The UN Rio+20 agenda means less freedom, happiness, true justice and human rights progress
Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin
Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his Administration would “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He gave a clue to exactly what he had in mind when he told now-congressional candidate Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Not necessarily – especially when activists, regulators, politicians and ruling elites do all they can to ensure there is less and less wealth to spread around.
Just this week, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives released a new report to the United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development. The executive summary of No Future Without Justice begins with the heading, “The World Is in Need of Fundamental Change.” The document then offers “solutions,” which include “universal fiscal equalization” and a “massive and absolute decoupling of well-being from resource extraction and consumption.”
The 18-member Group includes no Americans – but condemns the US and other governments for their dedication to economic growth, rather than wealth redistribution, and demands that governments play a key role in promoting “sustainability” and welfare. They insist that all governments provide universal access to public health care, guaranteed state allowances for every child, guaranteed state support for the unemployed and underemployed, and basic universal pensions and universal social security.
It is, in short, the total nanny state – but with little or no resource extraction or economic growth to support it. In other words, it guarantees sustained injustice and redistribution of increasing scarcity.
The Group admits that human civilization “will still need some form of growth in large parts of the world, to expand the frontiers of maximum available resources for poor countries.” However, the massive investments needed to shift to a totally renewable energy and resource-based economy will require “massive de-growth (shrinkage) of products, sectors and activities that do not pass the sustainability test” – as devised by them, affiliated organizations and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Key financial support for the push toward “sustainability” includes a “greener” and “more progressive” tax system featuring a financial transaction tax, abolition of subsidies for all but renewable energy, cutting military spending while dramatically increasing “stimulus” spending, a compensation scheme to pay off “climate debts” to poor countries supposedly impacted by hydrocarbon-driven climate change, a new regulatory framework for financial markets, a financial product safety commission, and still more regulations for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Group also demands public control of financial rating agencies and a government takeover of international accounting standards.
To ensure that “sustainable development” permeates every aspect of society, the Group proposes a new “Sherpa” for Sustainability (with cabinet rank), a parliamentary committee on policy coherence for sustainability, a UN Sustainability Council, a Universal Periodic Review on Sustainability, and an Ombudsman for Intergenerational Justice and Future Generations. It also proposes an International Panel on Sustainability that builds on the “success” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Of course, guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.
To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.
The objective, they state, is to build economies that drastically limit carbon emissions, energy consumption, primary resource extraction, waste generation, and air and water pollution. Society must also stop the asserted and computer-modeled loss of species and ruination of ecosystems.
All this naturally will require mandatory changes in consumption patterns and lifestyles (at least for the common folk), and the recognition that work (unlike capital) is not a production factor. Indeed, says the Group, work is not even a commodity. Moreover, only “decent” work qualifies under the sustainability paradigm. (While “decent work” is never defined, it presumably includes backbreaking sunup-to-sundown labor at subsistence farming, which under the Group’s agenda would be called “traditional” or “organic” farming and would not be replaced by modern mechanized agriculture.)
What is the source of all of this gobbledygook? Agenda 21, the centerpiece of the original Rio Earth Summit – which is being perpetuated, refined and redefined at parallel proceedings in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, while the main sustainability discussions are ongoing in Rio de Janeiro.
Agenda 21 states, for example, that “achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” This too would be achieved under UN auspices because, as Earth Summit creator Maurice Strong has explained, the days of national sovereignty are over, and the world needs to embrace a system of wealth transfer to ensure environmental security.
In short, “sustainable development” is a system that requires a redefinition of business activity, away from the pursuit of personal profit – and of government activity, away from the pursuit of individual happiness and justice – and toward the pursuit of societal good, as defined by activists and the UN.
Simply put, as Brian Sussman points out in his new book, Eco-Tyranny, the ultimate goal of those who endorse the sustainability paradigm is to expunge “the most precious” rights expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
The Agenda 21 and sustainability paradigm also rejects and undermines Adam Smith’s belief that mankind’s natural tendency toward self-interest, profit and self-improvement results in greater prosperity, opportunity, health, welfare and justice for all.
