Hillary Clinton signed the UN Small Arms Treaty on behalf of President Obama, but what does it really mean. The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action.
But there is an ever more stunning element to consider, the US government for example has caused more deaths than rebels. In Iraq alone the American Military has caused the death of at least 655,000 civilians; In Afghanistan in excess of 5,000; In Vietnam 316,000; and the Second World War, 45,000,000;
A vowed purpose of the UN Treaty; According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine the alleged” illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan whether or not based on a valid concept would of necessity lead to confiscation of personal firearms.
But what about the safeguards against confiscation embedded in the US Constitution?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution had a devout purpose; it was passed at a time when the new nation had an inherent distrust of government. This single Amendment was added to insure that the Federal Government, instituted for the colonies, would remain limited and as an assurance for the people that they would remain free. Weapons in the form of arms were the means allocated for that purpose.
Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been forces at work behind the scenes, intent to take control of America, however before they can achieve this monumental goal they had to eliminate what has been described as the most important safeguard for America, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This right has been under attack for scores of generations.
This UN Treaty signed now by the US represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, it mischaracterizes all insurgencies as bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. Our founding fathers were insurgents, and they laid the foundation and framework for what remains of our democracy.
That threat, the ability to over throw despotic governments, is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorsed gun control. Without weapons, the citizens become slaves to a government master, this is not what America stands for, but it is a road we transverse today.
Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, this amounts to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to their citizens than their neighbors.
The problem and real concern: American gun owners today are besieged by a government that fears for its own existence. Hillary Clinton on Behalf of President Obama signed the UN Small arms treaty, believing that the treaty effectively placed the right to keep and bear arms outside of the protective gambit of the second Amendments sweeping protection. Their view is historically invalid. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution.
The Constitution provides that they are "the supreme law of the land." That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give treaties the same status as federal law, not as the constitution.
Treaties are made under powers delegated to the President and Congress by the Constitution, such powers cannot overrule the Constitution from where that power emanates.
That is as long as we have a valid court system, which unfortunately has been placed in question by the Bush appointees.
See: Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 253 (1829), a treaty must "be regarded in courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) No treaty "can confer power on the Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." page 16
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Congress gives themselves a raise while denying one for SS recipients.
Congress and a double Standard:
It appears that congress is still stuck in that childhood ego, the ME syndrome. They make sure to take care of themselves in more ways than one, but as for the rest of us, it appears we are mere peasants, or as the attitude permeates around Washington, “let them eat cake” So it’s little wonder congress has an overall rating of only 22%, and the majority of Americans want to remove the existing congress of and start anew next term. Both the republicans and democrats have one agenda, it’s called the ME agenda, ME first, and it’s all about ME, a syndrome that most of us outgrow with age, but unfortunately politicians never seem to grow up.
The base salary for US Congressmen is $174,000 plus benefits, plus official expenses (such as for staff, travel, office equipment supplies, totaling around $1.5 million per year
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2010)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500 (Nancy Pelosi)
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. They accepted it!
There is no reason they are paid any sum in excess of the $3,000 they were paid in 1855, they receive much more from speaking engagements, and outright graft.
It seems the more they are paid the worst they become as legislatures.
A backlash appears to be growing all across the country. But it is not based on their attitude about us their constituents. Instead it is a broad based dissent about the Democratic Party, which has given the impression of a wishy washy party, that even though they held control over both houses they were still unable to get their act together, that is except to give themselves more money.
Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 13. That ties the GOP's largest ever lead, first reached in April, since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their own party, the plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate, while 19% like the Democrat. These findings have remained fairly consistent for months now.
However what would be best for the country; remove them all and start over.
It appears that congress is still stuck in that childhood ego, the ME syndrome. They make sure to take care of themselves in more ways than one, but as for the rest of us, it appears we are mere peasants, or as the attitude permeates around Washington, “let them eat cake” So it’s little wonder congress has an overall rating of only 22%, and the majority of Americans want to remove the existing congress of and start anew next term. Both the republicans and democrats have one agenda, it’s called the ME agenda, ME first, and it’s all about ME, a syndrome that most of us outgrow with age, but unfortunately politicians never seem to grow up.
The base salary for US Congressmen is $174,000 plus benefits, plus official expenses (such as for staff, travel, office equipment supplies, totaling around $1.5 million per year
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
- Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.
- In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
- During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
- From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2010)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500 (Nancy Pelosi)
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. They accepted it!
There is no reason they are paid any sum in excess of the $3,000 they were paid in 1855, they receive much more from speaking engagements, and outright graft.
It seems the more they are paid the worst they become as legislatures.
A backlash appears to be growing all across the country. But it is not based on their attitude about us their constituents. Instead it is a broad based dissent about the Democratic Party, which has given the impression of a wishy washy party, that even though they held control over both houses they were still unable to get their act together, that is except to give themselves more money.
Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 13. That ties the GOP's largest ever lead, first reached in April, since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their own party, the plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate, while 19% like the Democrat. These findings have remained fairly consistent for months now.
However what would be best for the country; remove them all and start over.
Monday, June 14, 2010
“The New Trend: Default On Your Mortgage And Stay In Your House”
I read Reuters Blogger Felix Salmon’s article entitled “The New Trend: Default On Your Mortgage And Stay In Your House” my comments follow!
I was truly amazed at the comments from his readers who simply don’t get it, and it is frightening to say the least about the level of unawareness that prevails among our culture.
As I stated in a similar article: “Living rent free and loving it”
“The Obama administration was more intent to save the banks, and did so against the very interest of the American family. Why do I say this, the government came to the rescue of the very culprit that caused the problem, (the Banks) with an astonishing $787 bn., and the insurance carrier that was allowing the foreclosures to continue, AIG with an additional $180bn.
“AIG was the guarantor of the Derivatives that paid the banks when a borrower defaulted. By providing AIG some 180 Billion dollars, the government not only allowed the banks to continue foreclosing on American borrowers, but promoted it, because when a default was reported to AIG, they paid the full amount of the loss, thanks to Timothy Geithner. If AIG would have been allowed to collapse, or paid to Wall Street insiders 25 cents on the dollar there would have been NO incentive to foreclose in the volume the banks pursued.
“Now another scenario presents itself in retrospect, the main problem facing borrowers today is the high interest rates, and over valuations of their property. In short most borrowers are under water, in some areas, like Nevada, this state of mortgage reality is as much as 80%. If the administration and indeed congress gave a rats hair about America rather that their beneficiaries, they would have made the money available to borrowers to pay to the banks for a loan modification and principal reduction. If they had Washington Mutual would still be around, as would Indymac. What congress in their ignorance have done, is to guarantee that the too big to fail got even larger.
“But they didn’t have the American public’s interest on their mind did they? And bank failures and consolidation is ongoing. If they had both the Banks and the public interest on their compass they would have been bailed out simultaneously, and then there would have been no depression. A much lower level of foreclosures, and sanity would have prevailed.
“As it now stands, millions of homes have already been foreclosed and millions more are waiting in the wings, the unemployment level is a real 63million representing 40% of the workforce. The economy is trudging along on one foot as those who have stopped making mortgage payments are actually, bless them, spending their money buying things they had put off to make instead their overpriced mortgage, and 30,000 good people are filing bankruptcy each and every week.
Now something to think about: what value did America have invested in Wall Street? And what advantage did America receive from Wall Street being bailed out for a second time?
And everyone knows it will happen again!”
Anyone who really believes that the public was wrong and the banks were the good guys, should read all the information that has been developed about the Banks and the FRAUD they perpetuated on an “unsuspecting” Public, the banks knew these loans would never be repaid, and they didn’t care as they sold these loans as securities and took out default insurance, think “CDS” consumers basically uneducated to the intricate mortgage loan documents relied on their bank or mortgage company, and a lot of seniors also did. And they were conned!
Countrywide and several other banks have already been sued by the Attorneys General of several states over “Fraudulent intent” and they are making modifications with principal reductions under court orders.
The Banks failed to explain the ramifications on such loans as option arms where the borrower only qualified for a payment less than his interest and the difference was added back increasing the principal of the loan. The Banks didn’t care as they planned this bubble to continue indefinitely and were looking already to a refinance where they made additional points.
