Thom: This article by Paul Craig Roberts seems to me a very important look at what the USA is actually focusing on - which is, sadly, not our economy. I hope you can take a look at it. And I'd like to know your opinion. The article is below and here: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/12/14/washington-drives-world-towar...

Washington Drives the World Toward War — Paul Craig Roberts

December 14, 2013

Washington has had the US at war for 12 years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and almost Syria, which could still happen, with Iran waiting in the wings. These wars have been expensive in terms of money, prestige, and deaths and injuries of both US soldiers and the attacked civilian populations. None of these wars appears to have any compelling reason or justifiable explanation. The wars have been important to the profits of the military/security complex. The wars have provided cover for the construction of a Stasi police state in America, and the wars have served Israel’s interest by removing obstacles to Israel’s annexation of the entire West Bank and southern Lebanon.

As costly and destructive as these wars have been, they are far below the level of a world war, much less a world war against nuclear armed opponents.

The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving the US and Washington’s NATO and Asian puppet states. There are a number of factors contributing to Washington’s drive toward the final war, but the overarching one is the doctrine of American exceptionalism.

According to this self-righteous doctrine, America is the indispensable country. What this means is that the US has been chosen by history to establish the hegemony of secular “democratic capitalism” over the world. The primacy of this goal places the US government above traditional morality and above all law, both its own and international.

Thus, no one in the US government has been held accountable for unprovoked aggression against other countries and for attacking civilian populations, unambiguous war crimes under international law and the Nuremberg standard. Neither has anyone in the US government been held accountable for torture, a prohibited crime under US law and the Geneva Conventions. Neither has anyone been held accountable for numerous violations of constitutional rights–spying without warrants, warrantless searches, violations of habeas corpus, murder of citizens without due process, denial of legal representation, conviction on secret evidence. The list is long.

A person might wonder what is exceptional and indispensable about a government that is a reincarnation of Nazi Germany in every respect. People propagandized into the belief that they are the world’s special people inevitably lose their humanity. Thus, as the US military video released by Bradley Manning reveals, US troops get their jollies by mowing down innocent people as they walk along a city street.

With the exception of the ACLU, constitutional rights groups and independent Internet voices, the American people including the Christian churches have accepted their government’s criminality and immorality with scant protest.

The absence of moral denunciation emboldens Washington which is now pushing hard against Russia and China, the current governments of which stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony.

Washington has been working against Russia for 22 years ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev agreement, Washington expanded NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic states and established military bases on Russia’s borders. Washington is also seeking to extend NATO into former constituent parts of Russia itself such as Georgia and Ukraine.

The only reason for Washington to establish military and missile bases on Russia’s frontiers is to negate Russia’s ability to resist Washington’s hegemony. Russia has made no threatening gestures toward its neighbors, and with the sole exception of Russia’s response to Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, has been extremely passive in the face of US provocations.

This is now changing. Faced with the George W. Bush regime’s alteration of US war doctrine, which elevated nuclear weapons from a defensive, retaliatory use to pre-emptive first strike, together with the construction on Russia’s borders of US anti-ballistic missile bases and Washington’s weaponization of new technologies, has made it clear to the Russian government that Washington is setting up Russia for a decapitating first strike.

In his presidential address to the Russian National Assembly (both chambers of parliament) on December 12, Vladimir Putin addressed the offensive military threat that Washington poses to Russia. Putin said that Washington calls its anti-ballistic missile system defensive, but “in fact it is a signifiant part of the strategic offensive potential” and designed to tip the balance of power in Washington’s favor. Having acknowledged the threat, Putin replied to the threat: “Let no one have illusions that he can achieve military superiority over Russia. We will never allow it.”

Faced with the Obama regime’s murder of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty, Putin said: “We realize all this and know what we need to do.”

If anyone remains to write a history, the Obama regime will be known as the regime that resurrected the cold war, which President Reagan worked so hard to end, and drove it into a hot war.

Not content to make Russia an enemy, the Obama regime has also made an enemy of China. The Obama regime declared the South China Sea to be an area of “US national security interest.” This is akin to China declaring the Gulf of Mexico to be an area of Chinese national security interest.

To make clear that the claim to the South China Sea was not rhetorical, the Obama regime announced its “Pivot to Asia,” which calls for the redeployment of 60% of the US fleet to China’s zone of influence. Washington is busy at work securing naval and air bases from the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, and Thailand. Washington has increased the provocation by aligning itself with China’s neighbors who are disputing China’s claims to various islands and an expanded air space.

