Reasons Not to Vote for John McCain for President in 2008
This is meant for all people who are still considering voting for John McCain:
Dear Potential McCain Voters,
John McCain is a serial adulterer. This is not in the distant past. The recent rumors have been about a lobbyist named Vicki. I mention this first because many Republicans and potential McCain voters didn’t like adultery when a Democrat was guilty. So, I figure this is a character issue that is really important to you.
He cheated on the mother of his children with Cindy. This will mean our First Lady will be a fornicator and a homewrecker.
He is verbally (at least) abusive to Cindy (he called her a "cunt" in front of reporters). He is ill-tempered and wrathful.
He covered up Cindy's drug use and lawbreaking. (Zero tolerance for drug infractions - ha!) Cindy by all rights should have done serious time in a federal prison. Strings were pulled. She did not pay the price that other citizens would have paid under the circumstances.
He is lying like a rug - indisputably - he's put quite a bit on the record in three decades, his lying is documented - all the while promoting his reputation as a "straight-talker." He has no integrity. This has alienated many of his past supporters. I just heard one of them say on TV that he isn’t the same man he was eight years ago.
What a hypocrite.
You might say, to counter my points, that John McCain is more "experienced" than his opponent. This always happens when we age. We become experienced. We don't all become wise. Some of us go senile. Unless some evidence points to the fact that he has used this experience on his path to wisdom, it doesn't mean anything. I don’t see any wisdom at all. He is, according to those who know, worse now than when he ran for president in 2000.
You might cite his POW experience. All this means is that he is stubborn and tough, maybe not even in a way that is good most of the time. From all credible accounts he started cheating on his poor crippled wife almost immediately on his return from Vietnam. So his POW experience didn't affect his character for the good in this regard.
If Clinton's adultery made a difference to you as to his fitness for the oval office, McCain can't be given a pass either. Like the phrase used against Clinton, “Character Counts!”
If you, voter, bought into the Kerry swift-boat lies and voted for the draft-dodging cowards, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, then military service isn't a valued factor in who you vote for.
There is one reason, a well documented reason, that John McCain shouldn’t be president. In fact, it should disqualify him. He is mentally volatile, unstable, and prone to narcissistic rages. This isn't good, my friends, he has not been an executive before. All his experience is legislative. He did not have the power to do anything without involving ninety-nine other senators buffering him. His decisions and actions are never unilateral as a senator. They would be as President. He doesn’t have the self control or wisdom for this responsibility. He has a long standing pattern of acting without thinking. I doubt this will change at his age. It may worsen.
There are an appalling number of his own party who say THEY ARE SCARED TO DEATH OF HIM HAVING THE NUCLEAR CODES. I have never heard this before about any candidate. AN ALARMING NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM BEST SAY HE IS UNFIT.
Think about this. He is most certainly a narcissistic personality, and not a well-socialized one, who knows how to compensate for his deficits. This means that his ego boundaries extend to everyone else. He doesn’t respect other people as separate individuals who have a right to their own ideas and feelings. He doesn't care about anybody but himself. If you hear him say anything different, he will be lying. His actions aren’t consistent with his words. When words and actions aren’t consistent, the actions will tell the truth.
Narcissists have a remarkable ability to ignore reality (is this a good thing in a President? What about the last eight years? Reality bites you in the ass sooner or later - always). They will NOT LISTEN TO THE IDEAS OF OTHERS. THEY THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. They feel like they are EVERYTHING. What does he care if he dies and leaves the ignorant, ill-prepared and poorly educated Miss Congeniality to run the country? To him, when he dies, everything dies.
He isn't any Maverick. What does that mean anyway, and why is that a reason he will be a good president? He's a gambler, that's the only way he's a maverick. This is simply the word he uses to describe his inability to work and play well with others.
Come on, he isn't any hero for standing up to his party for the good of the people. He's defending his "honor" against those who disagree with him in MINOR WAYS and pissing off his colleagues with his abusive behavior. There are times to listen to other opinions. There might be better ones than John McCain’s. Maybe John McCain needs to say, "Whoops, my bad" and concede the point instead of calling people “assholes” when they disagree. John McCain can’t do this one simple thing that normal people do every day. Admit when he is wrong promptly and change course.
