U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading - Gallup

If this Gallup Poll data is accurate, then it seems like what went on in Iowa this weekend will be the starting gun in the race to determine who the next POTUS will be. I don't mean to minimize the chances for the other guy who may be in the race. He appears to be doing a good enough job of that on his own, with the help of Messrs. Geithner and Bernanke.

Odds from intrade.com
Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

With any luck, we settle our differences here at the ballot box and not in the streets, like other countries around the world.

Let the games begin.

U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading:

Bottom Line

The U.S. political culture is a broad mix of conservatives, moderates, and liberals, with conservatives continuing to be the largest group by a slight, but statistically significant, margin over moderates. This pattern first emerged in 2009, driven by increased conservatism among independents, and has since persisted. Partly as a result, the country is more polarized today than it was in 1992.

All three ideology groups coexist under a divided federal government that has struggled to reach agreement on how to raise the nation's debt ceiling. The source of congressional leaders' difficulty unifying their own members on the matter is evident in the finding that even within the parties there exists a mix of moderates and liberals (in the case of Democrats) and strong conservatives and not-so-strong conservatives (in the case of Republicans) tugging their respective parties in different directions."

More from Gallup on the Tea-Party and their composition.

Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx

It's not the image that the loons from the left and the MSM would have you believe. Then again, they have never been ones to let the facts get in the way of a good story, even as so many parrot a familiar hackneyed phrase.

"You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"


Guess who is going to end up being on the right side of this argument.

In response to Republican Senator Lamar Alexander's contention that premiums will go up under reform, the President cites the Congressional Budget Offices report that his proposal will lower costs for individuals by between 14 and 20%. President Obama cites some of the Republican ideas he's included in his proposal and makes it clear that he welcomes additional Republican ideas to contain costs.

Thank God the courts will take care of this unconstitutional monstrosity.

On the D-side of things, I don't put much stock in the "Obama will get a primary challenge" argument. TPTB on that side, that came to the the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her cronies -- including Mr. Bill -- would be too full of themselves to control, will simply not allow her to mount a challenge, and she is the only one that can.

The far lefts wet dream of a Dennis Kuchinich presidency has as much chance of happening as a Ron Paul presidency. Sounds like a great idea, then you wake up and face reality.

On the R-side,

Note to the Rudy Guiliani's and Fred Thompson's and John McCain's of the world, from the last go-round.

- You did not deem it important enough to roll up your sleeves last time and compete when your country needed you. Don't look to be asked this time. It seemed as if collectively, the Repub candidates steeped back and left John McCain to step forward and take one for the team, in the same fashion that the military asks for volunteers. McCain was the R's sap. If it wasn't for juice that Palin provided unexpectedly, he would have legitimately had a chance to lose a minimum of 49 states and go down as the Republican version of Walter Mondale.

In fact, in hind-sight, I'm a little suspicious now that the Clinton's didn't take a look across the economic landscape -- much of which Bill and Robert Rubin helped create, along with Greeenspan -- and decided to pull his wife back from the firing line and let Barack Obama take one for the D-team.

GO HARD THIS TIME OR GO HOME AS A PARTY FOR GOOD, AND DON'T COME BACK.

There, now that we have set the ground rules.

Three contenders from the Republican team stood out for their business acumen and common sense:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Michelle Bachmann
3. Herman Cain

If pocketbook issues decide the race (and I believe they will), these three will be well-suited to challenge Obama.

If cultural issues become the deciding factor, the following three are articulate and knowledgeable enough, if at times a bit grumpy and persnickety:

4. Ron Paul
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Rick Santorum

Ron Paul could also be placed quite easily in the business acumen crowd, in fact, IMO he would be the front-runner there. But it didn't take long for the others to throw the "Iran getting nukes issue" that will be used to marginalize Paul among the national security / military crowd within the Repub tent. They did a similar dance using 9-11 as the wedge issue last time around.

If Paul runs as a third party candidate he could cause some difficulty. If the lefty-Dems run a third-party or protest type candidate to display their "buyers remorse" that further complicates things.

As for Tim Pawlenty, his performance just reminded me how I feel when I see a little bird fly smashing into a window. At times, equal parts sad, amusing and mystifying to witness.

The good folks at Wild Birds Unlimited offer this explanation for the phenomena, and it seems to suit Pawlenty.

“Some birds bang into windows because they think they see another bird in their territory, some birds fly into windows because they don’t see the window. Other birds fly into windows because they are being chased by predators.”

Anyway, thanks for playing Timmy, here's your version of the home game and hopefully you didn't piss-off the eventual nominee enough to preclude being a viable V.P. candidate. Sorry about your beak.

