Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Be ready and friendly


Did you know there was an electronic run on the banks last year?
"It was about September 15th.....On Thursday, at about 11 O'Clock in the morning, (At 2 minutes, 20 seconds into this C-Span video clip), Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains how the Federal Reserve told Congress members about an hour-long electronic run on the banks of $550 B which had to be shut down.
Of course this came from overseas. It takes a lot to get the US public excited. What else doesn't the media report? 

"AWashington-Wall Street partnership:

  • engineered a fraudulent housing and debt bubble;
  • Illegally shifted vast amounts of capital out of the U.S.;
  • Used “privitization” as form of piracy - a pretext to move government assets to private investors at below-market prices and then shift private liabilities back to government at no cost to the private liability holder."
  • The derivatives that have the banks in trouble right now (Credit Default Swaps) are like insurance plans that pay out when things fail. There is next to zero honor or ethics at the top levels of business and government. Is Barack Obama not one man waving a sword at a tidal wave? Bush was clearly a puppet of industry.

    Does the US President run the government or does the government and industry run the US president?

    Our new Treasury Secretary, same as the old? New paint job but we're still going to throw a ton more money at banks.

    And again

    These bank bailouts will continue to sour the public's appetite for "stimulus" spending. Is the general public distinguishing between the two? Fiscally conservative republicans who lockstep supported Bush's record big government spending are balking at helping American health, education and infrasturcture. In a few years, the public is likely to forget the distinction between the two presidents when it comes to at least spending on banks.

    How do you fix banking? Let bad banks fail. These companies are like bad drug habits without jobs.

    Bush loyalists are also trying to sabotage the US government, from within the US government.

    Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans

    "The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well."

    General David Petraeus, General Ray Odierno, retired Army general Jack Keane and others prepared a campaign to mobilize public opinion against President Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months.

    Bush admin tried last-minute to rush though sale of offshore oil & gas leases

    Obama orders review of cybersecurity

    The Soviet Union was taken down in party via an ISI/CIA-financed war of Saudi mujadeen who would later become Al Qaeda* in Afghanistan, but also via the flooding of their market with their own currency. 

    Given the role power of the Russian Israeli mob today is it so so far fetched to ask if they played some role in our current problems? It's certainly not far-fetched to point out that not everyone is rooting for us to succeed.

    * Al Qaeda was originially the name of the database of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. ( Robin Cook, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons)

    For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

    Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

    Bleak assesment. The Russians know a bit about this kind of thing.

    Why would Barack Obama use Henry Kissinger in Moscow? Haven't we had enough of Kissinger yet? Can it be argued that during his "reign", we lost our scruples?

    The New Hampshire state legislature introduced a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government completely totally void and warned that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

    America needs Howard Dean as HHS. Why is Obama ignoring this guy? To me, this is a good test of exactly how pro-US citizen Obama really is. Howard Dean has passed that test.

    Public support grows for spending on mass transit and infrastructure

    Independent farmers can lose their farms to Monsanto if the company finds any seeds have blown through the wind onto their land. Ridiculous, isn't it.

    Public support grows for spending on mass transit and infrastructure

    From a reader:
    Yesterday, the Senate version of the economic stimulus package included $1 billion dollars in funding for the nuclear weapons complex. The Senate Appropriations Committee is taking advantage of the current economic crisis to give the nuclear weapons complex free money to expand their programs.

    President Obama pledged to "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it." Such spending is contrary to the president's goal of nuclear disarmament. Giving one billion dollars to expand nuclear weapons capabilities is immoral, unconscionable and irresponsible, especially since it will have no impact on improving the economy, except to divert funds away from real solutions to our economic crisis.

    The Senate bill next goes to a Conference Committee in order to reconcile the differences between the House version and the Senate version of the stimulus bill. The House version of the stimulus does NOT have any funding for nuclear weapons. This is our chance to impact the final version of the bill.

    Senate Members of the Conference Committee include: Sen. Max Baucus (MT), Sen. Thad Cochran (MS), Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI), Sen. Harry Reid (NV)

    House Members of the Conference Committee include: Rep. David Obey (WI-7), Rep. Charles Rangel (NY-15), Rep. Henry Waxman (CA-30), Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA-41), Rep. Dave Camp (MI-4)

    TAKE ACTION: If your senator or representative is on the Conference Committee, call 202-224-3121 (the Capitol Switchboard)
    Your Job:
    Get friendly.....with your neighbor, with your co-worker, with your family and with your community. Humans have endured much worse than what this nation is going through, but things are likely to get worse before they get better. The ongoing bad news is likely to foster tension, stress and depression in the public. If that motivates you to prepare yourself and your family for the worst, fine, but don't let fear drive your life. The fear of terrorism after 9/11 was used to do a lot of counter-productive expensive things in our name. Industry and political leaders tend to love fear.

    If you're reading this, obviously you are alive and thus you are capable of celebrating whatever life we have and extending some good to the people around you. We're going to really need each other as time goes on.

