PDA

View Full Version : Obama by the numbers...



eg8r
10-04-2011, 11:58 AM
“If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition.”

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6028/6196456311_6b68be17bb_o.png

It looks like he failed. While this is bad for our country that he failed hopefully Obama will at least man up and step down and let someone else have a try.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2011, 12:43 PM
Nice graphics, but of course, omitting the key fact of our recent history, which is the near-terminal meltdown of the financial sector which occurred in late '08.

That 4Q08 declined a whopping 8+% in nearly free-fall was not known until the revision of those numbers in the past 6 months or so. That the original 4Q08 report showed it as a still large -3.8% or whatever likewise was not known until well into '09. That the economy had slipped into a recession in early '08 was also not known during the campaign, only declared well afterwards.

So, the problems Obama thought he was dealing with turned out to be orders of magnitude larger, and unprecedented since the '30s Great Depression. Which nobody knew or could have known in the early campaign (which began in '07), and even as of the events of the late fall prior to the election, they were still vastly underestimated.

LWW
10-04-2011, 01:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice graphics, but of course, omitting the key fact of our recent history, which is the near-terminal meltdown of the financial sector which occurred in late '08.

That 4Q08 declined a whopping 8+% in nearly free-fall was not known until the revision of those numbers in the past 6 months or so. That the original 4Q08 report showed it as a still large -3.8% or whatever likewise was not known until well into '09. That the economy had slipped into a recession in early '08 was also not known during the campaign, only declared well afterwards.

So, the problems Obama thought he was dealing with turned out to be orders of magnitude larger, and unprecedented since the '30s Great Depression. Which nobody knew or could have known in the early campaign (which began in '07), and even as of the events of the late fall prior to the election, they were still vastly underestimated.

</div></div>

In a stunning display of my precognitive abilities ... I PREDICTED (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3234525&postcount=9) your post yesterday on a different forum.

eg8r
10-04-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice graphics, but of course, omitting the key fact of our recent history, which is the near-terminal meltdown of the financial sector which occurred in late '08.

</div></div>Obama said he would fix in 3 years or be one and done. Now let's see if he is good on his word.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2011, 03:00 PM
Not exactly.

It was a prediction, not a promise.

Based on his track record, one might assume his prediction is false.

Soflasnapper
10-04-2011, 03:38 PM
That's not what I'm claiming at all.

One cannot cross a chasm in two leaps.

Obama's policy was pegged to a very mis-stated low appraisal of the problem. That isn't his fault, as the gravity of the problem was not evident until later, to any of the blue chip forecaster economists. He used a mainstream assessment agreed to by government and private economists.

However, his policy, calibrated to a far lower assumed gdp decline that even was reported in early 2009, was inadequate to deal with even the 3.8% decline first reported (as that was also far greater than expected). Now that we've had the revised numbers showing it was DOUBLE the decline that was itself far larger than thought or projected, it was probably a four-fold too low 'fix.'

No amount of waiting will make what he did adequate to fix this situation. But equally it must be said, had he proposed a four-fold larger stimulus cost (about $3.6 trillion), he'd have been laughed out of town, or possibly institutionalized in a white straight-jacket. NO. CHANCE.

So, as the oil filter commercial said, we could have paid then (of course, not really, since it was politically impossible), and since we didn't, we are paying now.

eg8r
10-04-2011, 07:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was a prediction, not a promise.
</div></div>I agree with you, he never had the balls to do what he said he would do.

eg8r

eg8r
10-04-2011, 07:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's policy was pegged to a very mis-stated low appraisal of the problem. That isn't his fault</div></div>Oh come on, quit being an apologist. Has he taken credit for anything that did not go as planned? He has been blaming others for everything since day one and now he has you doing it for him.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No amount of waiting will make what he did adequate to fix this situation. </div></div>I agree, his stimulus was a failure.

eg8r

Qtec
10-05-2011, 12:18 AM
Oh please, this only fools those who want to be fooled, fool!

Why do you think all these charts begin at 2008 or 2009???? Geez, its as if Bush never existed!

Fact is, if these charts started in 2000 it would paint a very different picture. It would put things into context.

Lets take the first one, Poverty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif/800px-US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

Mmmmmmmmmmm. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Under Bush the number of people in poverty almost DOUBLED.</span> When Obama took over, the poverty rate was climbing, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>FAST.</span>

Do you really think that Obama or any other President in that situation could just wave his magic wand and make it all go away?

What you are seeing today is the result of the incompetent Bush Admin and the present GOP obstructionism. They want things to get worse.

Q

Also, notice how the lines went down under Clinton!

LWW
10-05-2011, 03:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not what I'm claiming at all.

One cannot cross a chasm in two leaps.

Obama's policy was pegged to a very mis-stated low appraisal of the problem. That isn't his fault, as the gravity of the problem was not evident until later, to any of the blue chip forecaster economists. He used a mainstream assessment agreed to by government and private economists.

However, his policy, calibrated to a far lower assumed gdp decline that even was reported in early 2009, was inadequate to deal with even the 3.8% decline first reported (as that was also far greater than expected). Now that we've had the revised numbers showing it was DOUBLE the decline that was itself far larger than thought or projected, it was probably a four-fold too low 'fix.'

No amount of waiting will make what he did adequate to fix this situation. But equally it must be said, had he proposed a four-fold larger stimulus cost (about $3.6 trillion), he'd have been laughed out of town, or possibly institutionalized in a white straight-jacket. NO. CHANCE.

So, as the oil filter commercial said, we could have paid then (of course, not really, since it was politically impossible), and since we didn't, we are paying now. </div></div>

So when you claim it wasn't Obama's fault but Bush's fault, you didn't mean that it wasn't Obama's fault but Bush's fault ... you actually meant that it wasn't Obama's fault but Bush's fault.

Gotcha.

eg8r
10-05-2011, 07:32 AM
What we are seeing today is an economy that was already turning downward when Obama took office and it is still increasingly going down. What we are seeing today is an inept President who was not qualified for the job and the Democrats are now seeing they elected the wrong Democrat.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-05-2011, 04:03 PM
I'm beginning to think those Cartman taglines represent yourself. You certainly know how to 'argue' in cartoon style!

Here's a surprise for you: I don't even blame Bush exclusively. There were many bad actors involved. The table was set in some ways prior to his appointment to office.

Likewise, I'll apportion some of the blame to Clinton and policies he either pushed or acceded to.

