Only, it isn't inflation because the folks whom I trust, say it isn't. They say
that inflation isn't a danger for us at present, but that it is used as a
threat in order to keep working people from full employment, in order to keep
salaries from rising and interest on our meager savings accounts and municipal
bonds from going up. Like you, I don't get this stuff any better than computer
technology. But I listen to the guys I trust. They tell me that quantitative
easing is the method that the Fed uses to make money to help out our banks and
wealthy stock holders, all those folks with three or four homes, yachts on
which they can take trips around the world, and excess money which they can
donate to influence our institutions.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:12 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War
Next to my lack of understanding about computers, just a bit higher on my
Stupid list is my knowledge of finance. But I think I know one thing. That is
this, when we went off the Gold standard we printed money and spread it about
the nation...well, spread it about the nation's billionaires, like there was no
tomorrow. And If I have it right, the more money we printed and spread about,
the less value each dollar had. If I were a billionaire, or the son of a
billionaire, I would not worry one single dimes worth. But as a humble
rehabilitation teacher, married to another rehab teacher, albeit smarter and
better on the eyes than I, , it has come to my attention that there is a slow
decline in our purchasing power. I think the technical term is, Inflation.
Since there is a limit to even our rich and most powerful nation's ability to
print money, and since most of it is scooped up by the sticky, greedy fingers
of the very people who need it the least, this means that we, the Working
Class...the Nation's Backbone, must scramble for the few bills that have gone
unnoticed.
So here's the deal. We Americans do have plenty of money. Enough, and then
some, to do everything we need to do, including ending World Famine...which
seems to me to be one of those, "Every Christian believes in caring for the
less fortunate" slogans. Anyway, as I was saying, we do have the money. It is
being held, safe and secure, in the off-shore vaults and other well guarded
places, by our billionaires. Although they are holding this vast amount of
money for us to use in our rebuilding of America...and going some way down the
road with the nations of the world, these billionaires might have become a bit
miserly. Even though it's very obvious that they have much, much, oh so very
much more than they could ever spend, they have developed an over protective
attitude. We will more than likely need to "Educate" them and rehabilitate
them to the ways of the Human Species. That's where Cathy and I, and many
others like us, come in.
Those of our numbers skilled in the hunt and capture of evasive, dangerous wild
animals, will track down and capture our Billionaires.
We rehab folk will then go to work "teaching" them to share. And if we are as
skilled as I believe we are, these billionaires will soon be begging us to let
them share.
It's now 10:10 PM., and past my bed time. So I'll stop with the day dream and
take a tote or two on my "peace Pipe" and cuddle in and snuggle down for a
snooze
Carl Jarvis
On 5/17/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
Well of course, if there were a concerted effort to immediately switch
to clean energy, to rebuild roads and bridges, to extend the internet
to every corner of our land, to restructure our health care system,
there would be lots and lots of jobs. Think about all those jobs that
FDR created. The government was paying artists to paint and write
books. It was paying young people to work in the forests, and to
rebuild infrastructure. Our government could pay young people to go
to other lands and do what the Peace Corps did. I've been reading
articles about money. The government creates it. They created it to bail out
the banks. It's just a matter of priorities.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's
Permanent War
Miriam,
Sadly, there are many indicators pointing to a "secular end time" that
sounds like Armageddon.
And what troubles me is that there is no easy way to back out of this
rush to self destruction. Closing military facilities overseas and
bringing the troops home would put huge stress on our unemployment ,
not only with the addition of those displaced service persons, but by
the large number of civilians out placed through reduction in production of
military equipment.
The American Working Class would be hit with a depression that would
make the 30's look like a time of plenty. It is amazing to me, that
during war time we seem to never run out of money, but when we start
talking about rebuilding the American infrastructure, full funding of
our public education, single payer health insurance, free day care for
working parents, subsidized Elder Care, suddenly our congress can't
let loose of a single red cent.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/17/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vijay Prachad says that we are now being ruled by the military. He
cites the amount of money in the military budget versus the amount in
the budget of the State Department, and the fact that the first
appointments that Trump made, were of generals. He also calls the
Trump administration, the last administration.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's
Permanent War
The question is not, "Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War?"
