these bail-outs factor into that line of thinking?

I don't know how this happened!!! =)
ms - here's my political profile from the test you posted. Yes, I was very surprised! The liberal part must be hold-overs from my college days! =)

Overall: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

and what happened?
did someone put a stop to it???

What happened to sam?

I'm just curious. I can barely stomach the politics board, so I almost never read the political posts due to the O-Love-A-Thon and the pure vitreol, which does nobody any good.

I noticed that sam took off. I don't blame him/her, either. I simply wondered.

As for Ann Coulter, her brilliance and success literally drives the libs nuts. I have her books, too, just short of her latest one, "Guilty."

I'm not here to start a bunch of %(#$*, but I just wondered where sam went. My guess is that he/she got sick of the crap and left. I couldn't figure why he/she continued the fightl I know I won't go there.

I know what happened...LOL..(sm)

You responded to a post that said "what makes you think we don't" when you probably should have, or meant to respond to the comment above that. It went south after that. Been there and done that. I hate it when that happens....LOL.

What happened to us.

You always hear about people in the old days who worked from run rise to run set to make enough money, etc. to support themselves and their kids. They wouldn't take charity or handouts. They took pride in working and earning what they got whether it was enough or not. Now there are just too many people with their hands out asking for a free ride.

As far as I am concerned.....if you are receiving welfare and you refuse to work even if it isn't a great job......you lose your welfare. I have no problem contributing to someone who is at least trying to work. However, I do have a problem with giving money to lazy bums who would rather mooch off other people than to do a days honest work.

This is what happened
Someone posted that the Capt had been freed. Someone replied to that "Thank you President Obama. Job well done". We're all thinking what????? I didn't know that the O was part of the Navy Seal team that went in and rescued the Captain. Why would you be thanking the O but not the Navy Seals, not saying they are hero's that laid down their lives to rescue the Captain. No they attribute it all to the O. And yet on the other side of the coin they wouldn't give GW the same "congrats" when he gave the orders to have the girl from West Virginia rescued, or when he have the orders to have the hostages in Iran rescued, or any of the other orders he gave the okay on for the Navy Seals to rescue the people. But even then, as I don't congratulate the O because he wasn't part of the Navy Seals that risked their life to save the Captain, I would also not congratulate Bush on his orders to rescue other hostages.

The congrats goes to the Navy Seals. The ones who lay their lives down to rescue people they don't even know. When you give your life and are prepared to die to save another human being, they are the real hero's. But the poster that congratulated the O for "a job well done", didn't even mention anything about the ones who actually did the saving.

I don't get you guys...what is it you want. We all know you think he is the messiah, the anointed one, the one who can do no wrong. You will always be the first to praise "oh looky the stock market went up 8.5 points - way to go O, you're just the best president ever", but when the stock market drops something like 150 points you stay silent, and then be the ones to point out that the stock market goes up and down and it's not his fault. I sit and think...uh hellloooooo...you just congratuated him for the stock market going up but it's not his fault it goes down?????? (which by the way I don't believe whether it goes up or down he has anything to do with, but evidently you people do - that is of course only when it goes up).

All you want to see on this board is praises for him and rejoicing and singing hallelujah's to his name. You will never ever say anything when something bad is happening. Just praises.

Yes, I know he will make mistakes, and I know he will do some good. But not admitting when something bad is going on (like tripling our deficit within 90 days - and no, not a fault of Bush's, the O did this all by himself with his pen and paper, and with the help of a crat congress. You won't admit he is breaking his campaign promises. You won't say anything when we hear he is telling other countries that they can have our jobs because we don't want them anyways. You won't say anything when he bows to another countries leader (the American president is suppose to bow to nobody - but on top of that if he is suppose to bow to anyone, certainly not the country like that - I mean for pete's sake, he didn't even bow to the Queen of England). You may say you don't think he's perfect, but you certainly don't speak up when something he has done is wrong.