Most of all, the UN/Maurice Strong/ Civil Society Reflection Group vision is merely the latest embodiment of Plato’s Republic. Under Plato’s thesis, an educated, elite, but benevolent and mythical, ruling class acts on the belief that its self-appointed philosopher kings have all the right answers, and do not require the Consent of the Governed. The rest of humanity must fall into lockstep or face the consequences; however the results will be exemplary.
Unfortunately, as Alexander Hamilton observed, men are not angels. Moreover, it defies experience and common sense to suppose that the elitist UN, UNEP and environmental activist community will ever display wisdom detached from ardent ideology – or benevolence toward the humans they seek to govern.
____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org and www.CFACT.tv) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.
quidsapio says:
June 19, 2012 at 8:20 am
“I believe it’s been demonstrated that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare with far less benefit, because of course the profit motive drives the principle of least possible service for highest possible cost. That might b acceptable in other areas of commerce, but when it comes to people’s health, it obviously isn’t good for anyone.”
There are a number of reasons health care costs more in the U. S. and the profit motive has little to do with it, and actually is the one thing that helps keep the cost from being even more out of control. If you doubt this consider LASIX eye surgery. It has always been an elective procedure and almost entirely uncovered by health insurance policies. It has also been one of the few areas of health care where the availability has risen and the cost declined continually since it first became available.
U.S. healthcare expenditures are high because on average we use more of it than almost anyone else in the world. There was a news story out a few months ago about a premature infant born at a birth weight of less than a pound who was going home to its family. Such stories are not that uncommon in the U.S., but NHS type systems around the world don’t even attempt to save those infants. In the rest of the world such infants are headed to a dumpster not a NICU.
Health insurance costs in the U.S. continue to rise exponentially because politicians at all levels continue to mandate that policies include coverages that most policy purchasers don’t need and don’t want. The kerfuffle about contraceptive coverage is just the most recent and BTW the demand for it is analogous to requiring that your auto insurance reimburse you every time you fill up the tank, change the oil, or even slip a buck to the homeless guy with a squeegee to get him away from your windshield. Other notable past efforts include sex change treatments, unlimited drug rehab and, if you dig deep enough almost anything else that can generate a constituency to kick in enough contributions to garner the interest of a few key politicians.
Only a few decades ago more than half of all health care expenditures in the U.S. were out of pocket to the recipients, now almost none of them are. The point where the rapid decline in that figure began correlates quite closely with the point where health care expenditures began their explosive inflation. If you think who is actually paying the tab has no effect on the cost consider this
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/markets-in-everything-medical-cash.html
Markets in Everything: Medical Cash Discounts
“At the Los Alamitos Medical Center, you get a 90% discount for paying cash for a CT scan of the abdomen, $250 cash vs. $2,400 average insurance price, read more here in the LA Times.”
The included chart includes a half dozen less dramatic examples, but covered only a few of the hospitals in the limited LA area.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
June 19, 2012 at 3:07 am
Then we can kick the leeches out of NYC and send them packing to Europe.
You are a great fan of cruel and unusual punishments, are not you?
Send them to Harare instead. Climate is perfect, government suits them, financial system is post-industrial, overconsumption unknown and they can’t possibly be so racists as to reject the opportunity.
Pollyanna says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Dave Wendt says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Your links . . . . evidence of this kind of Federal Income Tax GIGO argument. I call it the “Widow’s Mite” Paradox . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
Accounting wise it doesn’t mattter whether your paying “God” or Uncle Sam!
From Wiki
“In the story, a widow donates two small coins, while wealthy people donate much more.[2] Jesus explains to his disciples that the small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant donations of the rich.[2]”
The bottom 50% of U.S. tavpayers can hardly be described as “the poor”. Relative to the rest of the world we here in the U.S. are all 1 percenters. People who fit within the definition of poverty here enjoy, on average, a lifestyle beyond what is available to even the European middle class
Sorry bout that . . . after posting . . . I thought you might think I was being too general so I posted . . .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/sustainable-justice-redistribution-of-scarcity/#comment-1013231
BTW. it really does ” mattter whether your paying “God” or Uncle Sam!”. A religious tithe is an entirely voluntary contribution, government enforced charity is enabled by armed robbery. And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.
