The official Ron Paul thread

[olympus mon]

does anyone know the current nexus record for longest thread? its how long till the election? i think this sucker will break em all.:lol:

 

[blue_velvet]

· Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) [from Ron Paul on the Issues]

I wish I had the time and motivation to go through each and every one of these factoids, but I will settle on this one in particular. I found it rather hard to believe that Dr. Paul would oppose such a thing and there surely must be some legitimate reason for him to do so. Turns out this is referencing House Amendment 356 to HR bill 2587. The amendment was to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." (On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R … -- House Vote #346 -- Jul 29, 1999)

This is not an opposition to civil liberties, but rather a demonstration of his consistent principles as a fiscal conservative. You will find many examples of this in Paul's voting record. He simply opposes government funding for most things. ontheissues.org obviously needs to get its poorly cited and unrepresentative facts straight.

Presumably, if a bill is introduced to “prohibit funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage”, then the government already provides funding of some sort for “the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are related by blood or marriage”?

If that’s the case, then does he oppose such existing funding? And if so, why hasn’t he sponsored legislation against it?

That depends, has any legislation been written against it? He would probably co-sponsor or at least vote to remove that funding. He is generally across the board NO for federal spending. I doubt he would actively legislate against it simply because he opposes so many institutions that he would never make any progress before his death.

Either way, to say he wants to ban gay adoption is still very inaccurate and serves to misinform the public.

 

[a1pha]

He is generally across the board NO for federal spending.

Wouldn't Keynes say this is a BAD idea in the current economic climate? This doesn't seem the time to abolish the Federal Reserve, dismantel the DOE, etc. What are we aiming for? 30+% unemployment with private-only schools? Is this the "Revolution" the Congressman from Texas proposes?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

He is generally across the board NO for federal spending.

Wouldn't Keynes say this is a BAD idea in the current economic climate? This doesn't seem the time to abolish the Federal Reserve, dismantel the DOE, etc. What are we aiming for? 30+% unemployment with private-only schools? Is this the "Revolution" the Congressman from Texas proposes?

THANK YOU!

I noticed people went oddly silent when I pointed this out earlier

 

[cker]

RayofLight,
What do you think of Gibran2's list of Paul's voting record. I actually agree with some of what Ron Paul says but then I look at how he votes and it seems looney. If you cherry pick, any political philosophy can look good. I resonate with much of the Libertarian view but taken to extreme, it doesn't provide a solid base for a society to sit on top. Everyone is on their own and isn't how mankind has existed since we evolved. It doesn't represent the way humans choose to live.

So, what about Gibran2's voting stats? Principled or not, is that how you would vote on those issues?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

So, what about Gibran2's voting stats? Principled or not, is that how you would vote on those issues?

Last I checked, gibran wasn't running for president, so it's kind of a moot point.


Otoh...GVG 4 PREZ!

 

[polytrip]

Why does he want to close the fed? How would that benefit anybody?

 

[benzyme]

fed reserve gives too much power to a centralized banking system and large businesses; it also funds these ridiculous wars. In the US, large businesses have too much power, as do banks.
I don't know about you, but I certainly want it abolished. It does nothing to really benefit
the working class.

JFK also wanted to abolish the federal reserve.

 

[polytrip]

To non-americans, the popularity of a guy like ron paul on substance-related fora such as this is often a bit of a mystery.
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
People who're supporting him must be realy frustrated with main stream politic's if they don't even care about the lack of realism of this presidential candidate.

I think its Americas foreign policy that has turned it into the most hated nation on earth, meddling in the affairs of others and starting preemptive wars is a way better way of isolating yourself than minding your own business and talking to nations on a diplomatic level imo

Love us, hate us, it really doesn't matter to our elite...they've got what they've got and they're not going anywhere. Our corporate interests are globalized and protected...the money's rolling in just fine (seriously, despite all the talks of debt in the news, America's elite have so much on hand capital they don't what to do with it...read any business journal OR look at the investments in US bonds following the DOWNGRADING of America's status...it's absurd). What do they care how the rest of the world views us? See, from an American standpoint, we are not meddling, we are controlling/protecting our interests/destiny, the global population and resources are but externalities.