One of the miscreants more responsible than either of the three presidents under whose terms this developed was Greenspan, and I'll give Phil Gramm an honorable mention as well.

It's fairly well understood that the NASDAQ runup under Clinton was a bubble, with tech stocks and internet-related companies commanding huge capital, with a laughable business model that couldn't justify the IPOs pricing or the near-infinite P/E ratios. What is less well known is that the NYSE in total and the Dow Jones Industrial Average companies were also a bubble, a bubble semi-intentionally blown up by the Fed's policies under Greenspan to ameliorate the large losses from the other bubble (the NASDAQ) collapsing.

The NASDAQ crashed severely even while Clinton was in office. Bush's first term saw the eventual crash of the DJIA and the NYSE values.

In the meantime Greenspan was testifying and influencing the Congress NOT to rein in the derivatives market with regulations. Clinton signed the mid-December '00 Gramm bill to 'modernize' the markets (enshrining that there would be no regulations put on the derivatives).

The prior two recessions (the two W Bush era recessions) both saw less job growth upon recovery that THIS one has. The economy has been hollowed out for the last 30 years of free trade dogma prevailing.

Qtec
10-06-2011, 03:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we are seeing today is an economy that was already turning downward when Obama took office and it is still increasingly going down. What we are seeing today is an inept President who was not qualified for the job and the Democrats are now seeing they elected the wrong Democrat.

eg8r </div></div>

Translation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yes, you are right. I am wrong. I have no argument any more so I will just change the subject.</div></div>

Not buying it.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we are seeing today is an economy that was <span style='font-size: 14pt'>already turning downward when Obama took office and it is still increasingly going down</span> </div></div>

Why is that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What we are seeing today is an inept President who was not qualified for the job </div></div>

You could be right here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the Democrats are now seeing they elected the wrong Democrat.
</div></div>

You could be right again.

The point is, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>what have the GOP done to help Obama pull the country out of the tail spin that its in?</span>

Answer.......NOTHING. In fact, they have done all they can to stop any reform and when reforms have been passed, they are busily working to de-fund said reforms that were passed with blood sweat and tears.


Even now, when Obama have given his Jobs Act, the GOP are more interested in going after Planned Parenthood'.

The total contribution from the GOP in the Obama Presidency has been, excuse my French,
'FK you, we won't do what you tell us to.
Even if the country goes down the drain.
Even if millions lose their home.
Even if millions are cast into poverty."

ie, they do not accept the will of the majority.

Keeping Wall St happy is their only agenda.

Q

LWW
10-06-2011, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm beginning to think those Cartman taglines represent yourself. You certainly know how to 'argue' in cartoon style!

Here's a surprise for you: I don't even blame Bush exclusively. There were many bad actors involved. The table was set in some ways prior to his appointment to office.

Likewise, I'll apportion some of the blame to Clinton and policies he either pushed or acceded to.

One of the miscreants more responsible than either of the three presidents under whose terms this developed was Greenspan, and I'll give Phil Gramm an honorable mention as well.

It's fairly well understood that the NASDAQ runup under Clinton was a bubble, with tech stocks and internet-related companies commanding huge capital, with a laughable business model that couldn't justify the IPOs pricing or the near-infinite P/E ratios. What is less well known is that the NYSE in total and the Dow Jones Industrial Average companies were also a bubble, a bubble semi-intentionally blown up by the Fed's policies under Greenspan to ameliorate the large losses from the other bubble (the NASDAQ) collapsing.

The NASDAQ crashed severely even while Clinton was in office. Bush's first term saw the eventual crash of the DJIA and the NYSE values.

In the meantime Greenspan was testifying and influencing the Congress NOT to rein in the derivatives market with regulations. Clinton signed the mid-December '00 Gramm bill to 'modernize' the markets (enshrining that there would be no regulations put on the derivatives).

The prior two recessions (the two W Bush era recessions) both saw less job growth upon recovery that THIS one has. The economy has been hollowed out for the last 30 years of free trade dogma prevailing.

</div></div>

I wish I could say that I find it odd that you pointed a finger at everyone but Obama ... but, sadly, I don't find it odd at all.

LWW
10-06-2011, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>what have the GOP done to help Obama pull the country out of the tail spin that its in?</span>


Q</div></div>

That's an easy one ... stop, or at least slow, his fascist economic agenda.

Qtec
10-06-2011, 04:16 AM
I'm going to save this page as the most PATHETIC reply ever on the net. Don't mind, do you?

Q.........MORON

LWW
10-06-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q.........MORON </div></div>

Yet another leftist Freudian slip.

Proceed.

eg8r
10-06-2011, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is, what have the GOP done to help Obama pull the country out of the tail spin that its in?
</div></div>If that is your point then what were the Dems doing to help keep us out of this mess when W was Pres? I am not interested in your twisted partisan views.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm beginning to think those Cartman taglines represent yourself. You certainly know how to 'argue' in cartoon style!

Here's a surprise for you: I don't even blame Bush exclusively. There were many bad actors involved. The table was set in some ways prior to his appointment to office.

Likewise, I'll apportion some of the blame to Clinton and policies he either pushed or acceded to.

One of the miscreants more responsible than either of the three presidents under whose terms this developed was Greenspan, and I'll give Phil Gramm an honorable mention as well.

It's fairly well understood that the NASDAQ runup under Clinton was a bubble, with tech stocks and internet-related companies commanding huge capital, with a laughable business model that couldn't justify the IPOs pricing or the near-infinite P/E ratios. What is less well known is that the NYSE in total and the Dow Jones Industrial Average companies were also a bubble, a bubble semi-intentionally blown up by the Fed's policies under Greenspan to ameliorate the large losses from the other bubble (the NASDAQ) collapsing.

The NASDAQ crashed severely even while Clinton was in office. Bush's first term saw the eventual crash of the DJIA and the NYSE values.

In the meantime Greenspan was testifying and influencing the Congress NOT to rein in the derivatives market with regulations. Clinton signed the mid-December '00 Gramm bill to 'modernize' the markets (enshrining that there would be no regulations put on the derivatives).

The prior two recessions (the two W Bush era recessions) both saw less job growth upon recovery that THIS one has. The economy has been hollowed out for the last 30 years of free trade dogma prevailing.

</div></div>

Excellent Post Sofla,


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The prior two recessions (the two W Bush era recessions) both saw less job growth upon recovery that THIS one has. The economy has been hollowed out for the last 30 years of free trade dogma prevailing.