“A religious tithe is an entirely voluntary contribution”
. . . .today . . . sorta . . . but, not back then my friend . . . . and the 10% was a minimum . . . . commonly known as “the flat tax” of today . . .
“And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.”
I think US tax law has tried to accomodate that principle . . . . after it has accomplished getting the money it needs to survive itself . . . as it is “. . . “a system built to protect the rights of the individual”
Gail Combs says: @ur momisugly June 19, 2012 at 11:25 am
“””Culling the “Human Herd” has been a common goal of the elite for years, from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot”” “”UK where they are getting rid of the “Useless Eaters”””
_________________________
Pollyanna says: @ur momisugly June 19, 2012 at 11:37 am
Just for the record: “Useless Eaters”= “The DisObedient” “In-Subordinate”
__________________________
That is just another definition of most of the older people who have had the scales fall from their eyes. The Baby Boomer ex-military types are the most dangerous. Trained, not so old they are debilitated or senile and they have nothing to lose and a family to protect. Therefore the Department of Homeland Security has their eye on ex-military and what they call “Rightwing Extremists” That is people who finally woke up and notice something is wrong.
Unfortunately I am not making the following up.
From the Department of Homeland Security:
In reading this report, there some very glaring assumptions. The biggest is that all the “extremist beliefs” are based on RACISM.
1. Anti-Obama sentiment is assumed to be because of his race. No mention is made of his politics or his part non-American birth and upbringing.
2. The fractional reserve central bank and “One World Government” is always linked to anti-Semitism. I really love this part: “…the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” And then the report goes on to say “…Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy….” Nothing like contradicting yourself in the same short report! They really do think we are complete idiots and can not see the events hitting us over the head.
It gets even better, seems Climate Scientists are not the only ones using “The Goat Ate my Homework Excuse Book” when caught with their pants down… ALG Blasts Missouri Information Analysis Center For Retaining No Records of Erroneous MIAC “Modern Militia Movement” Report: In the “Militia Movement” advisory, police across Missouri were told to keep an eye out for Americans who were highly concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. Much of the MIAC report comes verbatim from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
JunkScience.com mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center
That certainly explains why ordinary concerned citizens who haven’t swallowed a watermelon are seen as the “ENEMY” by the Southern Poverty Law Center and why they want to called them “Right Wing Extremists” (or in our case “Deniers” ) placing local law enforcement on “Alert” to hassle people. More important this whole exercise about “Homegrown Terrorists” was clearly for the News Media so people like the Tea Party could be labeled “Kooks” and as potential “terrorist threats” thereby marginalizing the sector of people who are intelligent enough to think for themselves.
The US government keeps pulling crap like the above, like Fast and Furious, like the AIG/Banker Bailout Scandal the frantic printing of money by the FED and the mounting Federal Debt and then wonders why the average citizen is starting to take notice. Nothing like losing your job and being labeled a potential “Enemy of the State” to wake a person up.
You do not need the shenanigans of the EPA, Hansen or Agenda 21 to start thinking The US government has gone completely nuts with this kind of stuff happening. The intricate tangles of interlocking information is incredible. All of it designed to funnel wealth and control to the “Chosen” few.
Durn . . that’s a lot of copy and paste . . . links work just find . . .
I have heard and read about all this rhetoric before . . . if I see your point, you are saying:
Call a thug a thug . . . he’ll tell you your a whiner . . . or a crybaby!
Call a rapist a rapist . . . . and you just became “someone asking for it”!
Accuse someone of embezzlement . . . they will say it was a gift . . .
Call out a bully . . . He was “just kidding”!
If that is not what your trying to say . . . sorry I misunderstood!
@Pollyanna….
Seriously…. What’s with all…. The … Are you trying to parody something?
It’s just … A bunch… Of thought fragments strung together… Try writing in complete sentences…. If you…. Want people to understand you or take you… Seriously.
Are you passive agressive or something? You want ME to take “More Soylent Green!” seriously”?