Pawlenty's campaign chances after Iowa:



As for John Huntsman, he's such a darling of the Democratic, hands across the aisle crowd that I have a suggestion for you guys.....TAKE HIM, HE'S ALL YOURS!!! My gosh, do you mean to tell me that you seriously thought you could run for President without having a coherent economic plan!!! I'm sorry Mr. Huntsman, you've been hanging around the present administration a little to much. Got a little bit of that Stockholm Syndrome thingy on your persona. You might want to try and wash that out.

Anyway, thank for playing Johnny-boy. One Mormon is the field is plenty and you lose versus Romney easily.

As for Perry, Palin and Gov. Chrisite, I just have one message.

GET IN QUICK OR STAY OUT. We don't have the time or the patience for any daisy-picking, she-loves-me, she-loves-me not BS. Thanks.

MEDIA CONTROL AND INFLUENCE

WE TALK ABOUT BANKS THAT ARE TOO BIG AND INTERCONNECTED TO FAIL, BUT MEDIA CONGLOMERATES IN AMERICA ALSO FALL IN INTO THE SAME CATEGORY.


THERE IS A HUGE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE MEDIA'S LENS (OR FRAME OF REFERENCE) AND REGULAR PEOPLE'S LENS. - YOU CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE FINANCIAL PRESS, THE POLITICAL MEDIA, OR THE SPORTS MEDIA.


FROM JESSE'S CAFÉ AMÉRICAIN BLOG:
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-does-economic-news-seem-to-be-so.html

Why Does the Economic News Seem To Be So Different From Your Reality?

There are numerous vested interests on Wall Street, in Washington, and in the corporate conglomerates who see nothing wrong in distorting information, 'spinning the news,' and sometimes even outright lying, when it comes to reporting on the economic situation. They are promoting a story, and often an agenda.

They hide behind the safe harbor provisions of the law, and the subjective aspects of economics. They use euphemisms such as 'talking your book' to describe calculated deception.

The financial media accepts it, condones it, and does it themselves. As one financial news anchor, said shortly after the tech stock bubble collapsed in 2002, 'Of course market strategists and analysts lie. Everyone knows that. But no one made people buy those stocks.'

Straight news reporting is less seen in the mainstream media these days, since solid investigative journalism is considered too costly to the corporate management. Much cheaper to allow paid shills to take scripted shots at one another, in the manner of professional wrestling. This is how the voters are informed, and how public policy is shaped. And when it comes to economics, the establishment is firmly in control of the message. The selection of guests is carefully scripted to support a point of view.

Even on the internet, the offers come. The planted stories, the spin, the rumours, ad hominem slanders, whispering campaigns, and cliquish peer pressure to uphold the 'party line.' The rewards are connections to the powerful, invitations to important places and venues, access to names and associations, privileged access, visibility, to be part of the in crowd. This plays on a natural human tendency to 'go along to get along' and them to rationalize it all away.

As someone recently said to me, "What is truth?" Pilate asked the same question, and turned and washed his hands of it. Truth is an elusive objective, given the fallibility of our reason. Less a destination now, and more a struggle, a way of life. But we know when we stray from the path.

Most refuse the temptation, but some take the bait. And so you must be aware of this, and filter what you consume through your own common sense. You need to tread carefully, using the palate which you have, and over time you will become more adept at spotting the establishments serving honest fare and those offering artificial substitutions and false skepticism, the wink and a nod to a deception.

Wall Street Shills

"Further complicating the outlook is a more traditional issue: pronouncements by some economists on Wall Street and financial reporters in the popular media, who act as shills for the needs of Wall Street and political Washington. While there are a number of fine and honest economists and financial reporters in their respective fields, there also are those — often very heavily publicized — who spew Pollyannaish nonsense aimed at affecting public sentiment and/or the financial markets during troubled economic times.

Let me recount two personal experiences. Back in late-1989, I contended that the U.S. economy was in or headed into a deep recession. CNBC had me in to discuss my views along with a senior economist for a large New York bank, who was looking for continued economic growth. Before the show, the bank economist and I shared our views in the Green Room. I outlined my case for a major recession, and, to my shock, his response was, 'I think that pretty much is the consensus.'

We got on the air, I gave my recession pitch, and he proclaimed a booming economy for the year ahead. He was a good economist and knew what was happening, but he had to put out the story mandated by his employer, or he would not have had a job.

More recently, following an interview on a major cable news network (not CNBC), I was advised off-air by the producer that they were operating under a corporate mandate to give the economic news a positive spin, irrespective of how bad it was."