The real question should be, "Could Trump do anything about the
Pentagon's permanent war, even if he wanted to?"
Presently the Pentagon rules at the pleasure of the 1% Billionaires.
A follow up question might be, "If the Ruling Class attempts to
direct the Pentagon in a direction the Pentagon does not want to go,
will the Pentagon simply take over control?"
History would indicate that when a Ruling Class depends upon a strong
military to hold onto control, the day comes when the military simply
takes over. Sadly, as seen by the coup in Egypt, the rank and file
citizen's lot is not improved. But it sure changes life for the
clique running the nation's military.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Will Trump Agree To the Pentagon's Permanent War By Gareth Porter,
www.middleeasteye.net May 14th, 2017
Photo: A US soldier mans a weapon at the tailgate aboard the
helicopter carrying US Defence Secretary James Mattis as he arrives
at Resolute Support headquarters in the Afghan capital Kabul on
April 24, 2017. (AFP)
If Trump approves expected proposals for the three countries, the US
ground combat role in the region will be extended for years to come
The two top national security officials in the Trump administration
- Secretary of Defence James Mattis and national security adviser HR
McMaster
- are trying to secure long-term US ground and air combat roles in
the three long-running wars in the greater Middle East -
Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Proposals for each of the three countries are still being developed,
and there is no consensus, even between Mattis and McMaster, on the
details of the plans. They will be submitted to Trump separately,
with the plan for Afghanistan coming sometime before a NATO summit
in Brussels on 25 May.
But if this power play succeeds in one or more of the three, it
could guarantee the extension of permanent US ground combat in the
greater Middle East for many years to come - and would represent a
culmination of the "generational war" first announced by the George
W Bush administration.
'Open-ended commitment'
It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump will approve
the proposals that Mattis and McMaster have pushed in recent weeks.
Judging from his position during the campaign and his recent
remarks, Trump may well baulk at the plans now being pushed by his advisers.
The plans for the three countries now being developed within the
Trump administration encompass long-term stationing of troops,
access to bases and the authority to wage war in these three countries.
These are the primordial interest of the Pentagon and the US
military leadership, and they have pursued those interests more
successfully in the Middle East than anywhere else on the globe.
US military officials aren't talking about "permanent" stationing of
troops and bases in these countries, referring instead to the
"open-ended commitment" of troops. But they clearly want precisely
that in all three.
Shifting timetables
The George W Bush administration and the Barack Obama administration
both denied officially that they sought "permanent bases" in Iraq
and Afghanistan, respectively. But the subtext in both cases told a
different story.
A Defense Department official testifying before Congress at the time
admitted that the term had no real meaning, because the Pentagon had
never defined it officially.
In fact, at the beginning of the negotiations with Iraq on the US
military presence in 2008, the US sought access to bases in Iraq
without any time limit. But the al-Maliki government rebuffed that
demand and the US was forced to agree to withdraw all combat forces
in a strict timetable.
In December 2011, US soldiers wave at their comrades as they cross
the border between Iraq and Kuwait on the last US military convoy
carrying troops from Iraq marking the end of the presence of US army
in Iraq
(AFP) In December 2011, US soldiers wave at their comrades as they
cross the border between Iraq and Kuwait on the last US military
convoy carrying troops from Iraq marking the end of the presence of
US army in Iraq (AFP)
Despite efforts by the Pentagon and the military brass, including
Gen David Petraeus, to get the Obama administration to renegotiate
the deal with the Iraqi government to allow tens of thousands of
combat troops to stay in the country, the Iraqis refused US demands
for immunity from prosecution in Iraq, and the US had to withdraw
all its troops.
Reversing withdrawals
Now the regional context has shifted dramatically in favour of the
US military's ambitions. On one hand, the war against Islamic State
(IS) is coming to a climax in both Iraq and Syria, and the Iraq
government recognises the need for more US troops to ensure that it
can't rise again; and in Syria, the division of the country into
zones of control that depend on foreign powers is an overriding fact.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, growing Taliban power and control across
the country is being cited as the rationale for a proposal to
reverse the withdrawals of US and NATO troops in recent years and to
allow a limited return by US forces to combat.