The "I know he will make mistakes - what man has never made mistakes?", etc, etc. sounds like your trying to get people to feel sorry for him and maybe you think it aids in your cause of the "oh poor O, everyone is picking on him". Well you know what, when people stand up and say "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". When you finally will speak up and say "hey, wait a minute, I voted for him but this is not what he said he was going to do" (which is what has happened to me. Yeah, you bet I get pretty ticked off when I have been lied to and I voted for him believing one thing and then realized he suckered us a good one. That's what's the really upsetting thing. Fooled me once shame on you, fool me twice - well there just won't be a twice.

"Why can't ya'll just give him a chance"??????? He has had his chance and he is blowing it.

It disappeared? I wonder how that happened.
nm

More importantly, what ever happened to the USA?

A Chinese bank is opening up in the USA. Bush at one time had wanted to sell "security" of our ports to an Arab country. We have two citizen heroes rotting away in jail because they did their job of protecting our border with Mexico and were forced to kill a criminal in the process of doing that job.

If you open this link, you will see the staggering number of "American" companies that are no longer owned by Americans. http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/10/american-icons-owned-abroad-falling-dollar-cheaper-u-s-assets/

As far as the redistribution of wealth, below I have copied and pasted what I feel is, by far, the most interesting article I've read on that topic. In my opinion, a "trickle up" policy needs to be implemented as soon as possible because the "trickle down" theory has not worked.

Closing Time

Jim Kirwan
12-10-8

Since Reagan we've been trying to make "Trickle-Down economics" work: For those to whom promises were made, Trickle- Down has been, not just a failure but it has been the major vehicle responsible for the most massive redistribution of wealth, from the population that has worked toward something, to those that wanted everything. Never has there been such a near total transfer of wealth in the history of the planet. This criminal-conspiracy has done what it was created to do and it must be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately, if we are to survive.

When 'Trickle-Down' was the political-priority of the day, the high-point in prosperity was to become a 'Millionaire.' Forbes magazine tracked those lucky few very carefully. Today Forbes 500 no longer bothers with 'millionaires' because there are just far too many of them-they have become inconsequential. Thanks to "Trickle-Down economics today the heavy-hitters financially are 'Billionaires' and above: which is all you need to know about how well this hostile-takeover of the American economy has worked.

The problem that this transfer of wealth has created has resulted in the Federalization-of-Privatization: As a result we are all facing another huge round of trickle-down economics, but this time it's being cloaked in a series of stealth-protected measures. These new tactics are commonly called BAILOUT or RESCUE packages, and nothing about their origins or their purposes has been made clear to those of us that will be forced to pay tens of trillions for our own destruction.

What's happening is this: First they used compromised laws to squash diversity and opinion within the entire field of communications, under Clinton and Powell's kid that ran the FCC. Together, competition was eliminated and monstrous empires were created that absorbed their competition outright. Once this happened, the entire edifice for total information management was in-place, using household names to lie to the public every minute of every day, whether on television or in print-with very few exceptions. With that completed effort it was easy to move directly onto the openly fascist path to WAR on a variety of fronts, supported and applauded by the very organs that were supposed to question whatever government does, on behalf of the people, as part of their constitutionally protected-jobs as so-called journalists. With the constitution gone, and the only allegiance worthy of that name having become the private for-profit motives that greed and arrogance breeds; in the sewers of those ruined lives where these so-called leaders "live," the current outcome is all that we should have ever expected from these new-age barbarians. (1)

We're still in the Twilight Zone; where Obama is just another man waiting to start a job, except that he seemingly can't wait to begin so he formulates their plans and then rushes to the nearest podium to expound upon the glories of what these programs (or pogroms) are pointedly designed to do; for them and 'to' us. And the sheep wait patiently to board the trains that will take them to the slaughterhouse.

