Above painting by author, Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo
Starting with the attacks initiated by President G W Bush, In the wars in several Mid-Eastern Nations: Iraq, Afghanistan, have been attacked. In addition to them under the new president, the US has attacked Libya, further and included as possible near future targets are: Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, and, Pakistan.
Thus far many thousands of non-combatants, including the elderly, the ill, men, women and sadly, children, were killed and maimed by gunfire, bombs and drones.
The person now presiding over such attacks, is no longer G. W. Bush, it is B. Obama. Perhaps Obama, like Bush, as displayed by their actions over their words, are either hypocrites pretending to be the Christian’s they both claim to be, or their devotion to God and Jesus is a canard. What ever happened to, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you..." and, "Whatsoever, you do unto these, even the least of your brethren, you do also likewise unto me."
Nevertheless, much disturbing as this may be to many, the worst may be yet to come. Let, us however, back up. In the year 2000, the DOT.COM bubble burst and two years later Bush with unscrupulous pretenses attacked a nation which despite many of it disadvantages, had many advantages which are missing in other nations which are allies. Unfortunately, for the Iraqi’s, it also had oil. The Bush administration sent America on the road to financial ruin by piling up a debt of $15 Trillion dollars, an amount that was hidden to those whose were account challenged as my articles suggested, and our prediction of $19.3 Trillion debt by 2011 has been surpassed three years into the administration of Obama. During the Paul O’Neill short lived term as Secretary of The Treasury, he argued vehemently that the tax cuts for the wealthy were not only unnecessary but contraindicated and posed a debt danger to the nation as a whole, even before the attack on Iraq. Greenspan, though, allegedly, agreeing with O’Neill backed off under intimidation by Cheney/Bush et al.
There is no debt* in America save that of the war, and the tax cuts to the rich, which costs several Trillions a year, $1.2 trillion alone coming from the ongoing wars. Add that to the $5.9 Trillion surplus of the Clinton years, of which $3.9 Trillion was earmarked by Secretary of The Treasury Paul O’Neill and Alan Greenspan for deposit into Social Security, and Greenspan was, at least at that moment, resigned to go along with O’Neill, according to The Price of Loyalty, Suskind’s book on O’Neill’s short tenure as a member of the Bush team. Had the that been accomplished and the remainder of the Surplus been added to the debt facing them, as well taxes to the rich increased considerably, we would not be having this deficit discussion now. In fact, the $1.6 trillion “Stimulus Package” has never been utilized and still sits drawing .25% interest from the USA in Foreign banks. It can easily be canceled because it was “created” by the key stroke of a computer, and can be nullified in the same way. Now for the killer observation: Since the banks are not lending any money, because there are few people qualified for loans, why are interest rates on earnings in banks for savings accounts, at near all time lows?
A friend who pulled out of the market when I did in August of 2008, foreseeing the crash, has his cash, about $750,000 in cash at .05% interest, should be drawing $37,500 a year interest. His wife lost a $75,000 a year job and is now making $25,000, and instead of building a new house and buying a new auto, are doing neither. Thus they like millions of other Americans who were frugal, only spending or investing what they could afford to, would be able to stimulate the economy despite her job loss, are instead are earning slave labor interest of $00.004 or $ 3,000 a year in earned interest, which is $34,500 less than a normal interest rate would be paying thus wiping out any hope of savers having any sizeable discretionary spending cash available, thus crushing market growth.
Why then is this so? Because people, like me warned all of their friends. (Though few listened) to get out of the market as a crash was coming in fall of 2008, thus Wall Streeter’s/The FED, could not totally wipe everyone out, which was their goal. Now by holding a position at the FED that in order to earn higher savings people would be required to take more risks, they have double loaded the wipeout factors, catching those with savings whether they save or play. Thus the FED and the congress are committing suicide with earnings, investment, spending, market expansion, growth, jobs and aiding and abetting debt, deficits, job shrinkage and bankruptcy.
Look at it this way: If You are paying an employee $75,000 a year after taxes, and all of his living expenses amount to $50,000 a year, including retirement, Social Security and medical, the rest, $25,000 in discretionary income can be invested or spent, thus boosting the economy including expanding the companies from which he purchases goods and services. If you then arbitrarily cut his medical coverage, his salary and pension by $27,000 a year, he has no discretionary income, no health care, no pension, and is now in fact in debt by $3,000 a year. He will eventually go bankrupt and lose his house. If you do that on a national level you have an accelerating Depression, which it appears is exactly what corporations and certain governing entities desire. A indebted and bankrupt job seeker will take anything do any thing including joining the military, because without a draft, in a good economy only the most desperate are going to put their lives in danger to earn a living. So, now what we have is no expendable incomes, but plenty of expendable people, and they are YOU!Paul Krugman:
“The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.
“Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue -- the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 -- he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.
“Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.
“But wait" -- it gets worse.
“You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits -- and never did run much of a surplus -- the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest -- a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.”
What we have, quite simply put, is either really stupid people, or really evil people at the top. I suggest that both the former and the latter is the case. What do you think?