There is no excuse for uncivil behavior and verbal abuse. Narcissists see their own flaws in other people and claim the other’s virtues as their own. Watch how John McCain does this. John McCain’s reputation as a toxic raging maniac is well known and is undeniable. John McCain’s reputation isn’t good among those who have direct experience with him. Everybody knows someone like John McCain who is always calling people “assholes”. This person is the true “asshole”. He sees his own assholiness in everyone else.
As is characteristic of narcissism, John McCain has problems with shame. This is why he is so sensitive about his so-called "honor". Instead of saying, "You saw the flaws I was trying to hide from myself and I feel shamed." He calls you an “asshole” for insulting his "honor". Let me make this clear. He isn’t being unfairly maligned when he defends his “honor”. From what I’ve seen, the people he feels are attacking him are very fair to him. He’s awful. In my world honorable people don't verbally abuse others on a regular and habitual basis and call them assholes and cunts. The movie name he deserves is not Maverick, it's The Jerk.
What about the contempt that he shows toward Obama? Contempt is the emotion that people feel towards those who are morally beneath them. Obama has done nothing to earn McCain's contempt.
Shame is what people feel when they don't live up to their own moral standards. Contempt is what people feel when others don’t live up to their moral standard.
Narcissists will direct their contempt towards those who trigger their feelings of shame. These people are anyone who ventures to offend McCain’s “honor” by seeing his real flaws, or disagreeing with him, or not treating him with the respect he thinks he deserves, and those people like Obama that John McCain envies.
Narcissists will malign those who have the characteristics they wish for themselves. They will not attack a person’s real flaws. The narcissist will see his own flaws in the person that they envy. They will project their own shame as contempt towards the envied person. This characteristic quite is pronounced in McCain during his interactions with Obama. Obama is what McCain wishes he was - young, well-spoken, personable, even-tempered and popular. I think Palin is McCain’s attempt to claim youth and personability by identification. Makes sense. Makes sense in his twisted mind, I mean.
McCain's behavior is consistent with poorly socialized narcissism. Narcissists don't age well as a rule, which isn't reassuring given that he is 72 years old. This may explain why he is so different (not in a good way) than he was eight years ago.
I may try to compile a list of those who have personal accounts of McCain's behavior. There are several on the internet if anyone cares to look. Many do not trust him in the important executive role of president.
I'm surprised and disappointed at how far McCain has gone and how irresponsible he has been in his choice of Palin and his continued untrue (and insincere, if you ask me) promotion of the myth they are creating for her. The neocons see her as a charming "blank slate" (Reagan?) that they can exploit to their advantage. Palin, too, is a hypocrite and liar. One of the Ten Commandments is to not bear false witness. Not to lie. Jesus hated hypocrisy. He talked about the sin of hypocrisy far more than any other shortcoming. I think Jesus mentioned homosexuality once, briefly, after someone asked him a question. He did all out rants against the hypocrites without much prompting at all.
An incredible number of his former supporters have abandoned John McCain. They say that he isn’t the same man he was in 2000. He had a reputation as someone who would tell it straight, unlike other politicians. This character is gone. It was only a role he was playing. It never existed. Now his reputation is of a liar with awful judgment.
He has lost the support of a large number of conservative “intellectuals”. People who know how to read and write some. The Republican pundits and opinionators. John McCain must have given up trying to get votes from anyone with sense, because his campaign has been reduced to stirring up the prejudices of goof balls with old issues that were settled log ago during the primaries. His current audience is “low-information voters” so they don’t know that this is old news.