Don't believe me? Watch this 5 minute interview with Susan Rice (American ambassador to the UN)...see how often she refers to the purpose of the UN as to protect/further American interests, not international interests, not international relations, American (read: American corporate/financial) interests. The tagline even reads:

In this unedited, extended interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice explains the role of the U.N. in protecting American interests.

Interview

It's not hidden, we do what we want because we can...Paul isn't going to stop this, he's owned just as much as any other politician. If you think otherwise you're just deluding yourself and ignoring the facts.

I think you're a bit too optimistic about american economical and political power.
The elite only THINKS it's serving it's own interests, but being in the centre of all power has clearly clouded their judgements.
The american political elite, both on republican and democratic side, thinks the national debth is not something to worry about. The consensus is that american debths are a way to controll china and other foreign powers (as long as we owe them money, they won't harm us). Many american diplomats are quite open about this being their philosophy.

The american debth is in percentage of it's GDP, roughly the same as that of most south-european nations....you know, those country's anglochauvinists have named PIGS country's. (portugal, ireland, greece and spain).
The eurozone as a whole has less debths than america.

Downgrading america's AAA status was more than justified. The financial markets no longer believe american leaders are both willing and able (a crucial combination, i would say) to take responsibility when it comes to the debth issue. For instance, you can not get out of debth's by simply cutting federal spending. There will have to be some money coming in as well. 'Printing' more money is not gonna fool the financial markets.
The american government has only one way left of getting it done...it's called taxation.

The financial guys know that that's not gonna happen because it's election time soon, AND they are the ones who've lobbied for tax reductions themselves.
Why else would a guy like warren buffet call publicly for higher taxes while he never paid a dime to mr taxman himself?
They're confused. The buffets of this world know they're bringing america to bancrupcy, but they've benefitted too much from all the fiscal loopholes to be able to quit using them. If not, mr buffet would have called for fixing the loopholes first, instead of just raising taxes. You can raise taxes all you want, but if you leave open those loopholes it's not gonna make any difference.

America is heading for a next recession. Nothing in this world is gonna stop that. And when the next recession hit's, perspective on america's debth's and ability to grow itself out of them, will change.

There was plenty of money in argentina and brazil as well, when those countries went bancrupt. The only difference is that america is a bit too big for the IMF to bail out with loans, and that americans will not accept it if the IMF takes over...meaning that an american bancrupcy will have unprecedented effects.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I think you're a bit too optimistic about american economical and political power.
The elite only THINKS it's serving it's own interests, but being in the centre of all power has clearly clouded their judgements.
The american political elite, both on republican and democratic side, thinks the national debth is not something to worry about. The consensus is that american debths are a way to controll china and other foreign powers (as long as we owe them money, they won't harm us). Many american diplomats are quite open about this being their philosophy.

Yea, we need China and China needs us. China relies on us to purchase the things they produce, which is one reason why they are still investing in US t-bills. The national debt is not an issue for private interests...this is the kicker of the financial crisis we just saw. The way US economic/political processes have been married makes it so that we do not engage in true capitalism...if we did, banks would have been allowed to fail and the market would have dictated the fate of the financial behemoths, not governmental protectionist policies. This is why we had massive tax-payer bailouts and then companies like Lehman Brothers were able to distribute billions in "golden parachutes" after the meltdown. Here is the model of American Politics/Economics: the profits are privatized and the costs are socialized, whether they're financial, ecological, or social.

The american debth is in percentage of it's GDP, roughly the same as that of most south-european nations....you know, those country's anglochauvinists have named PIGS country's. (portugal, ireland, greece and spain).
The eurozone as a whole has less debths than america.