China has not been intimidated. China has called for “de-americanizing the world.” Last month the Chinese government announced that it now possesses sufficient nuclear weapons and delivery systems to wipe the US off of the face of the earth. A couple of days ago, China aggressively harassed a US missile cruiser in the South China Sea.

The militarily aggressive stance that Washington has taken toward Russia and China is indicative of the extreme self-assuredness that usually ends in war. Washington is told that US technological prowess can prevent or intercept the launch of Russian and Chinese missiles, thus elevating a US pre-emptive attack to slam-dunk status. Yet the potential danger from Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is said to be so great that a pre-emptive war is necessary right now, and a massive Department of Homeland Security is justified on the grounds that the US remains vulnerable to a few stateless Muslims who might acquire a nuclear weapon. It is an anomalous situation that the Russian and Chinese retaliatory response to US attack is considered to be inconsequential, but not nuclear threats from Iran and stateless Muslims.

Not content with sending war signals to Russia and China, Washington has apparently also decided to torpedo the Iranian settlement by announcing new sanctions against companies doing business with Iran. The Iranians understood Washington’s monkey wrench as Washington probably intended, as a lack of Washington’s commitment to the agreement, left Geneva and returned to Iran. It remains to be seen whether the agreement can be resurrected or whether the Israel Lobby has succeeded in derailing the agreement that promised to end the threat of war with Iran.

American citizens seem to have little, if any, influence on their government or even awareness of its intentions. Moreover, there is no organized opposition behind which Americans could rally to stop Washington’s drive toward world war. Hope, if there is any, would seem to lie with Washington’s European and Asian puppets. What interests do these governments have in putting the existence of their countries at risk for no other purpose than to help Washington acquire hegemony over the world? Cannot they realize that Washington’s game is a death-dealing one for them?

Germany alone could save the world from war while simultaneously serving its own interests. All Germany has to do is to exit the EU and NATO. The alliance would collapse, and its fall would terminate Washington’s hegemonic ambition.

As a substitute for inheritance and gift taxes, a transfer tax should be imposed on the recipients whose holdings exceeded $1 million, thus encouraging the super-rich to spread out their monopoly-sized estates to all members of their family, friends, servants and workers who helped create their fortunes, teachers, health workers, police, other public servants, military veterans, artists, the poor and the disabled.

Though Mr. Roberts is a (genuine) conservative ("genuine" meaning "not a fascist"), his analysis of the dire consequences of post-JFK U.S. foreign policy is astute and most often correct. The potential consequences of the transformation of the U.S. into the de facto Fourth Reich is evident in the fact the USian Empire is now behaving toward Russia and China much as the Third Reich and its Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis did in the events that led to World War II.

Meanwhile the ever-more-obvious USian intentions of conquering the world are as suicidal as Mr. Roberts suggests. Obama's aggressiveness toward China and Russia could indeed trigger World War III and bring about the extinction of most earthly life save cockroaches. Given the end-times dogmas of the Christian fundamentalists who dominate the USian Ruling Class -- see Jeff Sharlet's The Family -- it is entirely possible Obama is deliberately fostering their fulfillment.

Moreover, those who do not take the Russians seriously when they assert they will not allow the subjugation of Rodina --Mother Russia -- are obviously ignorant of history. The Persians under Darius the Great invaded Russia in the 5th Century BCE, when the land was known as Scythia and its occupants Scythians. The Persians had assembled what was probably the largest and best quipped military machine in the world at the time but were defeated by what Herodotus (The Histories) described as the most formidable horse-archers in the world, many of whom were women. The Mongols believed they had conquered Russia in the 13th Century, but 200 years later all that remained of their presumptive triumph were the 50-foot piles of Mongol skulls erected as monuments by the Russian resistance. Bonaparte made the mistake of attacking Russia in 1812 and lost his entire army. Despite the deliberately discouraging way history is taught in the USian education system, most of us know what happened to Hitler, who invaded Russia in 1941 and killed himself in 1945 as the justifiably unforgiving Red Army was knocking on his door.

But the lesson -- make war on Russia and lose -- does not appear to have influenced Bush II or Barack the Betrayer. Nor does the Betrayer seem influenced by the warning never to become involved in an Asian land war. Perhaps he listens only to his air farce generals, who arrogantly assure him wars can be won without ground troops when in fact military history proves the opposite to be true. May the Goddess if she exists save her children, including the human race.

Dan -- You also part ways with Thomas Jefferson. He wanted no transfer of wealth from one generation to the next (i.e. a 100% death tax). Jefferson feared transfer of generational wealth more than about anything else, or at least a close tie with theocracy. Jefferson thought this generational transfer of wealth would keep the 1% in power forever. At least it was a key ingredient in every autocratical government in wester civilization.