Maybe you are just A.I. and all the “. . . . . .:” makes an actual human technician have to show up!
If you are human, lighten up! This is not a forum for facade’ or proper english practice . . . it is a forum for communication. . . . . or at least that was my understanding!
Pollyanna says:
June 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“And the ability to control at least somewhat whether your charity is going to people for whom you have at least some sympathy is not a trivial distinction.”
I think US tax law has tried to accomodate that principle . . . . after it has accomplished getting the money it needs to survive itself . . . as it is “. . . “a system built to protect the rights of the individual”
Really? If it restricted itself to those activities that the Constitution stipulates it be limited too, it would have much more than ” the money it needs to survive itself “, but that horse died a long time ago. While it was designed to be “a system built to protect the rights of the individual” that has also gone the way of the Dodo and we now have as President a man who ardently believes that the “negative” restrictions on Federal power are not the central gift and abiding genius of our Constitution, but a primary weakness and an antiquated construct which we urgently need to abandon forthwith. In the present moment, nearly two thirds of what our Federal government does is to write checks for “transfer payments” i.e. “wealth redistribution”. The percentage continues to rise dramatically as we speak. Right now Government spending at all levels amounts to 45% of GDP an increase from just 40% when OBH took office or 112.5%. The only thing provably “unsustainable” in the current situation is the accelerating burden of our bureaucratic overlords.
When they start auditing Government Sponsored Agreements . . . for money skimming operations . . . I might fall for your assertions . . . and when they finally fix the TAXation policy I might fall on your assertions . . . . All just GIGO right now . . . just like MAN MADE Global warming/Climate change . . .
And just like weather forcasts are based on models of causes . . . So are financial forcasts based on models of causes. It’s all the same thing . . . “just different”!
Gee wiz . . . . fella, I don’t have to build you nucleur bomb to prove that it can be done! But, I would be a sucker to do it!
Smokey, you always have the nicest graphs.
By the way the last chart was the number of people FILING income tax returns. Currently the labor force is at a 30-year low. Only 63.7%.of the population is working. In addition a lot of small business people are not turning a profit right now and although they may be filing they are not actually paying tax. (Just heard that on the radio) so chances are less than 50% of the population is paying tax. The labor force is defined as 16 to 65 years of age.
In January of this year
Here are some more graphs for you
Persons not in the Labor Force ~ 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2011
Labor Force Participation Rate
Mrs. Gleick? Is that you?
Pollyanna says: @ur momisugly June 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm
….“”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth,…..
_____________________________
Yeah, people would be horrified if they ever realized just how much tax they pay without ever filing a state or federal tax return. I calculated I paid about 65% and that was just the sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax…. that I could calculate.
The other lie is that the progressive tax taxes the rich. The rich ALREADY have their wealth nicely tucked away. Progressive tax taxes WAGES and therefore only the lower and middle classes and the flunkies of the rich.
Progressive tax . . . That’s why definitions are so important . . .
Same with the definition of “wages”, but that is another day and time!
Polyanna,
[Perfect name, btw]. Got a question for you. The top 10% of wage earners [emphasis on ‘earners’] pays a whopping 71% of all individual federal taxes. The bottom half of the population pays nothing. So here’s my question:
Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.
Smokey says:
June 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm
“Polyanna, Exactly how much should the top 10% pay? Give me a specific number.”
You will never get a solid answer to this question from those who believe in progressive taxes. That is because their whole belief for this type of taxation is based on ability to pay. They look at what a person has left after taxes to make their argument that the wealthy should pay a higher rate. They will always ignore the moral fairness of everyone paying the same rate, which as we all understand does make those with higher incomes pay more in taxes. Their hidden belief is that the money belongs to the government and it is only through the benevolence of the government that anyone is allowed to keep anything at all.
It is mind-numbing that there are people this arrogant and condescending. Project 21 is an abomination to the human spirit and certainly deserves to be deposited in the ashcan of history.
Pollyanna says:
June 19, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“If you are human, lighten up! This is not a forum for facade’ or proper english practice . . . it is a forum for communication. . . . . or at least that was my understanding!”