</div></div>


Would you say that irrational Republican Economic Policies, overall, are at the core of all of the policy failures, you mentioned? After all, regardless of Gramm, or what anyone else did, Bush and Greenspan, and twelve years of Republican Congressional control, were all at the helm during the immediate years preceeding this unprecedented, AND predicted economic crash, unprecedented except for the Depression Era, that is, which was also preceeded by too much money, in too few hands.

I agree, that Clinton should never have signed onto Phil Gramm's Bill. I would add, though, if I may, that at the time, I don't think anyone foresaw the degree of greed and corruption that Wall St. would practice, which was a direct result of the Free Market Zealots, the Freidman Laissez Faire proponents, who decry government oversight, and think that corporations should go unregulated entirely, regardless if they are stealing, or polluting.

I think Greenspan himself, mentioned in so many words, that he didn't think the market would be corrupt and greedy enough enough to cut their own throats. Now that's what I call naive, and IMO, that was a statement which should have put to rest the entire BS Laissez Faire philosophy, yet the REpublicans are STILL touting it, in spite of the obvious failure of such an absurd policy.

Of all of those you mention as responsible, Greenspan's failure to regulate interest rates, Bush's "Ownership Society" policy, twhich sent a dog whistle message to those who would cheat, and the Bush Tax cuts, were responsible for most of the failures and damages, IMO, since this crash happened on their watch, and the emergency, became an emergency, over the course of their recent Goernment Control, and deregulation policies, which they failed to address or alter, even though they damned well knew it was coming, and had plenty of warnings.

If not for the vast losses of Middle Class jobs, and declining wages, our economy would have been strong enough to make a quicker recovery.

The global Movers and shakers in our country, the very, very wealthy, CEO's, sold out their own country, to line their own pockets, without conscience, as they exported America's Industry, destroying Jobs, and wages, re-organizing annd bilking on the corporate levvel, here, laying people off as a policy for personal gain, all of which destroyed buying power of America's major consumers, the Middle Class, and while they were about it, Republicans were redistributing wealth upwards, spending and borrowing without abandon, creating a major mess, through the Bush tax cuts, while subsidizing AND protecting the crooks, as they bilked our country's 99%, not to mention billions upon billions spent in their anachronistic War For Oil, sold on lies.

There is no question in my mind, that George Bush, Greenspan, and the republican Blank Check Congress, in power for over a decade, prosecuted more overall damage to this country, than any others, and after all, wrong headed legislation, CAN be reversed, if it proves later, to be destructive.

The Republicans are the ones most responsible for blocking efforts to overturn economic legislation which has failed, they held the majority in the run up.

Democrats should have stood solid against these policies, and if not for the Blue Dogs, from regions which, IMO, are so easily distracted by social issues, in their quest to demonize those who have opposing views on those issues, and be a dictating force, maybe things would have been different?

G.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we are seeing today is an economy that was already turning downward when Obama took office and it is still increasingly going down. What we are seeing today is an inept President who was not qualified for the job and the Democrats are now seeing they elected the wrong Democrat.

eg8r </div></div>

Translation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yes, you are right. I am wrong. I have no argument any more so I will just change the subject.</div></div>

Not buying it.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we are seeing today is an economy that was <span style='font-size: 14pt'>already turning downward when Obama took office and it is still increasingly going down</span> </div></div>

Why is that?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What we are seeing today is an inept President who was not qualified for the job </div></div>

You could be right here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the Democrats are now seeing they elected the wrong Democrat.
</div></div>

You could be right again.

The point is, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>what have the GOP done to help Obama pull the country out of the tail spin that its in?</span>

Answer.......NOTHING. In fact, they have done all they can to stop any reform and when reforms have been passed, they are busily working to de-fund said reforms that were passed with blood sweat and tears.


Even now, when Obama have given his Jobs Act, the GOP are more interested in going after Planned Parenthood'.

The total contribution from the GOP in the Obama Presidency has been, excuse my French,
'FK you, we won't do what you tell us to.
Even if the country goes down the drain.
Even if millions lose their home.
Even if millions are cast into poverty."

ie, they do not accept the will of the majority.

Keeping Wall St happy is their only agenda.

Q








</div></div>

Anyone who would blame President Obama, is out of their tree!!!

He inherited this mess, and he has managed, in the face of unprecedented obstructionism, to keep us out of the Bush Depression. President Obama has performed far better than any
Republican Presidents in saving and creating jobs, after a deep recession, this one the worst since the big crash, and if we could just get rid of Repubicans, and reason with Blue Dog Democratics, hand cuffed by idiots from their disricts, RED DISTRICTS, and IMO they are just as bad as Republicans, because they have failed to stand strong against the idiots from their districts, and put their own re-election concerns, before doing what would be best for the country.

The righties on here are beyond help. They still haven't accepted all of the lies and corruption of the Bush Administration, and think the Ronald Reagan, who commited Impeachable offenses, was a man of principles!!!

They are beyond reason.

Additionally, IMHO, every president grows into the Office, none of them prepared, and all of them needing to adjust to the realities of Washington D.C., but not since Roosevelt, has any President inherited such a colossal mess, and that is a fact.

IMO, he has done a phenominal job, given the multi-F-ups, George Bush left in his wake, foreign and domectic.


Add to that, unprecedented slander, lies and disrespect for the Office Of The Presidency, surely nothing to do with his color, :/because Republicans have a history of sleezy behavior when they lose the Oval Office, yet anyone who would claim that there has been no racism, at all, involved in ther disgusting tactics, is out of their tree!

A white President, would have been just as demonized, and slandered, but not with the same racist fear tactics, that these sleezy no good Republicans have used, and ignored when others used them, which is just as bad as blatantly using them themselves.

Frankly, the RW spin on here rivals Fux Noise. Everything they write, is beyond belief. A total denial of reality.
G.

Soflasnapper
10-06-2011, 11:56 AM
The origins of these terrible economic times stretches back at least to the imposition of the Federal Reserve upon this country. If you want to blame a president most responsible, it would be Wilson.

Although the creation of a national bank of this type had just been defeated the prior year (Sen. Aldrich's bill, authored and sponsored by Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller's namesaked grandfather), and although the Democratic Party platform said 'no national bank' (under the populist influence of its most recent 3-time past presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan), Woodrow Wilson turned around and got this thing passed in almost identical form to the just-defeated Aldrich plan.