For those who still side with the banks, try studying the history of banking, it has always been laden with unscrupulous individuals; perhaps it will enlighten you, or perhaps not!
I was truly amazed at the comments from his readers who simply don’t get it, and it is frightening to say the least about the level of unawareness that prevails among our culture.
As I stated in a similar article: “Living rent free and loving it”
“The Obama administration was more intent to save the banks, and did so against the very interest of the American family. Why do I say this, the government came to the rescue of the very culprit that caused the problem, (the Banks) with an astonishing $787 bn., and the insurance carrier that was allowing the foreclosures to continue, AIG with an additional $180bn.
“AIG was the guarantor of the Derivatives that paid the banks when a borrower defaulted. By providing AIG some 180 Billion dollars, the government not only allowed the banks to continue foreclosing on American borrowers, but promoted it, because when a default was reported to AIG, they paid the full amount of the loss, thanks to Timothy Geithner. If AIG would have been allowed to collapse, or paid to Wall Street insiders 25 cents on the dollar there would have been NO incentive to foreclose in the volume the banks pursued.
“Now another scenario presents itself in retrospect, the main problem facing borrowers today is the high interest rates, and over valuations of their property. In short most borrowers are under water, in some areas, like Nevada, this state of mortgage reality is as much as 80%. If the administration and indeed congress gave a rats hair about America rather that their beneficiaries, they would have made the money available to borrowers to pay to the banks for a loan modification and principal reduction. If they had Washington Mutual would still be around, as would Indymac. What congress in their ignorance have done, is to guarantee that the too big to fail got even larger.
“But they didn’t have the American public’s interest on their mind did they? And bank failures and consolidation is ongoing. If they had both the Banks and the public interest on their compass they would have been bailed out simultaneously, and then there would have been no depression. A much lower level of foreclosures, and sanity would have prevailed.
“As it now stands, millions of homes have already been foreclosed and millions more are waiting in the wings, the unemployment level is a real 63million representing 40% of the workforce. The economy is trudging along on one foot as those who have stopped making mortgage payments are actually, bless them, spending their money buying things they had put off to make instead their overpriced mortgage, and 30,000 good people are filing bankruptcy each and every week.
Now something to think about: what value did America have invested in Wall Street? And what advantage did America receive from Wall Street being bailed out for a second time?
And everyone knows it will happen again!”
Anyone who really believes that the public was wrong and the banks were the good guys, should read all the information that has been developed about the Banks and the FRAUD they perpetuated on an “unsuspecting” Public, the banks knew these loans would never be repaid, and they didn’t care as they sold these loans as securities and took out default insurance, think “CDS” consumers basically uneducated to the intricate mortgage loan documents relied on their bank or mortgage company, and a lot of seniors also did. And they were conned!
Countrywide and several other banks have already been sued by the Attorneys General of several states over “Fraudulent intent” and they are making modifications with principal reductions under court orders.
The Banks failed to explain the ramifications on such loans as option arms where the borrower only qualified for a payment less than his interest and the difference was added back increasing the principal of the loan. The Banks didn’t care as they planned this bubble to continue indefinitely and were looking already to a refinance where they made additional points.
For those who still side with the banks, try studying the history of banking, it has always been laden with unscrupulous individuals; perhaps it will enlighten you, or perhaps not!
Phil Angelides
Phil Angelides, crisis commission investigation, is centered on the cause of the financial crisis but in simple terms it boils down to one word “GREED”
Phil Angelides, chairs the panel, that opened the hearing into the credit rating agencies shortcomings, his first comments were critical of Moody's for bestowing thousands of high ratings on risky debt that later became unhinged.
The shortcomings of the Wall Street insiders and the rating agencies come down to this simply but understated term, Profits. Ratings were hyped in order to meet Wall Street’s primary motivation and objective, profits and more profits. Investors were the catalyst by which those profits were obtained and as such ratings had to be exploited to draw them in.
But unfortunately Greed is not legislate-able, nor is it a crime unless it involves fraud, and in the case of the financial crisis fraud may have been a big participant.
Eric Kolchinsky one time manager of Moody's Investors Service unit, the division that rated subprime collateralized debt obligations (CDO) is now a "whistleblower" he has testified about being intimidated by management to provide high ratings for these inferior debt obligations. In a prepared comment, former Moody's derivatives vice president Mark Froeba supporting Kolchinsky, said “management used intimidation to create a docile population of analysts afraid to upset investment bankers and ready to cooperate to the maximum extent possible."
Moody's Corp, McGraw-Hill Cos' Standard & Poor's and Fimalac SA's Fitch Ratings have been widely faulted for fueling the crisis by assigning unreasonably high ratings for too long, and then downgrading them too fast. The commission is looking into just how close to the Investment banks these ratings agencies really were.
There have been several class action lawsuits filed against the rating agencies over the financial collapse and their roll in investor related losses. Credit raters are now trying to fend off lawsuits including fraud claims brought by their own shareholders.
Many financial companies, including banks and lenders, have been sued following the housing market bust; but the cases against ratings agencies may be among the most closely watched.
That's because the three biggest agencies Moody's Corp , McGraw-Hill Cos Inc's Standard & Poor's division and Fitch Ratings, part of Fimalac SA, have drawn fire from politicians and investors for awarding top marks to subprime-linked securities that later disintegrated. They've also been criticized as being too close to issuers who foot the bill for their ratings.
Phil Angelides, chairs the panel, that opened the hearing into the credit rating agencies shortcomings, his first comments were critical of Moody's for bestowing thousands of high ratings on risky debt that later became unhinged.
The shortcomings of the Wall Street insiders and the rating agencies come down to this simply but understated term, Profits. Ratings were hyped in order to meet Wall Street’s primary motivation and objective, profits and more profits. Investors were the catalyst by which those profits were obtained and as such ratings had to be exploited to draw them in.
But unfortunately Greed is not legislate-able, nor is it a crime unless it involves fraud, and in the case of the financial crisis fraud may have been a big participant.
Eric Kolchinsky one time manager of Moody's Investors Service unit, the division that rated subprime collateralized debt obligations (CDO) is now a "whistleblower" he has testified about being intimidated by management to provide high ratings for these inferior debt obligations. In a prepared comment, former Moody's derivatives vice president Mark Froeba supporting Kolchinsky, said “management used intimidation to create a docile population of analysts afraid to upset investment bankers and ready to cooperate to the maximum extent possible."
Moody's Corp, McGraw-Hill Cos' Standard & Poor's and Fimalac SA's Fitch Ratings have been widely faulted for fueling the crisis by assigning unreasonably high ratings for too long, and then downgrading them too fast. The commission is looking into just how close to the Investment banks these ratings agencies really were.
There have been several class action lawsuits filed against the rating agencies over the financial collapse and their roll in investor related losses. Credit raters are now trying to fend off lawsuits including fraud claims brought by their own shareholders.
Many financial companies, including banks and lenders, have been sued following the housing market bust; but the cases against ratings agencies may be among the most closely watched.
That's because the three biggest agencies Moody's Corp , McGraw-Hill Cos Inc's Standard & Poor's division and Fitch Ratings, part of Fimalac SA, have drawn fire from politicians and investors for awarding top marks to subprime-linked securities that later disintegrated. They've also been criticized as being too close to issuers who foot the bill for their ratings.
Politicians and Bribery, go hand in hand
Arizona : In 1991 a scandal resulting from the government sting known as AzScam exposed the sewer of corruption and blind ambition that remains Arizona politics even today, but its not just Arizona , this sewer of corruption and blind ambition is part and parcel of the American political system; it’s really how Washington works at its best.
Joseph Stedino working with the Phoenix District Attorney's office set up Operation "Desert Sting." Stedino, an ex-Mafia crony and Las Vegas talk show host, became Tony Vincent, a flashy, free spending Mafia capo looking to ensure the passage of a bill to legalize gambling in Arizona . As word of Vincent's willingness to buy votes spread among Arizona politicians, they eagerly lined up to have him grease their palms. Some he bought for as little as $600. Others, like Representative Don Kenney, the conservative Mormon chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, exacted over $50,000 in bribes. Over seventeen months, Vincent doled out a total of more than $300,000 in bribes, while police and prosecutors recorded it all on tape, ensuring that this sting would be one of the most successful ever.
