Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the
position the US is in, as the sole world superpower (by virtue of it's
military stranglehold and commercial leverage), the end game being pursued
here is that there are no longer any rules for us. Nobody can stop us from
owing as much as we want. China needs our debt to grow their economy and so
far they seem to be going along with the plan to be our factory farm. It
makes sense on one level - what else do you do with a global empire but try
to hang on and squeeeze?
On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:32:18 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> Personally, I believe the new politics will be between those for
> demolishing the debt and those against it. That's what's
> happened to europe, except that one faction thinks the austerity hurts
> the economy, the other that it is necessary.
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *Time:* 2012-12-16, 09:49:12
> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:
>> > On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> >> Hi Craig Weinberg
>> >> Conservatives indeed generally resist most
>> >> (but not all) change because the changes
>> >> are emotionally based rather than logically based,
>> >> and so often do more harm than good.
>> >> And waste money.
>> > You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women
>> > the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those
>> > 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name
>> > of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings?
>> >> We will have to wait to see if I am right or not,
>> >> but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare
>> >> will be at least a financial catastrophe.
>> > It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style
>> > national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The
>> > Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to
>> > get the insurance company lobbyist on their side.
>> In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You
>> can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on
>> the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important.
>> The problem with "old" democracies, is that the politicians get to
>> know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high,
>> you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests.
>> Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the
>> word "politics" can have any sensible meaning. A working political
>> systems necessitate some investment in education.
>> Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that
>> the "democrats" can be more "republicans" than the republicans. We
>> will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term,
>> but my hope are not so high about that.
>> Yes, I agree. My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that
>> they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do
>> bad things and then say that they are good.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at