Well said DAnne. What could possibly make anyone think they should get a dead persons money before the family. it blows my mind that anyone could go that low. They made it, paid taxes on what they made and what is left over is there's to do with what they want.

Quote hartmann:... pay for every child in our nation to go to preschool for ten years

Quote Aliceinwonderland:Marc, we'll have to disagree on this one. I think any inheritance that exceeds a million dollars should be taxed.

Aliceinwonderland ~ You make a very good point. If there is to be a cutoff value that value is negotiable. One Million dollars might be extended up to 5 Million dollars. It doesn't really matter. What matters to me is that a family home may be taxed beyond the ability of the family to afford the property tax and the death tax at the same time. The result is super tragic. Not only does the family lose one of the most valuable members in one year; but, they are also forced to sell the family home to pay the taxes and relocate. That is not what I consider to be the American way. Sure there are rip off artists who take advantage of laws to game the system. Yet there are also legitimate victims who--as far as I am concerned--need to be taken into account first and foremost. After all, they lost someone in their family! Don't they deserve a bit of remorse from the rest of us--especially if they have contributed the most during their lives to the commons? My father did; and, never complained about it. Should the death of such a man snatch money that he would have left for his children to carry on his legacy? I don't think so. There should be a cut off. Can't we isolate people who's worth doesn't threaten their home or way of life?

Nevertheless, any tax on death I don't believe in. Imagine the Federal Government profiting off of death. The same federal government that has drone technology. The same federal government that has biochemical warfare weapons. The same government that controls the FDA. We should deeply contemplate the amount of power we give to our elected officials and how we allow that power to be used. As far as I am concerned, profit on death is a no deal, the way to go is profit on profit. Anything else is asking for problems that don't yet exist. If Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that it just goes to show that no one is perfect.

Aliceinwonderland: Thank you..many people have often told me that I was wise beyond my "daze"...or is that "ears"? I just don't know anymore...time just keeps slippin' slippin' slippin' into the future!

Go Alice!

Apropos "spoiled brats," your comment sharply focused my alleged mind on the pale underbelly of our political system: we are in fact governed by a politics of tantrums -- a tantrumocracy -- in which the idle rich throw the tantrums of screaming, kicking, diaper-soiling 2-year-olds whenever they don't get everything they want. (Yes, "diaper-soiling" is a metaphor for what the rich threaten to do to us if their wishes are not regarded as commands -- and what they then do to us anyway merely out of moral imbecility and sadism, as in 1929 and again beginning in 2007. ) Makes you wonder if our Teutonic cousins were not sending their children a message when they invented a sausage called "bratwurst."

Oh boy, this one really ticks me off. After my father died, I paid the taxes on my inheritence and my father's liquidated estate, a meger inheritence, but an inheritence all the same. Just knowing that these rich pigs get away with not paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else, really bugs me to no end. They are nothing but the worst kind of traitors and it's way past time we as Americans did something about them.

AIW -- The idle rich own all the places you would hear about the idle rich.

"It is poor people that are harmed more from an estate/death tax than the extremely wealthy are." And that is what must change. I'm always blown away by argument to keep wealth in the family made by those who believe they 'earned' everything themselves and others must exhibit 'personal responsiblity' and earn their own money too. But, they want to give their own progeny a leg-up, an advantage over the rest of we fools who did not choose the right (wealthy) parents. This is how the 1% is created. This is how Oligarchy begins. I should think that true and honest conservative thinking would include leveling the playing field so that every born child starts out with the same advantages. Only then could you measure the success or value of that individual in this, our meritocracy. I read about one wealthy man who did just that. He gave all his wealth to charity upon his death, and left his kids to earn their own.

In truth, I'm not opposed to leaving things to the kids, but what is 'enough'? When is it too much? And what about giving back to the country that laid the groundwork for all that wealth? As I get older, I realize that I do want my child and grandchildren to have something of me, that I worked for. So I continue to work to get that home paid off because they love it so much. At the same time, I would not want to grace them with so much wealth that they may just be spoiled brats (that is, if I had that much wealth myself to leave)!

It is poor people that are harmed more from an estate/death tax than the extremely wealthy are. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2013/12/death-tax-loopholes-are-killing-our-economy#comment-formIt is poor people that are harmed more from an estate/death tax than the extremely wealthy are. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2013/12/death-tax-loopholes-are-killing-our-economy#comment-form"

Aliceinwonderland: I can't speak for Johnnie, but when my father passed away in 1992 I paid about $7000 in tax on my inheritance. It was because I inherited land, not money..... it was 90 acres of mainly woodland, not an estate or something. Payment of this tax was to create whats called a cost basis, to help offset gains on a future sale. The laws may have changed since then?

