Why Sarah Palin Will Be the 2012 Republican Nominee for President

The media started talking about Sarah Palin as a candidate for President even before the 2008 election was over.  I've been very confused as to how anyone could consider that a real possibility.  But incredibly, her name does not seem to have left the news in the past year, and articles about her viability as a candidate are still published all the time.  Like this one.  But it has dawned on me why her candidacy would be so good for so many people.

In order for the Republicans and Democrats (Republicrats) to remain in power, each party must offer a candidate so repulsive to so many people that large numbers of voters feel forced to vote against that candidate, i.e. vote for his/her opponent most likely to win, even if that means voting for the "lesser of two evils."  Thus, few who are scared by one candidate or the other can bring themselves to vote for a third party candidate, no matter how much more appealing they are.

This is why Palin will be the Republican nominee.  If some centrist Republican were offered, many voters would reason, "Well, I voted for Obama on the promise of peace and freedom.  That's not happening, so I can't vote for him again.  This centrist Republican isn't terrible, but he's no peace and freedom candidate either.  I'm voting for a third party!"  This would be disastrous for both parties, for the corporatocracy, and for the international war machine.  What if Palin were the nominee instead?  Our hypothetical voter would likely think, "Shit, we can't have her in the White House.  I'm going to vote for Obama and hope the second term is better than the first."  And Republican voters think, "Yeah, Palin!  The anti-Obama!"

So Palin will be the nominee, and we'll have another 51-49 election, and regardless of who wins, we'll have more war, more poverty, and more injustice.  The status quo will continue.

Opt Out of: Two-party politics; voting based on fear; the government war machine.

Bank Bailouts are Class Warfare

Finance ministers from the Group of 20 met at a golf resort in Scotland this past weekend. At the meeting on Saturday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown proposed "a new tax on financial transactions to support future bank rescues." He supports, in effect, a down payment on the next bailout for bankster assholes who run their businesses into the ground. He said, "It cannot be acceptable that the benefits of success in this sector are reaped by the few but the costs of its failure are borne by all of us." This is happening right now: privatized profits and socialized losses.

If financial institutions were allowed to go bankrupt, the costs of failure would be borne by its shareholders and depositors proportionally to their investment in the business. The very wealthiest would bear the most cost, and the middle class would bear the rest. The poor have savings in cash, not stock, are covered by FDIC insurance, and would not lose a dime. This fair distribution of burden is not permitted to happen.

Instead, the US Treasury issues Treasury bonds, which the Federal Reserve buys with Federal Reserve Notes, which the Treasury uses to purchase banks' toxic assets. The interest on those Treasury bonds is paid with income taxes. Thus the working-class poor are paying to bail out businesses in which they have no equity (stock), and in which their deposits are already guaranteed.

Prime Minister Brown proposes modest reform. If a tax on financial transactions were implemented to provide for a bailout fund, the super-wealthy could take on ever-higher levels of leverage and risk, secure in the knowledge that bailouts are explicitly guaranteed and funded ahead of time. The inevitable cost of periodic failures in these risky investments would be borne in part by middle-class citizens who invest in run-of-the-mill, safe vehicles such as mutual funds. But at least an investment tax would not directly burden those too poor to invest beyond their savings accounts.

Naturally, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner does not like the idea. And he uses doublespeak to say it: "We want to make sure that we don't put the taxpayer in a position of having to absorb the costs of a crisis in the future." What a laugh. What are Congress, Treasury, and the Fed going to do, let their buddies go bankrupt? They have already proven unwilling to do that. Geithner is simply saying, "No thanks, we already have a much better arrangement. Not only are we secure in the knowledge of future bailouts when needed, but we also get to spread the burden of our failures across nearly the entire populace." Privatized profits; socialized losses.

In the march toward fascist tyranny, why take a backward step?

Opt Out of: Passive acceptance of the bubble/bailout economy.

Heaven is made, not attained.

Bernie Madoff on the $1 Bill?

Peter Schiff: "Maybe the good news for George Washington is pretty soon we might have to phase out the one-dollar bill because it won't be worth as much as it costs to print it. We probably should put Bernie Madoff's face on there because it would be a more accurate representation of the value of our money."

Brilliant!

www.SchiffForSenate.com