The larger picture has or course remained hidden from the general public. What continues to go unnoticed is the number of profligate cities and towns, not to mention states that will have to be bailed out by the feds. Once this begins to happen, 'the rights' of states will disappear completely along with any independence from the federal-government. Remember the formula upon which bailouts are based: The crucial money provided is conditioned upon a federal "ownership stake" in everything that needs the money, and when this is applied to the states then all they have left to trade with is their broken-economies and their people who shall both become the property of the federal government that is today a private-corporation that serves only the privately-owned central banks and by extension the multi-national corporations. This is about to happen now to several states, including California; the sixth largest economy in the world. (2)

'BTW the "corporation" mentioned above has been bankrupt since 1933, and the result of that bankruptcy is that the USA went into receivership to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Dictator was correct when he said: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper," he was actually telling the truth. It was probably the only truthful statement he ever made in nearly eight years.
The owners have simply allowed us to believe we have a constitution. Every law, code and statute world wide is based on the Uniform Commercial Code and has been in place since 1950. Of course no one in a position of power ever bothered to mention this to us did they? One must understand the UCC to understand how and why so many have gotten away with so much: And now they are upping the ante, to take it all.'

This explains why every courtroom and every government building has flags hanging that really are not American flags even though they appear to be. Each of them has gold/yellow fringe around them. They give us smoke and mirrors that mask what they created, which allows them to continue to say 'we have a constitution and a democracy.' Of course America was created to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The rights of the few and the many, can only be protected under a Republic, while under a democracy, the majority rules-absolutely.

There are however a few places that are still holding out against the one-world-order and the New Barbarians. Among these are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, possibly Iran and certainly Greece.
"Socialist leader George Papandreou called for early elections, saying the conservative government could no longer defend the public from rioters.

The government has a single-seat majority in the 300-member Parliament and opposition parties blame hands-off policing for encouraging the worst rioting the country has seen in decades.

'The government cannot handle this crisis and has lost the trust of the Greek people,' Papandreou said. 'The best thing it can do is resign and let the people find a solution ... we will protect the public.'" (3)

If America is to survive then we must stop this wholesale giveaway of everything that was once part of this society. The relationship between profits and earnings must be freed from the stranglehold that management has created in order to siphon off all the profits and wreck the companies they work for. In addition, the idea that government can function in any capacity as a major stakeholder in any form of private enterprise beggars the imagination far beyond any real possibility for saving anything; except the criminals and their enterprises that created this "crisis" in the first place. The 'economy' must be based on a bottom-up profit motive, based on the real wages of those that create the wealth for those at the top - and not upon the insanity that it is now! People must come first, and the corporations must be controlled at every level by the public!

There is no longer anything like responsibility anywhere in government or the private sector to anything except what can continue to be stolen, either by flawed and fraudulent bailouts, or through the strong-arm tactics that are currently acting "under- cover of law" and that are neither legal nor functional. Obama in this venue is neither a savior, nor a friend to the people that supposedly 'elected' him-he is just the instrument of the new global-government engine designed to finish the job and to close down this nation, once and for all! Americans need to watch what happens in Greece and follow their example, if there is to be an America to fight over in the future.

In the meanwhile, here is some of what's happened here already.

"With the focus on privatization, public-private partnerships, (dismantling local control); anyone with any common sense about them can see that; incrementally the power of the people is being given over to corporate control through various venues. Once upon a time we were subjects, then citizens, and now consumers. Everything is for sale. TV 'programming' is set up to entice "consumers" through the 3000 daily ads to buy, buy, buy! Utilities-waste- nursing homes, and even the people's water (once in local control) is open to the highest bidder or those with the most influence. In "public private partnerships or privatization" (despite the lofty high pitch sales rhetoric) means only one thing, a plundering of the people's money. Profits take precedence over any and all health or environmental concerns. It's pigs at the trough time, locally- state wise and nationally. This is not just happening in one or two isolated places but across the nation. Because we are narrowly focused (many times only one newspaper) parochially; we have little to no idea of the larger picture and what is being set in place.

