Current Events

TOPICS:

5/12/08
5/7/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

 ... 434

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAY 10, 2008 01:01 PM

This is a little more than fucked up



What do war, Congressmen, Senators, and the defense/offense industry have in common? The answer, if you haven't already guessed is "profits."

Conflict makes money for the military industrial complex, and the cronies they place in Congress, the Senate, and the White House.

An investigation by Ralph Forbes from American Free press reported on May 05, 2008 that more than a quarter of US senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq [1].

The report also edifies that 151 members of congress invested close to a quarter-billion dollars in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than 275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to Fedspending.org [2]. In 2004, the first full year after the current Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers-both hawks and doves invested between $74.9 million and 161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD [1]. No wonder the Democratic congress kept approving the enormous spending bills on the war, since a significant portion of it happens to end up in their deep pockets.

The report elucidates further that investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 to 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties, and interest [1]. Certainly, as the war went on and escalated, so did the increase in profits.

Interestingly, the report also mentioned that members of the senate foreign relations and armed services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts. Per example, war hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush's war, had stock in defense companies such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold them in May 2007. [1].

The burning questions for many people are the following:

Are there any ethics left in politics?

Could the universe ever exist without wars?

The answer is no, because wars have been a major part of our social make up, in addition they force geostrategic changes, make profits for the elite, and reduce population.

In reality, it makes no difference which party is in charge of government despite the difference in rhetoric, because both sides happen to be on the same payroll of the global masters, and pushing the same agenda. Let's not also forget, that in order to be elected as a high public official, whether it is a congressman or a senator you are required to have many skeletons in your closet, and a major predilection for corruption. That would enable you to be taken down anytime you cross line, or stop listening to your global corporate masters, who have financed your campaign and placed you in office in the first place.

Machiavellian politics 101 forbids you from ever biting the hand that fed you. In addition, ethics and morality are for idiots!

As primitive as it might sound, the politics of man's life has always been about sex and money. One is used for hedonistic as well as narcisisstic self-perpetuation through children, and the other is used for psychological self-preservation by engendering the feeling of ultimate power, and by achieving the impossible goal of pseudo-godhood. The more money you have, the closer you get to become the Lord of the masses.

The ironic element in these illusions, is that death happens to be fair and unwilling to bargain. It takes everyone regardless of the fare; whether, you are a member of the global elite or a pauper, the endgame is the same.

A new president, a new congress, and a new senate, only lead to the creation of a new corruption ring, new false flag operations, new monsters to slay, new state terrorism, and new wars.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

MAY 10, 2008 01:09 PM

How actively are these investments, though? I'm pretty sure my company's retirement plan has some of my money in something at least nominally related to defense, and it's all through labyrinthine funds which won't divest themselves of the offending components no matter how much I yell at their representative.

Shalome

Shalome

MODERATOR

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 10, 2008 01:25 PM

BlastProcessing said:
How actively are these investments, though? I'm pretty sure my company's retirement plan has some of my money in something at least nominally related to defense, and it's all through labyrinthine funds which won't divest themselves of the offending components no matter how much I yell at their representative.



That's what I was wondering.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAY 10, 2008 02:01 PM

only 25% phew. I would have thought it was 25% who DIDNT have investments.

bald_eagle

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN
November 2006

MAY 10, 2008 02:10 PM

Whether they actively participate in the investments or not, it feels like a conflict of interest.

commonman

commonman

Baltimore, MD
August 2003

MAY 10, 2008 02:28 PM

I don't see how any member of Congress of the executive branch can hold stocks in any manner other than in a blind trust. Blind trusts are far from perfect, but at least they prevent politicians from being tempted to cash in on political connections.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

MAY 10, 2008 03:13 PM

attn_ho said:
only 25% phew. I would have thought it was 25% who DIDNT have investments.


That's more or less what my first thought was, too - "Only 25%? That's all?"

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 10, 2008 05:26 PM

bald_eagle said:
Whether they actively participate in the investments or not, it feels like a conflict of interest.



It certainly looks like it from here.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAY 11, 2008 03:13 PM

Perhaps the other 50% have left office before the count could begin. biggrin
Seriously, I'm also surprised it isn't a greater number. Politicians are in a good place to ensure that any policies they get behind in support of their investments will have monetary benefits. Seems the biggest cash cow has always been defense, so...

Hillary selling her stock a year ago... How laughable, just in time to ramp up for the primaries. She's a total sellout.