Here you have confused America with American Interests (a circumscribed group that is private and essentially not-subject to what you are discussing). How many of the top 100 GDPs are corporations (owned by national-citizens somewhere but separate GDPs from their nations, or at least separate economic entities, for all intents and purposes)? How many of these corporations are American-owned? Yea, we have a huge amount of debt...but who is We? The way this debt is structeured across the populace, there are clearly people in the top tier who are relatively unaffected by this.

Downgrading america's AAA status was more than justified. The financial markets no longer believe american leaders are both willing and able (a crucial combination, i would say) to take responsibility when it comes to the debth issue. For instance, you can not get out of debth's by simply cutting federal spending. There will have to be some money coming in as well. 'Printing' more money is not gonna fool the financial markets.
The american government has only one way left of getting it done...it's called taxation.

I don't disagree with you at all here...in fact, if you read my earlier comments in this thread (specifically the one referenced in response to a1pha's comment on Keynes) you would see that I pointed to the failure of liberal economics to ever save a country in this (or a development) situation as well as the prime American example of avoiding this type of scenario: FDR's New Deal

The financial guys know that that's not gonna happen because it's election time soon, AND they are the ones who've lobbied for tax reductions themselves.
Why else would a guy like warren buffet call publicly for higher taxes while he never paid a dime to mr taxman himself?
They're confused. The buffets of this world know they're bringing america to bancrupcy, but they've benefitted too much from all the fiscal loopholes to be able to quit using them. If not, mr buffet would have called for fixing the loopholes first, instead of just raising taxes. You can raise taxes all you want, but if you leave open those loopholes it's not gonna make any difference.

Actually, in the full range of interviews Buffet has given over the past several years, he has mentioned raising taxes on the ultr-rich numerous times, as well as closing loopholes...in fact there are a handful of articles over the past 14-months from a variety of sources titled similarly to "Buffet Calls for Closing Loopholes, Raising Taxes." So the comments here are somewhat off-base. America is sliding towards third-world economic disparity (actually we're already there). The fact-of-the-matter is that this will become incredibly apparent in the not-too-distant future...with shocking effects, imo. However, American Interests, when compared to the American populace will be, relatively, quite secure. They've got the capital and economic reserves and global-strength to hold on to disproportionately large pieces of the global pie.

America is heading for a next recession. Nothing in this world is gonna stop that. And when the next recession hit's, perspective on america's debth's and ability to grow itself out of them, will change.

So is the EU...so is much of the world...in fact, these national recessions/depressions are all pieces of global stagnation. America's lack of regulation and increased privatization have created an absurd system of Booms and Busts that has grown continually more destructive. The next recession/depression will be devastating...significantly larger than the last one, and I guarantee you it will not solely affect America.

There was plenty of money in argentina and brazil as well, when those countries went bancrupt. The only difference is that america is a bit too big for the IMF to bail out with loans, and that americans will not accept it if the IMF takes over...meaning that an american bancrupcy will have unprecedented effects.

Indeed, it will, and not just on America, but on the entire world. One crucial piece you're missing in this is that America IS the IMF and the World Bank and the UN...these are all global structures/organizations we erected post-WWII to ensure the protection of our interests throughout the world. So, saying the IMF will/won't take a position that America will/won't support is like Saying America will/won't support its own interests through whatever means available. Look through history, we have done horrific stuff to ensure that we hold onto as much power, wealth and control as possible, regardless of the human, economic or environmental costs. The American Interests/"Ruling Class" are essentially unrivaled anywhere in the world...policies that started back with Reagan allowed for this by deregulating industry, screwing over the American worker, and creating economic policies that allowed for maximum corporate exploitation.

I'm not optimistic about American political or economic power...I'm realistic about the economic power wielded by the top .1% of American citizens...the evidence is there throughout history and even in the present there is plenty of evidence in the economic and political realms that supports the position I am espousing. Driving up income disparity serves to further destabilize our worker population (something Ben Bernanke referred to as one of the best aspects of our current economy...he called it one of the "bright spots" iirc) driving down employee costs and helping the private tyrannies that are corporations to maximize profits more and more.

