| Author | Message | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:01 am Post subject: The US Government Is Dying |
| The US Government Is Dying
By Michael Rivero
What Really Happened.com
2-23-3
The US Government is dying. Its ultimate fate was sealed the moment the Federal Reserve Fiat money system was put into place. Like a recreational drug user enjoying that first chemical rush, those who created the federal Reserve luxuriated in the seemingly endless flow of money pouring forth from the Federal Reserve, money used to prolong and consolidate power, money spent without worry in the full knowledge that it was going to be someone else's problem to pay it all back.
But now the US Government is paying the price for that glorious free-spending time of so long ago. Like a recreational drug user now turned hopeless addict, the government has taxed profitable businesses into seeking friendlier homes in other lands, and has turned to looting trust funds and playing bookkeeping games trying to hold off the final collapse...
The U.S. Government is Dying: No longer able to conceal the financial losses, the US Government, like a desperate addict, is turning to crime as a source of funds, crime on a global scale, conquest, war for profit, call it what you will, an invasion of a nation is different from an invasion of a home only in scale.
The US Government has been making bad decisions since at least the 80s. In hindsight, a government composed almost entirely of lawyers should not have been expected to know anything about how to run an economy based on manufacturing. As a result, legislation was passed that encourage manufacturing to leave this nation. The lawyer/politicians, rather than admit error, tried to conceal this loss by inventing the "service economy", a ridiculous notion that one can prosper a nation by doing each others' laundry for a fee. The service economy did not bring money into the nation, it merely moved what was left around faster, increasing opportunities for taxation. The effect of this was that cash flowed from the people to the government, good for government struggling with a crushing debt load, but bad for the people for the nation, 80% of whom suffered a steady decline of living standards throughout the 80s and 90s.
Minus the manufacture of actual products, investors flocked to more speculative ventures, many of which turned out to be gigantic stock manipulation swindles.
But rather than address the problems, the government started playing its own bookkeeping games, looting Social Security and claiming it was a budget surplus. Knowing that the stock market was in trouble, the "Plunge Protection Team" was created to use government sanctioned rigging to keep the numbers high, as a political banner, even though such activity made the underlying problem of over-valuation much, much worse.
The loss of manufacturing to other nations meant that Americans had to buy more and more products once made in the USA from companies in other nations. This created the present $1.5 billion a DAY trade deficit. Normally, such a trade imbalance would drive the value of the dollar down, but a devalued dollar makes that portion of the government debt held by foreign interests increase, since the debt is held in the currency of the lending institution.
This was the rock and hard place the US Government found itself in. So deep in debt it cannot even make the interest payments, unable to sell products to generate revenues to pay that debt because manufacturing was taxed into relocating, and a threatened collapse of the dollar that would force a default on the debt and ruin the standard of living Americans had worked so hard to achieve.
From that perspective, a war of conquest to grab oil and to force the conquered nations to use the dollar to keep demand for the dollar high looks like the best option for a bankrupted government.
But is it best for the people?
Let us say for a moment that we do go to war. Let us say we conquer several nations and force them to use the dollar. How does that change life here in the United States? We would still have a totalitarian government deeply in debt. To maintain its legitimacy, that government would still have to shackle you and your children to that debt. We still would not have a tax system conducive to creation of new manufacturing in this country. In other words, even winning the war would not improve our lives. All that would be accomplished after all the blood was shed and the money was spent was that the very same people who got us all into this mess would continue in power.
Let's try the other option. Let's say that the US Government, unable to initiate a war, or starting one but unable to carry it out, watches as the world switches to the Euro, and the over-valued and frankly worthless debt-stricken dollar collapses. The Federal Reserve collapses. The people will not tolerate another "bail out" especially of an institution which has been such a curse on the common man. As the banks and stock markets collapse, the US Government will get dragged down with the whole mess.
But the people will still be here. Those 288 million Americans and their skills, will still be here. And like our Founding Fathers they will simply form a new government, one that starts out free of the huge debts run up by 100 years of reckless spending by the old government, a government made up, not of lawyers, but of teachers, engineers, doctors, the people who KNOW how to make a civilization work. Yes, there will be a time of confusion, as was the case when the USSR collapsed. But as was demonstrated in the new Russia, following that confusion will be a time of opportunity for all the people with the strength and courage to take advantage of it.
Bush wants a war to save the present government. And by supporting his war with our money and the blood of our children, all we buy is more of that same government.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Michael Rivero is publisher of WhatReallyHappened.com and is a new columnist for Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/rive022103.shtml | |  | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:04 am Post subject: JINSA Zionism and Oil to include Keeping the US Dollar.. |
| JINSA Zionism and Oil (to include Keeping the US Dollar in Place vs. the EURO) :
In a message dated 2/23/03 3:15:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Date:2/23/03 3:15:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
I sure will. I feel so frustrated now. It looks like there will be war and it makes me sick to my stomach. I pray that the UN will not sanction this. do you think they will?