Ultimately, twenty legislators, lobbyists, and political insiders would be indicted as a result of Desert Sting.
But what did they do that was so different than what goes on every day in Washington ?
Capital Hill: In 2007 and 2008, charges were filed against several well-connected Washington D.C. lobbyists, including counts of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, most of them related to work performed for Native American-owned casinos.
In the center of the scandal were former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues. Former Ohio Republican congressman Robert W. Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison for receiving gifts in exchange for deals with Abramoff.
Lobbying is a form of bribery that is promoted by the US Congress, this form of selling their votes is to obtain financial support, it goes on every day yet we don’t complain or insist it stop.
It’s called K Street : a line of sparkling office blocks and fancy restaurants north of the White House. It is the heart of the lobbying industry in Washington DC , servicing clients and politicians from all over America and one of the most powerful stretches of tarmac in the world.
It also might be said to be one of the most corrupt: how corrupt was revealed when the Abramoff scandal exploded through the halls of power exposing the ugly role of lobbying in US politics and threatened to bring down some of the biggest names in public life.
The Abramoff scandal had put a rare spotlight on the entire lobbying system and some of the most powerful men in Washington began running for cover. They stretched from President George Bush himself, to top Republican officials, to the heads of think tanks, to senior congressmen from both parties.
Some, including Bush, began giving back money they got from him or donating it to charity. It was a far cry from when Abramoff would wine and dine clients at top restaurants, take them on golfing trips to Scotland or give them tickets to sporting events.
But the fact remains that Abramoff was one man. The real story is that he represents how much of Washington works. That system is fuelled by two things: money and lobbyists, and they are both related. 'Make no mistake: Abramoff was a crook. But crooks like Abramoff can only flourish in an environment where lobbyists and their clients offer lawmakers campaign contributions and gifts,' There are over 30,000 Lobbyists in Washington they outnumber federal elected officials 60 to one. And their money is still sough after daily.
Selling votes is how Washington works, it’s always that back room deal, a hand shake and a roll of bills wrapped with a rubber band. This is the reason America has been for sale, and is often sold cheaper that we would believe, sometime its just an apartment with free rent, or tickets to a ball game, or financial support for an office, but there is always that expectation that the money or trip or tickets just bought that individual. And that expectation has always been warranted.
Joseph Stedino working with the Phoenix District Attorney's office set up Operation "Desert Sting." Stedino, an ex-Mafia crony and Las Vegas talk show host, became Tony Vincent, a flashy, free spending Mafia capo looking to ensure the passage of a bill to legalize gambling in Arizona . As word of Vincent's willingness to buy votes spread among Arizona politicians, they eagerly lined up to have him grease their palms. Some he bought for as little as $600. Others, like Representative Don Kenney, the conservative Mormon chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, exacted over $50,000 in bribes. Over seventeen months, Vincent doled out a total of more than $300,000 in bribes, while police and prosecutors recorded it all on tape, ensuring that this sting would be one of the most successful ever.
Ultimately, twenty legislators, lobbyists, and political insiders would be indicted as a result of Desert Sting.
But what did they do that was so different than what goes on every day in Washington ?
Capital Hill: In 2007 and 2008, charges were filed against several well-connected Washington D.C. lobbyists, including counts of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, most of them related to work performed for Native American-owned casinos.
In the center of the scandal were former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues. Former Ohio Republican congressman Robert W. Ney was sentenced to 30 months in prison for receiving gifts in exchange for deals with Abramoff.
Lobbying is a form of bribery that is promoted by the US Congress, this form of selling their votes is to obtain financial support, it goes on every day yet we don’t complain or insist it stop.
It’s called K Street : a line of sparkling office blocks and fancy restaurants north of the White House. It is the heart of the lobbying industry in Washington DC , servicing clients and politicians from all over America and one of the most powerful stretches of tarmac in the world.
It also might be said to be one of the most corrupt: how corrupt was revealed when the Abramoff scandal exploded through the halls of power exposing the ugly role of lobbying in US politics and threatened to bring down some of the biggest names in public life.
The Abramoff scandal had put a rare spotlight on the entire lobbying system and some of the most powerful men in Washington began running for cover. They stretched from President George Bush himself, to top Republican officials, to the heads of think tanks, to senior congressmen from both parties.
Some, including Bush, began giving back money they got from him or donating it to charity. It was a far cry from when Abramoff would wine and dine clients at top restaurants, take them on golfing trips to Scotland or give them tickets to sporting events.
But the fact remains that Abramoff was one man. The real story is that he represents how much of Washington works. That system is fuelled by two things: money and lobbyists, and they are both related. 'Make no mistake: Abramoff was a crook. But crooks like Abramoff can only flourish in an environment where lobbyists and their clients offer lawmakers campaign contributions and gifts,' There are over 30,000 Lobbyists in Washington they outnumber federal elected officials 60 to one. And their money is still sough after daily.
Selling votes is how Washington works, it’s always that back room deal, a hand shake and a roll of bills wrapped with a rubber band. This is the reason America has been for sale, and is often sold cheaper that we would believe, sometime its just an apartment with free rent, or tickets to a ball game, or financial support for an office, but there is always that expectation that the money or trip or tickets just bought that individual. And that expectation has always been warranted.
Economics 101 why America can’t get out of this depression
Economists are touting the great strides consumers are making in paying down their debt, but in prompting this illusion they have tuned to the wrong channel.
The real reason many Americans’ went into debt was because their wages didn't keep up with the costs of goods and services. The median wage (adjusted for inflation) dropped between 2001 and 2007, the last purported economic expansion. And that was one of the primary reasons America began borrowing the equity out of their homes, in many cases it was to be able to make the payments and retain some semblance of a purchasing power.
A recession had already begun in 2000, and by September 11, the economy came to an abrupt stand still. What brought us out of that bog was the ability to draw on our own assets. That is what actually maintained the appearance of a robust economy, but that was an appearance only!
As the bubble began to burst, most of the borrowers; that class between poverty and abundance all but threw in the towel
The common wisdom today among Wall Street’s elite is that excessive debt-financed spending was one of the causes of the recent recession; to the contrary, that was what brought America out of the last recession. It was when the ability of borrowers to refinance their assets in order to maintain the economy fell apart that we dropped right back into the fan.
So now Americans out of work and living with much less income from working fewer hours have no choice but to cut back their debt load and perhaps this is why millions have either stopping making their mortgage payments, and in some cases actually filed for bankruptcy.
Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. Since consumers had until the financial collapse traditionally lived with their credit cards outstretched, it helps explain why so few jobs are being created, aside from the fact that everything has been outsourced; and it explains why we can't escape the gravitational pull of this Depression without far more government spending. However should government continue to spend like a drunken sailor it will inevitable crush the US economy even further, it seems to be an impasse we are disaster-prone either way we go.
It's also a bad prophecy for the future.
The real reason many Americans’ went into debt was because their wages didn't keep up with the costs of goods and services. The median wage (adjusted for inflation) dropped between 2001 and 2007, the last purported economic expansion. And that was one of the primary reasons America began borrowing the equity out of their homes, in many cases it was to be able to make the payments and retain some semblance of a purchasing power.
A recession had already begun in 2000, and by September 11, the economy came to an abrupt stand still. What brought us out of that bog was the ability to draw on our own assets. That is what actually maintained the appearance of a robust economy, but that was an appearance only!
As the bubble began to burst, most of the borrowers; that class between poverty and abundance all but threw in the towel
The common wisdom today among Wall Street’s elite is that excessive debt-financed spending was one of the causes of the recent recession; to the contrary, that was what brought America out of the last recession. It was when the ability of borrowers to refinance their assets in order to maintain the economy fell apart that we dropped right back into the fan.
So now Americans out of work and living with much less income from working fewer hours have no choice but to cut back their debt load and perhaps this is why millions have either stopping making their mortgage payments, and in some cases actually filed for bankruptcy.
Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. Since consumers had until the financial collapse traditionally lived with their credit cards outstretched, it helps explain why so few jobs are being created, aside from the fact that everything has been outsourced; and it explains why we can't escape the gravitational pull of this Depression without far more government spending. However should government continue to spend like a drunken sailor it will inevitable crush the US economy even further, it seems to be an impasse we are disaster-prone either way we go.
It's also a bad prophecy for the future.