More importantly, I currently pay about a 50% tax rate on my income, as many working class folks do, if you include all taxes, such as property tax, sales tax, etc. Nothing makes me more angry than when the rich piss and moan about the rest of us not paying enough Fed income tax. I want to see people like Mitt pay 50%.....he'd still have plenty left over to stress about. Also I actually work for my income..... I don't rip off pensions.

DAM -- Even Thom disagrees with Tom on the 100% death (I like death because it has fewer letters than inheritance) tax thing. Thom mostly agrees with your version of a death tax. The 100% is just to illustrate how history (for 7000 years) has shown that transfer of wealth from generation to generation is the strongest deterrent to democracy. You seem to picture the federal government as some separate entity. It is just a "tool" that we want to keep in the hands of the 99%.

If our society had a 100% death tax (just an exaggeration), I think that society would also take care of that family that lost its breadwinner.

chuckle8 ~ Thanks for clarifying that. I think we as a species need to do what we can to lift people out of poverty and make them as upwardly mobile as possible. That is why I'm a big believer in passing on a family's wealth. That makes the next generation stronger than the previous one. That is some strong motivation to work hard your entire life knowing that because of it your children will have a better life.

Quote chuckle8:If our society had a 100% death tax (just an exaggeration), I think that society would also take care of that family that lost its breadwinner.

I couldn't disagree more. When love isn't involved people tend to take advantage of each other. A family's fortune belongs with the family and not with the state under any circumstances. That fortune represents the love of the person who just died. It is, in fact, the only thing left on earth from that person and that is what should take care of that family, not social programs. Social programs should be reserved only for people whose loved ones died unexpectedly or penniless and left them dependent and/or in debt.

Big wealth comes with big responsibilities. It takes a lot of work to sustain a financial empire. You snooze you lose. Let the big boys have their cake--if they can keep it. What I'm concerned about is how much good a decent small inheritance can do to improve the life of people. Education, business opportunities, and personal growth experiences like travel all add to the character of people. The better off the majority is the better off society is. A high death tax would not only discourage people from working hard and saving; but it would permanently create a class of Serfs who never have any hope of improving their lot in life. We might as well just bring back slavery.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote chuckle8:D.A.M. -- The statement I disagree with the most is "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one". When I read that statement I just read, "I have run out of time and energy to find the facts that support my statements", If you say it that way, I can accept it.

chuckle8 ~ Not at all! The truth of the matter is that I have already make my statement on the matter. In fact, I am at the point of repeating myself. I do not like to repeat myself. Therefore I am though. What more could I possibly state to support my statements that I have not already stated. This is a matter of upward mobility. I don't care about the Waltons or the Koch brothers adding to an already opulent fortune. Really, what is a Trillion Dollars compiled upon 45 Billion to anyone? Do you seriously think it is going to make them any stronger or right in their agenda? Do you really think it is going to make us any less formidable in ours? Face facts my friend, it means nothing. It is the $100K that if distributed amongst 4 siblings that is going to make the difference between 4 burger flippers and 4 professionals in the future.

Quote chuckle8:Do you think Jefferson was wrong that generational wealth transfer was the key factor in keeping a ruling elite (1%) in power?

chuckle8 ~ For the fourth time, yes I think Jefferson was wrong. At the time Jefferson made that observation--in the pre Emancipation Proclamation era--the statement held a different significance. Today, when we are on the verge of Vigorous Campaign Finance Reform, the statement holds no water whatsoever. Don't you realize that once Move to Amend and Campaign Finance Reform are enacted that regardless of whether you earn $25K/year or $60B/year, everyone will be a full fledged member of the ruling elite?

Quote chuckle8:Do you think the Walton family does a lot of work to sustain their financial empire? I think they just use all the inherited wealth to hire the best sociopaths to run their business. I think the Mexican gardener in LA works much harder.

chuckle8 ~ All very good points. However, I must say that yes, the Walton family does need to do a lot of work to sustain its fortune. I'm sure you had a chance to check out the old movie "Brewster's Millions" with Eddie Murphy. Eddie (Brewster) was charged with spending several millions of dollars in a short period of time. It was very difficult. All he had to do was waste the money. That is nothing compared to having to maintain the money and make more money. The Walton's have there hands full. They have been successful by contemporary standards; yet, by humanitarian standards they have failed miserably. Hiring sociopaths to maintain a fortune is a very real outcome of such an inheritance... for what it is worth. Do you really think that anyone you hire when you are that wealthy is going to be trustworthy? If you cannot hold a short leash on your help at that level you are nothing more than a fool and his money; and, you know how that turned out...

