Glenn Beck Reveals Case of Economic Terrorism (planned by SEIU)

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

I dont agree with everything that Glenn Beck says....he might even be giving us nuggets to get our trust and then mislead us (as the "Controlled Opposition"). I dont know. But taking away the theatrical/entertainment value he is an investigative journalist at some level and he has a good staff to seek out these kinds of stories. For those on the liberal left who dont like him you still cant deny most of what he says.....SEIU, Soros, Pliven, Obama.....all seem to share a common agenda.....one that is not dissimilar to a vision shared by the communist elements lurking in the shadows and plotting to destroy our country; first by attacking our values, then weaking our institutions, and finally looting the treasury until the country is bankrupt and they succeed in our "collective" failure and bring "fundamental transformation" or "change" in the form of a new socialist or communist government. Focus on where "they" want to take this country,,,,on their vision of the endgame (where the ends justifies the means) and dont be a "useful idiot."

I've noticed the same thing, he will state the problem very well, but then blame the wrong person. You have to always remember: FOX divides. CBS coddles. NBC glorifies money. CNN Dramaticizes. Watch all four equally, its true. At about 7 minutes into the video Beck says something like "They (SEIU) think that bringing the banks back to the edge as a bad thing?" other guy "yes". But many of us on this site knoe that the banks WERE AND STILL ARE THE PROBLEM. Beck never targets the right person, its the normal FOX deception to misdirect you.

I fully support Stephen Lerner's plan. The real financial terrorism has been enacted by the wall street firms and transnational corporations against the working populations of the world. From the Business Insider:

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

* that we are not broke there is plenty of money
* they have the money - we need to get it back
* and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us

This is clearly true; just look at studies done on wealth inequality in the United States. Back in 2004 the top quartile held 87% of the wealth distribution ($42.6 trillion), while the two lower quartiles held a mere 3% ($1.3 trillion). Imagine that now, seven years later, after all that has happened. Today, 83% of all US stocks are in the hands of 1% of the population, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth than all individual Americans put together, and the ratio of executive worker's paychecks to average workers is between 300 to 500 and 1.

These facts speak something loud and clear: something is terribly wrong. Conservatives point their finger solely at the government, all the while ignoring that massive revolving door existing between Washington and Wall Street. Take Mayor Bloomberg, for example, since he was mentioned above. A man worth $5 billion, which he made from his work at Salomon Brothers (he was fired with a $10 million severance package) and Bloomberg L.P. Its not a wonder why he is so opposed to protectionism in economics; it limits the wealth and growth of corporation. And then he has the gall to 'worry' about China and America's poverty levels!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

 

Glenn Beck...rambles as usual and makes no coherent or reality-based points and shows about the same level of research ethic as your average arm-chair conspiracy theorist (not saying anything against all of the conspiracy theorists, just the lazy ones).

Right,

Since when is using factual audio bites non reality?

He uses these so as to strengthen his argument or point against nay sayers.

You call him lazy, but his staff of researchers are some of the highest paid in the media.

You don't get a #1 rating by being lazy, being non-coherent or lacking research ethic.

They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

After WW2 American corporations and American labor both gained wealth in the American economy. I think of it like this: American corporations are like a wealthy husband and labor like a wife. Now, up until 1980, the husband had been proud of his wife, even taking her with him as he traveled the world. After 1980 he no longer saw himself as American and wanted a divorce. He found a younger wife abroad, and at home invited a mistress to serve his interests there.

He cast aside his first loyal wife who helped him in his quest for wealth. After 1980, he had the gall to demand alimony payments to him, pushing her into debt. As he wandered the world getting richer and richer, he left his ex at home to fend for herself, denying her any help, making her pay for her own retirement, health care and education, making her pay all this (while trying to buy a home while increasingly priced out of the market, traditionally) with her decreasing wealth. And even if she received high quality education, he left her with no jobs/minimum wage jobs to apply for, and no interest in helping her compete with him in business, if she tried to start her own.

Since the American economy became increasingly reliant on a financial sector ("industry"), and the wife needed to turn to this economy for employment and the means to pay for retirement, health care, education and housing, what Mr. Lerner talks about is a Debtors Revolt or Debtors Riot. What else can the American worker do, eat less fast food burgers to change things?

