Steve

I can't say I agree with an aggressive nationalized health care program that some Dems want to do. However, at least they are addressing the issue and want to tackle it. One of my main problems with the Republican party and one of many reasons I no longer support their candidates is that they would rather not even address health care costs. The only reason why they even address it in the elections is because its become one of the many issues. This Savings Account thingy they propose to do is doesn't even start to address the problem and won't come close to solve it. I read once that over 60% of all personal bankruptcies are health care costs related. They can't all be Democrats. So, it amazes that the Republican masses aren't pressing for ideas and answers to this. Cav, your proposition will NEVER happen. No need to say why, its obvious.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson -Bush Official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: "I am Willing to Testify" If Dick Cheney is Put on Trial Cheney will not face any sort of prosecution. That said, he's insignificant. He has no following or any of significance. Even Republicans will not publicly say they like or support Cheney and I suspect even privately. Cheney will be remembere in a bad light in American history, he has no positive legacy to leave to posterity. The scary thing about Cheney though is that he believes in his and the administrations actions with religious zealotry. That's what is scary about him. Someone so willing to forego the constitution and do what he thought was the right thing when it was so obviously the wrong thing. Cheney should be a lesson to all of us NOT to let that type of person and that type of thinking near any reigns of power again.

EVERY black conservative will be against Obama...or any Democrat. The media often things all blacks supports Obama. Even conservatie blacks because he's black. Its never been that way with conservative blacks. Maybe they got the idea from Powell who was being principled. He was not supporting Obama because he was black. He'd have come out as a Democrat if that's how he felt. Black conservatives have been speaking out about Jackson, Sharpton and black pols for years they just didn't get any notice. If someone accused most blacks of voting for Obama because he's black they'd be right. However, Republicans have also supported some blacks for the same reason and hence the hypocracy. Supreme court nominee Thomas was woefully unqualified at the time and I read an article at the time that Bush threw out all candidates that were't black because he wanted to replace Thurgood Marshall with a black conservative. The Republican party threw Alan Keyes into the race against Obama for senate because he was black. The previous Republican party chairman, Michael Steele, was elected to the post to put a black face on the party to counter Obama. He was thoroughly incompetent to run the national party. Its all BS. We need to get back to principles. Ideas.

HH, you don't want me to vote for Obama, right? If Paul won I'd vote for him. I'm not married to any party. The country is in too big of a mess I believe for any of us to be tied to a party. I don't like this any one but Obama thinking as well. You and I agree on his presidency. I don't think he's nearly as bad the right paints him. Basically he's blamed for not fixing a Republican made problem. If any one thinks the issue was fixable in 3 or 4 years, I have anohter bridge to sell with yours. We teetered on the edge of national insolvency. How its going to be fixed will take years. Much longer than even a 2 term president. The problem is we need a long term solution and since the white house changes hands every 4 to 8 years, nothing consistent can occur. Good ideas often aren't kept by a new president if he's from the other party. I didn't expect Obama to fix the problem but I expected him to get the ball rolling. Things haven't improved much but I don't think they are much worse either. Unemployment went up but the trend of it was going up when he took office. Economic forces can't be stopped, they often have to bottom out. Reagan on elected in '80 but the recession that was blamed on Carter got worse under Reagan initially and bottomed out in '82. Just about the time for relection things picked up in '84. The infrastructure focus by Obama is a great idea. It needs time though...and support. Which he either won't get from the Republicans or they'll be slow to offer it because they'll choose party over the country...again.

I don't know exactly what Romney will do. Frankly, I think no one has a clue because the mess is so big. This may be one of those kind of financial messes that will just have to work itself out. In the present state where both parties don't want to compromise nothing will get done. If Romney gets in office he will likely have both houses of Congress. I am worried if that happens. I simply have zero trust with Republicans with full power. Also, their social agenda. If Paul wins I'll be heartened but Paul won't have the backing of the Republicans because he's a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He scares Republicans more than Dems I think. There is no way the Republican brass wants Paul and even if he runs a strong 2nd he won't get a sniff as VP. Not sure he'd even take it. He won't stay quiet. I am glad he's getting up there though. If nothing else he asks the hard questions. He talks about and exposes the hypocracy. Even if you don't like him you have to respect that he has integrity. I hope he wins the nomination. I really do. It will shake things up.

