Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans – by an 11-to-1 margin – favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

Rasmussen Reports
Friday, April 10, 2009

Thanks PrisonPlanet

Geithner’s “plan” will pick your pocket to pay off some of the richest people in America.

Under the Treasury Department’s toxic asset proposal, the government puts in 85% of the investment in these assets through a loan given by the FDIC. The Treasury puts in another 7.5% of the money and the private investor contributes the final 7.5%

This is a guaranteed way of transferring money from the American taxpayer to the private investors. Let me show you how.

Let’s take two assets that the government and investors buy together, both at the purchase price of $100 million. Now, assume that one investment does great and goes up by 50% (to $150 million) and the other one does poorly and goes down by 50% (to $50 million).

Well, the combined assets would still be worth $200 million, so the investors and the government should be exactly where they started, right? Nope. Look at the financial magic in this plan that makes the money disappear from the taxpayer and appear in the private investor’s pocket.

In the investment that went down, since the private investor is part of the original 15% deposit, he actually gets wiped out when the loan cannot be paid back. That’s really bad for the investor and he has lost his whole $7.5 million. This is the risk that Geithner is talking about to the private investor.

The government on the other hand does not lose all of their money. They had put in $92.5 million, but now that’s down to $50 million, so they lose $42.5 million. Unlike the private investor, they got something back. But they lost a lot more money.

Now, when you look at the investment that went up in value, the government has done well. They get 50% of the profits because they put in 50% of the deposit (the loan from the FDIC does not count toward divvying up the profit from these assets). So, the asset went up $50 million and the government gets $25 million in their pocket.

But when you look at the private investor he has done even better. He gets the same $25 million for his 50%, except he only put in $7.5 million to begin with. Why does that matter? Because when you add up the profits and losses for both investments, something funny and tragic happens.

The private investor put in an initial $15 million in to the two assets. He lost $7.5 million in one and wound up with $32.5 million in the other (profit plus initial investment). So, he’s at $17.5 million profit overall.

The government on the other hand put in a combined $185 million into the two assets. They lost $42.5 million in one of them and made $25 million in another. Will you look at that? The government lost $17.5 million from the same exact investments with the same exact results. The $17.5 million magically got transferred from the government to the private investors.

Well, that’s the magic of leverage. If you put in the great bulk of the money, you take the great bulk of the risk. If I put in a small amount of money but share equally in the rewards, then I make money while you lose money.

Oh, one final thing. Do you know who the government is? That’s us. The American taxpayer. This will literally be coming out of the taxes you pay on the money you work so hard for. This toxic asset plan will pick your pocket to pay off some of the richest people in America. If you think that makes sense, then you deserve to have your pocket picked. What’s that about a fool and his money …

AlterNet

On the evening of March 19, 2009, Lawrence Korb spoke at the University of Pittsburgh (video at the end of this article).

Korb was the Vice President of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) from 1998-2002. He was also the CFR’s director of National Security Studies during that same period. From 1985-1986 he was Vice President of Corporate Operations at Raytheon. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981-1985 during the Reagan Administration. He was an advisor to Barack Obama when Obama was campaigning for president.  He currently is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and a Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information.

Afghanistan: Deadly, Unaffordable Quagmire For Sale

The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War).…The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” – Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to CFR and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton, in his book Tragedy & Hope (1966), pp. 1247-1248

Korb discussed Obama’s plans for Afghansistan at length.  He said, “The indications are that, you know, he’s gonna be going big in Afghanistan.”

He acknowledged that this is a betrayal of what his supporters — many of whom are anti-war — were led to believe about Obama’s agenda during his campaign.

“A lot of people say, ‘Well, no.  We voted for him because we didn’t want [to go] to any wars!’” Korb said with an amused smirk.

In a mocking tone, he continued: “And… you know on the ‘BLOGOSPHERE’ you should see the stuff.  I mean, these people are mobilizing to stop going to Afghanistan.”

But Korb did not seem to think that this pervasive, adamant grassroots opposition to “going big” in Afghanistan should give Obama a moment’s pause, despite the fact that, according to Korb, “seeing it through” will require America to pay a high price, in both money and lives.

“I think what the president has to say if he wants to do it is be honest with the American people and say, ‘Look, if you want to do this, and you want to do it right, you’re going to be there for another ten years.’” Korb said.

Later, Korb indicated that ten years may not even be long enough.  He said, “Within ten years it should be okay if you do everything right.  But there’s no guarantee.” (emphasis added)

This is especially noteworthy considering that he also acknowledged that so far “we haven’t done it very well”

Korb went on to say (possibly still in presidential ventriloquist mode), “You’re gonna have to have at least 100,000 troops… and what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna put the troops in the areas to protect the population [inaud] where the Taliban is.  That’s gonna be more casualities, okay?  And you’re gonna have to do that, and it’s gonna be expensive.”

He also acknowledged that the Afghan people have become increasingly unsupportive of the U.S. occupation, and admitted that, in fact, the U.S. may never be able to regain widespread support from the Afghan people.

According to a poll conducted in late December through mid-January by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul for ABC News, the BBC and ARD German television, only 47 percent of Afghans hold a favorable view of the United States.  This number has fallen 36 percent since 2005, and the steepest drop has occured in the past year.  This may be due to the fact that, as the Guardian reported last month, “The number of civilians killed in the war in Afghanistan increased by 40% last year to a record 2,118 people”.

More than 420 U.S. troops have already been killed in combat in Afghanistan since the war began, according to USA Today.

Despite all of this, the former Council on Foreign Relations Vice President and Obama Advisor said that the president has “got to see it through” in Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is a “real threat to the United States.”

“It’s gonna be a very, very difficult sell.”

“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.  The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.” - Rear Admiral Chester Ward,  Former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and a member of the CFR for sixteen years, in his book Kissinger on the Couch (1975), co-authored by Phllyus Schlafly, p. 151

“This is not a war of choice; it’s a war of necessity”, Korb said.

Narco State

One way that Korb attempted to “sell” his plan for Afghanistan was by expressing concern that Afghanistan could “become a narco state”.

It is interesting that he would say that in light of the fact that in 2000, the year prior to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Taliban had banned opium poppy growing, causing the country’s opium yield to drop by a whopping 94% in 2001. [source]

However, within a couple months of the CFR-dominated U.S. government announcing its “War on Terrorism” and invading Afghanistan (using the false flag attack of 9/11 as a pretext),  The Independent ran a story headlined, “Opium Farmers Rejoice at the Defeat of the Taliban”.  This article indicated that massive opium planting was underway all over the country.

In actuality, the invasion was planned months before 9/11, and Bush was presented with detailed war plans for Afghanistan two days before the event. [source]

Continued At TheEndRun