And, yes, Mr. Beck etal have offered the misdirection in the tragic magic act of making American worker wealth disappear.

Originally posted by Someone336
I fully support Stephen Lerner's plan.

And that statement alone shows you to be both foolish and naive on this subject.

Again, do you think that you will not personally suffer - and greatly - if this plan is put into effect, and it accomplishes its goal?

Fact: the real "rich" will escape the effects, but you, me, and anyone else will not.

reply to post by centurion1211


And your solution to continue the status quo, whistling cheerfully as America and the third world are raped by the economic elite. You want for our pocketbooks to continue to deplete, for us to continue being exploited for profit, and be stripped of our voice in the growing economic-political hegemony of the global financial cartels.

The grandest irony is that if the government stepped back from these firms, an identical result would have already been reached; the collapse of a "too big to fail" firm will result in widespread economic chaos. That is the harsh reality of our highly centralized global economic sphere. But avoiding this is impossible; we've reached the post-industrial stage of 'late capitalism', where the state intervenes in the marketplace in order to protect monopolistic businesses (large corporations) from competition with smaller business. This was an inevitability from the second the government began issuing corporate charters, sanctioning business to perform as a monopoly. The web is too interconnected now, the only solution is a working class movement to take the power back.

No necessary change can come from comfort. Even the phoenix has to rise from its ashes.

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by centurion1211

 

And your solution to continue the status quo, whistling cheerfully as America and the third world are raped by the economic elite. You want for our pocketbooks to continue to deplete, for us to continue being exploited for profit, and be stripped of our voice in the growing economic-political hegemony of the global financial cartels.

The grandest irony is that if the government stepped back from these firms, an identical result would have already been reached; the collapse of a "too big to fail" firm will result in widespread economic chaos. That is the harsh reality of our highly centralized global economic sphere. But avoiding this is impossible; we've reached the post-industrial stage of 'late capitalism', where the state intervenes in the marketplace in order to protect monopolistic businesses (large corporations) from competition with smaller business. This was an inevitability from the second the government began issuing corporate charters, sanctioning business to perform as a monopoly. The web is too interconnected now, the only solution is a working class movement to take the power back.

No necessary change can come from comfort. Even the phoenix has to rise from its ashes.

My solution would be to try to find a way to deal with this WITHOUT ONCE AGAIN HURTING THE LITTLE GUYS.

Clear enough?

So far all you've offered is "Go for it. Doesn't matter who gets hurt." Without seeming to have a clue that one of the people getting hurt bad would be you and anyone else you care about.

reply to post by centurion1211


That's the problem with these armchair revolutionaries.

They romanticize instability, the place other revolutionaries above their own rights and the rights of others, AND they think there's an income bracket for rights("anyone who make such and such amount doesn't deserve this or that"), and they subscribe to the concept of "acceptable losses" even if those losses are massive in scale.

Look to Stalin.

And to think I used to believe what these people believe.

reply to post by centurion1211

My solution would be to try to find a way to deal with this WITHOUT ONCE AGAIN HURTING THE LITTLE GUYS.

And how would you propose this happen? The little guys are hurt daily by these monolithic financial entities. We could have a government that tightens the regulatory rope, and even begin enforcing anti-trust statutes to break the 'too big to fails' into smaller, more manageable companies that small businesses can properly compete with. However, how could this be accomplished when the close companionship between the government and Wall Street? Even if it it could happen, there would be widespread economic consequences resulting in temporary instability. There are cases in other countries where governments have attempted these kinds of reforms, and investors reacted with capital flight, leading to economic tailspin. To put it bluntly, they have us in a noose and will kick away the chair if they have to.

And here is the kicker: the conservatives who were against the bail-outs were arguing for the failure of the 'too big to fail' firms, which would lead to same chaos that is being discussed here. Both paths lead to same end. Yet they'll never acknowledge that. Oh, and I do acknowledge that it would be hard on myself.

reply to post by Someone336


That is different than purposefully creating chaos.

People like me believe that failure should be allowed to happen, otherwise no one learns anything and we create moral hazards.. Not that one should force failure just to get back at a few banks and to seize control of the state.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Someone336

 

That is different than purposefully creating chaos.