His health is in question. He is old and has had serious cancer. The actuary would say that there is between a one in three to one in four chance he will die during his first term and leave us with Palin, who is no Thomas Jefferson or Dan Quayle. Absolutely NO ONE with any sense, Republican or Democrat, thinks she is ready or has the right stuff to be the chief executive. They are scared of her. Many Republicans have abandoned him for the Sarah Palin reason alone. The only ones left who think she has what it takes are Palin and McCain and the biased bunch of extreme and clueless right wingers that she was picked to appeal to. McCain and Palin seem to be the only high profile Republicans left who think that Palin isn’t a complete and total train wreck of a candidate.
I read that McCain was fifth from the bottom of his class because he was so awful in math. He is on the record many times saying that he doesn’t understand the economy. Palin doesn’t seem to set much store by book larnin’ herself. So I doubt she gets the economy either. Are we sure this is a good idea at this time of financial instability? Isn’t it time we had a smart president. Smart isn’t a bad thing.
I tried to be brief so I have left out much of my supporting data and left in more inflammatory language than I ordinarily would to emphasize my points. For anyone who wants to follow up, Google John McCain temper, John McCain infidelity, John McCain narcissistic personality disorder, John McCain contempt, John McCain lies, John McCain fit for office.
I won’t lead you potential voters astray. Have an open mind and check out my points for yourself. If you still feel that McCain and Palin are your candidates. I’d like to hear your reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Obama favors raising the business tax and capital gains tax. I am afraid that with the current financial crisis this could prove to be devastating to any recovery. I am more afraid of Obama blowing up my retirement account with well meaning social programs than I am of McCain blowing up the planet in a Ren Hoek like fit of senile rage. I did enjoy your blog though.
I agree with pretty much everything you spoke of in your post about John McCain. However, I followed your suggestion and googled John Mccain narcissistic personality disorder and found just as many articles asserting that Obama suffers from this disorder as McCain. Would most people who go into politics have these tendencies?
Amy, I believe that you have put your finger on the problem. How many psychologically adjusted people would even consider running for high office? With the level of corruption/avarice it is a wonder anything good for the country ever gets done. It is a fact that the economy has historically done better when there is gridlock in Congress, go figure.
PS: You should run for office Jackie! You chose wisely in the most important life decision a person can face.
What do you want from Obama Claus this year?! Make your list now before the money runs out !
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/29/who-caused-the-biggest-financial-crisis-since-the-great-depression/
Above are a couple of articles you might like to read concerning the credit/financial crisis.
High ranking Democrats have been key to the creation and perpetuation of the law (revamped community reinvestment act) which was the seed of the crisis that has us teetering on the brink of a new Great Depression. Major investment banks such as Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Morgan Stanley (lets not forget Fannie and Freddie) all figured out a way to creatively repackage the risky subprime loans and foist them off on investors by having them triple A rated!! How did they manage to do this ? Easy, they hired the agencies which do the rating !! Hahahahaaa ! Unbelieveable!!, but sadly true. The sale of these "securities" was the fuel for the giant Ponzi scheme inflating the housing bubble. Does anybody really believe Obama will deliver on his promises with limited taxation and without expanding an already morbidly obese Federal gov. ?!
Our government (Dems and Repubs), led by the Bush administration (Darth Cheney !) have foolishly involved us in a war reminiscent of Vietnam and spent money in a way which I used to think was only the realm of Democratic philosophy. Does anybody really believe Bush is in charge??
Obama, McCain and Palin give a regular guy reason for concern if not out right fear. Biden seems like a good man. Commuting back and forth to Washington in order to be with his motherless boys brings a tear to a dad. I don't know anything about his voting record though.
Whats a regular guy to do ?
Oh yea, if you want to see a really good video documentary. Check out......."Why We Fight"... an award winning documentary by Eugene Jareki, not the Frank Capra WW2 propaganda, (which is pretty good for fans of old WW2 footage). It documents the reasons (statements by folks in the know) for American Militarism and the term coined by Eisenhower in his famous and prophetic farewell address. "Military Industrial Complex."
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
Check it out, fascinating stuff. Also.....check out....."Who killed the Electric Car" very good also.
Another........."Iraq for Sale".
RON PAUL FOR DICTATOR !!
Ok, my coffee cup is empty........i am done.
