JP Morgan and 6 others met in the early 1900's to decide how they would monetize the United States. They decided they could monetize the US, ONLY if the vehicle would shelter them from the risk that comes with lending money to people and companies you dont know. This is the origin of the FDIC. Call it the backbone of fraud. Over the past century, there have been a continual stream of bailouts forced upon the people. Conrail, NYC Railroad, etc. The money of the people going to save these corporations that are 'too big to fail'. When you consider the collection of entities in charge of spending this nations money, they operate under the same principle, spending is fine, as the citizens are there for a bailout. This is almost like the directions on a bottle of shampoo, 'wash, rinse, repeat.'

Federal policy provides a path to freedom from obligations such as pensions, and the economic responsibility that comes with the power to affect the economy in dramatic fashion by erasing domestic jobs, make them foreign jobs, and doing so under the guise of being a Corporate Citizen. How is it that a Corporation with no HQ offices here in the US, not paying their taxes, can spend DIME ONE on a political campaign? Easy, the banks are truly the ones in control. Their Republican Right are their puppets, and occasionally they get a few Democrats to sell out the taxpayers, like Clinton did with NAFTA. Look into what Unilever did with Breyers. A 129 year old business, with $1.2 Billion in annual sales. They closed the plants and moved them to Russia in 2009. 1000 direct jobs lost, a third of that again for the suppliers, and a third of that again to the second tier. We didnt lose 1,000 jobs, we lost closer to 1600. Strong likelihood that lead to 300 to 400 foreclosures, which are also a part of the bailout. How about a Blight Tax, which may be levied as long as that company has been in business, and as long as the Brand Name is sold, and as long as the owners of the brand are in business selling to that market under any brand name..

I say enough. We need to recind their right to spend directly. I dont know if it can be done by petition, but a petition is the only way to get enough voice to be heard on a single item. As a country, we can STOP paying the collection of crooks by discontinuing to purchase products and brands that are not held by companies truly housing their HQ in the USA, and are participating in the Tax System, instead of being a blight. Unilever is one, Whirlpool another, Kraft is teetering. All of the largest banks that hold our personal debt do not HQ here in the USA. We HAVE TO TURN OUR BACK ON THEM.

Since they are leveraging the International Monetary Fund, which is also largely underwritten by US Dollars to bail out European countries, that level of urgency cannot be any higher.

These people are not connected to normalcy. We have to take away their power. The election method is not working. Consuers need to turn their backs. We need help from civic leaders to affect local ordinance and policy to box out the thieves.

It will be painful. But it has to happen. Waiting for Capital Hill to act in our interests is already too late.

Ruthlessness prevails when all else fails ...... which is why these are especially "dangerous times".

Thom,

I continue to hope for the best but do not share your general optimism. I know you are just asking a question w/ this blob, but your predictions are generally positive. I think the system will crash and be reborn again, which is too optimistic. We still have a long way to go and I think we are just over the half way point. This will take a decade or more.

In order to shorten this cycle, indeed educate the populace, we need to cut to the chase in our message. You do a great job of this, but it's too difficult for the brainwashed and those not paying attention for various reasons. The message should be that you are being duped by the same ideaology that our country's revolulution was fought over. Bullet points are easier for people to digest a broad picture and people do not like to believe they are being duped; that they are stupid or do not not understand the facts.

*The media is conservative - you are told just the opposite, but you are being lied to. The media is owned by transnational corporations and Wallstreet. They want ratings and good stock value. Explain the Fairness Doctrine.

*If you are voting republican you are voting against your own interests, unless you are filthy rich and/or do not care about people outside of your own circle.

*The Republican infrastructue doesn't care about the poor or THE WORKING CLASS. They are happy w/ a neo-feudalistic society, which is where we are headed. They do not care about social issues and are using them to deceive you into voting for their idealogy.