Actually Flash, I don't know this guys ideology but conservative blacks have long criticized black Dems or left of center blacks or black activists. In the past it was Jesse and Rev Al and occasionally Maxine Waters and members of Congress. Obama being President its no surprise. Interesting thing is Rev Al was critical of Obama when he announced he was running. Its not in his best interest (nor Jesse's) to publicly attack him because they'd lose their constituents. Rev Al's and Jesse's beef is that he's not doing the 'blame the white man' thingy and not pushing for all kinds of programs specifically for blacks. Also, I think its Obama not providing a place for them at the table. Fact is Obama isn't liked by the black establishment. The Congressional Black Caucus did the unprecedented thing of backing Hillary for the '08 election. The 11th commandment of the CBC is thou shall always support a fellow member. Obama was always on the outside. He got elected in Chicago going against a long time black pol. Very few blacks of note supported him early. Jesse Jackson Jr ironically enough. Henry Louis Gates as well. The blacks in Congress, mayors, etc. across the country were firmly for Hillary. He's kept them all out of his administration and they pretty much have no more access to him than they did Bush. Obama is hated by the right and has a mutual dislike for black politicians on the left.

Thanks HH, well it should be brought back. I don't see how its unconstitutional and I am wary of ANY one who would fight it. It won't be the first time (nor the last) that I disagree with a Supreme Court decision. I accept it because its the law but I disagree with it. Did some googling of it. Byrd, Monyhan amongst 6 Senators who opposed it. Happens to be the ones getting a lot of pork as well. There is a good reason why one of the big FBI offices is based in West Virginia. The country needs it. If we're going to get out of the mess, we need a line item veto to cut pork. Bills should stand on their own merit instead of being added to something needed and accepted only because its attached to something significant. Its crazy if you really think about it.

The main thing I like about Paul is that he can't be bought off by special interest. I was shocked at how fast it took Obama to be bought off. The right is bought off and most of the left. People sometimes see the market go up and down when a certain president or program is adopted. We are under the impression that if the market goes up then that person is a good thing or that program is. Many times it means a bad thing for the general public. I actually expect the market to drop if Paul becomes President. Why? The gravy train is over. He can't be bought. They're gonna have to make money the old fashion way...earn it. Congress will still be bought off but Paul will expose them. I think what we need is a line item veto for the president. I think its insane we don't have one. Why can't the president and congress vote on one issue and not a package deal of totally disparate things and issues? We know why. Its how they get to spend money without us knowing about it.

HH, I forgot about Newt. He's a changed man I think as well. I don't think he'd have made a great President back in the '90s but I think he's changed over the years. I don't think he's as socially conservative as he was as well. He, Al Gore and even Bill Clinton are different people than they were in the '90s. Older, wiser and not as ideological tied to their '90s ideology (Clinton didn't really have an ideology I think though). You're right about Newt, he is more knowledgeable than Obama in terms of the issues. Although a college professor I wouldn't say he's intellectually smarter but he's not dumb either. I actually think he'd make a fairly good president and be willing to do some centrist or even left of center things but it won't happen for him. Bad memories of him from older voters on the left for one and the Republican brass won't back him. Right now HH, too many of the Republican field are into social issues. F*ck social issues. Its the economy. Gays marrying or in the military or stem cell research or Roe v. Wade isn't gonna create jobs. I used to support Republican candidates fairly often. Can't do it any more. The party has been hijacked by Tea Partiers and fundies. The Dems learned their lesson about putting up fringe left candidates years ago. Clinton and Obama are centrists. As much as the right tries to paint Obama as a leftie, he's a centrist. Look at his cabinet and appointments, some of them are Bush hold overs and he's still got the jail in Cuba and still in two wars in the middle east although one is winding down. The far left are mad at him which proves the point. Gays and immigration advocates on the left are disappointed in him.

