Monday, February 3, 2014

The Art of The Steal

By, Chris Rossini

Lyndon Baines Johnson - White House Address - Jan. 15th 1964
“We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots' that need it so much.” (emphasis added)
Barack Obama - TV Ad - 2012
"I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs." (emphasis added)
Over the course of 50 years, the gang of thieves have polished their approach. They've perfected The Art of The Steal.

Chris Rossini is on TwitterFacebook & Google+


  1. " we can pay down our debt in a balanced way."

    The funny thing is, only the truly ignorant and math impaired could possibly believe that you can pay down the debt when you can't even come close to ending covering the annual budget deficit. Its mathematically impossible!

    1. No, they're talking about reducing the debt relative to GDP. The only measure the market cares about is debt to gdp. The nominal value of sovereign debt does not get reduced. Debt to GDP gets reduced when the national debt grows slower than nominal GDP. That's how inflation reduces the debt.

  2. 1) The US Constitution gives Congress the power to do that
    2) The policy was very popular with the voters. LBJ made the statement in Jan 64 and then won in a landslide in Nov 64. LBJ got 486 electoral votes, Goldwater got 52.

    Does that make it right? Yes, it certainly does.

    During LBJ's second term, private payrolls grew 3.6%/year, real GDP grew 5.1%/year and inflation was 3.3%/year.

    1. Popularity makes right? But of course you think that "it certainly does", just like many children do.

      You have a problem also with the great "US Constitution". It was merely assumed---but never demonstrated---that the clause of Article VII was lawful for its ostensible purpose prior to "Establishment". But how could A7 state the law about establishment before establishment of the other six articles? The presumption of lawfulness is obvious, and, as I've already noted, no one has shown that the clause of A7 was established as law separately from the Constitution, as it must be before anyone can invoke it licitly. So the "US Constitution" is a hoax, and it's probable that all of the secessionist former colonies as of 1787 had constitutions with basically the same fatal defect.

      Another problem for "democratic" collectivists is the impossibility of establishing "democracy" by voting. Attempting to do so presupposes what is at issue, namely, the existence of a democracy, prior to holding the critical popularity contest.

      Finally, your remarks about "private payrolls" are red herrings which trade on your suggestion that correlation implies causation.

    2. Wow. Jerry Wolfgang = Logical FAIL.

  3. "Asking the wealthy to pay a little more"

    Rest assured that the IRS will not simply "ask" the wealthy to pay anything. They will be compelled to pay or else face fines, penalties, and/or imprisonment.

  4. the plutocrats steal all day long...and everyone worships them.............

    Stewart Glorifies Dimon’s Plunder

    Do not think for a moment that Stewart is so na├»ve as to believe that any JPMorgan board member with a nanogram of “common sense” or integrity would (a) not have demanded Dimon’s resignation years ago, (b) would give Dimon a raise for leading a bank that committed the most epic financial crime spree in world history, and (c) would regret only that he lacked the courage to give Dimon an even larger raise.

    Stewart’s tale tells us what everyone knows – Dimon, like all dominant CEOs after his initial selections, picks his board. He picks them for loyalty and for their identification with his interests. That last point means that they love to ratchet up the income of fellow Plutocrats. Their executive compensation firm (and everyone knows what reputation gets an executive compensation firm selected by CEOs) will use Dimon’s raise to justify other CEOs’ raises in “the great circle of life” for plutocrats. Stewart admits that he knows about this disgusting “back scratching” compensation dynamic.

    Modern executive compensation was a leading creator of the criminogenic environment that produced the epidemics of accounting control fraud that destroyed the global financial system (until it was resuscitated by trillions of dollars that the Fed and the Treasury “carpet bombed” Wall Street with in 1989). Stewart has direct knowledge of how accounting control frauds use modern executive compensation and friendly boards of directors to create fictional income and loot the firm. He now claims that the eagerness of JPM’s board to make Dimon even wealthier represents financial “sophistication” on the part of JPM’s board rather than one of the most depraved and destructive dynamics in finance.

    Stewart’s final phase of his career has reduced him to the status of yet another writer that “glorifies” the plutocrats’ plundering of the public. He thinks that is a “common sense” approach to the world.