As I read of various happenings across the nation; I am struck with the usage of terms and language being introduced into the public arena; with no explanation as to their meaning (if any). I asked a state politician a few years back what this terminology we're hearing lately of, "regional or regionalization" meant? He brushed the whole thing aside as inconsequential and told me that is was of no importance. Obviously, for me, that was an unsatisfactory answer. Most especially, since on the local level, I could see that it meant a great deal. It appeared to me, that ever so insidiously, local control was gradually being usurped by "regional" control of unelected officials. Consultants (strangers) were replacing local people in places of city government (at lucrative salaries). The sense of community (calling city hall etc.) was being replaced by various business entities, having little to no attachment to the heartbeat of the people. How could they, being strangers, with no sense of native pride or concern? Words like "regional, stake holder, empowerment zones, enterprise committees, visioning councils, smart growth, sustainable development etc;" had replaced understandable language! I didn't imagine that the usage of these terms across the nation (if you look) meant "nothing"." (4)

It's 'Closing Time' America, because unless you begin to do more than just watch, this place won't even be a footnote to the ruin that is planned for these people and this place that once held so much promise for everyone.

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

More importantly, what ever happened to the USA?

Closing Time

Jim Kirwan
12-10-8

Since Reagan we've been trying to make "Trickle-Down economics" work: For those to whom promises were made, Trickle- Down has been, not just a failure but it has been the major vehicle responsible for the most massive redistribution of wealth, from the population that has worked toward something, to those that wanted everything. Never has there been such a near total transfer of wealth in the history of the planet. This criminal-conspiracy has done what it was created to do and it must be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately, if we are to survive.

When 'Trickle-Down' was the political-priority of the day, the high-point in prosperity was to become a 'Millionaire.' Forbes magazine tracked those lucky few very carefully. Today Forbes 500 no longer bothers with 'millionaires' because there are just far too many of them-they have become inconsequential. Thanks to "Trickle-Down economics today the heavy-hitters financially are 'Billionaires' and above: which is all you need to know about how well this hostile-takeover of the American economy has worked.

The problem that this transfer of wealth has created has resulted in the Federalization-of-Privatization: As a result we are all facing another huge round of trickle-down economics, but this time it's being cloaked in a series of stealth-protected measures. These new tactics are commonly called BAILOUT or RESCUE packages, and nothing about their origins or their purposes has been made clear to those of us that will be forced to pay tens of trillions for our own destruction.

What's happening is this: First they used compromised laws to squash diversity and opinion within the entire field of communications, under Clinton and Powell's kid that ran the FCC. Together, competition was eliminated and monstrous empires were created that absorbed their competition outright. Once this happened, the entire edifice for total information management was in-place, using household names to lie to the public every minute of every day, whether on television or in print-with very few exceptions. With that completed effort it was easy to move directly onto the openly fascist path to WAR on a variety of fronts, supported and applauded by the very organs that were supposed to question whatever government does, on behalf of the people, as part of their constitutionally protected-jobs as so-called journalists. With the constitution gone, and the only allegiance worthy of that name having become the private for-profit motives that greed and arrogance breeds; in the sewers of those ruined lives where these so-called leaders "live," the current outcome is all that we should have ever expected from these new-age barbarians. (1)

We're still in the Twilight Zone; where Obama is just another man waiting to start a job, except that he seemingly can't wait to begin so he formulates their plans and then rushes to the nearest podium to expound upon the glories of what these programs (or pogroms) are pointedly designed to do; for them and 'to' us. And the sheep wait patiently to board the trains that will take them to the slaughterhouse.

The larger picture has or course remained hidden from the general public. What continues to go unnoticed is the number of profligate cities and towns, not to mention states that will have to be bailed out by the feds. Once this begins to happen, 'the rights' of states will disappear completely along with any independence from the federal-government. Remember the formula upon which bailouts are based: The crucial money provided is conditioned upon a federal "ownership stake" in everything that needs the money, and when this is applied to the states then all they have left to trade with is their broken-economies and their people who shall both become the property of the federal government that is today a private-corporation that serves only the privately-owned central banks and by extension the multi-national corporations. This is about to happen now to several states, including California; the sixth largest economy in the world. (2)

'BTW the "corporation" mentioned above has been bankrupt since 1933, and the result of that bankruptcy is that the USA went into receivership to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Dictator was correct when he said: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper," he was actually telling the truth. It was probably the only truthful statement he ever made in nearly eight years.
The owners have simply allowed us to believe we have a constitution. Every law, code and statute world wide is based on the Uniform Commercial Code and has been in place since 1950. Of course no one in a position of power ever bothered to mention this to us did they? One must understand the UCC to understand how and why so many have gotten away with so much: And now they are upping the ante, to take it all.'