Well said. My sentiments as well. Republicans will not go along with anything Obama does that makes sense even to them. Its all about conrol. No one can be against infrastructure spending but they'll find a way to mess his program up. Paul and I guess Huntsman (since he worked in the administration) won't be the vindictive political type of the Repub. field. As I said, I lost all my faith in the party after they backed a lot of destructive things (Patriots Act, the wars, etc.)

Maybe his strategy is using some sort of good 'ol boy charm but I'm not impressed with Perry's intellect. The job of President has expanded. You're a global leader. I don't see it in him. Romney seems fairy smart. Not exceptional but smart enough. Huntsman and Paul probably tops the list of candidates in candlestick power. I'm not buying the Obama has been a terrible president argument. He's not been good but I think the hyperbole out of the Republicans are just the fact that he's not their man and they lost big. Frankly, NO ONE could fix this economy in the 3 years. Its that bad. I think Obama should have focused on infrastructure to build jobs. However, that said, the Republicans wouldn't have done that. What we would have seen is the same old cut the top tax rate, cut capital gains and reduce regs and all it would have done is just made rich people richer. It would not have resulted in jobs. Again, companies are not hiring. Its not because they are over taxed and over regulated. They simply have no faith in the economy to hire. All Romney or Perry will do is make massive cuts in government. I agree there should be cuts in waste but cutting government is a religion to the conservatives right now and I think if they get in power they'll do a lot of harm with the good. I think social security, veterans, medicaid/medicare as well as other programs and people will be hurt by it. It will result in more unemployment and more people hurting and they will cut tax rates to the uppper tier and I fear will pass on the reduction to the middle classes through some increases in some area that will not be apparent. I used to buy the mantra but not any longer. I may be the first of the 'neo libs' (as opposed to neo cons...lol). I am partially joking. I do think government is too big. It should be cut but targeted. Across the board cuts in all areas as some Republicans want to do is unwise. It has to be targeted. I also see us getting more mired in oil at a time when we should be trying to ween ourselves off it. My problem in this election is I don't see Obama doing what needs to be done or just as important not able to because he will face a hostile congress as I expect Republicans to get more seats in both houses. I also have even less faith in Republicans.

The smart thing for the Republican nominee to do is to not go into specifics. Speak in platitudes. Sell themselves and focus on Obama's failures and negatives. Unfortunately that's how politics are and it would probably do well. No surprise Romney is gaining. Like '08 its an anti Obama vote than a Romney vote. However, it all comes down to Ohio I think for Obama. The polls I've seen have him losing to Romney in Florida for any chance he has to win Ohio. It still may not help if he loses Penna. Michigan and Wisconsin but as it stands now its Ohio for Obama. He has focus on that state, Penna. and Michigan for any chance.

So, let me understand this correctly. Our politician's stance on the foreign policy issue of Israel is based on votes/politics and not what is the best solution? Okay, got it.

The more Perry (as well as Bachman) makes statements such as those it pushes independents towards Obama. Obama would love to face Perry in the general election instead of Romney. Romney is the best bet...unless he does a 'Palin' and picks a running mate that takes away votes. Moderate and fiscal republicans like Paul but think he has no chance and some are a wee bit embarassed to publicly back him. Whom ever wins for the Republicans their nomination party will be much better than the Dems. Obama will give a great speech but the effect won't be the same. It will be seen as rhetoric by a lot of folks. The bad thing for him is its becoming 'his' economy and not Bush's any longer. Obama's big advantage is money and organization. Usually that's the advantage of the republicans. However, I don't think near as much people will join his campaign troops as did prior.

This may be a case of if the media repeats it often enough that Obama won't win then people will not vote for him who otherwise may have. Don't get me wrong, he's in a tough position but national polls still have him ahead of each candidate individually. Romney is a close call and interestingly enough Paul is the next to run best head to head against him. Better than Perry.