Friday, June 11, 2010
BP, the CIA, Whistle Blowers, the Alaska Pipeline, and political payoffs, make for a toxic mix.
BP who was involved in the free rent for political elitist Rahm Emanuel, has a history of “negligence” which is now primed to cause more than the deepwater horizon catastrophe, it has expanded to the Alaska pipeline, again!
BP owns the controlling interest in the trans-Alaska pipeline, and Tuesday it ruptured spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude. Now this is leaving us to wonder which one of BP’s projects will be next. The pipe was not properly maintained by BP, and there could be other fractured areas from the over 1000 miles the pipe line stretches also stressed and primed to burst.
As it now turns out, BP’s management of the trans-Alaska pipeline is more illusionary than real. It's corroded, it's undermanned and "basic maintenance" is completely lacking.
BP’s claim to fame has been to through money at politicians, and to use coercive tactics to intimidate anyone who would blow the whistle on what can only be characterized as the intentional mismanagement of their sites. Rather than actually maintain the sites, they have apparently skimped on expensive hardware, and failed to hire or pay for adequate supervision, all part of a company bottom line at the expense of us.
Most are afraid to cross swords with BP, who has a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who attempt to warn of pipeline problems.
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
On August 6 2006 questions were then raised about BP and the Alaska pipeline, and their skimping on the necessary additives.
“Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?” until the shutdown, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in northern Alaska produced 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Once it was shut the price of oil surged three percent. However the real issue may be are they merely skimping to save money for their bottom line or is there something more sinister going on?
Once shut down, North America’s largest oilfield remained shut for several months. BP closed the oilfield “allegedly” after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions were then raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded as longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel stated that BP had been warned and ignored those warnings.
It began even prior to 2004 but in 2004 Chuck Hamel warned BP about corrosion problems.
In 2004 he wrote a letter to the BP Board of Directors that said workers at Prudhoe Bay were concerned about safety, health and threats to the environment at the oilfield. Hamel wrote that the workers "seek to see the corrosion problem addressed and corrective action undertaken without further delay and before any of their colleagues at Prudhoe are harmed."
Since 1999 Hamel had been tracking the corrosion control program by BP for the thousands of miles of flow line that BP had. He found that they have been cutting corners, budget problems. And the first document that came to his hands from the workers was in 1999, that they were not injecting the sufficient amount of chemical inhibitors to prevent the rusting.
The pipeline is like a radiator in your car. You have to add antifreeze which has chemical components that prevent rusting. Just picture part of the months of the year you switch over to plain water. Your radiator’s going to rust. It’s not very complicated. There’s so much water in the system in the Alaska field that comes out of the ground formation with the oil and along the way it rusts the pipes unless anti corrosives are added.
BP has had a long-running series of problems, had been fined on several occasions, some very large fines for failing to properly keep up its lines, so why have we allowed them to continue in control? Who has been paid what? These are fundamental questions that lay at the doorstep of congress.
BP engineers, and BP corrosion experts, have left the company because they wouldn’t participate in BP’s look the other way corrosion program, and now we have to deal with the mess they have created.
Everyone who didn’t want to be part of it, those that didn’t, were independently coming to Hamel—he was their outlet—anonymous complaints were made through him, back to the company, and when BP didn’t do the right thing, he went public.
Chuck Hamel has had a long history watching BP, over, more than 15 years. In fact, he settled a case with BP, when they hired Wackenhut to investigate and discredit him
BP, engaged the Wackenhut Security Company, and five undercover women, and men, for surveillance of Hamel and his wife, they tried to discredit him, hidden cameras were placed in hotel rooms. Eventually all five of the ladies realized that he wasn’t the bad person BP tried to make him out to be, and they all came over to his side. 60 Minutes in a segment called them "Chucky’s Angels." When BP was discovered, they attacked him. $18 million invested by BP to destroy his credibility, including a van parked in front of his home, picking up phones conversations, and they even picked up his trash.
This was not an isolated case. Captain James Woodle, once in charge of the pipe's Valdez terminus, was blackmailed into resigning the post when he complained of disastrous conditions there. The weapon on Woodle was a file of faked evidence of marital infidelity.
And this is a company that is close to the Obama Administration and gave Obama some $77,000 for his presidential bid, and provided a rent free apartment for Rohm Emmanuel for 5 years. Who else in Washington do they control?
BP owns the controlling interest in the trans-Alaska pipeline, and Tuesday it ruptured spilling over 100,000 gallons of crude. Now this is leaving us to wonder which one of BP’s projects will be next. The pipe was not properly maintained by BP, and there could be other fractured areas from the over 1000 miles the pipe line stretches also stressed and primed to burst.
As it now turns out, BP’s management of the trans-Alaska pipeline is more illusionary than real. It's corroded, it's undermanned and "basic maintenance" is completely lacking.
BP’s claim to fame has been to through money at politicians, and to use coercive tactics to intimidate anyone who would blow the whistle on what can only be characterized as the intentional mismanagement of their sites. Rather than actually maintain the sites, they have apparently skimped on expensive hardware, and failed to hire or pay for adequate supervision, all part of a company bottom line at the expense of us.
Most are afraid to cross swords with BP, who has a habit of hunting down and destroying the careers of those who attempt to warn of pipeline problems.
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to break into the home of a whistleblower, Chuck Hamel, who had complained of conditions at the pipe's tanker facility. BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said BP's acts were "reminiscent of Nazi Germany."
On August 6 2006 questions were then raised about BP and the Alaska pipeline, and their skimping on the necessary additives.
“Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?” until the shutdown, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in northern Alaska produced 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Once it was shut the price of oil surged three percent. However the real issue may be are they merely skimping to save money for their bottom line or is there something more sinister going on?
Once shut down, North America’s largest oilfield remained shut for several months. BP closed the oilfield “allegedly” after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions were then raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded as longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel stated that BP had been warned and ignored those warnings.
It began even prior to 2004 but in 2004 Chuck Hamel warned BP about corrosion problems.
In 2004 he wrote a letter to the BP Board of Directors that said workers at Prudhoe Bay were concerned about safety, health and threats to the environment at the oilfield. Hamel wrote that the workers "seek to see the corrosion problem addressed and corrective action undertaken without further delay and before any of their colleagues at Prudhoe are harmed."
Since 1999 Hamel had been tracking the corrosion control program by BP for the thousands of miles of flow line that BP had. He found that they have been cutting corners, budget problems. And the first document that came to his hands from the workers was in 1999, that they were not injecting the sufficient amount of chemical inhibitors to prevent the rusting.
The pipeline is like a radiator in your car. You have to add antifreeze which has chemical components that prevent rusting. Just picture part of the months of the year you switch over to plain water. Your radiator’s going to rust. It’s not very complicated. There’s so much water in the system in the Alaska field that comes out of the ground formation with the oil and along the way it rusts the pipes unless anti corrosives are added.
BP has had a long-running series of problems, had been fined on several occasions, some very large fines for failing to properly keep up its lines, so why have we allowed them to continue in control? Who has been paid what? These are fundamental questions that lay at the doorstep of congress.
BP engineers, and BP corrosion experts, have left the company because they wouldn’t participate in BP’s look the other way corrosion program, and now we have to deal with the mess they have created.
Everyone who didn’t want to be part of it, those that didn’t, were independently coming to Hamel—he was their outlet—anonymous complaints were made through him, back to the company, and when BP didn’t do the right thing, he went public.
Chuck Hamel has had a long history watching BP, over, more than 15 years. In fact, he settled a case with BP, when they hired Wackenhut to investigate and discredit him
BP, engaged the Wackenhut Security Company, and five undercover women, and men, for surveillance of Hamel and his wife, they tried to discredit him, hidden cameras were placed in hotel rooms. Eventually all five of the ladies realized that he wasn’t the bad person BP tried to make him out to be, and they all came over to his side. 60 Minutes in a segment called them "Chucky’s Angels." When BP was discovered, they attacked him. $18 million invested by BP to destroy his credibility, including a van parked in front of his home, picking up phones conversations, and they even picked up his trash.
This was not an isolated case. Captain James Woodle, once in charge of the pipe's Valdez terminus, was blackmailed into resigning the post when he complained of disastrous conditions there. The weapon on Woodle was a file of faked evidence of marital infidelity.
