Pretty much. ^^
[*******#000000][FONT=sans-serif] "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson[/FONT][/COLOR]
It doesn't surprise me this socialistic crap comes from the new york times!!
Began reading with interest. Halfway through realized it was a RONPAULSTRONG!!!!111 article. Stopped.
Started reading again. He makes some good points although I'd take it with a grain of salt.
By the end he's essentially calling for a new Constitutional Convention, which if it ever happens I shudder to think about what it might produce.
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]At what stage of decline do you think we are at the moment; then think about all of the movement on gun restriction legislation and how it would come in to play?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]If the Greeks had free access to weapons and ammunition, what could have occurred when the government stole their savings accounts?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Of course, that would never happen here, right?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
----------Why? Which parts?Started reading again. He makes some good points although I'd take it with a grain of salt.
----------No, he is not. He is merely explaining what would be required to save the nation. Constitutional amendments do not require a convention, but that is beside the point. At the end of the article he recommends bailing from the market and going into cash because he knows the needed changes are not going to occur.By the end he's essentially calling for a new Constitutional Convention, which if it ever happens I shudder to think about what it might produce.
I realize I'm bringing up something that is not directly related...but
"...companies that hire former members of Congress, staffers, and other federal officials to scour the halls of Congress and Capitol Hill in search of valuable, market-moving information that is then sold to big hedge funds and financial houses that use the intel to make investments.
I know that the industry is afraid that the report is going to lead to some sort of legislation or regulation..."
In addition to that article, there is news that the head of the SEC is leaving her position in Washington and cruising into a cushy Wall St. gig at Promontory Financial Group LLC.
"she has accumulated a number of contacts on the financial industry and Capitol Hill who can influence laws and regulation."
So in short, Ms. Shapiro spent years writing the rules a regulations for Wall St. And now she can cash in by working for the company that find ways to get around regulations and rules. Ka-ching $$$$
///needed changes not going to occur
////State-wrecked, this is the next chapter
History has assured us concentration of wealth will be balanced one way or another, this is a matter of time. This goes for any country, any type of government, or any time in history. Circumstances change, societal dynamics do not.
We needn't be surprised or be worried, the concentration of wealth is as natural as populations growing with enough resources, as war and peace or as technological progress, and so natural is the subsequent balancing. Ofcourse it would seem better to balance the concentration of wealth through legislative measures as the Athenian Solon did some 600 years BC, and not through violent revolution as witnessed in 20th-century Russia.
But while the US might have more inequality than other developed countries, more likely candidates for the great balancing act are China, and several countries in Latin America and southern Africa. The US has a higher standard of living, more opportunities and better prospects than most countries. Fighting redistribution of wealth in the US makes no sense however, apart from all the hilarious BS flying around the media, the richest Americans will lose practically nothing and will win stability and safety.