Now that Islamic State forces are being pushed out of Mosul, both
the Trump administration and the Iraqi government are beginning to
focus on how to ensure that the terrorists do not return.
They are now negotiating on an agreement that would station US
forces in Iraq indefinitely. And the troops would not be there
merely to defeat IS, but to carry out what the war bureaucracies
call "stabilisation operations"
- getting involved in building local political and military
institutions.
Plans for Syria
The question of what to do about Syria is apparently the subject of
in-fighting between Mattis and the Pentagon, on one hand, and
McMaster, on the other.
The initial plan for the defeat of IS in Syria, submitted to Trump
in February, called for an increase in the size of US ground forces
beyond the present level of 1,000.
As part of one plan, US ground troops would lead Sunni Arab troops
to destroy IS in Syria rather than relying on Kurdish forces to do
the job
But a group of officers who have worked closely with Gen Petraeus on
Iraq and Afghanistan, which includes McMaster, has been pushing a
much more ambitious plan, in which thousands - and perhaps many
thousands - of US ground troops would lead a coalition of Sunni Arab
troops to destroy Islamic State's forces in Syria rather than
relying on Kurdish forces to do the job.
Both the original plan and the one advanced by McMaster for Syria
would also involve US troops in "stabilisation operations" for many
years across a wide expanse of eastern Syria that would require
large numbers of troops for many years.
Both in its reliance on Sunni Arab allies and in its envisioning a
large US military zone of control in Syria, the plan bears striking
resemblance to the one developed for Hillary Clinton by the Center
for New American Security when she was viewed as the
president-in-waiting.
Reversing Obama's Afghanistan policy
The Pentagon proposal on Afghanistan, which had not been formally
submitted by Mattis as of this week, calls for increasing the
present level of 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan by 1,500 to 5,000,
both to train Afghan forces and to fight the Taliban. It also calls
for resuming full-scale US air strikes against the Taliban. Both
policy shifts would reverse decisions made by the Obama administration.
The US and NATO were not able to pressure the Taliban to negotiate
with the government even when they had more than 100,000 troops in
the country
Five past US commanders in Afghanistan, including Petraeus, have
publicly caIled for the US to commit itself to an "enduring
partnership" with the Afghan government. That means, according to
their joint statement, ending the practice of periodic reassessments
as the basis for determining whether the US should continue to be
involved militarily in the war, an idea that is likely part of the
package now being formulated by Mattis.
But the problem with such a plan is that the US military and its
Afghan client government have now been trying to suppress the
Taliban for 16 years.
The longer they have tried, the stronger the Taliban have become.
The US and NATO were not able to pressure the Taliban to negotiate
with the government even when they had more than 100,000 troops in
the country.
Committing the US to endless war in Afghanistan would only reinforce
the corruption, abuses of power and culture of impunity that Gen
Stanley A McChystal acknowledged in 2009 were the primary obstacles
to reducing support for the Taliban. Only the knowledge that the US
will let the Afghans themselves determine the country's future could
shock the political elite sufficiently to change its ways.
Most political and national security elites as well as the corporate
news media support the push to formalise a permanent US presence in
Afghanistan, despite the fact that national polls indicate that it
is the most unpopular war in US history with 80 percent of those
surveyed in a CNN poll in 2013 opposing its continuation.
Beltway brawl?
There are signs that Trump may reject at least the plans for
Afghanistan and Syria. Only days after his approval of the missile
strike on a Russian-Syrian airbase, Trump told Fox Business in an
interview, "We're not going into Syria."
And White House spokesman Sean Spicer seemed to suggest this week
that Trump was not enamoured with the plan to spend many more years
trying to "transform" Afghanistan. "There is a difference between
Afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat ISIS," Spicer said
Despite Trump's love for the military brass, the process of deciding
on the series of new initiatives aimed at committing the US more
deeply to three wars in the greater Middle East is bound to pose
conflicts between the political interests of the White House and the
institutional interests of the Pentagon and military leaders.