And this is a company that is close to the Obama Administration and gave Obama some $77,000 for his presidential bid, and provided a rent free apartment for Rohm Emmanuel for 5 years. Who else in Washington do they control?
The US Economy is on life support
The Commerce Department said today that retail sales fell by 1.2 percent in May. Although this was a surprise to many economists it has been no surprise to the millions of Americans who are looking for a job, or those that have already thrown in the towel and given up, or for the millions still facing foreclosure.
The US economy has been brought to its knees by the inevitable failure of any meaningful and insightful judgment coming from the Obama administration. Both the president and congress have thrown money in the wrong direction, wasting resources that may cause the US government to find itself in the same place as Greece within the next few years. Yes the banks were saved but at the expense of the US population.
Now after throwing trillions at the banks and a small token at the people, the Federal Reserve under Bernanke is completely lost in its own quagmire of confusion; the system is so completely over run by the bank elite that there is no place in this administration for common sense.
Five banks that set this collapse in motion each KNEW Obama would bring taxpayer aid to their survival. Those banks were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Bear Stearns Cos, Citigroup Inc., and JP Morgan Chase & Co., traders from these banks actually met and devised the instruments to bet against the subprime securities they were themselves promoting, and by playing both sides of the table they couldn’t lose. It was a Las Vegas style Gamble and they took out insurance, literally, taking down AIG and a host of other smaller insurance companies.
Why then did they need a government bailout? Primarily because they actually bankrupted AIG which caused Timothy Geithner from the New York Fed to coerce AIG to pay the banks in full for their second party CDS’s, thus allowing these same banks to be made whole with the exception of Bear Stearns. Why was Bear allowed to fall when the others were not?
Former Bear Stearns chief executive James Cayne, the chairman and CEO said the firm became the first major victim of the financial crisis due to “unfounded rumors”, not because of risky exposures to mortgage-related products with free-falling values.
Bear Stearns in March 2008 experienced essentially a run on the bank as creditors and the markets lost confidence in the institution. Regulators scrambled to find a buyer for the collapsing firm, resulting in a sale to none other than JPMorgan Chase & Co for $10 a share.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Bear Stearns was brought to its knees by rumors and ended up in the hands of JP Morgan. In 1907 JP Morgan began a series of rumors that the New York Banks were insolvent causing a similar run which essentially gave Morgan control, and what was accomplished was that which Morgan sought the beginning of the Federal Reserve System where Wall Street actually took control of the US Government.
The belief is that J.P. Morgan actually wanted Bear Stearns. So they arranged it by rumors and a sale, just as they did with Washington Mutual.
On April 17, 2010 the former head of the chief banking regulatory agency that oversaw failed Washington Mutual told lawmakers that the giant savings and loan collapsed because of a run on the bank, not failures by him or other regulators.
Who started the rumors that cause a run on Washington Mutual? Another coincidence Washington Mutual was taken over by non other that JP Morgan Chase who bought it for $2 billion.
Phil Angelides (Crisis Commission) in January accused Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein of treating clients unfairly for creating -- and then betting against -- subprime mortgage-backed securities. And this is essentially what each of these banks did.
Could the US economy have been saved?
Absolutely if that were the real intent of the Obama Administration! But Obama and Congress were to focused on their financial backers to see the forest for the trees, they threw money at the banks, and AIG with the latter allowing the foreclosures to continue, thus giving the banks a twofold profit, the bail out money allowing them to loan it back to the government and the foreclosure where they were paid by AIG and the other institutions that were foolish enough to guarantee these insane investments.
Obama and Congress could have used the same money to bailout both the Banks and the Borrowers, they could have provided the money to the banks per each loan that was modified to reduce the principal and interest. Thereby stopping the onslaught of foreclosures and maintaining a jobs market because there would not have been the financial impact on the economy.
The US Government because they have been substantially absorbed by Wall Street, is now tinkering on the brink of financial collapse. And this collapse is what should have allowed of Wall Street.
The US economy has been brought to its knees by the inevitable failure of any meaningful and insightful judgment coming from the Obama administration. Both the president and congress have thrown money in the wrong direction, wasting resources that may cause the US government to find itself in the same place as Greece within the next few years. Yes the banks were saved but at the expense of the US population.
Now after throwing trillions at the banks and a small token at the people, the Federal Reserve under Bernanke is completely lost in its own quagmire of confusion; the system is so completely over run by the bank elite that there is no place in this administration for common sense.
Five banks that set this collapse in motion each KNEW Obama would bring taxpayer aid to their survival. Those banks were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Bear Stearns Cos, Citigroup Inc., and JP Morgan Chase & Co., traders from these banks actually met and devised the instruments to bet against the subprime securities they were themselves promoting, and by playing both sides of the table they couldn’t lose. It was a Las Vegas style Gamble and they took out insurance, literally, taking down AIG and a host of other smaller insurance companies.
Why then did they need a government bailout? Primarily because they actually bankrupted AIG which caused Timothy Geithner from the New York Fed to coerce AIG to pay the banks in full for their second party CDS’s, thus allowing these same banks to be made whole with the exception of Bear Stearns. Why was Bear allowed to fall when the others were not?
Former Bear Stearns chief executive James Cayne, the chairman and CEO said the firm became the first major victim of the financial crisis due to “unfounded rumors”, not because of risky exposures to mortgage-related products with free-falling values.
Bear Stearns in March 2008 experienced essentially a run on the bank as creditors and the markets lost confidence in the institution. Regulators scrambled to find a buyer for the collapsing firm, resulting in a sale to none other than JPMorgan Chase & Co for $10 a share.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Bear Stearns was brought to its knees by rumors and ended up in the hands of JP Morgan. In 1907 JP Morgan began a series of rumors that the New York Banks were insolvent causing a similar run which essentially gave Morgan control, and what was accomplished was that which Morgan sought the beginning of the Federal Reserve System where Wall Street actually took control of the US Government.
The belief is that J.P. Morgan actually wanted Bear Stearns. So they arranged it by rumors and a sale, just as they did with Washington Mutual.
On April 17, 2010 the former head of the chief banking regulatory agency that oversaw failed Washington Mutual told lawmakers that the giant savings and loan collapsed because of a run on the bank, not failures by him or other regulators.
Who started the rumors that cause a run on Washington Mutual? Another coincidence Washington Mutual was taken over by non other that JP Morgan Chase who bought it for $2 billion.
Phil Angelides (Crisis Commission) in January accused Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein of treating clients unfairly for creating -- and then betting against -- subprime mortgage-backed securities. And this is essentially what each of these banks did.
Could the US economy have been saved?
Absolutely if that were the real intent of the Obama Administration! But Obama and Congress were to focused on their financial backers to see the forest for the trees, they threw money at the banks, and AIG with the latter allowing the foreclosures to continue, thus giving the banks a twofold profit, the bail out money allowing them to loan it back to the government and the foreclosure where they were paid by AIG and the other institutions that were foolish enough to guarantee these insane investments.
Obama and Congress could have used the same money to bailout both the Banks and the Borrowers, they could have provided the money to the banks per each loan that was modified to reduce the principal and interest. Thereby stopping the onslaught of foreclosures and maintaining a jobs market because there would not have been the financial impact on the economy.
The US Government because they have been substantially absorbed by Wall Street, is now tinkering on the brink of financial collapse. And this collapse is what should have allowed of Wall Street.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Living rent free and loving it, a tale of a Washington Insider
Never has an administration been so callous in hiding corruption as this one.
This is the first administration I have observed that Flaunts corruption in our face and has no concern for being outed. At least Bush tried to hide it!
Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. But then who in Washington doesn’t. For example he received free rent for his D.C. apartment from a BP advisor.
This little-known corporate political connection is the quiet way the inner political circles intersect, and protect one another, it’s not unusual, and it’s Washington at its finest.
BP and its executives were significant contributors to the record $750-million war chest of Barack Obama's 2007-08 campaign, and from previous experience we know Obama takes care of his financial supporters.
Now, we learn the inside details of a connection Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayoral wannabe, current Obama chief of staff, ex-representative, ex-Clinton money man and ex-Windy City political machine go-fer and BP.
Shortly after Obama's inauguration, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.