John Williams, Shadow Government Statistics

"Do not conform youself to the common pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2

FROM THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BLOG:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don't even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don't really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people....

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].
--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine
Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books
Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1
News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan
CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

These gigantic media corporations do not exist to objectively tell the truth to the American people. Rather, the primary purpose of their existence is to make money.

These gigantic media corporations are not going to do anything to threaten their relationships with their biggest advertisers (such as the largest pharmaceutical companies that literally spend billions on advertising), and one way or another these gigantic media corporations are always going to express the ideological viewpoints of their owners.

Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are starting to wake up and are realizing that the mainstream media should not be trusted. According to a new poll just released by Gallup, the number of Americans that have little to no trust in the mainstream media (57%) is at an all-time high.

That is one reason why we have seen the alternative media experience such rapid growth over the past few years. The mainstream media has been losing credibility at a staggering rate, and Americans are starting to look elsewhere for the truth about what is really going on.

Do you think that anyone in the mainstream news would actually tell you that the Federal Reserve is bad for America or that we are facing a horrific derivatives bubble that could destroy the entire world financial system? Do you think that anyone in the mainstream media would actually tell you the truth about the deindustrialization of America or the truth about the voracious greed of Goldman Sachs?

Sure there are a few courageous reporters in the mainstream media that manage to slip a few stories past their corporate bosses from time to time, but in general there is a very clear understanding that there are simply certain things that you just do not say in the mainstream news.

But Americans are becoming increasingly hungry for the truth, and they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the dumbed down pablum that is passing as "hard hitting news" these days.
So what do you think about the state of the mainstream media? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....

FROM CASEY'S DAILY DISPATCH NEWSLETTER:
http://www.gold-speculator.com/casey-research/39543-daily-dispatch-one-step-forward-five-steps-back.html

October 04, 2010 | www.CaseyResearch.com
One Step Forward, Five Steps Back

(Chris Wood filling in for David Galland)

Dear Reader,

An interesting trend has taken root among the American public. More and more of us, it seems, are losing our faith in big media. According to a new Gallup poll, for the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% of Americans who now say this is a record high by one percentage point. Also, the 43% of Americans who express a great deal or fair amount of trust in big media ties the record low.

Here’s the graphic of the Gallup poll conducted a couple weeks ago:

What’s profound about the trend is how much things have changed since just a few decades ago. Gallup conducted this same poll three times during the 1970s (1972, 1974, and 1976). The results of the polls in the 1970s were all very similar and show a stark contrast to today.

Consider that in the 1970s, 19% of Americans reported a great deal of trust in mass media and 51% indicated a fair amount of trust. Compare this to the most recent poll, in which only 12% report a great deal of trust and a mere 31% said they have a fair amount of trust. Of all the differences shown in the table above, I think the most telling is the percentage of Americans who expressed no trust at all in mass media compared to today. In the 1970s only 6% of polled Americans answered that they had no confidence at all in mass media; today that figure has jumped to more than 20%.

I view this trend as a positive and say good riddance to the possible extinction of what currently passes for news. Skepticism is a good thing. And the trend we see in distrust for the mass media could indicate that more people are deciding to think for themselves rather than just soaking up what a talking head tells them. But unfortunately, in this day and age every piece of good news we can find happens to be floating in a sea of bad. It’s like taking one step forward and five steps back over and over and over again.

Firmly rooted in the five-step-back area is a new video from environmental activist group 10-10 and the green agenda in general. This movie, linked here, shows a teacher blowing up young students who don’t want to cut their carbon emissions by 10% this year and then shows a couple other situations in which individuals who disagree with the goal of 10-10 also get blown up. According to 10-10, the film aimed to “bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh.” 10-10 has since withdrawn the film after numerous complaints of its offensive nature.

Now, in general, I really don’t get offended by anything. You can call me whatever you want and do whatever you want in your own life (as long as it doesn’t entail infringing on the natural negative rights of others), and I’m totally cool with that. But I’m not cool with the implication that somebody who disagrees with you deserves to be harmed. Even couched as a joke, that’s the sort of totalitarian stupidity that leads to a lot of problems. And it’s the kind of mentality that dominates the green movement these days.

Many environmentalists are probably warm, caring people who just want to live their lives in a way that they think is more “sustainable,” as the saying goes, and have no ill will towards humanity in general. But the rhetoric that comes from the green movement’s global elite these days is a far cry from warm and fuzzy.

Major themes of the movement include population control (if not outright reduction) and the call for authoritarian-style government to control individuals’ actions.

If you’re interested in reading more about the radical nature of the modern green movement (if it’s not apparent enough from the video), this article from The American Dream contains some stunning examples and links.