 

[polytrip]

I think you're a bit too optimistic about american economical and political power.
The elite only THINKS it's serving it's own interests, but being in the centre of all power has clearly clouded their judgements.
The american political elite, both on republican and democratic side, thinks the national debth is not something to worry about. The consensus is that american debths are a way to controll china and other foreign powers (as long as we owe them money, they won't harm us). Many american diplomats are quite open about this being their philosophy.

Yea, we need China and China needs us. China relies on us to purchase the things they produce, which is one reason why they are still investing in US t-bills. The national debt is not an issue for private interests...this is the kicker of the financial crisis we just saw. The way US economic/political processes have been married makes it so that we do not engage in true capitalism...if we did, banks would have been allowed to fail and the market would have dictated the fate of the financial behemoths, not governmental protectionist policies. This is why we had massive tax-payer bailouts and then companies like Lehman Brothers were able to distribute billions in "golden parachutes" after the meltdown. Here is the model of American Politics/Economics: the profits are privatized and the costs are socialized, whether they're financial, ecological, or social.

The american debth is in percentage of it's GDP, roughly the same as that of most south-european nations....you know, those country's anglochauvinists have named PIGS country's. (portugal, ireland, greece and spain).
The eurozone as a whole has less debths than america.

Here you have confused America with American Interests (a circumscribed group that is private and essentially not-subject to what you are discussing). How many of the top 100 GDPs are corporations (owned by national-citizens somewhere but separate GDPs from their nations, or at least separate economic entities, for all intents and purposes)? How many of these corporations are American-owned? Yea, we have a huge amount of debt...but who is We? The way this debt is structeured across the populace, there are clearly people in the top tier who are relatively unaffected by this.

Downgrading america's AAA status was more than justified. The financial markets no longer believe american leaders are both willing and able (a crucial combination, i would say) to take responsibility when it comes to the debth issue. For instance, you can not get out of debth's by simply cutting federal spending. There will have to be some money coming in as well. 'Printing' more money is not gonna fool the financial markets.
The american government has only one way left of getting it done...it's called taxation.

I don't disagree with you at all here...in fact, if you read my earlier comments in this thread (specifically the one referenced in response to a1pha's comment on Keynes) you would see that I pointed to the failure of liberal economics to ever save a country in this (or a development) situation as well as the prime American example of avoiding this type of scenario: FDR's New Deal

The financial guys know that that's not gonna happen because it's election time soon, AND they are the ones who've lobbied for tax reductions themselves.
Why else would a guy like warren buffet call publicly for higher taxes while he never paid a dime to mr taxman himself?
They're confused. The buffets of this world know they're bringing america to bancrupcy, but they've benefitted too much from all the fiscal loopholes to be able to quit using them. If not, mr buffet would have called for fixing the loopholes first, instead of just raising taxes. You can raise taxes all you want, but if you leave open those loopholes it's not gonna make any difference.

Actually, in the full range of interviews Buffet has given over the past several years, he has mentioned raising taxes on the ultr-rich numerous times, as well as closing loopholes...in fact there are a handful of articles over the past 14-months from a variety of sources titled similarly to "Buffet Calls for Closing Loopholes, Raising Taxes." So the comments here are somewhat off-base. America is sliding towards third-world economic disparity (actually we're already there). The fact-of-the-matter is that this will become incredibly apparent in the not-too-distant future...with shocking effects, imo. However, American Interests, when compared to the American populace will be, relatively, quite secure. They've got the capital and economic reserves and global-strength to hold on to disproportionately large pieces of the global pie.

America is heading for a next recession. Nothing in this world is gonna stop that. And when the next recession hit's, perspective on america's debth's and ability to grow itself out of them, will change.