People like me believe that failure should be allowed to happen, otherwise no one learns anything and we create moral hazards.. Not that one should force failure just to get back at a few banks and to seize control of the state.

edit on 23-3-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I'm with you when it's individual businesses. The business world has always been like nature - survival of the fittest.

When government starts to meddle, however, then we get taxpayers supporting businesses that should have been allowed to fail ... so that something better and more efficient could take its place.

Where we seem to be now is the government has propped up enough individual failures that it is now supporting an entire industry.

My solution is to go back to letting them fail - one by one. This will allow other people to come in and start over - but on a smaller, less destructive for all of us, scale.

reply to post by centurion1211

I'm with you when it's individual businesses.

When government starts to meddle, however, then we get taxpayers supporting businesses that should have been allowed to fail ...

Where we seem to be now is the government has propped up enough individual failures that it is now supporting an entire industry.

I am in agreement with you here. But the point that I'm trying is that this isn't going to happen. In the very beginning, when corporate charters were granted, they were strictly regulated by the government so that smaller business were able to compete alongside. Corporations were created by government processing, and monitored by the government. The state has never been far from the idea of a corporation. Then, in 1819, something happened, and the Supreme Court granted corporations the rights of an 'artificial person', free from many of the restraints that were imposed upon them by the state. The 'revolving door' between government and big business flourished - and we entered the era of 'late capitalism', the era of monopolistic state capitalism, crony capitalism... ever since this time, corporations have not been free from government "meddling". Subsidies have always existed for governments, as have bail-outs. Without the government, there would be no corporation, and there certainly wouldn't be the 'too big to fail' firms.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that the very idea of 'corporations' and government free markets are entirely incompatible.

By arguing for the continued existence of entities such as J.P. Morgan Chase, you are in fact arguing for the thing you claim to be against.

Since the two have never, nor will be separated (the government and the corporate realm), the only logical solution is a people's movement to destroy these businesses. To get to any system that is actually balanced in favor of the working class, large corporations must cease to be. What the SEIU has proposed is a logical and clear solution, albeit one that comes with a heavy price, to how the working class can regain control and ultimately American manufacturing base can be rebuilt. Without the manufacturing base and a newly leveled playing field for the market, the American economy will never recover itself.

There are real economic terrorist in the US. They have names like Jamie Dimon, LLoyd Blakenfein, Vakrim Pandit, Timothy Giethner, and Ben Bernanke. The government had their chance to correct the situation by allowing these institutions to fail. In 2008, with TARP our Congress fell on their knees and blew it. In the time frame that this crisis has been going on both parties have been in charge of the executive branch and each party has had control of the national purse (via the House). The amount of money spent paying of the gambling debts of institutions like JPMorgan, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs could have easily provided the funds to create a new banking system composed of entities big enough to get the job done but small enough to regulate and if improperly run fail. Instead that money went into the bonus pools of the same criminals that brought us this crisis.That capital was also used for speculative endeavors that have increased the cost of the basic necessities of life like oil, cotton, and food. Bernanke's printing press and the inflation it has sparked holds some responsibility for the political unrest that started in the Arab world but will spread to other areas soon.

A systemic collapse is coming and it will be worse than it would have been in '08 simply because now it's not just Wallstreet that is insolvent it's also the government.The longer it takes to happen the worse it will be. If these institutions were allowed to fail back in 08 we'd be 2 years into the rebuilding process instead of plodding along hoping some miracle saves our ass.

Look at what happened to the Tea Party if you think that the situation cam be fixed by the electoral process. TARP and the GM bankruptcy/bailout were two of the main impetuses for the first few groups that used the Tea Party moniker. It was simultaneously vilified by the establishment left and co-opted by the establishment right. Those that actually made it into office quickly sold out their principles to the establishment. Any popular movement that rises calling for reform in the future can expect the same result. The next movement will probably be center left like the original Tea Party was center right, so we can expect the establishment right to do the vilification and the establishment left to do the co-opting. Beck might even be seeing that himself and is trying to get out in front of it for whatever purposes.