This explains why every courtroom and every government building has flags hanging that really are not American flags even though they appear to be. Each of them has gold/yellow fringe around them. They give us smoke and mirrors that mask what they created, which allows them to continue to say 'we have a constitution and a democracy.' Of course America was created to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The rights of the few and the many, can only be protected under a Republic, while under a democracy, the majority rules-absolutely.

There are however a few places that are still holding out against the one-world-order and the New Barbarians. Among these are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, possibly Iran and certainly Greece.
"Socialist leader George Papandreou called for early elections, saying the conservative government could no longer defend the public from rioters.

The government has a single-seat majority in the 300-member Parliament and opposition parties blame hands-off policing for encouraging the worst rioting the country has seen in decades.

'The government cannot handle this crisis and has lost the trust of the Greek people,' Papandreou said. 'The best thing it can do is resign and let the people find a solution ... we will protect the public.'" (3)

If America is to survive then we must stop this wholesale giveaway of everything that was once part of this society. The relationship between profits and earnings must be freed from the stranglehold that management has created in order to siphon off all the profits and wreck the companies they work for. In addition, the idea that government can function in any capacity as a major stakeholder in any form of private enterprise beggars the imagination far beyond any real possibility for saving anything; except the criminals and their enterprises that created this "crisis" in the first place. The 'economy' must be based on a bottom-up profit motive, based on the real wages of those that create the wealth for those at the top - and not upon the insanity that it is now! People must come first, and the corporations must be controlled at every level by the public!

There is no longer anything like responsibility anywhere in government or the private sector to anything except what can continue to be stolen, either by flawed and fraudulent bailouts, or through the strong-arm tactics that are currently acting "under- cover of law" and that are neither legal nor functional. Obama in this venue is neither a savior, nor a friend to the people that supposedly 'elected' him-he is just the instrument of the new global-government engine designed to finish the job and to close down this nation, once and for all! Americans need to watch what happens in Greece and follow their example, if there is to be an America to fight over in the future.

In the meanwhile, here is some of what's happened here already.

"With the focus on privatization, public-private partnerships, (dismantling local control); anyone with any common sense about them can see that; incrementally the power of the people is being given over to corporate control through various venues. Once upon a time we were subjects, then citizens, and now consumers. Everything is for sale. TV 'programming' is set up to entice "consumers" through the 3000 daily ads to buy, buy, buy! Utilities-waste- nursing homes, and even the people's water (once in local control) is open to the highest bidder or those with the most influence. In "public private partnerships or privatization" (despite the lofty high pitch sales rhetoric) means only one thing, a plundering of the people's money. Profits take precedence over any and all health or environmental concerns. It's pigs at the trough time, locally- state wise and nationally. This is not just happening in one or two isolated places but across the nation. Because we are narrowly focused (many times only one newspaper) parochially; we have little to no idea of the larger picture and what is being set in place.

As I read of various happenings across the nation; I am struck with the usage of terms and language being introduced into the public arena; with no explanation as to their meaning (if any). I asked a state politician a few years back what this terminology we're hearing lately of, "regional or regionalization" meant? He brushed the whole thing aside as inconsequential and told me that is was of no importance. Obviously, for me, that was an unsatisfactory answer. Most especially, since on the local level, I could see that it meant a great deal. It appeared to me, that ever so insidiously, local control was gradually being usurped by "regional" control of unelected officials. Consultants (strangers) were replacing local people in places of city government (at lucrative salaries). The sense of community (calling city hall etc.) was being replaced by various business entities, having little to no attachment to the heartbeat of the people. How could they, being strangers, with no sense of native pride or concern? Words like "regional, stake holder, empowerment zones, enterprise committees, visioning councils, smart growth, sustainable development etc;" had replaced understandable language! I didn't imagine that the usage of these terms across the nation (if you look) meant "nothing"." (4)

It's 'Closing Time' America, because unless you begin to do more than just watch, this place won't even be a footnote to the ruin that is planned for these people and this place that once held so much promise for everyone.