So is the EU...so is much of the world...in fact, these national recessions/depressions are all pieces of global stagnation. America's lack of regulation and increased privatization have created an absurd system of Booms and Busts that has grown continually more destructive. The next recession/depression will be devastating...significantly larger than the last one, and I guarantee you it will not solely affect America.

There was plenty of money in argentina and brazil as well, when those countries went bancrupt. The only difference is that america is a bit too big for the IMF to bail out with loans, and that americans will not accept it if the IMF takes over...meaning that an american bancrupcy will have unprecedented effects.

Indeed, it will, and not just on America, but on the entire world. One crucial piece you're missing in this is that America IS the IMF and the World Bank and the UN...these are all global structures/organizations we erected post-WWII to ensure the protection of our interests throughout the world. So, saying the IMF will/won't take a position that America will/won't support is like Saying America will/won't support its own interests through whatever means available. Look through history, we have done horrific stuff to ensure that we hold onto as much power, wealth and control as possible, regardless of the human, economic or environmental costs. The American Interests/"Ruling Class" are essentially unrivaled anywhere in the world...policies that started back with Reagan allowed for this by deregulating industry, screwing over the American worker, and creating economic policies that allowed for maximum corporate exploitation.

I'm not optimistic about American political or economic power...I'm realistic about the economic power wielded by the top .1% of American citizens...the evidence is there throughout history and even in the present there is plenty of evidence in the economic and political realms that supports the position I am espousing. Driving up income disparity serves to further destabilize our worker population (something Ben Bernanke referred to as one of the best aspects of our current economy...he called it one of the "bright spots" iirc) driving down employee costs and helping the private tyrannies that are corporations to maximize profits more and more.

But what are private interests worth if the society on wich they where founded is eroding?
I admit, this is a bit of a longer-term question.
I tend to look at it like this: The west has not always been dominant and will not alway be dominant. How we treat others (like the islamic world) during our days of dominance, will leave a lasting impression on those people, that will come to haunt EVERYTHING that is western, once our dominance has vanished.
The islamic world and the west have been fighting eachother, one dominating the other and viceversa, for thousands of years. Even before there was an islamic or even a christian world(you could even argue that christianity and islam as a movement are both sprouted by local arabic resistance movements). By abusing your power when you're on top, you're only perpetuating this seemingly endless motion.

On top of this i'd like to add that lending money and thus 'creating' debths has been an ancient chinese strategy to gain power and controll over people.

Chinese plantations for instance always had a casino and pub nearby, owned by the same guy who owned the plantation, where workers of the plantation used to spent all of their money. Once deep enough in debth's, their bosses where always more than willing to 'help' their men with 'special arrangements'.

I don't know if something like that is happening now on a somewhat larger scale. But the lack of worry's about this contrasts very sharply with the worry's america does seem to have when it comes to 'homeland security'. You could say it's at least a bit inconsistent spending lot's of money to stay ahead of china militarily, financed by china itself.

 

[RayOfLight]

a great 6 part interview with Ron Paul explaining many of his positions.

 

[DeMenTed]

Can I just say that it really bothers me when people come out singing the praises of an idea or individual and then go silent when pressed for evidence?

I really appreciated my discussion on the Venus Project with Melodic Catastrophe, precisely because he was willing to engage in an open minded debate/discussion on the merits and issues of the VP. Lately, that's been a rare occurrence in my life.

I've been noticing more and more that when topics like this get brought up online or in person, the other parties always seem eager to drop it or move on once their empty lines of "He's a great guy" or "This idea is awesome" are challenged on a factual basis. I'm sorry if this post comes off as overly negative, this is just something that's been bothering me a LOT recently.

It bothers you that people sing the praises of people who "genuinely" want to change things? What is it that you want? Are you happy with people like Obama or Bush running your country? Maybe Ron Pauls ideas sound ludicrous to you but thats because you have been brainwashed by your political upbringing, you cant open your mind to a new way of thinking.