Ahhh, I have had lunch and have had time to peruse my list of articles on the Democratic masterpiece called the Community Reinvestment Act. An Act that was played like Itzhak Perlman on his violin by that great American Franklin Delano Raines. For your reading and critical thinking pleasure I humbly submit the following article.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Taxes-I personally never pay attention to anything any candidate says about what they are going to do about taxes. Campaigns are about ideals that may not be realistically possible. Presidents may come up against unanticipated circumstances or congressional resistance to their promised plans.
Narcissism-it is true that if you google narcissistic personality disorder you will get more hits for Obama than for McCain. This is a meme that was started a long time ago. It was joked about by both of the candidates at the Al Smith dinner in NYC last night.
I don't think that a person without considerable narcissism can be president or even be successful in politics. Some narcissism is healthy. No problem.
My issues with McCain is about his rages. I read reports of his rages, looked at video of his rages, watched his affect and expressions in the debates and his use of the word "honor" - the opposite of dishonor or shame. Deep shame is characteristic of the pathological aspects of narcissism.
Obama's narcissism doesn't have the rages that McCain's narcissism exhibits. This is an important difference. If Obama rages, he is keeping it private, which shows that he has control. On the other hand, McCain has gone off publicly so often it is an established part of his reputation. I believe of the reports I read about his rages, they were mostly aimed toward his fellow republicans, and other people he has worked with directly. Many of these people have expressed doubts about his ability to control this impulse. It's not the narcissism. It's the rages.
I'll check out your links, Alan, after karaoke. Finance, communism and hang gliding parody songs make my eyes cross.
Hey jackie, there's something else I need to know...
I understand why you think we should not vote for McCain, but can you give me any real reasons to vote FOR Obama, or any other candidate? I fully support him, but I'm not often able to articulate exactly why. I'd rather vote FOR someone I believe in than AGAINST the lesser of two evils. What do you think?
I never pay attention to ideals because they are rarely approached when government is involved. I do pay close attention to what a candidate says he wants to do with taxes because the money determines everything. It shapes the economy, foreign policy, wars, personal finances, my sons college education and that guys trip to Amsterdam that I still dream about. As for narcissism, I can't stand to be around narcissistic people but they sometimes are very successful people and effective leaders (Alexander would be one example). The trick I think is figuring out whether that persons goals are aligned with your own. If the person is a liar, which seems like a prerequisite for being a politician, then paying close attention to the voting record is one obvious way to assess that person. The other is to look at ones allies and associates and their records (see Penny Pritzker). I don't know if I would like John McCain in person or not. If I did, I would probably be forced at some time to say STFU!, but that's OK as long as his actions proved to be honorable in the whole. McCain did pass one HUGE test of honor, and that was to choose to be beaten half to death rather than (as son of an Admiral) be released ahead of his prison mates and give the North Vietnamese a propaganda coup. Few people would pass that test, I am pretty sure I wouldn't. I don't think anyone can come up with a motive for that other than his own personal sense of honor. I think it is that sense of honor which would compel him to act in a way that he thinks would be perceived as honorable in a historical sense even with the occasional outburst that would make most people want to punch him in the nose. The thing that scares me about Obama is that I think he is probably a well meaning "true believer". I just hope he doesn't think that it may be necessary to wreck our economy in order to reach a destination that may not be attainable with the changes he envisions. The vast majority of economists believe that if taxes are significantly raised across the board, (see Herbert Hoover, and Roosevelt, Roosevelt noted: "For over two years our federal government has experienced unprecedented deficits, in spite of increased taxes.") the U.S. is in for a long and much harder road ahead than would have been otherwise necessary.
Check out the documtentaries, they ring true and I have no doubt you will enjoy them!
And for a change in topic..........check out "The Elegant Universe" on DVD. Documenting String Theory....according to Stephen Hawking....... 'its the only candidate for a unified field theory', or a theory of everything. Einstein spent his last hours working on the problem with equations at his side when he died. He wanted "to read the mind of God".
documtentaries ! Good grief ! Should proofed that before I sent it!