    Riots and violence are nothing more than a profit opportunity for defense and security companies. There are more productive ways to move the nation forward, from what New Hampshire is trying as a state, to trying to grow more of your own food, to staying informed and talking to each other and today, to being friendly.

    Happy Wednesday friends!

    :)

    13 comments:

    1. Overall, 75% Oppose Nationalization of banks in a poll conducted yesterday..and do wonder why...

      so reading all these daily reports make me realize, the mess the Pres has before him, and perhaps you are right..we can only work with the people we know and keep ourselves informed

      ReplyDelete
    2. Nationalization is likely the only true way out of this mess. 75% of people don't know what that really means, and are just scared of the word "Socialism". Especially if it is screamed day after day by the likes of Rush-O'Rielly-Hannity-Beck.

      It may be getting to the point that the system becomes unsalvageable. Of course, if we reach that point, Obama will get the blame rather than Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/21/business/sweden.4-412796.php

      Nice pic Mark.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Yes bobtaco, I half-agree. Here's my issue -- our ability to have good government has faltered. Theoretically I can accept that banks and utilities could be nationalized however in today's world, that really means privatized in the name of government. First we need to restore checks and balances, oversight and good government, no?

      ReplyDelete
    4. At this point it is probably a chicken and the egg question.

      I would assume that if the banks were nationalized at least the bailout money/asset buying/shares would remain in the realm of the public, whereas now, once the TARP funds are released, there seems to be no accountability or oversight whatsoever (see bonuses, junkets, share prices, etc).

      Privatized in the name of government seems to be a better bet than given away to elite bankers.

      The problem we have is the right wing cognitive dissonance that this would engender. They could not keep talking about supply side tax cuts, Milton Friedman, the New Deal being wrong, etc. If they sign onto defacto Nationalization it really means the death of the Republican party, or at least the myth of the Republican party since St Reagan.

      Therefore, it seems they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming and fight to the death with Obama, even if it is the best thing for the country and the world. Sometimes myths, and fables are harder to give up than anything. Take religion for instance...

      The problem is Obama seems to know that Nationalization is the best course of action but is going to exhaust the other more politically "palatable" options first. This will waste time and in the meantime things will continue to deteriorate. He should just rip the band-aid off fast, rather than try and do it slowly little by little.

      I guess we'll see.

      ReplyDelete
    5. Check this link out, it seems to validate my argument:

      http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/02/11/let_the_market_do_its_magic/print.html

      ReplyDelete
    6. Great points Bob Taco. But there's Barack Obama again with the sword fighting the tidal wave. And there's that question again, does the president run the government or does the government controlled by industry run the president? There's what might solve a problem and then there's politics. Things are going to have to get much worse than they are now for that to change. Nonetheless, great post, thanks!

      ReplyDelete
    7. Republican argument: do nothing! Good link.

      ReplyDelete
    8. To help answer the two questions, does the president run the government and why isn't Obama asking Dean to run HHS, the answer is:

      Rahm Emmanuel.

      Rahm and Howard disagreed about Howard's 50-state strategy. But Obama owes a great deal of his election TO Howard Dean, not Rahm Emmanuel.

      Ah, the politics of power and who has it and who doesn't in the US.

      ReplyDelete
    9. I had been wondering why Obama doesn't choose Dr. Dean for that position...ah now I know..thanks for that info Bad of Rah. Em

      ReplyDelete
    10. Republicans have been spinning about FDR and the New Deal so long, they may not even know the real history anymore... Orwellian.

      http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/02/10/copy/caproos.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

      ReplyDelete
    11. FDR caused the depression! Classic!

      ReplyDelete
    12. Of course FDR didn't cause the depression, but there has been a consistent and still popular debate as to whether he actually ended it. Even after 6 years of the new deal the unemployment rate in 1938 was still almost 20%. This stat (most often quoted by Republican talking heads is based on stats that don't take into account the jobs that govt creates. This tactic is alive well today as it was back in the 1930s. Republicans don't consider government created jobs as jobs but rather as temporary work. Tell that to the KBR no-bid contractors who have been soaking up those temporary work gigs for the last 8 years.

      Real stats are hard to argue when it comes to who actually puts Americans to work and creates jobs. Jobs defined as people earning a pay check whether through govt created intervention or through private enterprise.

      Check out these numbers. FDR orchestrated the biggest drop in unemployment in history. Trend analysis: Republicans generally make the number of unemployed go up and Democrats make the numbers go down.

      ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
      1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
      1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
      Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

      ROOSEVELT WWII
      1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
      1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
      Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

      TRUMAN
      1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
      1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
      Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

      EISENHOWER
      1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
      1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
      Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

      KENNEDY
      1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
      1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
      Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

      JOHNSON
      1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
      1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
      Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

      NIXON
      1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
      1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
      Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

      FORD
      1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
      1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
      Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

      CARTER
      1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
      1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
      Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

      REAGAN
      1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
      1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
      Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

      BUSH I
      1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
      1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
      Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

      CLINTON
      1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
      2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
      Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
      Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

      ReplyDelete
    13. Really great post and stats Paul Brown, thanks!! I'll repost those in tomorrow's blog.

      ReplyDelete