Travis In Austin

I read a great book on Neo-Liberalism last fall I highly recommend. (It is an academic criticism so fair warning), Undoing the Demos Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution By Wendy Brown I got the ereader format but it does come in hardback or paperback. It is published by MIT press, here is link to review, description: https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/undoing-demos

They will ask Clarence and he will tell them what do, like getting Bill Gates to put stuff in his vacancies. Not a problem, already taken care of.

Poor diet is undisputed. LE is down in only one segment, under 12 years of education, regardless of race. It is up in all other segments. Despite iur terrible diets, overall we are up, but 30th in the world. They are unsure exactly why this is, but suspect there is more smoking and drug use with people with less than 12 years of ed. In the leading causes of death in US are accidents, murder, and suicide. These are going to vary, but I would suspect that they impact that group at higher rates than others. Plans to raise retirement age for SS is certainly regressive, impacting the poor disproportionately. The LE rates are much lower in the south compared to rest of the country. This should be no surprise based on what the typical "Southern" diet is. I have seen all the programs about fructose, replacing fat in processed foods with hidden sugar but packaged as healthy, less calories, non-fat. No question that has occurred and will continue as long as a market. It wasn't engineered to decrease life expectancy, no more than cigarettes were. It is just a simple fact of life, eating primarily processed foods is going to have Adverse health consequences that are going to lower LE. The medical studies are very solid on this. The conclusion to be drawn is something else entirely. One conclusion is they wany to see more liw fat cheetos, Lays Chips, or non-fat cheese. The other could be that they are trying to lower LE. I think the latter is a stretch. But is the South it doesn't really matter if it is processed or not. Smoked meat, even turkey, comes with tater salad, but you can't pass up on that jalapeño sausage. Fried chicken, chicken fried steak, with taters, mashed, with real butter. Breakfast, egg white omelet with biscuits and sausage gravey. Dr. Pepper and Mt. Dew, by the case. Tons of fresh fruit, in a cool whip concoction. Chi9s and queso, using velveta and canned jalapeños. Of course things have evolved way up from there, but not usual to see that all over the south. Just watch that Dean lady, opps they yanked her, that Pioneer gal on Food from OK. Butter in everything, they don't bat an eye.

Achtung! You are ze Dumholf! Alveterzane. Careful, Jo loves Domhoff.

Travis, isn't that in part because SS and all federal pensions like military have had very small to no annual increases because those are limited to CPI-urban COLAs? In recent years, the increase has been ZERO percent, which in no way keeps up with, for example, increases in property taxes.I think this has been part of the game-rigging that Eliz. Warren refers to. It has shifted wealth and income downward for those recipients. And yet, the proponents of the "opportunity society" seem to want to cut SS. Larry, you would have to point me to something specific to comment further on a particular plan or segment.The CPI used to be a great index in terms of almost keeping up, unfortunately it isn't a very good index under certain conditions. There arensome politicians who have paid lip service to the opportunity society. The previous administration, is a SOU discussed privitizing SS. It went nowhere. In fact, that administration added the Rx benefit card for seniors. People currently receiving benefits don't get cuts, they get temporary stop-gap measures that keep SS funded. Why? Because seniors from both parties vote, in very high percentages. This isn't lost on politicians from either party. My generation they tinker with it, up retirement age, etc. Now the question I have for you Larry, an MD/PhD from two of the most prestigious universities in the country, one from each coast, and having spent a career working with the world's greatest medical research center's on medical education, what is your opinion of the suggestion by the original poster that "they" have orchestrated a decrease in human life expectancy in the US in order to reduce the cost of SS and other pensions (through diet I believe is what he said above)? Here is the actual quote: "The Social Security & Medicare system has been engineered to statistically drive the LE downward gradually. I would bet the unspoken target is 70 to 75 years max. With real dollar reductions in benefits, coupled with the worst diet in the developed world, they should reach that goal very soon. Maybe five years." Is that possible? I read a book about a famous lead paint study in Baltimore. Homes were given 3 different levels of abatement. 25 homes in each group. There was a major outcry from the 25 in the lowest group whose kids continued to get sick. There were accusations that the lowest group were human "guinea pigs." The medical research establishment got behind the researchers and said that is how research is done and noted that the protocols and selection were reviewed by an ethics committee at NIH. It seems like there are better, cheaper and quicker ways to lower life expectancy than diet.