It was the Federal Reserve that set the stage for the Great Depression, through excess liquidity they created on behalf of the Bank of England which created a speculative bubble of stock market assets. After that bubble's crash, they worsened and prolonged the GD by withdrawing up to 30% of the money supply. They have been the direct cause of every recession since the GD, even though their charge legally was to prevent these (formerly so-called) panics (recessions/depressions).

This country had already been exporting so many dollars through how the banking system works, that Nixon had to close the gold window for exchanging US FRNs for a fixed amount of gold, because we were going to run out of gold just from the demands of France for conversion. Untethering the paper money from its backing allowed theoretically for an infinite amount of money, and vast card castles in the sky made of sand were created by this imaginary wealth. Only to eventually come crashing down.

People now complaining about Obama are absurdly wondering why he cannot simply rebuild this house of cards back up to its previously reached stratospheric heights, and demanding somebody do that. Well, he can't, and nobody can. The cards are strewn around ground level.

Because the house of cards was global in nature. The proximate cause of this collapse was the real estate securitization bubble (not just real estate, but the financial inverted pyramid, which had a value in the near-quadrillion level (1,000 trillion), based on real assets (although vastly overvalued) of a tiny pittance of that phony amount.

That bubble was pricked and has collapsed, with no one able to reflate it. With double digit trillions lost that have been acknowledged, and double digit or more trillions lost but hidden behind 'mark to model' accounting changes, there is a huge amount of money that was required to sustain the prior production, employment and income levels of the economy that is simply not there anymore.

The bottom line is that we are now stuck at a very low level of employment and production, with no ability to return to the prior level. This is not a US-only phenomenon, and so it is even worse, as we cannot rely on European demand for US goods to help pull the economy up and forward.

The world-wide financial collapse that I've personally seen predicted since at least the '70s has finally come to fruition. As it had to, considering the flaws in the system. The only wonder is that it lasted this long.

Since return to the prior economic levels is impossible, what is the proper policy at this time, and what are the limits of what it can accomplish?

I'd say the best we can do is limp forward weakly, something comparable to the Japanese situation for the last 30 years.

Really, we need to sweep out the international banking class, and this is the perfect time, as they are literally bankrupt from top to bottom. Problem: they've used their phony but titanic profits to buy the political system and all its ancillary systems (mass communications, for instance). Second problem: these parties tend to be loosely categorized as Jewish, however much they are typically secular and do not practice that religion. So any attempt to route them out (ala President Andrew Jackson quote) will suffer from their playing of their all-powerful 'anti-Semite' charge card.

LWW
10-06-2011, 12:32 PM
Perhaps your most rational post ever.

Bravo.

Soflasnapper
10-06-2011, 12:53 PM
Thanks, although you find it rational since you perhaps at least partially agree. I'm also rational in positions with which you disagree, although you don't see it that way.

When the far-left position goes far enough around the Moebius strip to join the far-right position, showing they are two sides of the same coin (mixing metaphors), there can be widespread agreement on populist grounds.

It's all about properly identifying 'the owners' of the world, which they well understand, and muddy the waters by facing us off against each other as 'the real problem' (the old divide and conquer trick, which always works to their benefit). The real problem is the love of money, the worship of Mammon, at its highest and most realized level. This is properly termed a Satanic system, imo.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The origins of these terrible economic times stretches back at least to the imposition of the Federal Reserve upon this country. If you want to blame a president most responsible, it would be Wilson.

Although the creation of a national bank of this type had just been defeated the prior year (Sen. Aldrich's bill, authored and sponsored by Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller's namesaked grandfather), and although the Democratic Party platform said 'no national bank' (under the populist influence of its most recent 3-time past presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan), Woodrow Wilson turned around and got this thing passed in almost identical form to the just-defeated Aldrich plan.

It was the Federal Reserve that set the stage for the Great Depression, through excess liquidity they created on behalf of the Bank of England which created a speculative bubble of stock market assets. After that bubble's crash, they worsened and prolonged the GD by withdrawing up to 30% of the money supply. They have been the direct cause of every recession since the GD, even though their charge legally was to prevent these (formerly so-called) panics (recessions/depressions).

This country had already been exporting so many dollars through how the banking system works, that Nixon had to close the gold window for exchanging US FRNs for a fixed amount of gold, because we were going to run out of gold just from the demands of France for conversion. Untethering the paper money from its backing allowed theoretically for an infinite amount of money, and vast card castles in the sky made of sand were created by this imaginary wealth. Only to eventually come crashing down.

People now complaining about Obama are absurdly wondering why he cannot simply rebuild this house of cards back up to its previously reached stratospheric heights, and demanding somebody do that. Well, he can't, and nobody can. The cards are strewn around ground level.

Because the house of cards was global in nature. The proximate cause of this collapse was the real estate securitization bubble (not just real estate, but the financial inverted pyramid, which had a value in the near-quadrillion level (1,000 trillion), based on real assets (although vastly overvalued) of a tiny pittance of that phony amount.

That bubble was pricked and has collapsed, with no one able to reflate it. With double digit trillions lost that have been acknowledged, and double digit or more trillions lost but hidden behind 'mark to model' accounting changes, there is a huge amount of money that was required to sustain the prior production, employment and income levels of the economy that is simply not there anymore.

The bottom line is that we are now stuck at a very low level of employment and production, with no ability to return to the prior level. This is not a US-only phenomenon, and so it is even worse, as we cannot rely on European demand for US goods to help pull the economy up and forward.

The world-wide financial collapse that I've personally seen predicted since at least the '70s has finally come to fruition. As it had to, considering the flaws in the system. The only wonder is that it lasted this long.

Since return to the prior economic levels is impossible, what is the proper policy at this time, and what are the limits of what it can accomplish?

I'd say the best we can do is limp forward weakly, something comparable to the Japanese situation for the last 30 years.

Really, we need to sweep out the international banking class, and this is the perfect time, as they are literally bankrupt from top to bottom. Problem: they've used their phony but titanic profits to buy the political system and all its ancillary systems (mass communications, for instance). Second problem: these parties tend to be loosely categorized as Jewish, however much they are typically secular and do not practice that religion. So any attempt to route them out (ala President Andrew Jackson quote) will suffer from their playing of their all-powerful 'anti-Semite' charge card.






</div></div>

Excellent post. I agree completely, but I also think that during the last decades, since Reagan, the Republicans have been the party that blocked the changes that could have made a huge difference.