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

Well, whatever happened, I am sure glad
nm

and we all know what happened to Rome don't we? sm
The Roman empire rotted from within. They kept absorbing and absorbing immigrants until they were no long able to sustain both them and their own citizens at the same time. The infrastructure finally gave out.

Sounds familiar to me.

I believe, if this happened...and don't know where you read it...
that these were paid McCain staffers, but some misguided McCain supporters. Obama has them too...many of them came out with the nastiness about Palin. They were Obama supporters, but not Obama staffers. Big difference. Obama can't control supporters, neither can McCain.

That happened to me the last recession we had...
and it took a good 6 years to right itself after the economy straightened out. And when it did...money went right into a CD. I don't mind a little in the market but I am not young enough to wait several years for rebounding again. Sigh.

Speak of Sam, what happened to her? nm
x

I wonder what happened to Kaydie?n/m
xx

That happened to me in the last 4 elections but

why, I don't know. It could be that the post office changed our street address 4 times yet lived here since ྈ. I wasn't on the list even though I've been registered since 1988 and voted every election. All of a sudden, I had to fill out a special form to vote. Last local primary, they wouldn't let me vote and I had to re-register. Stupid!

This year I called to make sure I was registered and they said yes. Got a new registration card with the old address on it, but no trouble this year. I was #235 at 7:30 a.m.

So, so true. This is what has happened in many

Phoenix, Arizona is one of them. Greed from Wall Street and greed from Main Street. After all, Phoenix was in a major housing bubble. I sold my home in 2005 by a California investor who not wanted my house and 6 others. My house was in a biding war. I pockted 280,000. Now that house in Phoenix is worth 160,000 less than what I sold it for. In 2005, homes were selling like crazy in Phoenix. Everyone wanted to jump on the band wagon. California investor thought, along with so many others, they could sell in a year or two and make a profit. Some profit, foreclosure. Many other homeowners took out equity to buy their boats and second homes. Now their second homes and their own home are in foreclosure. Not so many took out equity for cars because most lease their cars in Phoenix/Scottsdale. You rarely see a car on the road that is 5 years or older. Country has turned to greed, me-me-me, and gotta have it NOW.

No, this just happened in the last 2 months.
It was WALL STREET, FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC that did it, not Bush. He had nothing to do with this.

What happened to Bin Laden? sm
Watch this Clinton interview by Mike Wallace. Clinton lets him have it with both barrels and defends why he did not get Bin Laden.

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

You would "CARE" if it happened to YOU!
nm

Something else happened in 09/2001........ sm
My 17YO stepson was killed in a motorcycle accident in which a car pulled out in front of him. He had been taught to safely ride a motorcycle, had a helmet on, and was traveling at a safe rate of speed. Was it his fault he was killed? Was it his parents' fault he was killed? Was it the City of Mesquite's fault he was killed?

No.

It was a tragedy, but there is nothing that could have been done to keep that accident from happening from our standpoint. The only person who could have prevented it was the driver of the car who pulled out in front of him.

Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. Bush could not have stopped the 911 disaster. He was not the pilot of any of the planes. He could not personally marshall each plane and verify each passenger on the manifest. He could not keep those planes from crashing into the Towers or the Pentagon or in the field in Pennsylvania.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the Dems bash Bush from everything from 911 to their own bad hair days. If you are going to blame anyone in the US for 911, blame the airlines who did not have proper security in place in the event that terrorists might try something like this. Blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had 3, count 'me, THREE chances to do so. Or better yet, blame AL Quaida for sending their terrorists off in search of their 70 virgins. I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, but the man does not deserve to be blamed for things he had no control over. Oh, sure, he may have known that terroist activitis were brewing, but as I said, he could not have done anything to stop what happened.