For an ordinary American, that would have raised some obvious questions and a potential tax liability, but not for Emanuel, the guy overseeing the Internal Revenue Service, and now an Obama insider.
Tim Geithner, who had his own outstanding tax problems skated through confirmation anyway by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Greenberg's consulting firm was a prime architect of BP's recent rebranding drive as a green petroleum company, down to green signs and the slogan "Beyond Petroleum."
Greenberg's company is also closely tied to a sister Democratic outfit -- GCS, named for the last initials of Greenberg, James Carville, another Clinton advisor, and Bob Shrum, John Kerry's 2004 campaign manager.
According to published reports, GCS received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political polling contracts in recent years from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Probably just a crazy coincidence. But you'll never guess who was the chairman of that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensing those huge polling contracts to his kindly rent-free landlord.
Well consider this; BP's favorite politician, If you're just going by the numbers, it's none other than President Barack Obama, who leads BP's lifetime campaign donation list with $77,051. That puts him just ahead of reliable oilmen such as Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, his retired colleague Sen. Ted Stevens, and George W. Bush.
According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, BP and its employees have given more than $3.4 million to federal candidates since 1990, with much of their largesse going to these 20:
President Barack Obama (D)$77,051;
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) $73,300;
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, ret.) $53,200;
President George W Bush $47,388;
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) $44,899;
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) $41,400;
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio, ret.) $37,550;
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) $31,000;
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) $28,200;
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) $27,350;
Sen. Daniel Coats (R-Ind., ret.) $25,000;
Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill., ret.) $24,450;
Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) $24,000;
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) $23,800;
Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla., ret.) $23,750;
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) $22,300;
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) $22,000;
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) $21,100;
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) $20,950;
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) $20,800
This is the first administration I have observed that Flaunts corruption in our face and has no concern for being outed. At least Bush tried to hide it!
Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. But then who in Washington doesn’t. For example he received free rent for his D.C. apartment from a BP advisor.
This little-known corporate political connection is the quiet way the inner political circles intersect, and protect one another, it’s not unusual, and it’s Washington at its finest.
BP and its executives were significant contributors to the record $750-million war chest of Barack Obama's 2007-08 campaign, and from previous experience we know Obama takes care of his financial supporters.
Now, we learn the inside details of a connection Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayoral wannabe, current Obama chief of staff, ex-representative, ex-Clinton money man and ex-Windy City political machine go-fer and BP.
Shortly after Obama's inauguration, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.
For an ordinary American, that would have raised some obvious questions and a potential tax liability, but not for Emanuel, the guy overseeing the Internal Revenue Service, and now an Obama insider.
Tim Geithner, who had his own outstanding tax problems skated through confirmation anyway by the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Greenberg's consulting firm was a prime architect of BP's recent rebranding drive as a green petroleum company, down to green signs and the slogan "Beyond Petroleum."
Greenberg's company is also closely tied to a sister Democratic outfit -- GCS, named for the last initials of Greenberg, James Carville, another Clinton advisor, and Bob Shrum, John Kerry's 2004 campaign manager.
According to published reports, GCS received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political polling contracts in recent years from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Probably just a crazy coincidence. But you'll never guess who was the chairman of that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensing those huge polling contracts to his kindly rent-free landlord.
Well consider this; BP's favorite politician, If you're just going by the numbers, it's none other than President Barack Obama, who leads BP's lifetime campaign donation list with $77,051. That puts him just ahead of reliable oilmen such as Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, his retired colleague Sen. Ted Stevens, and George W. Bush.
According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, BP and its employees have given more than $3.4 million to federal candidates since 1990, with much of their largesse going to these 20:
President Barack Obama (D)$77,051;
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) $73,300;
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, ret.) $53,200;
President George W Bush $47,388;
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) $44,899;
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) $41,400;
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio, ret.) $37,550;
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) $31,000;
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) $28,200;
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) $27,350;
Sen. Daniel Coats (R-Ind., ret.) $25,000;
Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill., ret.) $24,450;
Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) $24,000;
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) $23,800;
Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla., ret.) $23,750;
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) $22,300;
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) $22,000;
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) $21,100;
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) $20,950;
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) $20,800
Moving out of a recession and into a recovery?
If you love a good story you’ll love the latest novelette published by the FED. It’s full of hope and optimism, and dreams and imaginings and its heart wrenching. If only it were true!
According to the latest vision of the FED who now claims to have conducted a poll, the FED found that we are moving out of a recession and into a recovery. What a great story and I only wish it was true, but as I am not an ostrich I don’t buy it.
Just like GM paid off their obligation to the US government was supposed to make us believe that GM had turned around, those who read my articles know I called the shot on what really occurred. GM paid back the government with the money it borrowed from the government.
Now the real polls taken in the past couple of days show a much different story, and it’s one that is much more pessimistic. Only 29% of Adults now believe the economy is getting better. That’s down from 34% before the jobs report last week. But these are the 10% at the top; a remarkable 71% of the population isn’t buying into the propaganda.
And it’s the same among investors, 36% believe the economy is getting better while 42% say it’s getting worse. Before Friday’s report, investors were more evenly divided with 41% thinking that the economy is getting better and 39% offering the more realistic and sadly pessimistic view.
On the night that Lehman Brothers collapsed to begin the financial industry meltdown, 43% of Americans rated their own personal finances as good or excellent. Just 31% of Americans are now that upbeat about their own financial situation.
Today, only 24% believe their personal finances are getting better while 46% say they are getting worse with 30% remaining constant fairly equal to those who currently believe the economy is improving. And the FED acknowledged, economic growth won't be strong enough to bring speedy relief to millions of out-of-work Americans. Growth in the early stages of economic recoveries is usually much stronger. That's not happening this time because consumers and businesses haven't shown signs that they are inclined to go on spending sprees. There continues to be one important element that remains elusive, it’s called JOBS!
Without them there can’t be a real and meaningful recovery, what the FED fails to mention in its work of fiction is that what economy there is has been created by what his Wall Street friends have characterized as “Strategic Defaulters” home mortgage borrowers who have intentionally made a decision to stop making their mortgage payments and are instead spending the money.
According to the latest vision of the FED who now claims to have conducted a poll, the FED found that we are moving out of a recession and into a recovery. What a great story and I only wish it was true, but as I am not an ostrich I don’t buy it.
Just like GM paid off their obligation to the US government was supposed to make us believe that GM had turned around, those who read my articles know I called the shot on what really occurred. GM paid back the government with the money it borrowed from the government.
Now the real polls taken in the past couple of days show a much different story, and it’s one that is much more pessimistic. Only 29% of Adults now believe the economy is getting better. That’s down from 34% before the jobs report last week. But these are the 10% at the top; a remarkable 71% of the population isn’t buying into the propaganda.
And it’s the same among investors, 36% believe the economy is getting better while 42% say it’s getting worse. Before Friday’s report, investors were more evenly divided with 41% thinking that the economy is getting better and 39% offering the more realistic and sadly pessimistic view.
On the night that Lehman Brothers collapsed to begin the financial industry meltdown, 43% of Americans rated their own personal finances as good or excellent. Just 31% of Americans are now that upbeat about their own financial situation.
Today, only 24% believe their personal finances are getting better while 46% say they are getting worse with 30% remaining constant fairly equal to those who currently believe the economy is improving. And the FED acknowledged, economic growth won't be strong enough to bring speedy relief to millions of out-of-work Americans. Growth in the early stages of economic recoveries is usually much stronger. That's not happening this time because consumers and businesses haven't shown signs that they are inclined to go on spending sprees. There continues to be one important element that remains elusive, it’s called JOBS!
Without them there can’t be a real and meaningful recovery, what the FED fails to mention in its work of fiction is that what economy there is has been created by what his Wall Street friends have characterized as “Strategic Defaulters” home mortgage borrowers who have intentionally made a decision to stop making their mortgage payments and are instead spending the money.
Friday, June 4, 2010
The Difference between Bribery and Lobbying; a conundrum
While shades of Jack Abramoff still cover the windows of congress what they fail to illustrate is just how far lobbyists can go. What remain still unaddressed are the ramifications of the money Wall Street pumps into the coffers of our legislators. A congressman or woman can enter Washington Politics with mediocre means and leave a multi millionaire.