Yes, it would seem at first pass to be unorganized and sort of chaotic. I have thought long and hard about what sort of "order" can be put to it, or described for it. So, let me add a few thoughts. 1. Conspiracy is too much of a loaded word to try to use in popular culture. It gets mixed up with "absurd conspiracy theory" and then all hope of explanation is lost. 2. The way I arrive at an organizing hypothesis is to look really hard at the results and work back words. 3. History can be used to show that the wealthy have very similar objectives in every age. From that, I do NOT subscribe to any kind of "backroom conspiracy of men." However, I believe strongly in the "common interests of men." For example, we know that the rich want lower taxes, lower wages**, reduced government spending and breakdown of labor unions. So, when they simply pursue those interests, there will be government pressure to lower taxes, lower wages and reduce spending....etc. Furthermore, the truly dark money, that is the $35T or so that isn't on any books, is held mostly by sovereigns and banking cartels. And those interests are also in agreement, and since they are dominating the running of central banks (I don't here mean the "FED CHAIRMAN" which is a perfunctory position, I mean the guys who back the central banks with actual wealth), they are in a major policy making crux in all countries. What Are Their Fears? This dark money has several common fears also. 1. They are scared to death that if people live into their 80s after retiring at 67, the medical costs will be astronomical to society. Since these people are literally the "final source" of wealth, they fear that this massive cost will fall on them, wiping out their trillions in reserves. So, they act on that fear, by forcing (persuading, if you prefer) legislators to pass laws like raise the retirement age, cap off the benefits, freeze and increases, and so on. This is called "austerity" and it is pushed onto societies from Greece to Portugal, to the UK and to some degree the USA. 2. They are scared to death of rising populations. To a man (or woman) they are almost all misanthropists and eugenicists. 3. They fear capital controls returning. Since 1972 or so, the world has featured free movement of all capital. Any attempt at capital controls is fought off tooth and nail. USA We see a short list of over arching policies that NEVER change, no matter the political structure in place. Those policies are: *Neoliberal economics (e.g. Milton Friedman, Chicago School) *militarism - massive military budgets *Global hegemony through military force *Constant and perpetual covert action throughout the world to fight any left leaning tendancy *Anti unionism *Deep internal support for fascism, including training and $$ support for hard right military leaders throughout the world *Highly regulated global trade agreements often running to thousands of pages, which secure US interests above all others *Support for a massive international war on drugs That list of general policies has not changed since the mid 1970s. Doesn't matter who is president or who runs congress. The reason it doesn't change is that those policies are the current consensus of the global dark money scions. Of which there are less than 100. So, to that degree, it acts a bit like a conspiracy. And,there are laws broken all the time by the instigation of one or more of these actors. The LIBOR scandal is an example, as is the manipulation of the gold market and the current manipulation of the oil markets. To that extent, there is a "conspiracy" - but it's a conspiracy by interest (not a legal term, of course.) There is purpose to it all. Their purpose. Now finally, can anything be done? No. And I don't promote any ideas for changing it. In the broadest sense, it has been with us for 10 thousand years and is never going away until some future date when a new purpose, other than the materialism is discovered. Why am I interested? Because knowing how it works keeps me from wasting time on the superficial theatrical part of it, which is basically retail politics. -------------------------- ** Governments lower wages by negotiating global trade agreements that feature free movement of capital. This creates a persistent labor surplus which works to drive labor costs down by not letting them rise with productivity gains. There have been changes there are ebb and flows. The two dozen bankers comment and their impact on the ability to obtain a new sewer plant was certainly conspiricist. But you have been walking back that statement right after you made it. From Chip Berlet: "Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals. This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism. The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence."