I think that France will more than likely courageously veto (unless it thinks of its oil interests at the last minute), but the JINSA Zionist extremists will push forward anyway... What really irks me more than anything is how that JINSA Zionist extremist Paul Wolfowitz mentions that he would like to "liberate" the Arabs of Iraq and that such is one of the main reasons for putting into play his long desired invasion of Iraq and beyond.. Completely insincere... If he was so concerned about "liberating" Arabs, why don't we send our troops into Gaza and the West Bank to "liberate" the Arabs of occupied PALESTINE?!
If you want to read an excellent write-up about the connection with the JINSA Zionist extremists like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney and company to the coming invasion of Iraq, please access the URL included below titled "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War on Iraq" as the JINSAN's (keep in mind that Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before he became Vice President and helped put those fellow JINSAN's of Wolfowitz and Perle into power in the current Bush regime)... This article is excellent because it mentions how the US government is very concerned about having the EURO replace the US dollar as the standard transaction currency for oil dealings... Keep in mind that Cheney also worked as the CEO for Halliburton which has made millions from the Iraqi oil for food program.... So here is the connection between the JINSA Zionist extremists and oil (to include keeping the US dollar as the standard vs. the EURO).
I just conveyed the above to MP Tam Dalyell (who is the Father of the House of Commons), and he mentioned that he will be talking about JINSA (asking questions and such) during the Parliamentary debate coming up this Wednesday as I hope we can see it on C-SPAN... I told him that I would make a tape copy of it if it does...
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/02/22/the-real-reasons-for-the-upcoming-war-with-iraq.php
Conflict of Interest for JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) who are Pushing US to war for Greater Israel and Oil:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamhughes30.htm
Iraq and Control of Middle East well Underway:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/02/23/war-for-iraq-and-control-of-middle-east-well-underway.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists Arranging New Regime of US Occupied Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/02/22/jinsa-zionist-jews-arranging-new-regime-of-us-occupied-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists Also Contributed to Current N. Korea Crisis
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/23/jinsa-zionists-contributed-to-n-korea-crisis-also.php
Would be a Lot Cheaper for US to Just Cut Aid to Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/02/23/would-be-a-lot-cheaper-to-just-cut-aid-to-israel.php | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:07 am Post subject: Europeans attack US tax cut plan at G7 forum |
| Europeans attack US tax cut plan at G7 forum
By Alan Beattie and Christopher Swann in Paris
The heads of the European Central Bank and eurozone finance ministers have expressed deep scepticism about the US administration's $690bn tax cut plan.
Wim Duisenberg, ECB president, and Nikos Christodoulakis, the Greek minister who chairs the "eurogroup" of eurozone finance ministers, attacked the plan at the meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations in Paris at the weekend, saying it endangered the world economy.
Mr Christodoulakis said the re-emergence of "twin deficits" - fiscal and balance of payments - "may create sustainability risks, which in case they materialise would have significant ramifications well beyond the US itself". The tax proposal "in terms of size, composition and timing" did not dissipate these concerns.
Gordon Brown and John Manley, the UK and Canadian finance ministers, said deficits were appropriate during weak growth. Hans Eichel and Francis Mer, their German and French counterparts, were less committal.
John Snow, US Treasury secretary, pushed hard for international support for the Bush administration's tax plan during Saturday's meeting of finance ministers and central bankers.
He said the move, criticised in the US for pushing up deficits, would benefit global growth, especially in view of the uncertainties over Iraq.
Mr Duisenberg hinted heavily that the ECB was preparing to cut interest rates to stimulate growth. He appeared to reverse course from his previous argument that uncertainties would probably make rate cuts ineffective. "The prospect of an economic recovery to potential growth this year is not supported by the latest information," he said. "Whatever the events in this world of uncertainty, if we get new information or make new assessments about the medium-term outlook for price stability or the economy, we will not hesitate to act."
Inflation would drop below the ECB's 2 per cent target during the course of the year, despite volatility induced by oil price movements, he said.
The ministers said there was no pre-ordained global strategy such as releasing global oil stocks to cope with the effects of geopolitical tension.
Mr Mer said: "We have no hidden plan. What counts is that we are sufficiently reactive together if there were a need." Strategic government stocks of oil "are not in place with a view to influencing market prices".
Mr Duisenberg denied he had come under pressure from G7 finance ministers during the meeting to cut interest rates. But there was implied criticism afterwards from Mr Brown, who said there "remained issues on the demand side in Europe" which needed to be tackled.
The final communiqué issued by the G7 - who were joined by Russia for discussions on combating terrorist finance - largely comprised a reiteration of previous statements.
It said the European economies would accelerate labour, product and capital market reforms, Japan would commit to restructuring its banking sector and the US would boost savings and capital formation.
If you'd (EU) stop buying our T-Bills and securities, you'd do more to stop US foreign adventures and be more successful than a 100 million man anti-war march. It's a fact. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