If, for example, Carter's warnings about our dependence on foreign oil, had been heeded, instead of Republicans using them to demonize him, what a difference just that change in policy, would have made, had our country gotten very serious about conservation, clean solar and wind energy, and by the time you figure in all of the wasted money, the costs of warring and fighting, linked to our dependence on foreign oil, and the costs of the health implications, connected to the pollution derived from filthy fuels, we could have been in a totally different situation, economically, right now.

We would be selling the solar panels, instead of buying them from China.

We might have had a world class rail system, here, ad enjoyed all of the jobs that could have been created by that, as well.

We may not have ended up creating massive debts, to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks brough on by Muslims, pissed off about all of our infringements into their region, killing and killing, for OIL.

Additionally, if we hadn't allowed China to steal from us for over a decade, and get away with it, that would have made a difference.

I agree completely with every point you made, but I do think that there could have been a Sea Change, if you will, if Republicans, the Grand Oil Party, had not controlled the White House for most of the last four decades, and the Congress for most of the last twenty years. The damages under Bush and the Blank Check Congress, were phenominally severe.

That's a big part of why I find it so disgusting reading some of the completely irrational bashing of the president, and ridiculously absurd statements, written by righties on here, statements by people who obviously have no clue what they're talking about.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-06-2011, 03:31 PM
Many mistakes have been made along the way, by both parties. Some of these mistakes, had they not been made, would have forestalled the day of reckoning.

But not forever, in my view. The original sin, if you will, is the debt virus, as promulgated by central bankers and international banking.

As much as Clinton is looked back on fondly, his DLC style politics was a co-opting of Democratic Party principles to the service of the wealthy elite business interests.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy [now FreedomWorks] in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

A Washington Post interview with Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?", touches on this question.

In the concluding chapter of "Kansas," Frank assigns "a large part of the blame for the backlash phenomenon" to the "criminal stupidity" of the Democratic Party in abandoning its commitment to labor and economic justice in pursuit of white-collar votes and corporate contributions. The DLC in particular, he writes, thinks that "to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies," Democrats must stand firm on issues like abortion rights while making "endless concessions on economic issues" such as NAFTA, welfare, privatization and deregulation. The result? Democrats become Tweedledum to the Republicans' Tweedledee on the laissez-faire economy, leaving their opponents free to woo blue-collar voters with backlash issues.

Earlier in the book, Frank takes his anti-DLC rhetoric to an even higher pitch. He notes that generous contributions from the Kansas oil billionaires who run Koch Industries have propped up numerous institutions that champion laissez-faire economics, from the Cato Institute to Citizens for a Sound Economy. And he includes the DLC on his list of Koch-funded "hothouses of the right."

"That's crazy," says Ed Kilgore, the DLC's policy director. "If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Republicans, you're not paying attention."

Sure, the DLC took some Koch money, Kilgore says. But it has never advocated abandoning the working class or taking economic issues off the table, and it is proud of Clinton's economic record. "If you have to be self-consciously and vocally anti-business in order to be considered a legitimate Democrat or progressive," he says -- well, sheesh: That would rule out the party's current presidential nominee.

Informed of this return fire, Frank seems uncharacteristically exasperated. But his fundamental stance remains: Bring 'em on.

Has the DLC taken economic issues off the table? "Of course they haven't taken them off the table -- they've just become Republicans."

Does a Democrat have to be anti-business? "I don't think I'd call myself anti-business. . . . I'm critical of the species of capitalism that we're living under today."

Is that Koch money innocent? "Okay, it is Koch that funds right-wing organizations. And it's the Democratic Leadership Council that's been working hard for years to push the Democratic Party to the right. Not to the left. To the right."

But isn't that where the American mainstream has been heading for decades? And hasn't he positioned himself way outside it?

Frank concedes this last point, but nothing more.</div></div>

In pursuit of this corporate-giant favoring agenda, we find Clinton either authoring, or pushing, or at minimum, acceding to NAFTA, the GATT round, China in the WTO, the end of the federal welfare safety net guarantee, the new imposition of some 60 or more federal capital crimes, and a relentless march of transgressions against civil rights. The Patriot Act? Almost all its provisions were proposed after the Murraugh Building bombing, with the same stink of government provocateur actions behind that atrocity that we see in the 9/11 case. And before it, the same proposals were made after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93, where there was DEFINITELY an FBI informant/provocateur at its heart (the man who suggested the bomb, and got it, from the FBI itself-- it was supposed to be dudded).

The final coup de gras actions from Clinton were his Communications Modernization Act, which allowed guys like Murdoch and ClearChannel to buy up monopoly positions in all of local media markets (before they'd been restricted to a smallish number in any market), and the Financial Modernization Act, which set the table for the worst of the derivatives abuse.

Even Clinton didn't start this trend, as it was Tony Coehlo and Speaker Jim Wright that put the Congressional party up for sale or rent to corporate interests in the interest of competing in the money race. Realistically, even St. Jimmy Carter was a bought and paid for tool of the two Trilateral Commission founders, David Rockefeller and Zbiggie Bzr.

So if even Democratic icons like the now sanctified Clinton, or the still in need of presidential reputation rehabilitation Carter, were constructively in on it, WHO was there to save us from this system? Al Gore? Picked by DLC-Clinton, HE picked DLC-Lieberman as his running mate. A new LBJ? Possibly the most corrupt president ever, and fairly provably, someone who had several politically inconvenient situations solved by hiring murderers.

Don't misunderstand. I preferred and supported many of the policy differences between the parties, in favor of the Democrats. I still do. But it's differences only on the margins, and failing to strike at the root. Some of these marginal differences are quite important. But some are just the difference of the frog slowly brought up to boil, compared to the lobster getting killed immediately head first. Yes, maybe a briefly more pleasant warmish bath is preferable, but you still get boiled to death in the end.

Gayle in MD
10-07-2011, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many mistakes have been made along the way, by both parties. Some of these mistakes, had they not been made, would have forestalled the day of reckoning.

But not forever, in my view. The original sin, if you will, is the debt virus, as promulgated by central bankers and international banking.

As much as Clinton is looked back on fondly, his DLC style politics was a co-opting of Democratic Party principles to the service of the wealthy elite business interests.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy [now FreedomWorks] in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

A Washington Post interview with Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?", touches on this question.