Of course I agree that the Mexican gardener in LA works much harder; and, deserves much more respect! Therefore, when that gardener works extra hours and socks away extra money I don't believe that any of his savings should be used for anything else then his final wishes. If that Mexican gardener wants to spend his earned money to push his children into the law profession, the engineering profession, or the medical profession that should be left to the wishes of the worker and his family. In no respect should the fortune of a family like the Waltons or the Kochs in any way affect the inheritance of that Mexican gardner.

Have I made myself clear?

Aliceinwonderland ~ Agreed!

Quote chuckle8:Do you want me to describe to you how the wealth of the "Koch brothers" (inherited from Daddy Koch) very much determines the fortune of the Mexican gardener?

chuckle8 ~ Now we're talking apples and oranges. When I speak about wealth transfer it is in reference to the vast majority of Americans--the 99% if you will. You can even call it 95%. I am not talking about excessive wealth in the Billions of dollars. In fact, anything over $5M I could consider to be excessive. As I stated before, the 1% have to be treated specially. Now if you want to limit wealth transfer in that group to say $5M per heir then I agree. Tax the rest, it would be good for the heirs and good for the country. I just don't think you should tax regular citizens anything. Everyone should have the ability to climb the same tree that the Koch family did. This rule does not apply the people who occupy the top of the tree. There should always be room at the top.

Quote Aliceinwonderland:Marc, now you are making more sense. But I still think five million is too high to be at the low end of "excessive". I would bring it down much lower than that; like maybe between one and two million.

Aliceinwonderland ~ Like I said before, the cut off is negotiable. $1.5M sounds fine. Of course you realize that any amount will have to be adjusted over time due to deflation and inflation of the dollar. Hell, if the Grantor could not see fit to grant a greater amount during his lifetime to said heir, that says much about the situation, doesn't it? My simple philosophy is put the money where it will do the most good; encourage, don't discourage, poor or middle class people; and provide everyone a shot at upward mobility. Let everyone have a slice of the pie; and, like you said before, spend that taxable mega inheritance on free public education. That would be a fine way to start.

I personally know of several people who have decided that they don't want their personal fortunes to go to their own families for personal reasons. They would prefer to leave that money to charity. Two of my oldest friends decided long ago that that charity would be the National Animal Wildlife Federation. I see nothing wrong with any charity that betters the situation for humanity or the planet. If that estate is so huge that falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to decide that is fine. Just leave the 95% alone is all I ask; and, we are in full agreement.

You too! Happy New Year!

chuckle8 ~ I'm sorry. I must say I do not fully understand your question. If you are asking whether or not a $5M inheritance should be as free as a $12M inheritance tax I believe I already answered that. Neither should be free of an inheritance tax. Of course, the $12M should be taxed higher. Again, 92% tax on anything is ridiculous. A 50% tax on $12M is more than fair. Let's leave it at that and keep the inheritance tax on less than $2M at 0%. If you have an argument against such a scenario please state it and I'll answer when I can. I plan on being very busy in the next few days.

Another thought just occurred to me, pertaining to this discussion, reminding me to never underestimate the power of the corporate media! Because in retrospect my friends, this whole debate seems pointless. The plutocrats, the kleptocrats & the trust fund babies are whining about this so-called "death tax" because (DUHH!) they're the ones inheriting a big enough free pass to be touched by it. But no matter. They'll make it sound like it affects everyone who inherits anything, just to get us all worked up... over nothing.

These pesky wedge issues! Don't you see, comrades?! It's just a device -- one of many -- that serves as a handy tool for the elite, to keep us "99-percenters" distracted and clueless, too busy bickering amongst ourselves over the latest wedge issue (Abortion? Guns? Gay marriage? Voter "fraud"? "Death" taxes? The "war on Christmas"?) while they continue stealing our homes, our money, our livelihoods, our government, our soverignty, privacy and so on, and while they keep plundering the landscape, poisoning the water and air, killing everything that gets in their way. Time to wake up. - Aliceinwonderland

My pleasure, Marc. Always. - AIW

AIW -- I concur; very succinctly said.

DAM -- Don't be confused since I agree all inheritance below $5 million should be tax free. However, as a point of information, I disagree that by and large that the inheritance wealth was taxed enough. I am basing that on my own personal experience. When my mother passed, I inherited a duplex worth $200,000. My mother bought it for $50,000. If I sell the duplex, my cost basis wil be $200.000. There is a difference of $150,000 in capital gains that will never be taxed.