Thats kinda scary. I wonder if I killed somebody yesterday (post work day) and I just havent figured it out yet.
Alan! Read my lips! Politicians don't keep campaign promises! Especially the ones about taxes!
Some people don't put their own personal financial situations ahead of all else. They look at a bigger picture.
McCain, by his own admission, is clueless about the economy. He was 5th from the bottom of his class because he had so much trouble with math. He shouldn't be our leader during a financial crisis. Also, I don't think he has ever had anything but a government job. He married money and has been floating along for a long time.
Alan, have you fallen for the conventional wisdom about how Republicans will always be better for the economy? I tried to gather a bit of data about this yesterday - I've done that before - looked for information to support that the impact on different parties of the economy. Republicans run up big deficits, Dems pay them off. That's the general pattern. It isn't a bit conclusive that tax cuts are always good for the economy or that economies do better under Republicans. If anything economies do better under Dems, but Republicans will claim that Dems are reaping the benefits of the policies they put in place.
Republicans lie without blinking.
The richest man in the world is voting for Obama.
Amy! I am a Type 4. For me, it isn't about what IS, it's about what it is NOT.
That sounds lame, I know. It SEEMS that we should BE for something rather than against it. I don't see the world this way. Everything is so compromised.
I can't idealize people, either. To be for some one seems to require idealization. I'm not comfortable with this.
I tuned out politics after 2004. Not a deliberate decision. I guess I felt a futility about the process, so I turned my mental energies to another directions. That said, I do have a reason for voting for Obama!!!!!
I DO!!! U.S. foreign policy and reputation has suffered tremendously over the last eight years. We have not been working and playing well with others. I would like for Obama's name and face to represent the U.S. to the world.
He is not perfect. I was disappointed in some of his compromises on abortion, his minister, and the environment. But I know that someone who was unable to compromise on these and other issues, wouldn't have a chance. I understand why he did it.
The other thing is his personality. He is like Kennedy or Reagan. The ability to communicate, charm and relate is more important than people usually consider it to be.
Obama is smart. His reputation is that he has solid values and judgment and that he is even tempered. He also appears to have a real gift with words.
The Republicans have mastered the lie over the last few decades. Lies are believed before the truth in many or most cases. Obama may be the guy who can communicate the truth effectively in a way that can be accepted by the common American - the one who has been falling for lies and distortions because he can grasp them better than difficult truth.
More and more, we are citizens of the world. Obama is the choice that the rest of the world would make for us. They will be comfortable with him. This can't be understated.
Politicians don't keep promises ? I must investigate that further.
"Some people don't put their own personal financial situations ahead of all else. They look at a "bigger picture". The obvious implication is that I put personal finances above all else, and that "some people" refers to yourself being one of those who doesn't. Do you know what my "big picture" is ? I doubt it, because I don't remember telling you. I do believe that raising taxes at this point in history will be devastating. I do believe that when Obama says his tax increases will only affect people making less than 250k it will be a "read my lips" moment like the statement made famous by the other Bush. I do think that if his economic policies are implemented it will have severe effects on the economy, although on this point I hope I am mistaken.
I think a lot of people are clueless about the economy. I don't think McCain or Obama are ready to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve but thats OK.
I do think that lower taxes and smaller government leads to financial prosperity. Hong Kong is a perfect example of how fast an economy can grow when government lets businesses operate unfettered. However, it doesn't matter how fast your economy grows if your spending is out of control. The Repubs have been dismal failures in that regard primarily because of a foolish and immoral attempt to grab the oil reserves in Iraq. Obama will be elected primarily because of the financial crisis. The irony is his party is more responsible for it than the Republicans. It would be like John McCain getting elected for blaming the Democrats for leading us into Iraq, ridiculous! The Dems and Repubs both have racked up unimpressive records with regards to over spending, over taxing and failed policies both foreign and domestic.