But, Power, money, and politics always have the potential to mix into a toxic brew, and for those looking to gain the legislative edge; the rules leave enough loopholes to do so within the bounds of the law, a law designed specifically for that purpose.
Lobbying is a broad based concept, so broad, and ambiguous that lobbyists actually have the edge, including the ability to have their own attorneys draft legislation that becomes law.
And the rewards for our politically privileged are ominous, for example:
The American Bankers Association invested $1.8 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter to prevent several key issues of sweeping legislation to overhaul financial institutions from being passed by the House and Senate.
The banking industry's biggest trade group lobbied Congress and federal agencies on the financial overhaul legislation as well as accounting rules, new requirements for credit card issuers, small business lending, bankruptcy legislation, insurance, retirement savings and taxes. In addition to the House and Senate, the bankers' group also had lobbying contacts with the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the White House, according to a disclosure form filed April 20 with the Senate's public records office.
Among the group's members are Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and U.S. Bancorp. The association represents major financial institutions as well as regional, community and small banks.
Paying someone for their vote even though it is considered lobbying is just another way to say Bribery even if no money is exchanged at the moment, but only a promise for future support.
Lobbyists are like insects, they multiply and there is no clear method to exterminate them.
But, Power, money, and politics always have the potential to mix into a toxic brew, and for those looking to gain the legislative edge; the rules leave enough loopholes to do so within the bounds of the law, a law designed specifically for that purpose.
Lobbying is a broad based concept, so broad, and ambiguous that lobbyists actually have the edge, including the ability to have their own attorneys draft legislation that becomes law.
And the rewards for our politically privileged are ominous, for example:
The American Bankers Association invested $1.8 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter to prevent several key issues of sweeping legislation to overhaul financial institutions from being passed by the House and Senate.
The banking industry's biggest trade group lobbied Congress and federal agencies on the financial overhaul legislation as well as accounting rules, new requirements for credit card issuers, small business lending, bankruptcy legislation, insurance, retirement savings and taxes. In addition to the House and Senate, the bankers' group also had lobbying contacts with the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the White House, according to a disclosure form filed April 20 with the Senate's public records office.
Among the group's members are Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and U.S. Bancorp. The association represents major financial institutions as well as regional, community and small banks.
Paying someone for their vote even though it is considered lobbying is just another way to say Bribery even if no money is exchanged at the moment, but only a promise for future support.
Lobbyists are like insects, they multiply and there is no clear method to exterminate them.
Can the Strategic Defaulters save the US Economy?
The private sector remains in a catatonic state, searching for a bottom line to justify the reemployment of American workers. Yet even as the economy is temporarily jarred by strategic defaulters, the concern of economists has been, will they be enough to sustain the economy long term?
And as serious as this question is, it boils down once again to Wall Street. Whether these strategic defaulters can save the economy long term will depend on the banks, the longer they take to foreclose and evict the more than 8 million homeowners now in default, and those who come after them, the longer the temporary surge in retail sales will be sustained, although it has been flat for the past 3 months, it is sustaining some semblance of an economic recovery even without job growth.
The Banks are so over whelmed with the volume of defaults that the time to foreclose has been extended, now exceeding 14 and approaching 20 months. But as more homeowners make that decision to join in the movement and stop making their mortgage payments the time to foreclose will only be extended until Wall Street finally concedes.
And amid the volume of defaults banks like BoA have begun to rethink what they have done to us, and in an effort to make peach with their borrowers and avert a real back lash they are attempting to initiate a real loan modification program. They are reducing not only the interest rate, and the monthly payment but the principal to a more realistic valuation. If their program is successful, which every consideration says it should be BoA could be the first bank to actually help put America back to work.
Defaulting loans are placing a financial strain on all banks, and perhaps this is really sending a message to Wall Street. Meanwhile those who make that determination to simply stop making their mortgage payments have become the new American Heroes.
We need time, and the strategic defaulters may have just bought it for us.
And as serious as this question is, it boils down once again to Wall Street. Whether these strategic defaulters can save the economy long term will depend on the banks, the longer they take to foreclose and evict the more than 8 million homeowners now in default, and those who come after them, the longer the temporary surge in retail sales will be sustained, although it has been flat for the past 3 months, it is sustaining some semblance of an economic recovery even without job growth.
The Banks are so over whelmed with the volume of defaults that the time to foreclose has been extended, now exceeding 14 and approaching 20 months. But as more homeowners make that decision to join in the movement and stop making their mortgage payments the time to foreclose will only be extended until Wall Street finally concedes.
And amid the volume of defaults banks like BoA have begun to rethink what they have done to us, and in an effort to make peach with their borrowers and avert a real back lash they are attempting to initiate a real loan modification program. They are reducing not only the interest rate, and the monthly payment but the principal to a more realistic valuation. If their program is successful, which every consideration says it should be BoA could be the first bank to actually help put America back to work.
Defaulting loans are placing a financial strain on all banks, and perhaps this is really sending a message to Wall Street. Meanwhile those who make that determination to simply stop making their mortgage payments have become the new American Heroes.
We need time, and the strategic defaulters may have just bought it for us.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Scratch one whole ocean! Maybe?
I have really only one question, please someone tell me why we are drilling offshore when we don’t have a technology to stop disasters like BP, and its close relative Ixtoc 1?
Apparently we are destroying the oceans one well at a time, Ixtoc 1 was a disaster from a Mexican rig that eventually dumped 140 million gallons off the Yucatan Peninsula. It took nearly 10 months beginning in the summer of 1979 to plug that leak. Now 140 million gallons may not seem like a lot in an ocean, perhaps like a glass of coke in a swimming pool. But these continuing well disasters are polluting our oceans and our food chain. In fact it is contaminating potential drinking water, which is being desalinated off the California coast and the entire mid east for beginners.
Desalination is a process that removes dissolved minerals (including but not limited to salt) from seawater, brackish water, or treated wastewater. A number of technologies have been developed for desalination, including reverse osmosis (RO), distillation, electro dialysis, and vacuum freezing. So why is seawater such an attractive water resource?
Here are a few reasons why...Seawater provides an unlimited, reliable water supply for coastal populations worldwide; brackish water is a plentiful, relatively drought-proof water resource for inland populations and reduces dependency on imported water. And, of all the Earth's water, 97 percent is salt water, only 1 percent is fresh water available for humans to drink, and 2 percent is frozen. Of the more than 7,500 desalination plants in operation worldwide, 60% are located in the Middle East. The world's largest plant in Saudi Arabia produces 128 MGD of desalted water. In contrast, 12% of the world's capacity is produced in the Americas, with most of the plants located in the Caribbean and Florida.
You got it, the Gulf coast! And that is where Florida lays dead ahead waiting for the BP oil slick to destroy its desalination plants.
So far, the Gulf oil Spill has leaked about 43 million gallons, according to government estimates. But it could be much higher, and now stopping this leak could possibly take months if ever. These oil disasters could end our ability to obtain a needed food source, and needed drinking water, it poses a threat to all life forms.
It really is time to rethink off shore drilling.
Apparently we are destroying the oceans one well at a time, Ixtoc 1 was a disaster from a Mexican rig that eventually dumped 140 million gallons off the Yucatan Peninsula. It took nearly 10 months beginning in the summer of 1979 to plug that leak. Now 140 million gallons may not seem like a lot in an ocean, perhaps like a glass of coke in a swimming pool. But these continuing well disasters are polluting our oceans and our food chain. In fact it is contaminating potential drinking water, which is being desalinated off the California coast and the entire mid east for beginners.
Desalination is a process that removes dissolved minerals (including but not limited to salt) from seawater, brackish water, or treated wastewater. A number of technologies have been developed for desalination, including reverse osmosis (RO), distillation, electro dialysis, and vacuum freezing. So why is seawater such an attractive water resource?
Here are a few reasons why...Seawater provides an unlimited, reliable water supply for coastal populations worldwide; brackish water is a plentiful, relatively drought-proof water resource for inland populations and reduces dependency on imported water. And, of all the Earth's water, 97 percent is salt water, only 1 percent is fresh water available for humans to drink, and 2 percent is frozen. Of the more than 7,500 desalination plants in operation worldwide, 60% are located in the Middle East. The world's largest plant in Saudi Arabia produces 128 MGD of desalted water. In contrast, 12% of the world's capacity is produced in the Americas, with most of the plants located in the Caribbean and Florida.