It bothers me that people hear about real change that is needed or your country will go down the tubes and scupper it before even entertaining the idea.

 

[a1pha]

Ray, 42nd Canadian federal election

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Can I just say that it really bothers me when people come out singing the praises of an idea or individual and then go silent when pressed for evidence?

I really appreciated my discussion on the Venus Project with Melodic Catastrophe, precisely because he was willing to engage in an open minded debate/discussion on the merits and issues of the VP. Lately, that's been a rare occurrence in my life.

I've been noticing more and more that when topics like this get brought up online or in person, the other parties always seem eager to drop it or move on once their empty lines of "He's a great guy" or "This idea is awesome" are challenged on a factual basis. I'm sorry if this post comes off as overly negative, this is just something that's been bothering me a LOT recently.

It bothers you that people sing the praises of people who "genuinely" want to change things? What is it that you want? Are you happy with people like Obama or Bush running your country? Maybe Ron Pauls ideas sound ludicrous to you but thats because you have been brainwashed by your political upbringing, you cant open your mind to a new way of thinking.

It bothers me that people hear about real change that is needed or your country will go down the tubes and scupper it before even entertaining the idea.

You clearly haven't followed these threads...I would advise you to re-read my posts throughout these 17 pages.

I think you will find your comments are without basis.

I have cited evidence, provided detailed explanations and presented numerous reasons as to why the political system is isolated from the type of overbroad promises people have been presenting as reasons to vote for Paul. Please tell me which of my arguments/comments you disagree with and why. I have expressed my wants/ideas and what I perceive to be the failings (and history) of this system multiple times throughout this thread. If you feel my thinking is "brainwashed" I would ask you to show me where...my ideas are clearly those of a critical dissident of mainstream political thought and generally accepted geopolitical concepts.

 

[DeMenTed]

I will read full thread for your position.

 

[a1pha]

It bothers you that people sing the praises of people who "genuinely" want to change things? What is it that you want? Are you happy with people like Obama or Bush running your country? Maybe Ron Pauls ideas sound ludicrous to you but thats because you have been brainwashed by your political upbringing, you cant open your mind to a new way of thinking.

It bothers me that people hear about real change that is needed or your country will go down the tubes and scupper it before even entertaining the idea.

DeMenTed,

I wish this thread didn't exist, but as long as it does we should keep the ad hominem arguments to a minimum. If you feel SnozzleBerry is 'branwashed' and that Ron Paul has the answers, please explain to us instead of just accusing a Nexus member of being ignorant.

Thank you.

 

[DeMenTed]

It bothers you that people sing the praises of people who "genuinely" want to change things? What is it that you want? Are you happy with people like Obama or Bush running your country? Maybe Ron Pauls ideas sound ludicrous to you but thats because you have been brainwashed by your political upbringing, you cant open your mind to a new way of thinking.

It bothers me that people hear about real change that is needed or your country will go down the tubes and scupper it before even entertaining the idea.

DeMenTed,

I wish this thread didn't exist, but as long as it does we should keep the ad hominem arguments to a minimum. If you feel SnozzleBerry is 'branwashed' and that Ron Paul has the answers, please explain to us instead of just accusing a Nexus member of being ignorant.

Thank you.

Well for one a1pha when ray of light was asked to argue his point etc he did say he didn't have the answers etc but he did post vids of Ron Pauls stance "the reason for this thread" i asked snozzleberry what it is that he wants and he didn;t answer me, much the same as you thought raay of light didnt answer you or snozz.

Ray of light started this thread to open peoples minds to a new possibility and way of thinking and instead of being encouraged you and snozz did your best to shoot him down in flames.

Snozz has already told us about his political background and yes he does have the literary skills to defen his argument, maybe ray of light and others dont have this capability but what hey do have is an open mind and not a defeatest atttitude much like neville chamberlain and co had against hitler.

