To our readers: As you know and can see by the links above, we at 666 blogs have two other publications. However, due to my limited capacities at this point in time, I have been unable to keep up with the other two and am disparately in need of more volunteers to help maintain those sites on a daily basis
If you are interested in contributing to either of the other tow sites (BarackObama666 or JPMorgan666) please email us at email@example.com indicating which blog you are interested in working on.
Even though we have not posted new material since April, we still get a following and quite a few comments made to our last post in April on our BO666 site.
Earlier today we got a string of comments at BarackObama666.com there I thought should be shared here. Here they are.
Sunday 7/18/2010 3:02AM
A. As a securities lawyer, I can assure you all that the SEC most certainly DOES have the ability to bring criminal suits; which is precisely why I found it laughable when the news media made such a big deal over the SEC's suit against Goldman - it didn't even include any criminal charges, only civil ones, which would basically ensure that Goldman would get off with a slap on the wrist and a fine that, compared to the profits they've made off their fraudulent activities, is basically "chump change."
B. As for Mr. Davidowitz, I don't know what he bases his argument on, but in case he hadn't noticed, the U.S. economy was in shambles when Obama took office, thanks to eight long years under the singularly most incompetent and dysfunctional Presidential administration in modern history (though admittedly Carter ran a very close second). I'll concede that Obama has been more than a bit disappointing in his handling of the mess, but to blame it all on him, as if everything was just fine until he took office in late Jan. 2009? Has the financial meltdown that started in mid-2008 - or for that matter, the current recession that started in December 2007 - completely escaped Mr. Davidowitz? When was this guy born, yesterday?
Sunday 7/18/2010 3:17AM
Unlike all of the ideological nincompoops we see mouthing off these days, I have NO POLITICAL AMBITIONS; just a sincere desire to see my country restored to its former economic prominence and respected place in this world. So, let's get a few things straight here:
1. The "problem" with the Fed is not its existence; rather, it's the fact that, as a result of nepotistic appointments by politicians who've been bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and similar private interests, it, too, has come to be "bought and paid for" by those same private interests. Anyone who buys into the idea of eliminating the Fed should go crack open some history books - not the "revisionist" kind, but the HONEST kind; what they'll discover is that our history throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries was characterized by successive, periodic currency, fiscal and financial crises, accompanied by deep and prolonged economic recessions, some of which lasted literally for decades. The intended purpose of the Fed was to help stabilize our currency, financial markets and economy, in part by regulating the money supply to account for the fact that periods of economic expansion do, in fact, create new wealth (i.e., it’s not always necessarily a “zero-sum game”). Can anyone imagine what this country would be like if our current money supply was exactly the same as it was in 1912? The mere thought almost defies imagination. It's basically since the Fed came to be chaired exclusively by alumna of Goldman Sachs with clear conflicts of interest that it has become such a nefarious and untrustworthy institution.
2. Revisionist "history," insofar as it is (re-)written years after the fact by and specifically for the benefit of those with specific political agendas, is basically NOTHING MORE THAN A CODE WORD FOR SHAMELESS PROPAGANDA.
3. According to the most comprehensive study of national health care spending ever conducted, as of late 2004, a staggering $0.42 out of every dollar spent on health care went to administrative costs at insurance companies, excessive prescription drug costs, excessive and unnecessary diagnostic testing and shareholder profits, distributed as dividends to investors in publicly-held insurance companies. It is also worth noting that, since that study was published, we have also witnessed a further explosion in insurance premiums that can only be attributed to the need by large, oligarchic insurance companies to cover losses incurred on their investments - presumably in toxic, asset-backed securities. Those insurance companies were allowed to "go public," invest in such financial sludge and consolidate their health insurance businesses with other, less (or un)profitable lines of business as a result of LACK of regulation. The health insurance industry as a whole has also been allowed to consolidate so as to eliminate any meaningful competition by being EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED from antitrust regulation.
Sunday 7/18/2010 3:19AM
As eloquent and adept as folks like Ron Paul may be at articulating our frustrations with the problems we now face, I unfortunately fail to see how they offer any rational solutions:
- Let's not forget, it is DEREGULATION (e.g., repeal of Glass-Steagall) that has brought about financial institutions that we're told are "too big to fail" - and, in fact, much of that deregulation was won by arguing that it was 'necessary for our financial institutions to be able to compete against European conglomerates that operated free of such compartmentalization and restrictions;'
- The other main contributing factor behind "too big to fail" is the failure of our government to enforce our antitrust laws - a policy that was first adopted by the Reagan administration. In fact, we are now facing the same problem first articulated by Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th Century; namely, that certain private interests have grown so big and powerful that they effectively "own" our government. This has been further compounded by the unchecked, weed-like growth of the lobbying industry and its ability to finance our politicians.