“Conspiracy theory as a theory of power, then, is an ideological misrecognition of power relations, articulated to but neither defining nor defined by populism, interpellating believers as “the people” opposed to a relatively secret, elite “power bloc.” Yet such a definition does not exhaust conspiracy theory’s significance in contemporary politics and culture; as with populism, the interpellation of “the people” opposed to the “power bloc” plays a crucial role in any movement for social change. Moreover, as I have argued, just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm.” Mark Fenster, Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Note the date of this book. Notice that he does not entirely discount conspiracy theories, they "address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production . . . ." Ownership of the means of production and t structural inequity.

"Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants." So that's what you started with, I addressed that, and you switch subjects or suggest no one in mainstream would venture down that road for fear of disrupting the entire political process. So from there we go to 33 trillion in off the books cash held by (who again?). No it is now 35 trillion 5 posts later. I'm supposed to know this or believe this on your say so? Your response is that "it is out there." But not too "out there" because "they" don't want it being public knowledge. It all makes sense that out of all the people in the country you somehow managed to find all the answers. Have you put this all together in your spare time. Interviewed local, state and federal politicians, been analyzing the fed reports the last few decades to see where the cash disappeared to? Or did you digest it from multiple sources. I'm always a little leary of someone unwilling to atribute their sources. It is typically because those sources have problems. Personally, I think the sources and arguments that Kissinger brokered a deal between the aliens and the two dozen world bankers are much stronger than what you have offered so far about how they control local infrastructure in the US like a sewer plant. If we can sort that out I am happy to move on to addressing your next argument, which I was begenning to understand before your third argument. So I guess I have to ask, for clarification, do the 2 dozen bankers make decisions that influence whether roads get repaired in a city in the US, and the other infrastructure problems you mentioned in your original post?

I thought you had to be a member.

Maybe my friend Professor Domhoff can reign you back in. He has never been afraid of rocking the boat, especially on views about how public policy is developed in the US, labor movement history, the power elite etc. Howver, he has mentioned many, many times the trap you fall into when you start going down the conspiracy theory path of things like the dozen bankers, the think tanks, etc. Here is one quick example from his blog, Who Rules America, where he discusses the problems of some of these arguments. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it. That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things. Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news. The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd. Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US. But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed. First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant.What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open. And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface. 1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more. 2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world. 3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture. Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired. But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands: Assumptions: 1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions. 2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all. 3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds. 4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery. Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board. How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that. 1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy. 2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions. 3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world. 4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy. Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers? If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going. Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes? Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes? Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending? Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending? Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves. Summary The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure. This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there. It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel.From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories. It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens. "Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity." The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence. Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens. Another snipet: "The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade) The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's." I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check. What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence. Not much of an argument for a lawyer. You have not refuted even a word of my argument that most events are driven by causes the public can not see into. What would be the point of typing all that gibberish? None of which I mentioned. None of which was mentioned in my argument. I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my assessment of your historical and political understandings based on such a nonsensical expression of comprehension. Lawyers deal with facts that have some modicum of proof. It is one of our shortcomings. We leave the unsupported arguments to philosophers, theologians, talk radio hosts, conspiracy theorists, and the fringes. However, if you would like to meet John Marrs I can introduce you to him and he can tell you about all that he has discovered and you can discuss the dots you have uncovered and which way they connect. He will definitely agree with you on dozen bankers and New World Order, however, be prepared for the UFO connection because he has uncovered them and laid them bare in one of his 3 plus New York Times best selling books. Short of that, about the only thing I can do is quote the historic and psychological reasons why otherwise normal, intelligent rational people slip off into the nether regions and believe the things they believe.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it. That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things. Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news. The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd. Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US. But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed. First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant. What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open. And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface. 1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more. 2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world. 3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture. Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired. But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands: Assumptions: 1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions. 2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all. 3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds. 4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery. Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board. How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that. 1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy. 2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions. 3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world. 4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy. Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers? If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going. Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes? Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes? Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending? Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending? Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves. Summary The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure. This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there. It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel. From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories. It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens. "Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity." The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence. Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens. Another snipet: "The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade) The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's." I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check. What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers. No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash. That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read. If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it. That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things. Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news. The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd. Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US. But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