In the concluding chapter of "Kansas," Frank assigns "a large part of the blame for the backlash phenomenon" to the "criminal stupidity" of the Democratic Party in abandoning its commitment to labor and economic justice in pursuit of white-collar votes and corporate contributions. The DLC in particular, he writes, thinks that "to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies," Democrats must stand firm on issues like abortion rights while making "endless concessions on economic issues" such as NAFTA, welfare, privatization and deregulation. The result? Democrats become Tweedledum to the Republicans' Tweedledee on the laissez-faire economy, leaving their opponents free to woo blue-collar voters with backlash issues.

Earlier in the book, Frank takes his anti-DLC rhetoric to an even higher pitch. He notes that generous contributions from the Kansas oil billionaires who run Koch Industries have propped up numerous institutions that champion laissez-faire economics, from the Cato Institute to Citizens for a Sound Economy. And he includes the DLC on his list of Koch-funded "hothouses of the right."

"That's crazy," says Ed Kilgore, the DLC's policy director. "If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Republicans, you're not paying attention."

Sure, the DLC took some Koch money, Kilgore says. But it has never advocated abandoning the working class or taking economic issues off the table, and it is proud of Clinton's economic record. "If you have to be self-consciously and vocally anti-business in order to be considered a legitimate Democrat or progressive," he says -- well, sheesh: That would rule out the party's current presidential nominee.

Informed of this return fire, Frank seems uncharacteristically exasperated. But his fundamental stance remains: Bring 'em on.

Has the DLC taken economic issues off the table? "Of course they haven't taken them off the table -- they've just become Republicans."

Does a Democrat have to be anti-business? "I don't think I'd call myself anti-business. . . . I'm critical of the species of capitalism that we're living under today."

Is that Koch money innocent? "Okay, it is Koch that funds right-wing organizations. And it's the Democratic Leadership Council that's been working hard for years to push the Democratic Party to the right. Not to the left. To the right."

But isn't that where the American mainstream has been heading for decades? And hasn't he positioned himself way outside it?

Frank concedes this last point, but nothing more.</div></div>

In pursuit of this corporate-giant favoring agenda, we find Clinton either authoring, or pushing, or at minimum, acceding to NAFTA, the GATT round, China in the WTO, the end of the federal welfare safety net guarantee, the new imposition of some 60 or more federal capital crimes, and a relentless march of transgressions against civil rights. The Patriot Act? Almost all its provisions were proposed after the Murraugh Building bombing, with the same stink of government provocateur actions behind that atrocity that we see in the 9/11 case. And before it, the same proposals were made after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93, where there was DEFINITELY an FBI informant/provocateur at its heart (the man who suggested the bomb, and got it, from the FBI itself-- it was supposed to be dudded).

The final coup de gras actions from Clinton were his Communications Modernization Act, which allowed guys like Murdoch and ClearChannel to buy up monopoly positions in all of local media markets (before they'd been restricted to a smallish number in any market), and the Financial Modernization Act, which set the table for the worst of the derivatives abuse.

Even Clinton didn't start this trend, as it was Tony Coehlo and Speaker Jim Wright that put the Congressional party up for sale or rent to corporate interests in the interest of competing in the money race. Realistically, even St. Jimmy Carter was a bought and paid for tool of the two Trilateral Commission founders, David Rockefeller and Zbiggie Bzr.

So if even Democratic icons like the now sanctified Clinton, or the still in need of presidential reputation rehabilitation Carter, were constructively in on it, WHO was there to save us from this system? Al Gore? Picked by DLC-Clinton, HE picked DLC-Lieberman as his running mate. A new LBJ? Possibly the most corrupt president ever, and fairly provably, someone who had several politically inconvenient situations solved by hiring murderers.

Don't misunderstand. I preferred and supported many of the policy differences between the parties, in favor of the Democrats. I still do. But it's differences only on the margins, and failing to strike at the root. Some of these marginal differences are quite important. But some are just the difference of the frog slowly brought up to boil, compared to the lobster getting killed immediately head first. Yes, maybe a briefly more pleasant warmish bath is preferable, but you still get boiled to death in the end.



</div></div>

Wow, there are a lot of things you've written here, that are pretty damning.

Why do you think that LBJ, had people murdered? Just the first statement that comes to my mind, as rather radical, and who were the people that he had murdered?

Additionally, I thought it was RR, who removed most media regulations.

And lastly, if you are predicting that regardless of what we do at this time, we're sunk anyway, and sunk for at least a decade, then I'd like to know what you think could, or should be done, that could change your prognosis.

Reading your information, makes me think I should get rid of income producing, rental properties, and invest everything in my escape property, where I and my family, could escape, live off the land, and off the grid, and far, far away from the maddening crowds.

Any advice?

G.

eg8r
10-07-2011, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And lastly, if you are predicting that regardless of what we do at this time, we're sunk anyway, and sunk for at least a decade, then I'd like to know what you think could, or should be done, that could change your prognosis.
</div></div>I don't mean to butt in here, but not too long ago you told us the only way to get out of this was to steal all the rich's money and then borrow all of China's money? Is that no longer your MO?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Johnson has been called a murderer, or at least someone who hired murderers, and therefore still guilty under the law for murder, for quite a long time. By close associates, no less (Bill Sol Estes, for one, as see below).

See here (http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr14.html) for one summary account.

Here's the story about the letter Billy Sol Estes (a key LBJ aide and associate) had his attorney send to the Feds:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A decade after LBJ's death, a friend of Estes, a federal marshal, talked
Estes into coming forward with what he knew about Henry Marshall's death.
Then on August 9, 1984, following Billie Sol Estes' grand jury testimony
regarding Mac Wallace's murder of Henry Marshall, Estes' attorney,
Douglas Caddy sent a letter to Stephen S. Trott, Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, of the US Department of Justice. The letter
reads:


Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter
of May 29, 1984.

Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson,
which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960s. The other two,
besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were [White House aide] Cliff Carter and Mac
Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the
following criminal offenses:

1. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall 2. The killing of George Krutilek 3. The
killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary 4. The killing of Harold Orr 5.
The killing of Coleman Wade 6. The killing of Josefa Johnson 7. The
killing of John Kinser 8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that
he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who
executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes'
knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were
executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with
Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

In addition, a short time after Mr. Estes was released from prison in
1971, he met with Cliff Carter and they reminisced about what had
occurred in the past, including the murders. During their conversation,
Carter orally compiled a list of 17 murders which had been committed,
some of which Mr. Estes was unfamiliar [sic]. A living witness was
present at that meeting and should be willing to testify about it. He is
Kyle Brown, recently of Houston and now living in Brady, Texas. . . .</div></div>

I had long known that there was one latent fingerprint in the sniper's nest at the School Book Depository that did not belong to any of the police, or workers (they were all fingerprinted and it was checked against their prints). I guess it escaped my attention that in about '98, that print was confirmed as belonging to Mac Wallace (convicted murderer who worked for LBJ), as I only discovered within the last month or so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On March 12, 1998, a 1951 fingerprint of Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was
positively matched with a copy of a fingerprint labeled "Unknown," a
fresh print lifted on November 22, 1963, from a carton by the southeast
sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. This carton was
labeled "Box A," and also contained several fingerprints identified as
those of Lee Harvey Oswald. The identification was made by A. Nathan
Darby, a Certified Latent Print Examiner with several decades experience.
Mr. Darby is a member of the International Association of Identifiers,
and was chosen to help design the Eastman Kodak Miracode System of
transmitting fingerprints between law enforcement agencies. Mr. Darby
signed a sworn, notarized affidavit stating that he was able to affirm a
14-point match between the "Unknown" fingerprint and the "blind" print
card submitted to him, which was the 1951 print of Mac Wallace's. US law
requires a 12-point match for legal identification; Darby's match is more
conclusive than the legal minimum. As cardboard does not retain
fingerprints for long, it is certain that Malcolm E. Wallace left his
fingerprint on "Box A" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository early on November 22, 1963.</div></div> (from the same link provided above)

How Mac Wallace served no time for a conviction of murder with malice aforethought (which I take to mean 1st degree murder):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On 22nd October, 1951, Mac Wallace went to Kinser's miniature golf course. After finding Kinser in his golf shop, he shot him several times before escaping in his station wagon. A customer at the golf course had heard the shooting and managed to make a note of Wallace's license plate. The local police force was able to use this information to arrest Wallace.

Wallace was charged with murder but was released on bail after Edward Clark arranged for two of Johnson's financial supporters, M. E. Ruby and Bill Carroll, to post bonds on behalf of the defendant. Johnson's attorney, John Cofer, also agreed to represent Wallace.

On 1st February, 1952, Wallace resigned from his government job in order to distance himself from Lyndon B. Johnson. His trial began seventeen days later. Wallace did not testify. Cofer admitted his client's guilt but claimed it was an act of revenge as Kinser had been sleeping with Wallace's wife.

The jury found Wallace guilty of" murder with malice afore-thought". Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. Judge Charles O. Betts overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was immediately freed.

According to Bill Adler of The Texas Observer, several of the jurors telephoned John Kinser's parents to apologize for agreeing to a "suspended sentence, but said they did so only because threats had been made against their families."

Edward Clark met Lyndon B. Johnson arranged for Wallace to obtain a job with the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation. This became part of Ling-Tempco-Vought ( LTV), a conglomerate funded by Clark's clients in the oil industry. He eventually became manager of the purchasing department. </div></div> link (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm)

More on how they did the business of 'justice' in Texas, when LBJ was involved:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On 3rd June, 1961, Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. Soon after County Sheriff Howard Stegall arrived, he decreed that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup. </div></div>

It was a bolt-action rifle, making a suicide by 5 shots from it humanly impossible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On 4th April, 1962, George Krutilek, Estes chief accountant, was found dead. Despite a severe bruise on Krutilek's head, the coroner decided that he had also committed suicide. The next day, Estes, and three business associates, were indicted by a federal grand jury on 57 counts of fraud. Two of these men, Harold Orr and Coleman Wade, died before the case came to court. At the time it was said they committed suicide but later Estes was to claim that both men were murdered by Mac Wallace in order to protect the political career of Lyndon B. Johnson. </div></div> (from the second linked source)

It's more than a little jarring to find we've had presidents who were psychopathic stone-cold killers, but it appears to be exactly true.

LWW
10-07-2011, 11:27 AM
That's what happens when you let democrooks run things.

Care to look into Billy Jeff's Arrrr - Kansas?

How about the origination of KBR/HALLIBURTON and no bid contracts?

Probably not eh?

Gayle in MD
10-07-2011, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Johnson has been called a murderer, or at least someone who hired murderers, and therefore still guilty under the law for murder, for quite a long time. By close associates, no less (Bill Sol Estes, for one, as see below).

See here (http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr14.html) for one summary account.

Here's the story about the letter Billy Sol Estes (a key LBJ aide and associate) had his attorney send to the Feds:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A decade after LBJ's death, a friend of Estes, a federal marshal, talked
Estes into coming forward with what he knew about Henry Marshall's death.
Then on August 9, 1984, following Billie Sol Estes' grand jury testimony
regarding Mac Wallace's murder of Henry Marshall, Estes' attorney,
Douglas Caddy sent a letter to Stephen S. Trott, Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, of the US Department of Justice. The letter
reads:


Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter
of May 29, 1984.

Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson,
which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960s. The other two,
besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were [White House aide] Cliff Carter and Mac
Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the
following criminal offenses:

1. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall 2. The killing of George Krutilek 3. The
killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary 4. The killing of Harold Orr 5.
The killing of Coleman Wade 6. The killing of Josefa Johnson 7. The
killing of John Kinser 8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that
he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who
executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes'
knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were
executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with
Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

In addition, a short time after Mr. Estes was released from prison in
1971, he met with Cliff Carter and they reminisced about what had
occurred in the past, including the murders. During their conversation,
Carter orally compiled a list of 17 murders which had been committed,
some of which Mr. Estes was unfamiliar [sic]. A living witness was
present at that meeting and should be willing to testify about it. He is
Kyle Brown, recently of Houston and now living in Brady, Texas. . . .</div></div>