===========================================================================
Pollyanna-
I don’t know if you realize how much entertainment you are contributing to this tread. I sure I am not the only one chortling at your comments. Which is a shame, because you honestly seem to be trying to communicate your ideas.
I consider myself only an average writer, but I have taken enough technical writing courses to know that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to express yourself in such a way that your audience can understand and grasp the idea you are presenting. Then hopefully consider the validity of the idea. It takes time and thought.
Dashing off a few phrases and some personal attacks is not communicating. Take the time to formulate your ideas. Compose your comments on a word processor, spell check them, then copy them to the comment block. You will be surprised what a better reception you ideas will have.
Thank you for the “back handed” complement . . .
you say “chortling at your comments. Which is a shame,” I am sure I can muster some shame for the [chor·tle (chôr tl). n. A snorting, joyful laugh or chuckle] . . . albeit a feigned shame.
[en.wiktionary.org/wiki/albeit albeit … He has a very good idea, albeit a strange one. … a subordinate clause), albeit can introduce only a noun phrase, an adjectival phrase, …
Pollyanna-
One more thing. Don’t trust the spell checker, It won’t tell you you wrote “tread” when you meant “thread” or that you forgot the “‘m” when typing “I’m”. As I did in the above comment.
I really just wanted to read this, but I guess I have to hop in for a second.
Dear quidsapio, let me tell you a story. A few years back my mother finally decided to get surgery on the varices on her left left. She’s past 60 and that one was particular nasty. Given her age and background it was easy to argue that this one varix was a risk factor. So first she asked at the local hospital which is under nationalized health care. They told her they had a waiting list of one year. My parents have private insurance, so my mother asked in the roughly 60 miles away private hospital. They basically told her “when do you want your surgery?” She went private, had it removed and all is fine.
A few years ago I had my eyes lasered. I was short-sighted, massively so. Nationalized health insurance wouldn’t pay anything, I paid it all myself. It was life-changing. My personal living quality went up ten fold easily. Three years ago I had an accident during which one of my teeth got damaged. I had it treated under my nationalized health insurance at the local nationalized clinic. That lasted for year, then what was left of the tooth simply broke off and the filling fell out. It just fell out, without any forces working on it. (I also had a look and found out that they did the root treatment completely wrong.) I went to a specialist for implants, he had a look at it and removed the tooth. Now I have an implant instead. I had to pay for that implant because the national health insurance here doesn’t pay for it. I could have gotten something else, which they would have paid for, but that thing would never have been of high quality.
If you’re wondering, this happened in Austria. We have a nationalized healthcare, which is absolutely bankrupt, similar to the NHS in the UK. It’s true that they pay for replacements and such, always have. But none of this stuff is top of the line. You get what works and is cheap, not what is best for you. You’re a number to the bureaucrats. They’re only interested in you when they collect the taxes.
Thanks, Pollyanna, for demonstrating the meaning of Lenin’s “useful idiots”.
OK, maybe not the useful part….
What Pollyanna will not admit is that IF we simply seized the entire assets of everyone making a billion $ per year that alone would NOT come even close to paying for just ONE year of federal expenditure. So DO IT Pollyanna and then tell us where the money is going to come from the next year?
“Feed your Family on Ten Billion Dollars per day”
Mike: You are correct . . . . IF, we simply seized the entire assets of everyone making a billion $ per year that alone would NOT come even close to paying for just ONE year of federal expenditure.
Gail Combs says:
June 19, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Pollyanna says: @ur momisugly June 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm
….“”progressive income taxation relates to the ability to pay and that relates to accumulated net wealth,…..
_____________________________
Yeah, people would be horrified if they ever realized just how much tax they pay without ever filing a state or federal tax return. I calculated I paid about 65% and that was just the sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax…. that I could calculate.
The other lie is that the progressive tax taxes the rich. The rich ALREADY have their wealth nicely tucked away. Progressive tax taxes WAGES and therefore only the lower and middle classes and the flunkies of the rich.