After initial successes militarily, the U.S. instituted a disastrous policy of Debaathafication in Iraq which resulted in innocent civilians (doctors, nurses, professors, police and soldiers) being fired because they had at one time in their careers been given the "choice" of joining the Baath party. Tariq Aziz warned that this policy would be a disaster because it would instantly convert 250,000 soldiers into resistance fighters not to mention the effects it had on the government and society at large being able to function. History has proven he was right. The surge is making headway now because 1) the U.S. is following a "clear and hold" policy similar to what worked for the British when Iraq was occupied by them early in the last century and 2) the U.S. military is augmented by an estimated 130,000 "contractors" who roam the streets sometimes like homicidal maniacs and with no oversight from the U.S. government. Check out Jeremy Scahill's interview with Bill Moyers on You Tube. Scahill is a truely patriotic American.
Citing Warren Buffet as a reason to support Obama ? I am not sure what that means but I am sure Buffet has some good reasons. I don't know if his goals coincide with what is best for the U.S. or best for Warren Buffet or both. Only time will tell on that one.
Obama is definately a brilliant man and the best orator I have ever seen with the possible exceptions of JFK and MLK.
I try to state opinions without any personal attacks or degenerating into a diatribe. If I fail at this, please let me know. Like most people,I have lots of opinions, I am sure lots of mine left unstated here are in line with your own. If you care about any of em, I will be glad to let you know. Otherwise, I won't bore you with them.
Cheers,
Alan
Well, all I can say is that I didn't intend to be snotty at all with the comment about the "big picture". I know I didn't mean it personally. It was an unconscious leak of my feelings about most people who focus on taxes as campaign issues.
That is such a tired line "tax cuts". I've heard "tax cuts" all my life. No one ever addresses the specifics of what would be a fair tax, except for maybe the flat taxers, and there hasn't been any action taken in that direction that I know of.
Are ALL tax cuts good all the time? What about this? Would a seriously high progressive tax rate on unearned income discourage some of the abuse that led to the current disaster by making it less lucrative? Do the rich "job creators" really create jobs with their tax cuts all the time? Or is just a way to make the rich richer and concentrate more money and the accompanying power in the hands of fewer and fewer people? The neoconservative philosophy would support this.
Take deregulation. It seems to have worked great for airlines and telephones. When I was a kid an airplane trip was a huge, expensive and rare event. Long distance phone calls were for emergencies and holidays. This deregulation resulted in benefit for consumers. It seems to be the opposite with the savings and loans, banking, and finance industries. They used deregulation to establish exorbitant interest rates, exploitative fee structures, and as opportunities for larceny.
I don't trust anyone who says that by giving a benefit to the most fortunate, the least of our brethren will benefit. I don't believe this. The only jobs that will be created will be in third world sweat shops.
I guess maybe my doubts are about certain policies always being either all right or all wrong. Like deregulation, tax cuts, and privatization. I'd rather hear a discussion about whether an idea is right for a particular situation.
As for small government, I think I'm against it. A "mind your own business and get out of my private life" government is good. But what I mean is that as corporations eat other corporations and become bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer and more and more public projects are privatized, we risk shifting the power from the government that belongs to all of us to corporations which belong to the few and are controlled by even fewer. This would be de facto socialism, wouldn't it? What does "free market" mean in an environment of a few large corporations anyway? Totalitarianism?
This is what I meant by "big picture." Not that I see it myself.
jackie
p.s. sorry, Alan
Its OK, I am a big boy and i can take it. I am no economist, but from the history I have read Roosevelt had extremely high rates as did Eisenhower. When they went out of office the tax rates were lowered and an economic boom followed each. It could be argued that the recoveries from the Great Depression after Roosevelt, and the recovery from recession when JFK lowered the high taxes from the Eisenhower administration were both due to other factors and the lowered taxes that seemed to accompany them were correlated but not cause and effect. Some say WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression. If you look at Hong Kong they have the fastest growing economy of just about anyone and they have very minimal government regulation. According to what I have read the problem is that when the tax rates go so high it results in massive tax evasion and flight of money out of business and into legitimate tax shelters as well. The other thing is that economies almost always shrink in response to higher taxes. I am not for going back to the days of non regulated business spewing disgusting and harmful substances into the environment but from a standpoint of generating large amounts of revenue low taxes seems to be the way to go. The darned Congress, Dem and Repubs spend like there is no tomorrow !