That leaves actions like those mentioned in this clip as the only viable means to affect real change without violence. Egypt is a perfect example. How long was the status quo able to be maintained there after people quit doing like they were expected by the powers that be in that country? I have no doubt that our powers that be will resort to the same sort of thuggery here that Mubaraks goons did. I pray that we have the courage to accept the abuse until we have unequivocably won the moral high ground.

I hate that it's come to this. There is no doubt that people in my economic bracket (solidly middle class) will suffer, but I prefer to get it over with while I'm young enough to fight back now and participate in the rebuilding process after the troubles pass. Letting things continue to go like they are now is simply pushing the pain onto my children's generation.

reply to post by projectvxn

That's the problem with these armchair revolutionaries.

I'm assuming the "armchair revolutionaries" comment was directed at me, a passive aggressive little jab thrown out there.
That's okay, though.
If the fact that I, and others, haven't gone full blown revolutionary, and still feel content to discuss the issues plaguing our country, well, that's the best situation I can imagine, and I'd have it no other way.

We need simplicity in law, and ENFORCEMENT of the law. Something we haven't seen yet from this or any other organization.

And the enforcement of law comes from where/who?
Spitzer tried that. He took on Merrill Lynch, and his career was ended.
He was humiliated, family life ruined, and basically forced to resign,
however, he was never prosecuted, and all charges were dropped.

They didn't want him in jail, only removed from power.

They romanticize instability, the place other revolutionaries above their own rights and the rights of others, AND they think there's an income bracket for rights("anyone who make such and such amount doesn't deserve this or that"), and they subscribe to the concept of "acceptable losses" even if those losses are massive in scale.

The only thing I romanticize about is being able to pay a babysitter while my wife and I go out for a quiet dinner, maybe a glass of wine, and coming home to my child.

I still believe in the "American dream" where someone can work hard and become wealthy,
however,
the only rights being put above others is the rights of the people who write the laws.

The people writing the laws now-a-days are not the elected leaders, but rather the lobbyists with the fattest pockets.

The few unaffected little people are unaffected only by luck.
One could spend their entire life making wise decisions, only to find their pension had been gambled away, or the social security and health insurance that they had spent a lifetime investing in, had all disappeared, on the whim of the people who truly write the laws.

People like me believe that failure should be allowed to happen, otherwise no one learns anything and we create moral hazards..

As do I.
I'm all ears on the painless way to accomplish this.

reply to post by Oaktree


That comment was not directed at YOU. So relax.

My point is that removing people rights because they make a certain amount of money isn't part of the American dream.

My point is that destabilizing the system to foment some sort of revolutionary action to overthrow the United States through financial terrorism is NOT a way to keep the people free. It is a good way to bloody the streets, however.

I never said the necessary changes would be painless. I posit there are, in fact, ways to deal with our problems that don't include outright collapsing the system, while you have a structure being set up to replace the Constitutional government the founders left for us, to include what amounts to the soviet constitution in it's place. That's what these people want.

I won't stand with communists and radical revolutionaries.

Yes, I believe the comment was actually directed at me, despite the fact that the poster has no idea who I am, my educational background, my job, or what kinds of movements I am involved in in my community.

Also, I never claimed to be a Communist by any means.

Originally posted by Someone336
Yes, I believe the comment was actually directed at me, despite the fact that the poster has no idea who I am, my educational background, my job, or what kinds of movements I am involved in in my community.

Also, I never claimed to be a Communist by any means.

I doesn't matter, we've read what you have posted. That's more than enough.

Crashing the system is fine with you, but what do you do when the trucks carrying food, water, gasoline/diesel no longer make their deliveries when no system exists to complete a normal business transaction. Complete and utter chaos.

The last place I want to be is in a city of more than 13 million hungry people, all trying to get out of town when the gas stations are dry and FRN are not accepted. I'm gittin' out while the gittin' is good. I leave Los Angeles tomorrow headed for the boondocks because of people that think like you. This place is infested with you critters.

I understand most large cities have 3 days food supplies and probably less fuel than that. Something you should give a little more consideration to.

I have a feeling this has been planned for quite some time.

So yep, crash the system, that will solve all our problems. It will also make George Soros' dream come true.