America is as corrupt a country as they come. I'm not ssaying the american people are corrupt, iam saying the american system which never used to be corrupt has now been transformed into a warmongering corrupt hated nation. Ray of ligh offered a point in a new and correct direction but snozzleberries political education doesnt allow for new and different thinking. He is entangled in the corrupt system.

Ron Paul knows what is wrong with america and propses to do something about it. Its more than can be said about most other politicians in america.

 

[RayOfLight]

I wish this thread didn't exist,

for a guy that wishes the thread didn't exist you sure have contributed a lot to it .

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I think you're a bit too optimistic about american economical and political power.
The elite only THINKS it's serving it's own interests, but being in the centre of all power has clearly clouded their judgements.
The american political elite, both on republican and democratic side, thinks the national debth is not something to worry about. The consensus is that american debths are a way to controll china and other foreign powers (as long as we owe them money, they won't harm us). Many american diplomats are quite open about this being their philosophy.

Yea, we need China and China needs us. China relies on us to purchase the things they produce, which is one reason why they are still investing in US t-bills. The national debt is not an issue for private interests...this is the kicker of the financial crisis we just saw. The way US economic/political processes have been married makes it so that we do not engage in true capitalism...if we did, banks would have been allowed to fail and the market would have dictated the fate of the financial behemoths, not governmental protectionist policies. This is why we had massive tax-payer bailouts and then companies like Lehman Brothers were able to distribute billions in "golden parachutes" after the meltdown. Here is the model of American Politics/Economics: the profits are privatized and the costs are socialized, whether they're financial, ecological, or social.

The american debth is in percentage of it's GDP, roughly the same as that of most south-european nations....you know, those country's anglochauvinists have named PIGS country's. (portugal, ireland, greece and spain).
The eurozone as a whole has less debths than america.

Here you have confused America with American Interests (a circumscribed group that is private and essentially not-subject to what you are discussing). How many of the top 100 GDPs are corporations (owned by national-citizens somewhere but separate GDPs from their nations, or at least separate economic entities, for all intents and purposes)? How many of these corporations are American-owned? Yea, we have a huge amount of debt...but who is We? The way this debt is structeured across the populace, there are clearly people in the top tier who are relatively unaffected by this.

Downgrading america's AAA status was more than justified. The financial markets no longer believe american leaders are both willing and able (a crucial combination, i would say) to take responsibility when it comes to the debth issue. For instance, you can not get out of debth's by simply cutting federal spending. There will have to be some money coming in as well. 'Printing' more money is not gonna fool the financial markets.
The american government has only one way left of getting it done...it's called taxation.

I don't disagree with you at all here...in fact, if you read my earlier comments in this thread (specifically the one referenced in response to a1pha's comment on Keynes) you would see that I pointed to the failure of liberal economics to ever save a country in this (or a development) situation as well as the prime American example of avoiding this type of scenario: FDR's New Deal

The financial guys know that that's not gonna happen because it's election time soon, AND they are the ones who've lobbied for tax reductions themselves.
Why else would a guy like warren buffet call publicly for higher taxes while he never paid a dime to mr taxman himself?
They're confused. The buffets of this world know they're bringing america to bancrupcy, but they've benefitted too much from all the fiscal loopholes to be able to quit using them. If not, mr buffet would have called for fixing the loopholes first, instead of just raising taxes. You can raise taxes all you want, but if you leave open those loopholes it's not gonna make any difference.

Actually, in the full range of interviews Buffet has given over the past several years, he has mentioned raising taxes on the ultr-rich numerous times, as well as closing loopholes...in fact there are a handful of articles over the past 14-months from a variety of sources titled similarly to "Buffet Calls for Closing Loopholes, Raising Taxes." So the comments here are somewhat off-base. America is sliding towards third-world economic disparity (actually we're already there). The fact-of-the-matter is that this will become incredibly apparent in the not-too-distant future...with shocking effects, imo. However, American Interests, when compared to the American populace will be, relatively, quite secure. They've got the capital and economic reserves and global-strength to hold on to disproportionately large pieces of the global pie.