Nope. I just happened to have a day
off for a change and decided to check the board out. I see now, it was a mistake.

What ever happened to hiring someone...sm
because they were qualified - why should anything else matter, i.e. race, gender, religion, etc.? I would think a job would be done more proficiently if you hired the person best qualified for that job!

This happened not so long ago
To another rancher. I believe that was in Texas. They actually won. They own his land now, a guy and his sister if I remember correctly. Not a small parcel either. I think this was 4 or 5 years ago. Will have to see if I can find it.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

I rarely watch Fox News because I simply don't trust them to be "fair and balanced," after actually watching them a few years ago.

However, they have the same rights as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, etc., and I think that singling them out in order to silence them goes against the First Amendment that this country stands for.

Let them fall or survive on their own merit (or lack of same).

Hey BB, what happened with O and Gitmo?
nm

What happened in 2005............sm
when Israel pulled out of Gaza? They left behind 1000 settler greenhouses to spare the jobs of the Palestinians who worked in them and how did the Palenstinians show their gratitude? By trashing the greenhouses and stealing hoses, plastic sheeting and anything else that wasn't nailed down. They then proceeded to torch 19 synagouges and then began lobing bombs into Israeli cities. Nice....real nice.

Obama is doing what basically the rest of the world is doing and that is walking on eggshells and brown-nosing to keep from upsetting the Islamic faction and he is selling Israel up the river to do it by forcing them to live in 2-state situation with some very rotten neighbors.

Israel is an ally to every nation fighting the war on Islamic terror. Those same allied nations are advancing a policy of granting statehood to terrorists sworn to the destruction of that ally.

This is exactly the scenario outlined by the Hebrew prophets as signs of the soon coming of Israel's Messiah.

The prophet Zechariah predicted the whole world would be united against Israel over the Jerusalem Question (Zechariah 12:1-3); the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:27) predicted an agreement that seemingly settles the Temple Mount Question; and the prophet Ezekiel predicts that, in the end, Israel will still face a massive Islamic invasion reluctantly overseen by Russia and led by Persia (Iran) (Ezekiel 38:5).

Think about this for a second. Since it is absolutely illogical, and yet it is also exactly the situation we find ourselves witnessing, do you really believe it was all just a really good guess?

The wish of death posts happened

however, the moderator deleted them very quickly. Conservatives are being attacked with no mercy on the C-board. These people post nothing that has to do with the subject matter posted but go straight for the jugular. You are incorrect when you say it isn't personal, because it is extremely personal at times. One long term poster was stalked and threatened by e-mail back when posting an e-mail link was an option. I think you are as free as anyone to post your feelings and beliefs on any board, but when those posts become personally hateful, threatening, or wishing someone death or extreme ill will then that poster be it conservative or liberal needs to go. Recently, the most hateful posts have happened on the C-board. The moderator has said over and over "no bashing", but they still continue to do it. What do you expect the moderator/administrator to do?

Not that I wish you to leave, but If you don't feel comfortable posting here you certainly don't have to stay. There might be a forum where you would feel more comfortable and better fits your posting style. Again, this is a privately owned board, and the administrator is free to discern anyway he/she wants. However, I think the administrator would agree EVERYONE needs to play by the rules.

I happened 5 years ago and no one said a word. sm
What does that tell you?