Congress gets whatever pay and benes it wants because they recommend their own package and even though the president signing off on it is a check, no president is gonna say no, espeially with many in his own party and he needs congress to pass his programs. Furthermore its congress that approves his pay and benes so its quid pro quo. What I would like to see is a change that congressional pay is provided by each state. There is probably some issue because they are 'federal' employees. I'm not sure if its rooted in any law. In any event whatever needs to happen to change their pay to be from their state is what i propose. It does mean that each congressperson will have different pay packages according to the state they are from but it least the people of that state can more directly reward or punish bad congresspersons according to how they see fit. The congressmean represents a district or the state so let them pay for it. With regards to the military retirement, there is plenty of money there. The defense budget is bloated. I read a few differnet articles a while back saying that anywhere from a trillion to 2 trillion has disappeared over the years without a trace in the defendse budget, so 100 billion is nothing. The money is there. Its just being wasted elsewhere. The money is there for better VA help as well.

There are far more black republicans amongst the middle and upper middle classes than there are in the lower ones. Which should be of no surprise. Black middle classes have adopted the ideology just like white middle classes has. Most blacks were hardened Republicans up till FDR. The first post civil war and reconstruction blacks in state and congressional houses were republican. FDR and specifically Eleanor Roosevelt who was a champion of civil rights, pretty much single handedly converted most blacks to the Democratic party. However, some remained in the Republican party. BB King is probably the most famous of blacks of those whose families never left the 'party of Lincoln'. I have an uncle from Oklahoma whose family have been Republican since Lincoln as well. Blacks will continue to vote over 90% for the party. The one person who might have changed that could have been Colin Powell, who despite being a Republican is very popular amongst blacks. I wouldn't count this article as any thing of a sign of a change. Bush and then Obama helped solidify blacks as dems. Repubilcans have tried to win over black at times but I think the party has written off blacks. Using social welfare as a wedge issue is proof of that. The 'face' of social welfare is black in people's minds, despite that more whites in terms of numbers (not percentage) are on wefare and despite corporate welfare costing more. I'm sure there are possibly more cases of people leaving the Republican party. The last election gives us some evidence of that. I personally lack faith in BOTH parties. Also, I've long heard it asked why blacks just hand over their votes to the democratic party, its the same with a few groups. Same could be said of white fundamentalists to the Republican party, gays to the Democrats. Republicans have a reputation for being 'anti-black. It may or may not be true but thats the Rep. Many blacks aren't happy with the state of social welfare and even when I was growing up with many neighbors on it, it was not seen as a positive thing despite what people believe. The ones who abused welfare in black neighborhoods are not liked by their neighbors, always was and still is. I've never heard it said its a good thing. Black churches have always preached the work hard, get an education angle and preachers have always preached to not rely on it for most. There are a few who most feel needs it in black neighborhoods and its usually the elderly. Single moms on it always had a stignma in black neighborhoods despite the belief by the larger society that its accepted in black neighborhoods. Even in the poorest neighborhoods most people work. Its a minority of people on welfare in poor neighborhoods despite the belief that most people are on it. The percentages change according to the neighborhood and in housing projects it was particularly high but by and large it was not everyone. It was a minority of people. There is always some residual anger by other blacks at the grocery store where you buy your hard earned groceries from a hard days work and the (usually) woman in front of you pulls out food stamps. There is also a stigma. You're lower on the social ladder. There is always an unsaid tension and feeling by the food stamp holder that people are looking down on her. Its always been that way. It was never socially accepted to be on it. No one wanted to be on it. Some of my friends were growing up and that as well as free lunch programs were always a social line of demarcatiion. You weren't good enough for the girl's or guy's family that weren't on it if you wanted to date them. However, its seen by many blacks that when Republicans discuss its used to anger whites against blacks to get votes and stir up racial animosity. We can debate if its true or not but that's the perception.

HH, how ya doing? Hope all is well. First I definitely agree that Obama was an anti Bush vote. I thought so at the time. I don't think there would be any way he would be elected for a myriad of reasons some obvious. That is not a crime in itself. Its what you do as President. A few presidents have been elected in times of upheaval. I would classify Reagan's victory as such. Staglfation, Iran hostage crisis, recession, etc. The country was wary of very conservative Republicans because of Nixon. Bush was a moderate and normally he'd have been elected if the country wasn't desparate for a complete change from Carter. Same circumstances for FDR as well. The country had over a decade of Republican control when he got elected. As for the big O being a centrist. He retained a few Bush appointees and appointed a few (Making the NY Fed gov. the Fed chief for example). Health care on a national level is no longer a liberal idea. Republicans have been forced to come up with some sort of health plan when they campaign because the people do not like the present system. National health care has been in the minds of America since Clinton. Its not as radica as it was 15 years ago. Expanding the fight in Afghanistan is centrist or right of center. Immigration program he has is centris or slightly left of center. Ending don't ask, don't tell was gonna happen at some point. It was outdated. I don't know of proposal he has that I woudl deem radical left. Maybe there is one. I don't think because he's dones so kicking and screaming either. I do see reasons not to vote for him. Very valid ones. The rub is who is the alternative? Will the eventual Republican nominee be a step forward, backward or no different?