America is heading for a next recession. Nothing in this world is gonna stop that. And when the next recession hit's, perspective on america's debth's and ability to grow itself out of them, will change.

So is the EU...so is much of the world...in fact, these national recessions/depressions are all pieces of global stagnation. America's lack of regulation and increased privatization have created an absurd system of Booms and Busts that has grown continually more destructive. The next recession/depression will be devastating...significantly larger than the last one, and I guarantee you it will not solely affect America.

There was plenty of money in argentina and brazil as well, when those countries went bancrupt. The only difference is that america is a bit too big for the IMF to bail out with loans, and that americans will not accept it if the IMF takes over...meaning that an american bancrupcy will have unprecedented effects.

Indeed, it will, and not just on America, but on the entire world. One crucial piece you're missing in this is that America IS the IMF and the World Bank and the UN...these are all global structures/organizations we erected post-WWII to ensure the protection of our interests throughout the world. So, saying the IMF will/won't take a position that America will/won't support is like Saying America will/won't support its own interests through whatever means available. Look through history, we have done horrific stuff to ensure that we hold onto as much power, wealth and control as possible, regardless of the human, economic or environmental costs. The American Interests/"Ruling Class" are essentially unrivaled anywhere in the world...policies that started back with Reagan allowed for this by deregulating industry, screwing over the American worker, and creating economic policies that allowed for maximum corporate exploitation.

I'm not optimistic about American political or economic power...I'm realistic about the economic power wielded by the top .1% of American citizens...the evidence is there throughout history and even in the present there is plenty of evidence in the economic and political realms that supports the position I am espousing. Driving up income disparity serves to further destabilize our worker population (something Ben Bernanke referred to as one of the best aspects of our current economy...he called it one of the "bright spots" iirc) driving down employee costs and helping the private tyrannies that are corporations to maximize profits more and more.

But what are private interests worth if the society on wich they where founded is eroding?
I admit, this is a bit of a longer-term question.

Well, that's some of the beauty of globalization...and this is actually kind of funny, as it ties into Adam Smith's single usage of the term "invisible hand" (a term that would coopted by economics professors all over for an entirely different purpose). Ultimately, Smith said the National interests were strong enough so that even despite "free trade" merchants would re-invest in their nation of origin as if by an "invisible hand". For the full explanation see here. So...in this globalized world, where demand and labor are distributed "openly" across borders and populations/borders are relatively closed, American interests do not need America as a whole to remain intact...in fact, such erosion would create a picture much like that of the third world.

This "Third Worldization" of the US is a process that is happening now, right before our very eyes. Again...to my mind, this is not an optimistic position...this is the grim reality we face on a national and global basis. Fractional reserve banking and debt-based economies make for a mere shadow of infrastructure that is based on confidence, speculation and "minimum monthly payments"...the entire global economy is a Ponzi scheme that is in the process of collapsing.

I tend to look at it like this: The west has not always been dominant and will not alway be dominant. How we treat others (like the islamic world) during our days of dominance, will leave a lasting impression on those people, that will come to haunt EVERYTHING that is western, once our dominance has vanished.
The islamic world and the west have been fighting eachother, one dominating the other and viceversa, for thousands of years. Even before there was an islamic or even a christian world(you could even argue that christianity and islam as a movement are both sprouted by local arabic resistance movements). By abusing your power when you're on top, you're only perpetuating this seemingly endless motion.

I don't disagree with the cause/effect painted here...but this is what we see across the world throughout history. This is what we are seeing in the Arab spring...this is what we saw with the end of British, French and Spanish Imperialism on a colony by colony basis. This is the source of much turmoil in the world...and the elite generally tend to profit off of this turmoil; especially in this day and age of Military Industrial Complex dominance. I honestly don't see how this conflicts with any of the points I've made...these cycles are precisely those repeated throughout history.