As always, however, when it comes to the green movement, climate change, or anything else, I encourage you to do your own due diligence and decide for yourself where you stand on the matter.

Tea Party as Third Party or the Torch and Pitchfork Crowd personified?

This will be the long-term future direction of the Tea-Party IMO.

The RINO's will regroup and reclaim their position within the GOP and push out the "Tea Party element" within the GOP.

They will be joined by the Blue Dog Dems -- who also feel out of place withing their own party -- and some Independents.

The D,I,R and TP's will each corral about 25% of the electorate.

The Crist's and Castle's and Murkowski's and Arlen Specter's of the world show a disgusting sense of entitlement and "how dare they toss me aside" attitude that people find disturbing.

The government as a whole has a sense of "how dare you question the methods by which we deliver you government" through this behavior and the continued foot-dragging on issues such as auditing the Fed. Regular folks and businesses cannot turn down an opportunity to be audited by government officials like the IRS or the SEC. But government routinely avoids having the light of day turned to their activities and the people are now suspicious as well as angry.

The government and the Fed is now afraid that if regular folks become embedded in their little country club setting and give the people an inside look at what goes on in Washington that their would be a revolution. Hopefully, it's a peaceful one.

From Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ desires for a third political party are as high as they have been in seven years. Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people. That is a significant increase from 2008 and ties the high Gallup has recorded for this measure since 2003.

We can see the seeds being planted in the following stories from the past week.

Trouble to the right of me.

from publiusforum.com

http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/09/18/country-club-rino-republicans-throwing-temper-tantrums/

Country Club, RINO Republicans Throwing Temper Tantrums

September 18, 2010

-By Warner Todd Huston

One of the interesting things of this election cycle has been to see what sore losers RINOS and country club Republicans are becoming. Since the Tea Party Movement has been throwing establishment GOPers out right and left (or maybe that’s let and left) some of them have responded with petulance instead of accepting the will of the voters.

In fact we’ve been seeing quite a few little tantrums thrown by the RINO set as voters have been turning against them.

Recall that “Benedict” Arlen Specter had to jump parties because Republican Pat Toomey was encroaching on the privilege that Specter assumed he’d earned. Once it became clear that Toomey was the GOP choice, Specter petulantly snubbed him and no support was forthcoming from
supposedly life-long Republican Specter.

Are all these temper tantrums really all an effort to support the “most electable candidate,” i.e. the RINO? Or is this a RINO protection racket we are seeing? All I know is that in many cases this year the voters are speaking for the Tea Party-styled candidates, those candidates that stand for real conservative values. Yet the country club set, the RINO faction is standing in the way of the will of the voters.

And trouble to the left of me.

from Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/22/blue-dog-democrats-use-health-care-overhaul-campaign-punching-bag/

Blue Dog Democrats Use Health Care Overhaul as Campaign Punching Bag

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let 30 Blue DogDemocrats break ranks to vote against the controversial health care overhaul in March, she probably didn't expect them to go the extra mile and campaign against it in the fall.

But for several of these fiscal conservatives, the bills they didn't vote for have become far more important to their campaign message than the legislation they supported.

Members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition are railing against the health care bill, and other Democrat-sponsored spending packages, in a bid to highlight their independence from the Washington establishment. In a year when spending is a top voter concern and incumbency can translate to liability, Democrats in moderate-to-conservative districts are using their ads, websites and public appearances to condemn their party's marquee legislative achievement in the closing weeks of the campaign.

"The majority of the American people are against it. I believe that our nation can't afford it. And I didn't vote for it," Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told Fox News in reference to the health care bill.

Taylor last week went further than any of his Democratic colleagues in speaking out against the law. He joined dozens of congressional Republicans in calling for a repeal of the package, the first Democrat to do so.

The good news is that slowly but surely, some on the left are starting to see the light.

EVEN CHRIS MATTHEWS -- WHO USED TO GET A TINGLE UP HIS LEG WHENEVER OBAMA SPOKE -- IS NOW CORRECTING THE ANOINTED ONE.

Important Distinction: Giving People Tax Cuts Is NOT Giving People Money; It's ***THEIR*** Money

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/giving-people-tax-cuts-is-not-giving.html




The bad news is some are still woefully ignorant. This statement, from someone who I used to admire and respect, shows we still have a long way to go. This kind of ignorant statement makes Republican Senator Jim Bunning look compassionate.

WARREN BUFFET'S RIGHT-HAND MAN SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR THE "LITTLE" PEOPLE WITH HIS STUNNING "LET THEM EAT CAKE" REMARKS.