HH 'ol buddy, I love ya but quit being wishy washy. How do you feel about Obama? His 'Hope and change' campaign was good to get elected but being as centrist as he was, it didn't translate in action. Centrism isn't hope and change. The government is so effed up that only radical changes can be 'hope and change'. There3 are some things both considerate far right and left that he could have done. Guantanamo is symbolic. Closing that would have done a lot. Many of us have talked about the airport screeners and Homeland Security. That would have been a great PR move at least. There are some governmental cutbacks he could have done. A conservative issue that would have let out some steam from the Tea Party folks. Health care should've been tackled later, 2nd term. Jobs should have been priority. Large infrastucture push to provide jobs should have been done with the same energy he put into health care.

I personally think Obama will lose Florida. Jewish voters were skittish about him originally anyway. Not to say this about all Jews but like many Blacks they have a hypersensitivity to Jewish/Israeli related issues. Just like how many blacks (as well as other groups, Native Americans, Latinos, Gays, Arsenal supporters ;-) are. With a moslem father, Hussein as his middle name and known divisions between American blacks and jews going back about 30 years, Jewish Americans were always going to be a tough sell for him. Younger jews, those under say 30, are an easier sell as they grew up in a different world, Older Jews, especially the retiree set in Florida were always wary of him. They trusted Hillary much much more. Therefore, I think Ohio is vital for Obama. Its going to be very very difficult to win without Florida and Ohio. I've always said I'm not happy with Obama's performance. I don't think its as bad as Republicans say (I'd expect that..lol...just like how Dems usually say a Republican is worse than he really was...Bush excepted). I used to support Repbulicans regularly, statewide and national. I've supported both. I've written more than a few posts how the first part of this decade pretty much ruined my support for the party as a whole. A few here and there I like. Ironcially (and strangely) enough Jeb Bush for example. I think the wrong brother became President. In this current field none of the leaders (Romney, Perry) has gotten me excited. The one or two I like (Paul, Huntsman) don't stand a chance and the fact that candidates like Bachman are even supported to the extent they do scares me. The Dems seemed to have dropped their fringe people a while back and have went centrist. As for our ME policy. Lets be real and frank. Our stance on Israel is partially based on Florida being a vital state for a candidate. The jewish vote in America is a huge part of our policy. Not many have the political will to fight that. I'm a zionist. I support the notion of a state for Israel. They may have become a state by means that aren't 'kosher' (pun intended) but we can't reverse history. They are here to stay. However, I do think we can be fair going forward and I do not agree with or support things Israel has done. I'd like to see us remove ourselves as arbiters between Israel and the Palestinians. We are not trusted or liked by both sides. Israeli prime ministers come to America and talk about us being such close allies but within Israel we are not as liked. We are seen by many as coddling the Palestinians. Its a no win situation. Let the UN or Europe or whomever be the main arbiters. We can help and support the process but not be the main ones. The rest of our ME policy is based on oil to some extent. Possibly a large extent. We have not learned lessons from the past for being an oil based economy. What I don't agree with Republicans about is trying to expand oil exploration, etc. Its led by the oil giants who own the party (as well as some Dems). Western thirst for oil has kept us politically and militarily involved in the region and its the source of our current terrorism issues. I've written a few posts on how to lesson our need for oil. We should be moving away from an oil based economy. This upcoming election is not exciting to me. I do wonder who will win the nomination for the Republicans and if Obama will lose. That is exciting in some ways but for me its one of those elections where I think the people will lose no matter who wins.