What is happening now is affected by what happened then...
and the fact remains that the Democratic party did, as a whole, seek to keep African Americans enslaved and after the Republicans, led by Abe Lincoln, abolished slavery, the Democrats (and yes, a minority of southern Republicans), did effectively deny African Americans the right to vote for another 90 years. The 60's are also part of history...and it was then and only then that African Americans got the clear right to vote. I think that is a bit more than a "bad decision." And yes it has changed, albeit after the fight (the civil war) and after numerous attempts by Republican congresses to try to override it...finally enough Northern Democrats did cross over and the right to vote was given. Certainly things have changed. It is just incorrect to state that the Democratic party has always been of a "liberal" view. They have not. That does not mean that Democrats of today follow that same mantra (some do, but they are leftovers of the past). DW, it should be hurtful to know that this occurred. Revisionist history has caused the majority of African Americans in this country, in fact most young people of this country, not to know what happened in those days. I am sure if you polled African Americans on the street they would have no idea that the Democratic party and a minority of the Republican party as well sought to keep them oppressed for 90 years AFTER the Civil War. Most of them probably think the Republican party was responsible for the whole thing. And before the attacks start...I do not consider myself Republican. I have tendencies that go both ways, and I don't think there is a name for that...other than Independent.

Yes, Bush bashing is hurtful in my mind not because I am a big Bush fan, but I do not understand why some people get such joy in making fun of someone. It reminds me of kids in a schoolyard. I don't see why people can't discuss his policies they object to and that sort of thing, but the incessant ya-ya'ing about his intelligence, he's an embarrassment...yada yada. Yes, that is hurtful on a purely human level.

The past was brought up in response to someone talking about how conservatives were probably "afraid" of the Salt Lake City major because he was liberal and worked for civil rights, yada yada. While working for civil rights may be a liberal trait, as recently as the 60's it was not. I have been called down many a time for things that happened in the "past." We really cannot shove the past under the rug. It is part of who, and what, we are.

And I think we can all agree that thank God, we all learned from it.

I think what they expected to happen happened....
South Viet Nam fell and there was a blood bath. Anyone who had in any way aided the Americans were imprisoned and/or killed. And huge amounts of loss of life in Cambodia...remember the Killing Fields? When the barrier of the US was removed...free rein. Just like if you remove the barrier of the US between the Sunnis and Shiites. It will get really, really ugly and I think many thousands will die before...if indeed ever...we could go back on humanitarian missions. That is my fear.

As to chaos...actually in South Viet Nam, the chaos came before we went in...the Dem administration, wanting to stop the "spread of communism" wanted to stop the North from trying to take over the SOuth...but did not like the South's leader at the time. Sooo the CIA helped with a coup to get rid of him. They did not expect the chaos that ensued. And so we went in. Sounds sooo much like what happened to get us in Iraq...except we had not been attacked on our own soil, we had not been attacked, period. They just wanted to stop the "spread of communism." And many many MANY lives later, cut and run, did not accomplish the objective and in fact made things worse. Sound familiar? Sigh. It can happen no matter what administration, no matter what party. I personally think JFK was a good president based on history...but Viet Nam was a BAD mistake. Every bit as bad in that time as Iraq has turned out to be in this one. But do I blame JFK personally for Viet Nam. No.

Yeah. It's been a while back and a lot has happened.
That's pretty much what I meant. They held hearings, brought charges, presented their case, proved their allegations. The mandate was to decide whether or not this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors." Perjury is not pretty...but lying about affairs is not uncommon. Lying about the war...another story. In any case, the charges failed to meet the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors and they voted not to impeach / remove from office.

I think "booming" is a relative concept. For example, as compared to now, booming it was. Another measure might be if people were better off when he left office than we he took office. The 90s, for the most part, is remembered as a decade of prosperity. I may come back a little later and comment further because I am transcribing today, but for the time being, you may find this article of interest. Would like to hear your comments one way or the other.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

I agree with about the working class, but I do believe that generally speaking, the dollar had more purchasing power then than now. I know that as an MT and single parent, the boom sort of skipped over my house, but on the other hands, things did seem easier and better than now.

You will notice I left out a few things that others might think of as "a good thing." Restoration of the death penalty would be one....NAFTA another. IMO, NAFTA has been a disaster and I considered it to be Clinton's biggest boondoggle. For the most part, I though Clinton was a "cool" pres. I will say this much. He is doing some good things now (William J. Clinton Foundation), but aging does not seem to agree with him, in terms of his personality. He just doesn't seem quite as "cool" as he was before....maybe I've gotten older too.

I appreciate your post and may revisit this later this evening.