- The current disenfranchisement of successive economic classes of our population - and, for that matter, much of the depth and persistence of the current recession - has been brought about primarily by over-concentration of wealth - a condition which also characterized the economy of the late 1920s - and we all know what followed then.
I have yet to hear Ron Paul – or any other Libertarian for that matter – come up with any meaningful proposal aimed at fixing ANY of those problems. In fact, it seems to me that the libertarian “solution” amounts to nothing more than denial and abdication and, as such, would most likely only bring us more of the same misery with which we are now all afflicted.
Sunday 7/18/2010 3:20AM
Unfortunately for the Ron Pauls of this world, the “first step” in our recovery is recognizing that THERE IS NO “ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL” IDEOLOGICAL SOLUTION. We will need to overhaul much of our financial regulation by rationalizing it - not by dumping it wholesale. And, we will need to address the problem of overconcentration of wealth by creating a business environment that induces corporate management and investors to pay workers honest, living wages in the first place instead of hoarding all of the wealth for themselves, rather than by confiscating hoarded wealth by taxation, thereby setting off the same old, misguided “free market capitalism vs. socialism” debate. According to recent statistics, the average CEO compensation in BRAZIL is a little over 100 times the compensation paid to the average worker; here in the US, that CEO’s compensation is OVER 400 TIMES the compensation paid to the average worker. As such, our corporate pay structures now more closely resemble those of “third world” countries than even those of most “developing, second-world” nations. Doesn’t anyone see anything wrong with this? Apparently not, because the moment anyone proposes to change that situation, they get demonized – by the very people who are victims of such hoarding – as “socialists,” apparently because many people out there are living in their own little fantasy worlds, and are literally willing to vote against their own economic interests in favor of their fantasies of becoming the next billionaire, ‘if only the government would stop making them pay taxes.’ REALITY CHECK: YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY ANY INCOME TAXES IF YOU HAVE NO INCOME; DOES THAT MAKE YOU ANY BETTER OFF?
Sunday 7/18/2010 3:21AM
If we are to regain our position as a leading economic and moral powerhouse in this world, we are going to have to reign in and moderate our all too prevalent “Greed is good” and “Holier-than-thou” mentalities in favor of the greater good of our society. That means (among other things) enacting campaign finance reform and stripping the lobbying industry of its power over our politicians to restore our government to what it was intended to be: By the People For the People. It means enforcing our antitrust laws as originally contemplated by those who enacted them; it means enacting and enforcing strict prohibitions against appointing those with blatant conflicts of interest to high positions of power within our regulatory system; and, it means creating disincentives for lopsided compensation structures that unreasonably overcompensate the wealthy while cannibalizing our middle classes – for example, we could change our tax laws to provide that excessive executive compensation (say, anything in excess of 100 times that paid to the company’s average full-time employee) would no longer be deductible as a “business expense.” But, perhaps most of all, it means that it is time for people to stop blindly following a bunch of simplistic ideologues who are incapable of recognizing that different times may call for different solutions, and allowing their opinions to be swayed by a bunch of greedy, disingenuous media jerks who spout empty, meaningless slogans and then laugh all the way to the bank.
My Dad always used to say that politics is like a pendulum: it swings too far to the left, and you need to push towards the right to get back to center; it swings too far to the right, and you need to push towards the left to get back to center – and extremes OF ANY KIND ultimately never bring anything but misery and disaster. NO SINGLE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS ALWAYS IDEAL. What made this country the most advanced and prosperous nation in the world was the fact that extremism had never been allowed to prevail over moderation. The main difference between the extreme right and the extreme left is, religion is the extreme right’s politics, while politics is the extreme left’s religion – starts to look kind of circular, huh?
Sorry to get off on such a lengthy rant, but it both sickens and scares me to see how many people are becoming disciples of extremist and polarizing ideologues based simply on their emotional appeal in voicing frustrations rather than on their offering any real, rational solutions to our very real-life challenges. WISEN UP, AMERICA – WANT TO SEE AMERICAN INGENUITY BACK AT WORK? THEN TURN OFF THE CABLE “NEWS” AND DEMAND SOME HONEST, INFORMATIVE AND TRULY UNBIASED REPORTING RATHER THAN MINDLESS, “FORMULA” SOUNDBYTES AND ACCUSATIONS; TELL THE PARASITIC, EXPLOITATIVE, SLOGAN-SLINGING “POPULISTS” AND PHONY, “BUSINESS-AS-USUAL,” PARTY-LINE POLITICIANS TO GO HOME; FOCUS ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS TO US ALL INSTEAD OF THE PETTY, SELF-INDULGENT SPECIAL INTEREST ISSUES THEY WOULD HAVE YOU OBSESS ON. START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES AGAIN AND TELL THEM ALL THAT THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO STOP INSULTING YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND WORK A LOT HARDER FOR YOUR VOTES AND SUPPORT!
See all comments on Barack Obama Funnies ... click here