The list goes on and if you tell people that they are being duped they will rail against this prospect. Nobody wants to feel that they are stupid or simply do not understand the facts. This is how the conversation moves quicker. Tell people they are being duped

*

Strikerfired,

I was wondering if you could provide any evidence that "entitlements" what's behind the decline in these countries? I really would appreciate it if you would, as everything I've seen, and read states, that it is corrupt goverments, poor tax collecting and lax banking regulations that brought these countries down.

Thank you -

yes, these are very dangerous times... i can't shake the feeling that we are on the cusp of something very, very big, something that could go either way - continuing down the dark path we're currently on or perhaps something wonderful that will surprise us all... it's a tipping point, for sure...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

nice to see the Federalist in you coming out Thom! I agree, cities over states and countries over the Euro-Zone....

Yes, it is sad to watch Europe following the US's decline into Plutocratic or Oligarchical control.

Having traveled to Europe many times over the decades - I'm nearly 50 now, I always hoped that America would rise up to European standards of living, principles of democracy and levels of productivity. Alas, we are finally pulling them down with us, I fear.

And yet, all this economic turmoil is nothing compared to the collapse of our environment which is a certainty with the US ignoring calls for carbon reduction. Ironically, investing in a more healthy environment would produce a more healthy economy...well, except for the rulers that are heavily invested in a grey economy (grey for coal, oil and soot).

Talking about Europe reminds me of the irony amonst Republicans. When topics like health care come up, we talk about improving the standards of living of all Americans to the levels of Europeans. The GOP goes crazy. But, when Europe starts all this austeric nonsence, the GOP are the first to follow the lead of the Europeans. Which is it? Be more like Europe or be more like Haiti...no disrespect to the people of Haiti intended.

The 1% are not confined to US borders and are clearly having an impact globally.

I don't know Sen. Sanders put Brunch with Bernie up on his senate website. Anyway, here's Bernie's proposed amendment in case anybody's been unable to find the text:

‘‘Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

‘‘Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

‘‘Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

‘‘Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’

Honestly, I'm having trouble parsing section 3. Here's how the grouping seems to go: Such [(corporate) and (other private)] entities shall be prohibited from making [(contributions) or (expenditures)] in [(any election of any candidate for public office) or (the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people)]. The resulting phrase "...making contributions or expenditures in the vote..." needs to be fixed. I would suggest "...making contributions or expenditures for or against any candidate for public office or any ballot measure submitted to the people..." Also, technically "limited liability" shoul dbe hyphenated.

I like that "contribution" seems to cover the "in-kind equivalent" covered in Tom Udall's proposal. And I like that it simply forbids corporate contributions, instead of stopping short at letting Congress and the states regulate them. I think with a little improvement in details, this is the best proposed amendment so far.

The problem with requiring legislative bills to cover only one topic is enforcement. Either the legislature has to self-enforce (which seems unlikely to be effective in the long run) or it has to be possible for a legislator to take somebody to court over it. The Colorado General Assembly is under that restriction and I'm not sure how the rule is enforced there, but ballot initiatives have gone to court for that reason.

However, I am all for it.

I certainly don't wish violence on Republicans but I do think these unpatriotic bastards should be deported for treason. Who knows who their corporate masters are. They could be Chinese or Saudis or Emirati (Dubai) or who knows what else. They do not have the USA as their primary concern.

Thom,

This appears eerily similar to the events of the Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983). In Chadha, the ability of either house of Congress to override the decision of a federal agency was deemed unconstitutional. This REINS legislation would probably fall into the same category, and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Remember how the House Republicans, on entering office this past January, read the entire Constitution out loud (except for certain parts such as slavery)? Beat them over the head with the INS v. Chadha case, which this REINS legislation blatantly violates. If the Republicans won't call out the Supreme Court for the Citizens United ruling, they will have a hard time complaining about the Chadha decision.

"We The 99%" could rein in the 1% party with the creation of a National News Network that simply broadcasts the unbiased truth!