"SUCK IT IN AND COPE" - SHOWS THAT ARROGANCE AND GREED DO NOT KNOW PARTY BOUNDARIES.

THESE GUYS OPENLY SUPPORTED, CHEERED AND PROFITED FROM THE BAILOUTS, STIMULUS AND FEDERAL RESERVE TINKERING IN THE ECONOMY.

from MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis Blog:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/09/amazing-arrogance-gall-chutzpa-and.html

Amazing Arrogance, Gall, Chutzpa, and Unmitigated Effrontery from Berkshire Hathaway
Posted: 20 Sep 2010 08:07 PM PDT

It's hard to know exactly the precise words to describe the arrogance and unmitigated effrontery of Charles Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, who today rattled off an insane barrage of insensitive comments regarding the bailouts.

Charles Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., defended the U.S. financial-company rescues of 2008 and told students that people in economic distress should “suck it in and cope.”

Munger's quotes:

Charles Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., defended the U.S. financial-company rescues of 2008 and told students that people in economic distress should “suck it in and cope.”

“You should thank God” for bank bailouts, Munger said in a discussion at the University of Michigan on Sept. 14, according to a video posted on the Internet. “Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies.”

“Hit the economy with enough misery and enough disruption, destroy the currency, and God knows what happens,” Munger said. “So I think when you have troubles like that you shouldn’t be bitching about a little bailout. You should have been thinking it should have been bigger.”

Germany was unable to stabilize its financial system in the 1920s, and, Munger said, “We ended up with Adolf Hitler.”

“Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies.”

So we should all thank God that our government is around to steal money from the middle class, the savers, the people who did things right -- in order to to bail out the wealthy, the profligate spenders and gamblers who bet their own money and lost and now want a subsidy from the rest of us so they can keep playing the game? That money was not manna from heaven, it was money begged, borrowed and stolen from the American taxpayer, you braying jackass.

If there's one thing that the Tea Party movement is all about is that people FINALLY are beginning to recognize what is going on and are not just saying NO, they are saying HELL NO!!!

They are tired of these intellectual snobs in Washington -- don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Larry Summers -- telling regular folks that they know better and the voters are too stupid to understand these complex issues they've screwed up.

They are tired of these people spitting in our faces and then trying to convince us it's raining.

What they don't get is the Tea Party is the torch and pitchfork crowd personified, and they are tired of being ignored, not listened to, lied to and stolen from.

FOR FURTHER READING PLEASURE:

From The Daily Bell

US Fed Gains Power, Loses Credibility?
Saturday, September 04, 2010 – by Staff Report

http://www.thedailybell.com/1346/US-Fed-Gains-Power-Loses-Credibility.html

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently asked for an audit of the gold in Fort Knox. The mainstream media pooh-poohs such demands as paranoia. Yet the Fed and its enablers have resisted thorough ongoing scrutiny as well. Instead the institution has received significant additional powers. See the pattern? On the one hand, the Fed resists accountability. On the other, Bernanke et al. present an apologetic front and vow they will do better next time.

This is the kind of crisis control that the power elite practiced in the 20th century; it is today the kind of crisis control being applied to such failed dominant social themes as global warming. But we wonder if it will work in the 21st. In our view, people have already seen too much, know too much and are too upset. When it comes to the law and legislation, Bernanke and Congress may be in the right. But the law can only go so far. Sometimes, such ventures begin to look questionable regardless.

When people know too much, the law itself can begin to seem suspect; and this is how societal upheavals are created. This is in fact an inflection point for the powers-that-be. Creating fear-based promotions in order to generate societal consent for ongoing concentrations of power and wealth – the manufacturing of an authoritarian society in other words – has worked well for the PTB. But when the promotions begin to fail (due to information on the Internet in our view) and the elite continues its programs regardless, then the potential for social tension increases dramatically.

The Mind Conspirators
Saturday, September 04, 2010 – by Nelson Hultberg

http://www.thedailybell.com/1347/Nelson-Hultberg-The-Mind-Conspirators.html

More and more Americans today are coming to understand the terrible truth about our Federal Government -- that it seeks to dominate us as citizens, to mold us into a society of dutiful Stepford Wives totally beholden to the wishes of elite politicians, bureaucrats and bankers. Those who study history, independent of the public school system, understand that this state aggrandizement process has been under way for the past 100 years in America in one form or another, and that it is taking place because too many of our citizens sanction such dictatorial usurpation and actually work diligently for its implementation.

‎"Anyone going to his neighbor's home and taking his money at gunpoint, regardless of all the wonderful, selfless things he promised to do with it, would be promptly arrested as a thief. But for some reason it is considered morally acceptable when government does that very thing." -- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, 2008