I read somewhere that the NY defeat was specifically a rejection of Obama's Irsaeli policy being a very large jewish population in that district. The '08 election saw long time Republican strongholds go Democratic. Not sure if any were held as long as this one though. In bad times you'll see changes such as these...and these are some pretty bad times.

Hey Robaus, thanks your post. I thought it was routinely accepted when any says 'the Saudis' they mean the ruling family and not the people. My apologies if it wasn't clear. Its generally accepted the people have no say, its the House of Saud that has the say. I'll use the House of Saud from now on. As to 911, bin Laden officially mentioned three motives I recall and one of them was the Palestinian/Israeli situation. The others being U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the embargo of Iraq. I've read that bin Laden's motivation for mentioning the Palestinian situation after 911 was to expand support in the arab world. His main reason for going after the west was when we had troops there for the gulf war. He went to the House of Saud with a plan that did not include non moslem troops and it was rejected. He then criticized the HoS (House of Saud) for this and then fell out with them. There was very little if any mention of the Palestinians from al Qaida at that time. I've always understood the '94 WTC bombing was motivated by U.S. troops in the region, specifially Saudi Arabia. 911 was believed to be mainly motivated by that and the other two reasons secodary. Not that he wasn't concerned about the Paletinians from an ideological perspective but they weren't an issue for him till after 911. He wanted to be part of the attack against Iraq in the gulf war, so he had no deep feelings in that regard. As far as know there hasn't been much if any mention of Israel prior. It could be they were a valid reason but its not what I gathered from all I read about his primary motives. wiki isn't the most reliable of sources but.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait under Saddam Hussein on August 2, 1990, put the Saudi kingdom and the House of Saud at risk, with Iraqi forces on the Saudi border and Saddam's appeal to pan-Arabism potentially inciting internal dissent. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Saudi Defense Minister Sultan, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi territory,[77] Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military. Bin Laden believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him. Shortly after Saudi Arabia invited U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, bin Laden turned his attention to attacks on the West. On November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al-Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed, discovering copious evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers. This marked the earliest discovery of al-Qaeda terrorist plans outside of Muslim countries.[78] Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and later admitted guilt for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York on November 5, 1990. Bin Laden continued to speak publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, for which the Saudis banished him. He went to live in exile in Sudan, in 1992, in a deal brokered by Ali Mohamed.[79] My guess is if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia and the region, we may not have much dealings with bin Laden. Maybe eventually, but my guess he would have concentrated on removing moslem leadership he didn't like, such as one of his early plots to assassinate Mubarak.

Government gone wild http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded

bin Laden's original beef wasn't Israel. He didn't care about the Palestinians and adopted their cause AFTER 911. Saudi Arabia hosts the two most holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. bin Laden and his followers at the time thought it was sacrilege to have non moslem troops stationed on holy soil. The Saudis wanted us there as well. Had we not been there the whole mess could have been avoided. Also, we didn't even learn after the '94 bombing of the world trade center. That was what it was about. We knew about the hijackers taking flying lessons and didn't investigate it thoroughly. We didn't need the Patriots Act or Homeland Security to stop the bombers and we didn't need it after. Its all bs. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul advocates but I agree with enough of it to want to give him a shot.

For more than 20 years, tech tycoon William H. Millard was one of the world's most elusive tax exiles, leaving financial footprints in Singapore, Ireland and other locales while racking up an unpaid tax bill of more than $100 million. The 79-year-old founder of the ComputerLand Corp. retail chain was last seen by tax authorities on the remote Pacific Island of Saipan, where he lived, in August 1990. A few years after selling his company, the man once listed as one of the richest people in America suddenly vanished. http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113483/william-h-millard-missing-ceo-reappers-after-20-years-wsj Its getting almost impossible to disappear and never heard from again. The reason is its almost impossible to go anywhere without leaving some sort of electronic footprint. Its gettting almost impossible to travel on fake passports with all the safeguards and biometrics and such. The off shore banks are now working with the American government. Not many safe bank havens any longer. Globalization, enhanced security due to the terror threat, etc. has it very hard. One can probably still disappear into the rural areas of se asia or south america but you'll have to live a somewhat simple, spartan life and carry your money with you.