You got it, the Gulf coast! And that is where Florida lays dead ahead waiting for the BP oil slick to destroy its desalination plants.
So far, the Gulf oil Spill has leaked about 43 million gallons, according to government estimates. But it could be much higher, and now stopping this leak could possibly take months if ever. These oil disasters could end our ability to obtain a needed food source, and needed drinking water, it poses a threat to all life forms.
It really is time to rethink off shore drilling.
The Federal Minerals Management Service
The Federal Minerals Management Service the Oil industry watchdog, was compromised which may have led to the BP disaster
The Federal agency overseeing the Oil industry looked the other way as BP and other off shore companies violated safety laws because of the $13bn in taxes the government receives annually. Because of this very tidy sum and what may be considered as bribes the agency allowed unsafe conditions to exist.
A report from the Federal Agency, the Minerals Management Service suggests that Washington Politicians allowed themselves to be seduced by the big oil companies because of tax money provided by BP and the rest of Big Oil. It seems to be the norm in Washington, money talks loud and clear, and federal employees look the other way.
Oversight was completely lacking, instead the department's acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, outlined how staff at the oil industry's chief safety watchdog, MMS, accepted tickets to sporting events, lunches and hunting trips from oil and gas firms. The question is what was expected of these employees in return?
According to Kendall, Pornography being viewed on government computers was a normal event and one of a number of violations at the Louisiana office of the MMS. But what is even more alarming is the fact that the multibillion dollar oil industry exercised a strong grip on MMS by way of their employees, MMS is the agency charged with an obligation to regulate oil company drilling and other operations.
There are examples of companies filling in their own safety forms and thwarting attempts by the MMS to tighten offshore regulations, but the agency was more compromised by conflicts of interest, looking after and balancing both safety and tax revenues at the same time.
And these gifts bestowed by Oil companies could be considered bribes.
The oil industry; like Banks control the White House and congress. Big Oil firms, like Big Banks, are too big to regulate or control, their money pays the way for congress to run elections. And where money is involved Washington will always look the other way.
The Federal agency overseeing the Oil industry looked the other way as BP and other off shore companies violated safety laws because of the $13bn in taxes the government receives annually. Because of this very tidy sum and what may be considered as bribes the agency allowed unsafe conditions to exist.
A report from the Federal Agency, the Minerals Management Service suggests that Washington Politicians allowed themselves to be seduced by the big oil companies because of tax money provided by BP and the rest of Big Oil. It seems to be the norm in Washington, money talks loud and clear, and federal employees look the other way.
Oversight was completely lacking, instead the department's acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, outlined how staff at the oil industry's chief safety watchdog, MMS, accepted tickets to sporting events, lunches and hunting trips from oil and gas firms. The question is what was expected of these employees in return?
According to Kendall, Pornography being viewed on government computers was a normal event and one of a number of violations at the Louisiana office of the MMS. But what is even more alarming is the fact that the multibillion dollar oil industry exercised a strong grip on MMS by way of their employees, MMS is the agency charged with an obligation to regulate oil company drilling and other operations.
There are examples of companies filling in their own safety forms and thwarting attempts by the MMS to tighten offshore regulations, but the agency was more compromised by conflicts of interest, looking after and balancing both safety and tax revenues at the same time.
And these gifts bestowed by Oil companies could be considered bribes.
The oil industry; like Banks control the White House and congress. Big Oil firms, like Big Banks, are too big to regulate or control, their money pays the way for congress to run elections. And where money is involved Washington will always look the other way.
BP Oil leak may destroy the world’s major source of food
BP Oil leak may destroy the world’s major source of food for more than 4.5 billion people
AS BP’S latest effort to stop the world’s worst environmental catastrophe fails, implications demand concern over the pending collapse of the world’s major food supply.
Fish is the staple of some 2.5 billion people on the planet!
There has been a global increase in fish consumption among both rural and city populations in the last few decades. The trend is because Nutritional standards have shown positive long-term trends, with worldwide increases in the average global calorie supply per person and in the quantity of proteins per person. However, many countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies, and major inequalities exist in access to food, mainly owing to very weak economic growth and rapid population expansion, yet the majority of undernourished people in the world live in Asia and the Pacific, with the highest prevalence of undernourishment found in SSA, and to a large extent in the South of America
The global population in 2005 consumed over 107 million tonnes of fish, the latest date figures were available for this report.
Asia accounted for two-thirds of the total consumption, of which 36.9 million tons were consumed outside China (13.9 kg per capita), with 33.6 million tonnes in China alone (26.1 kg per capita). The corresponding per capita consumption figures for Oceania, North America, Europe, Central America and the Caribbean, and South America were 24.5, 24.1, 20.8, 9.5 and 8.4 kg, respectively.
It is estimated that fish contributes to at least 50 percent of total animal protein intake in some small island developing states, as well as in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana, the Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. The contribution of fish proteins to total world animal protein supplies rose from 13.7 percent in 1961 to a peak of 16.0 percent in 1996, before declining to 15.3 percent in 2005. Corresponding figures for the world, excluding China, show an increase from 12.9 percent in 1961 to 15.4 percent in 1989, then declining slightly to 14.7 percent in 2005. Figures for 2005 indicate that fish provided about 7.6 percent of animal protein in North and Central America and more than 11 percent in Europe. In Africa, it supplied about 19 percent, in Asia nearly 21 percent, in the LIFDCs including China about 19 percent and in the LIFDCs excluding China 20 percent. Globally, fish provides more than 1.5 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and nearly 3.0 billion people with 15 percent of such protein.
Many cultures rely on fish and other sea creatures for their survival, and this BP disaster has the potential to reduce many cultures to near starvation if not worse.
Because of our greed we have placed the earth in an untenable position, with a potential to destroy all life forms. Even if we as a race are lucky enough to get beyond this BP disaster, there will be another, and another, as long as we elect officials who cater to the moneyed monopoly, rather to their own survival and ours.
AS BP’S latest effort to stop the world’s worst environmental catastrophe fails, implications demand concern over the pending collapse of the world’s major food supply.
Fish is the staple of some 2.5 billion people on the planet!
There has been a global increase in fish consumption among both rural and city populations in the last few decades. The trend is because Nutritional standards have shown positive long-term trends, with worldwide increases in the average global calorie supply per person and in the quantity of proteins per person. However, many countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies, and major inequalities exist in access to food, mainly owing to very weak economic growth and rapid population expansion, yet the majority of undernourished people in the world live in Asia and the Pacific, with the highest prevalence of undernourishment found in SSA, and to a large extent in the South of America
The global population in 2005 consumed over 107 million tonnes of fish, the latest date figures were available for this report.
Asia accounted for two-thirds of the total consumption, of which 36.9 million tons were consumed outside China (13.9 kg per capita), with 33.6 million tonnes in China alone (26.1 kg per capita). The corresponding per capita consumption figures for Oceania, North America, Europe, Central America and the Caribbean, and South America were 24.5, 24.1, 20.8, 9.5 and 8.4 kg, respectively.
It is estimated that fish contributes to at least 50 percent of total animal protein intake in some small island developing states, as well as in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana, the Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. The contribution of fish proteins to total world animal protein supplies rose from 13.7 percent in 1961 to a peak of 16.0 percent in 1996, before declining to 15.3 percent in 2005. Corresponding figures for the world, excluding China, show an increase from 12.9 percent in 1961 to 15.4 percent in 1989, then declining slightly to 14.7 percent in 2005. Figures for 2005 indicate that fish provided about 7.6 percent of animal protein in North and Central America and more than 11 percent in Europe. In Africa, it supplied about 19 percent, in Asia nearly 21 percent, in the LIFDCs including China about 19 percent and in the LIFDCs excluding China 20 percent. Globally, fish provides more than 1.5 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and nearly 3.0 billion people with 15 percent of such protein.
Many cultures rely on fish and other sea creatures for their survival, and this BP disaster has the potential to reduce many cultures to near starvation if not worse.
Because of our greed we have placed the earth in an untenable position, with a potential to destroy all life forms. Even if we as a race are lucky enough to get beyond this BP disaster, there will be another, and another, as long as we elect officials who cater to the moneyed monopoly, rather to their own survival and ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