I had long known that there was one latent fingerprint in the sniper's nest at the School Book Depository that did not belong to any of the police, or workers (they were all fingerprinted and it was checked against their prints). I guess it escaped my attention that in about '98, that print was confirmed as belonging to Mac Wallace (convicted murderer who worked for LBJ), as I only discovered within the last month or so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On March 12, 1998, a 1951 fingerprint of Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was
positively matched with a copy of a fingerprint labeled "Unknown," a
fresh print lifted on November 22, 1963, from a carton by the southeast
sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. This carton was
labeled "Box A," and also contained several fingerprints identified as
those of Lee Harvey Oswald. The identification was made by A. Nathan
Darby, a Certified Latent Print Examiner with several decades experience.
Mr. Darby is a member of the International Association of Identifiers,
and was chosen to help design the Eastman Kodak Miracode System of
transmitting fingerprints between law enforcement agencies. Mr. Darby
signed a sworn, notarized affidavit stating that he was able to affirm a
14-point match between the "Unknown" fingerprint and the "blind" print
card submitted to him, which was the 1951 print of Mac Wallace's. US law
requires a 12-point match for legal identification; Darby's match is more
conclusive than the legal minimum. As cardboard does not retain
fingerprints for long, it is certain that Malcolm E. Wallace left his
fingerprint on "Box A" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository early on November 22, 1963.</div></div> (from the same link provided above)

How Mac Wallace served no time for a conviction of murder with malice aforethought (which I take to mean 1st degree murder):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On 22nd October, 1951, Mac Wallace went to Kinser's miniature golf course. After finding Kinser in his golf shop, he shot him several times before escaping in his station wagon. A customer at the golf course had heard the shooting and managed to make a note of Wallace's license plate. The local police force was able to use this information to arrest Wallace.

Wallace was charged with murder but was released on bail after Edward Clark arranged for two of Johnson's financial supporters, M. E. Ruby and Bill Carroll, to post bonds on behalf of the defendant. Johnson's attorney, John Cofer, also agreed to represent Wallace.

On 1st February, 1952, Wallace resigned from his government job in order to distance himself from Lyndon B. Johnson. His trial began seventeen days later. Wallace did not testify. Cofer admitted his client's guilt but claimed it was an act of revenge as Kinser had been sleeping with Wallace's wife.

The jury found Wallace guilty of" murder with malice afore-thought". Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. Judge Charles O. Betts overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was immediately freed.

According to Bill Adler of The Texas Observer, several of the jurors telephoned John Kinser's parents to apologize for agreeing to a "suspended sentence, but said they did so only because threats had been made against their families."

Edward Clark met Lyndon B. Johnson arranged for Wallace to obtain a job with the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation. This became part of Ling-Tempco-Vought ( LTV), a conglomerate funded by Clark's clients in the oil industry. He eventually became manager of the purchasing department. </div></div> link (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm)

More on how they did the business of 'justice' in Texas, when LBJ was involved:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On 3rd June, 1961, Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. Soon after County Sheriff Howard Stegall arrived, he decreed that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup. </div></div>

It was a bolt-action rifle, making a suicide by 5 shots from it humanly impossible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On 4th April, 1962, George Krutilek, Estes chief accountant, was found dead. Despite a severe bruise on Krutilek's head, the coroner decided that he had also committed suicide. The next day, Estes, and three business associates, were indicted by a federal grand jury on 57 counts of fraud. Two of these men, Harold Orr and Coleman Wade, died before the case came to court. At the time it was said they committed suicide but later Estes was to claim that both men were murdered by Mac Wallace in order to protect the political career of Lyndon B. Johnson. </div></div> (from the second linked source)

It's more than a little jarring to find we've had presidents who were psychopathic stone-cold killers, but it appears to be exactly true.



</div></div>

Wow, I'm going to look further into this. It's really incredible.

I have never heard of any of this, which I find rather amazing, given how much I read, and particularly, about the K. Assassination.

Thanks for the info...amazing!

G.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what happens when you let democrooks run things.

Care to look into Billy Jeff's Arrrr - Kansas?

How about the origination of KBR/HALLIBURTON and no bid contracts?

Probably not eh? </div></div>

I'm WAY ahead of you on that data set.

Try to see what's in front of your eyes a little better.

I have just clearly fairly well damned the last handful of Democratic presidents as tools of big business fascist interests, and worse, actually. This is consistent with, and better explains, my prior commentary on this board that the mainstream Democrats are soft fascists, or kinder, gentler fascists, surely no compliment to them.

So you take it as your cue to constructively accuse me of willful blindness as part of my slavish defense of Democrats?

Hardly. Eyes wide open here.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 12:18 PM
I have never heard of any of this, which I find rather amazing, given how much I read, and particularly, about the K. Assassination.

Me too. I've mainly recycled my book collection on the matter to a used book store, but probably had and read a couple dozen books.

Still, I only found out about the ID of the latent fingerprint recently, 13 years after the announced discovery, and the same with the Estes letter.

Hard to believe there is still more to learn about this case, but there is.

I highly recommend a new book out the last year or so, 'JFK and the Unspeakable.' Rave reviews all around, so far as I know, and what it explains is the '50s and '60s desire by the JCS to pre-emptively nuke the Soviet Union while we continued to enjoy a large advantage in deliverable warheads, which edge they anticipated losing in the short term, creating a narrow window of opportunity they were determined to exploit.

'Oswald' in Mexico City was the false flag setup for that one (that 'Oswald' was CIA agent David Hemming, iirc., as later produced surveillance pictures confirmed).

LWW
10-07-2011, 12:38 PM
Ask him about the October Surprise and Orville Reddenbacher.

That one's a hoot.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Yuck, yuck!

You still can't explain how the government's case of perjury against purported pilot Rupp for his claims resulted in his acquittal at trial by jury, apparently.

BTW, new development in that matter!

The National Archives has been allowed by the Bush family to finally reveal GHW's alibi witness for his whereabouts on the day in question.

The man is dead, of course.

LWW
10-07-2011, 03:19 PM
His whereabouts have been known for decades. The only thing in question is who he met with ... not whether or not he flew to France in a magic jet with Orville Reddenbacher.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 04:55 PM
Quoting myself:

You still can't explain how the government's case of perjury against purported pilot Rupp for his claims resulted in his acquittal at trial by jury, apparently.

Rupp swore his whereabouts were at that Paris meeting, and the government attempted to prove he was lying under oath. Their charges were not believed by a jury.

Bush hasn't been under oath in this matter, and the affidavits first alibiing his whereabouts somewhere ELSE other than the final alibi were WITHDRAWN by the SS task force member who'd filed them originally. Withdrawn, as false.

Peculiar, if it was always clear enough, that he'd gotten a SS detail agent to swear out a false affidavit, no?

LWW
10-08-2011, 02:24 AM
You are like a starving dog on a bone with this ... if you had any idea how foolish you make yourself appear.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2011, 05:45 PM
Foolish is engaging you in an attempt at rational discussion. Since I'm already doing THAT, I'm not overly concerned about however else I appear foolish.