For U.S. Citizens - 2012 Election Cycle Begins Now

>> We are in crisis regarding unemployment and the economy. Something has to be done to get things going <<

AGAIN PB...... Try STOPPING the wholesale (tax-incentivized!) EXPORT of your core Manufacturing LIFE BLOOD overseas, amigo..... Hence BOTH job base AND tax base...... for starters!

IMHO, Regan's "original" NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) LIMITED parameters indeed had 'operative merit' in strategically hedging American Industry's competitiveness on emerging world makets...... NO Doubt!

BUT..... ol Bush 1 eeeked those (job exportation) doors open to include the likes of Chile, Brazil, etc, while Clinton FLUNG "those doors" Wide Open to the entire world, to which Bush 2 TOTALLY UNhinged the frickin doors altogether......

Subsequently (as now WARNED for decades):

A). "The Chickens are simply (finally) comin home to roost"!, as

B). The selling-OFF of America's industry ("behind your backs") is indeed conceivably "criminal"...... At BEST!!

And at last look, your current "Man Of The People" President is but merely rubber-stamping The Disastrous Trend that is now demonstrable bleeding The American People........ and eradicating (the fundamental operative mechanics OF) The American Dream!



AND...... (at "last look" TOO!)..... politicized "Left v Right" in-fighting ain't solvin NUTTIN.....! = [www.youtube.com]

KR, did mention Greece after mentioning the EU but what I said can be applied to the other PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) as well. The bigger point is that the U.S. is hugely different than the EU. I gave reasons and examples.

Normally it is certainly not good to have huge deficits and debt. We are not in a normal space right now and history has shown that we can get out of this once we get the economy on good footing. That is the bottom line and that is fact.

How do I expect unemployment to come down when my own government has allowed the export of manufacturing among other jobs? Is that what you were trying to ask? Simple, you de-tax-incentivize the export of jobs. You incentivize NOT exporting jobs. We also do not elect somebody who made hundreds of millions destroying businesses for his own financial gain*. But if things keep going the way they are Romney will not be the candidate for the Republicans. But I digress. To bring the jobs back here you make it so that it advantageous to do it. Instead of just giving people who make a million dollars a year or 10 million dollars a year or a billion dollars a year tax breaks and justify it by saying they are the job creators you only give them tax breaks if they actually CREATE jobs…. in the United States.

The percent of US Debt that China owns own: 8% or lower. Maybe alittle more but certainly not 44%. No need for hyperbole.



*Sure, what Romney did to make many many many 10s of millions of dollars is legal but it certainly was not good for the country. When he takes a viable company and pays his vulture capital company huge fees from that viable company and borrows huge amounts of money against the company which he can do because the company had a good history of being viable and profitable and then take that money out of the company and put it in his pocket and then sell the company that is now loaded with debt or just bankrupt that company then lay off the 100s (1000s?) of workers then that is not good for the country. That mind set is not good for the country. It tends to make you not care about poor people. Being a leader of a country you kind of should care about the poor people and try to get as many of them out of poverty as possible not drive them into poverty by taking their jobs away. Being a leader of a country you should not try to make millions by destroying companies and laying off its workers.

I am trying to be respectful here but I am not going to chase down everything that is said here and go round and round.

"Selling out all of America's Industry is criminal at least."
True but America's industry is selling out America's industry by moving industry to China and other third world countries for bigger profit because of lower wages. NAFTA did not help either or any of the other Free Trade Agreements but destroying companies or moving jobs off shore for profit is to blame. Is that the government or Corporate?

Sure wall street screwed us and when the Democrats tried to reign them in all they got from republicans was a roadblock. All you hear from Republicans is regulations are bad when regulations would stop Wall Street if they were put in place.

Three things would go a long way to help change things for the better..
Make it so corporations are NOT people.
Make it so that money is not speech.
Uh.. oh... I forget the third thing. . .. Joking
Publicly financed elections.

You are extracting your dollars from the U.S without discounting everything beyond reason. You are taking your dollars to Mexico where you can buy more because the dollar is stronger. It is cheaper to buy housing and food and transportation because the dollar is stronger. Just look at the exchange rate over the past few months. The dollar is stronger in Europe in the past few months as well.

Are things screwed up? they sure are. Civil liberties being taken away by way of the Patriot Act (which Obama voted for and is an asshole for doing it*) and the other ways they have taken away Fourth Amendment right. Maybe there needs to be a revolution.

*Obama has done things that I don't think he should have done but we have to chose between two Parties. Or we can just watch Dancing With The Stars.

>> The percent of US Debt that China owns own: 8% or lower <<

GEEEEEEEEZE……. Keep On Googling, bro...... as relying UPON The Problem to truthfully "define" The Problem...... is (conceivably) yet ANOTHER "problem"!!

HERE is but ONE (of many) independent…… uh…… “observations” = [www.washingtontimes.com]

IE: “The U.S. Treasury data almost certainly understates Chinese holdings of our government debt because (the U.S. Government figures) do NOT reveal the ultimate country of ownership when (debt) instruments are held through an intermediary in another jurisdiction……”

Further, “Mr. Johnson, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, estimated that China owns about $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, or nearly HALF the $2.37 trillion stock of Treasury debt held by “foreign official” owners.”