==========
100% of the taxes collected by the IRS, a private company created by the private company Federal Reserve as its collection arm, goes to pay the interest on the notes borrowed from the Fed Reserve by the government.
There is no need for the Government to print notes, sell them at pennies per million, can’t remember off hand what the Fed Reserve pays for them, to then borrow them back at face value plus interest. That’s where the scam begins.
Their charter from 1913 runs out at the end of this year…
IIRC, the other taxes you mention are local state taxes, which I assume go to pay for state infrastructure, (or into brown envelopes and deep pockets ..). Again hazy recall, read this before I took an interest so poorly recalled, I think that there is something about taxes only possible on trade, i.e., where there is no imput to change/create a product – goes back to maritime taxation laws. So for example, a worker cannot be taxed on his labour, a baker cannot be taxed on his product, because he adds/changes something to what he buys to create the product; neither of these are straight trade.
Re that, I think there has been put in place a contract of employment which companies have to get employees to sign which waives this non-taxable status somehow, and the companies comply because they’re not allowed to function if they don’t get this signed. Aggh, will try to find more on this in the next few days – but maybe you have that somewhere in your files?
What fair share of your income, wealth, labor and other property am I entitled to, Pollyanna? How much of what you own do I deserve?
Just curious….
“””What fair share of your income, wealth, labor and other property am I entitled to, Pollyanna? How much of what you own do I deserve? Just curious….”””
Since you are going to get all “generalizations” on me . . . Here’s my answer!
Depends on what I own, what is coming in, and where the labor and other properry I have . . . If ‘you’ are going to protect me from the thugs, who think they can seize it all, then I would say ‘you’ are entitled to a “fair” share . . which would probably be haggled over (the old “if it weren’t for me, you would have nothing argument”).
I can not do all the “depends” (same as What ifs) ad infinitem . . . It’s like trying to solve for PI in base 10!
For me, this is a trick question . . . and I understand the M.O.! But, IF you are sincere, please accept my apologies. I wonder what prompted you down this rosy path!
Myrrh says:
June 20, 2012 at 5:19 am
There is no need for the Government to print notes, sell them at pennies per million, can’t remember off hand what the Fed Reserve pays for them, to then borrow them back at face value plus interest. That’s where the scam begins.
==================
In effect the US people are paying to borrow their own money back from private banks. Instead of this money going to pay for government, the US people are paying taxes to pay the interest on their own money.
Most people accept this because of the name “Federal Reserve”. They assume the Fed is a government institution. It is not, it is a privately owned bank.
If the Fed’s name was changed to reflect the facts, such as “Private Extremely Extremely Rich People’s Bank” folks might just see the picture clearer.
Ferd, the Federal Reserve is the banks bank. We aren’t borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury issues bonds, not the Fed. The Fed buys bonds.
The Fed has a lot of issues, such as no accountability, and possibly doing things outside their charter. But nothing you said is even close to true.
Edohiguma says:
June 20, 2012 at 4:08 am
I really just wanted to read this, but I guess I have to hop in for a second.
Dear quidsapio, let me tell you a story.
Just as an addendum to the short dialogue I had with quidsapio yesterday, you might find this pice from yesterday’s DailyMail interesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html?ICO=most_read_
Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.
Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.
He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.
It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.
It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.
There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.
Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.
He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yM1HvSji
Pollyana: It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. What part of your income do I deserve? How much of the fruits of your labor do you own, and how much are mine?
If ‘you’ are going to protect me from the thugs, who think they can seize it all, then I would say ‘you’ are entitled to a “fair” share . . which would probably be haggled over (the old “if it weren’t for me, you would have nothing argument”).
I can not do all the “depends” (same as What ifs) ad infinitem . . . It’s like trying to solve for PI in base 10!
For me, this is a trick question . . . and I understand the M.O.! But, IF you are sincere, please accept my apologies. I wonder what prompted you down this rosy path!
Are you slow? or is that you think I am . . . It’s a simple question. There is no depends about it. Have you quit beating your dog yet?
Here’s a rule of thumb… Whenever you see “justice” prefixed with some adjective… you know it’s anything but just…. Just an smokescreen for Marxism, that is….