Darke

Darke

Trego, WI
June 2005

MAY 11, 2008 08:00 PM

I'd also like to hear how many of these congressman are also invested in oil, mineral and agricultural commodities that have skyrocketed over the last few years.

dkmfc

dkmfc

Germany
January 2003

MAY 11, 2008 08:02 PM

SockPuppet said:

bald_eagle said:
Whether they actively participate in the investments or not, it feels like a conflict of interest.



It certainly looks like it from here.



interest in what though? most of them probably see those investments in war companies as "patriotic".


dkmfc

dkmfc

Germany
January 2003

MAY 11, 2008 08:07 PM

oh, and the oil profits comment is right on.
that's what drives this whole thing anyway, the profiteering on defense industry stuff is just gravy.

what would be more interesting to me is finding out how many of these investments and stock shares from defense stuff were actually gimmes for free or really low cost as an indirect form of influence peddling.

I think there's the angle to pursue if you want to see just how corrupt these people really are...

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 11, 2008 10:12 PM

commonman said:
I don't see how any member of Congress of the executive branch can hold stocks in any manner other than in a blind trust. Blind trusts are far from perfect, but at least they prevent politicians from being tempted to cash in on political connections.



I would wholeheartedly support some form of legislation or rule to that effect.

theDrunkMonk

theDrunkMonk

Charlotte, NC
January 2003

MAY 11, 2008 10:13 PM

This is surprising?

scylis

scylis

Anchorage, AK
November 2004

MAY 11, 2008 10:27 PM

how is this news?

it had to be said.

Banana_Ninja

Banana_Ninja

West Vancouver, BC
May 2005

MAY 11, 2008 10:58 PM

bald_eagle said:
Whether they actively participate in the investments or not, it feels like a conflict of interest.



Yes.

Banana_Ninja

Banana_Ninja

West Vancouver, BC
May 2005

MAY 11, 2008 11:07 PM

dkmfc said:

SockPuppet said:

bald_eagle said:
Whether they actively participate in the investments or not, it feels like a conflict of interest.



It certainly looks like it from here.



interest in what though? most of them probably see those investments in war companies as "patriotic".




They're making legislative decisions on a matter that could effect them personally or financially, (ie voting on a declaration of war when they own shares in defense contractors). That certainly constitutes a conflict of interest.

theDrunkMonk

theDrunkMonk

Charlotte, NC
January 2003

MAY 11, 2008 11:20 PM

scylis said:
how is this news?

it had to be said.



Good point.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 12, 2008 05:33 PM

Just about every American with a retirement plan has a major investment in both oil and defense, whether they know it or not.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 05:41 PM

livertarian said:
Just about every American with a retirement plan has a major investment in both oil and defense, whether they know it or not.



M. Perhaps it's incumbent on them to know it?

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

MAY 12, 2008 05:58 PM

SockPuppet said:

livertarian said:
Just about every American with a retirement plan has a major investment in both oil and defense, whether they know it or not.



M. Perhaps it's incumbent on them to know it?



It can be at times literally impossible to do anything about it, even if they do know.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 06:00 PM

BlastProcessing said:

SockPuppet said:

livertarian said:
Just about every American with a retirement plan has a major investment in both oil and defense, whether they know it or not.



M. Perhaps it's incumbent on them to know it?



It can be at times literally impossible to do anything about it, even if they do know.



True. But I'm sure Mr Libertarian feels that's wrong.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 12, 2008 06:27 PM

SockPuppet said:

BlastProcessing said:

SockPuppet said:

livertarian said:
Just about every American with a retirement plan has a major investment in both oil and defense, whether they know it or not.



M. Perhaps it's incumbent on them to know it?



It can be at times literally impossible to do anything about it, even if they do know.



True. But I'm sure Mr Libertarian feels that's wrong.



As concerned as I am about the oil companies' and defense contractors' political influence, I find our banking industry and monetary policy is far closer to the root of the problem here.

We let the Fed Reserve set fractional reserve ratios - very high ratios - on unbacked currency. This, to me, is practically the work of the devil. Currency is the only legal way to trade goods and services (if you want to be straight with taxes,) and yet the value of cash is entirely in the hands of the Fed. I am strongly opposed to their blessing of the fractional reserve system. If you let a bank lend 20 times its initial capital, then guarantee that potential shortfall with federal money, what do we think is gonna happen? Banks become cavalier, taking enormous risks. Bear Stearns was fully aware that no matter how poorly they ran their mortgage securities, they would be bailed out if things went bad. Now, all of our money has become even more worthless, thanks to a few shitty investors, and an artificially induced recession.