They are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with. While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit. Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security. Railroad retirement, military retirement, teacher retirement and on and on. Cities, Counties (Parish) and States can hire outside contractors for any, or all of road needs. Construction, maintenance whatever. In a growing area it is typically cheaper to do that in house.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.

What is a "Normal" person's benefit? Is it an amount, or a percentage? What is the pension amount of US Representatives? US Senators? The President? Your math isn't correct. Joe taxpayer isn't typically paying for pensions, it depends on who the government subdivision set up their system. There is typically a separate state employees retirement system, a teachers retirement systems, local retirement systems for police, fire, etc. All run by a separate retirement board of trustees. Pensions are funded by payments from employee wages, and a portion from the governmental subdivision. It percentages can vary widely. Many are EXEMPT from social security. They do not draw any social security when they retire and do not take away from that system. They have saved the governmental entity from having making contributions to social security. Federal legislators are outside the social security system. Edit, if they were in Congress prior to 1984, since 1984 they have contributed. Let's start with them, they seem to be "normal."

I ran into Wavy everywhere. San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Reno, Nevada for a friend's lighting company party, Mendocino, Davenport, Bonny Doon Beach. Guy was a genus to be able to market that brand, at that time, to make a living at being a surviving hippie.

Only one place for Box Store Stereo, MATTHEWS ..........................................TOP O' THE HILL..............................DAILY CITY

Excellent choice, pretty much everything I have is topped with Leupold as well. I have a lot of German glass, and it is great for certain things, but it is so hard to beat Leupold. I know this, every military sniper in the US uses Leupold. Plus, the 1 Series is still made in good old USA.

So the ice storms we get in the south only happen when cold fron comes down from Canada, dry air, and that moves undet warm supwr moist air from Gulf to move on top. It rains up at altidue ice pellets, it goes throigh warm air from Gulf and melts, then those droplets hit cold air from Canada and those droplets super cool and only freeze on impact. Because it is Glulf air, there is no dust in it, like storms from West, and it freezes nearly clear. On a whote car with a quarter inch of ice you cant tell it is on there until you try to open door. Nobody can move. People get stuck on Inerstates for 4 hours. Then stuff starts crashing down becaus of weitht of ice.

If they have a reasonable forcast of ice they announce auto 2 hour delay, lets everyone go out at 7 am and if thwre really is ice, they announce at 5am that city is shut down except for emergency personnel

A lot a lotnof bands. Blue Cheer, Sopwith Camel, Paul Butterfield from that era. Steve Miller and Biz Scaggs went to grade and high school together. Paul and Steve met in Chicago and both ended up in SF. When Van Morrison went solo there was a period of time he was playing all over the Bay Area. You could catch him at small shows all the time. Doobie Brothers, Pat Simmons, his father was our grade school principal. Pat would cone in once a year and play for the school on acoustic guitar,

You would have to think so. I am sure he had heard of Bear's White Lightening long before he arrived, they probably compared notes.

Here in the land of ice and snow you cannot (legally) push snow off your property onto a city sidewalk or road way. You shovel it on to the grass. So that is what he is really bitching about right? People know better, push it out into street, and he pushes it right back on. He sounds like Bob Marley (the comic) and that voice has always really cracked me up. I saw him live with Gary in Maryland once, almost dies laughing.

This is the one I went to.