The scariest thing I have seen in some time is the privatization of the MILITARY. Now that is a HUGE mistake. This is probably history you are already aware of but if not then here is an overview of my understanding of it, cursory as it may be.
Rome did not allow a general to come within a certain distance of the city because the army held its allegiance to its general ahead of Rome itself. The soldiers fared as well as the General treated them and good generals had very loyal armies. The general doled out land and booty to his soldiers according to their performance and loyalty. So, in a sense it was a private army "owned" by the general. According to history or myth, when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon (one of the boundaries) he remarked...."the die is cast". There was going to be civil war.
You made a very important point about totalitarianism I think.
Erik Prince an ex Navy seal and right wing zealot who has a private army of 20k or more based in North Carolina. His company/army is called "Blackwater". They are the elite of the military contractors in Iraq now. All of them special forces from the US or commandos recruited form other nations. It is a private army, with total allegiance to Erik Prince within our borders. They have just about everything except tanks, and they may even have them ! WHo knows !?
Those are the guys in the baseball caps, black SUVs and helicopters. A sinister looking bunch if ever there was. According to Jeremy Scahill who wrote a book with the title "Blackwater" they deployed in New Orleans after Kartrina on Prince's orders and BEFORE they even got a government contract !!! Do tjat search on You Tube with Bill Moyers interviewing Scahill. Very chilling. What happens when all those elite troops return from Iraq ? Nothing I hope. Prince used to work in Washington for the Repubs but they were far too liberal for his tastes. I think that his company should be dissolved along with all the other companies like them such as KBR or very strict limits put on their numbers.
As for the interest rates in the sub prime disaster, the interest rates were usually very low initially (teasers) with no money going on the principal for a few years. After a few years, the interest rates became variable and were by design much higher than they were for lower risk borrowers in order to make up for the higher risk of default. It was a recipe for disaster. It all worked as long as housing prices continued to rise. As long as they did, investors at the other end of the scheme bought up the bundled mortgages like stocks (the key to the scheme, see Penny Pritzker, Merrill Lynch) because they were making money. They saw their equity increasing as homes increased in value. Companies in the middle (Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns etc etc) between the borrowers at one end, and the investors at the other were borrowing up to 30 times what they could have bought otherwise. They call it leveraging. The investors didn't mind buying what were being rated as very secure investments (triple A, safest you can get). The ratings were a fraud, that is the biggest deregulation or non regulation failure in the whole thing. The scheme was implemented however by regulating banks that were federally insured to make a certain number of sub prime loans, or else. The gov used fines and lawsuits from community groups like ACORN which were funded by the whole thing as well. Banks were given a "CRA" rating which determined if mergers or acquisitions could take place as well. When housing prices fell, the lower tier banks and all the larger investment banks in the middle and insurance companies which insured the securities were left holding the bag, or the bad paper. Now they were all leveraged to the hilt and couldn't pay up.
What is obscene are the severance packages or golden parachutes for people that used a scheme that many knew would collapse, but so what ! They (middle men) were getting rich! Those guys should be stripped of their ill gotten riches, all the money returned to the taxpayers and they should spend long sentences in a special prison made up of the most violent offenders.
If the corporations take over, it would more accurately be called fascism. Which is of course what happened in Germany and Italy. In the documentary "Why We Fight", McCain is interviewed (one of many) and he basically says that Eisenhower's fears have already been realized. There are 4 groups identified as the ones really in charge. A few powerful legislators in key positions, the brass in the Pentagon, huge corporations such as GE,Lockheed, Northrup etc., and a new fourth player.......the so called think tanks which are mostly extreme right wing thinkers. Where does Erik Prince fit in ? Scary.
Alan
PS: 24 hr shift tomorrow. So I wont be able to respond to anything for a while. Please indulge me if I say something in a couple of days from now that doesnt seem to make any sense.
Post a Comment