Yeah…… Google On, neighbor (if not for your OWN sake)! = [www.youtube.com]

PS:

In such regard..... neighbor....... JFTR (and/or for laughts) again = [www.youtube.com]



AKA: Utilizing "shell" corporations (of UNdetectable origen!) to buy-up 'controlling interest' is predictably something that The New China learned from your own Wall Street..... by sending THEIR kids to your Finest Universities, EH!

Was it Mao who siad somethun 'bout "smellin the coffee"......???? = [www.youtube.com]

KR you are making statistics say what you want them to say bro.................. You are talking about % of FOREIGN owned debt which is quite a bit DIFFERENT than TOTAL debt (paper?)......... that you implied earlier. China holds 8% more or less of total debt. Keep Googling bro and I am done trying to decipher your word salad and chasing you around trying to correct your misstatements and hyperbole bro.

It ain't MY "hyperbole", dude...... "It" is the direct analysis estimated AND quoted from "Mr. Johnson, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund"....... who I dare anticipate has a FAR Greater 'handle' on the operative mechanics of (often sinister!) international currency flows AND debt instruments...... EH!!

And predicably, too, demonstrably far LESS of "an axe to grind" than YOU obviously do!!

But "chasing me around"???? Al reverse, amigo! = [www.youtube.com]

And PS 2: I now ‘get’ YOUR point……

BUT……. using your U.S. Gov statistics above to "prove" your point is a DIRE Fallacy in the context HERE of China’s UNDENIABLY increasing control over the U.S……. uh….. “independence”.

The traditionally clever “smoke and mirrors” Paper Chase of owing money TO YOURSELF is (again) part of the problem! The ability to cook-the-books (by “robbing Peter to pay Paul”!) and shifting internal #s around to Look Legitimate is neither the point, NOR even particularly in dispute! In fact, “it” is quite historically WELL Noted ……. from the foreign perspective…… as monies that WILL (conceivably, predictably AND operatively) NEVER have to be repaid (short of Bernanke runnin dem ol demo Treasury printing presses till they drop!). IOW, for all intent and purposes (here or otherwise), a sorta ‘non-debt Debt’, eh!

YOUR REAL DEBT…… UNable to be “cooked”…… and thus realistically UNable to be avoided in HARD CASH terms on an annual basis….. IS 100% “foreign debt”, Señor…… to which your Communist Enemy is increasingly (slowly but surely) holding ALL The Trump Cards (albeit enabled by your OWN buried initiatives)!



And THAT ain’t Hyperbol. THAT is Fact…… to the UNDENIABLE tune of “44%+” (and counting!)….. with the well-know (outside of the U.S. at least) inevitable CONsequences thereof…… as fully suggested herewith, and in fact, currently unfolding ALL around you!

But HEY…… NO Worries…… Enjoy “the climate” (down there) financial or otherwise! = [www.youtube.com]

PS 3: (In final REply to a recent, pure Puerto PM!)

>> Idiot <<

TOTALLY Agreed……. ALL Realists are, by definition.

On the other hand, you (PB?) are decidedly NOT an idiot, neighbor……. (by definition)!

And while I have insisted U.S. “debt paper” from the gitto, it is evident but once again that we BOTH appear to be REpeatedly incapable of embracing each other’s perspective.

How could we (realistically)??????

What I view as a distinctly LARGE Deluxe Pizza….. with EVERYTHING on it….. you persistently see as a “salad”…… where predictably, ner the twain shall meet (let alone dine together), EH!

IOW: (apparently) “We are two people separated a common language” – Gen. George Patton



And JFTR, my (admittedly curious) ‘impulse’ to make pizzas has in fact been an increasingly “exaggerated” tendency in the wake of mi mum’s somewhat recent passing. Though, when the pages are “seen” as a whole, I now recognize that I am ‘being directed’ to create a sort Cryptogram Word Puzzle …… within which (I now know) indeed lay embedded The Secrets Of The Universe. My subsequent ‘post post’ evals of such resultant full-page salads…… errrr, PUZZELS…… are thus genuinely geared towards such requisite VISUAL cipher, as I am further confident that such “impulses” are urged from Higher Source!

Thus, LUNACY….. (complicating “exaggerated” Idiocy)? THAT you can count on, TOO! = [www.youtube.com]

.

Edited 197 times (for the visually impaired). Last edit 02/18/02 at 6:66 by KR (and fiends).

Today's installment (because I am bored, heh)...

The U.S. government owes the money to people who loan it to the government. Not just China. Not only China. People and institutions who are owed much more than what is owed China. If you have evidence that pension funds and mutual funds and Tom and Mary Q. Public who buy Treasury Bonds and corporations who are sitting on their cash that is put in Treasury Bonds because it is liquid and considered safe**, if you have evidence that they/we are not going to be paid back please show your cards because there is a huge amount of debt that is owed by the government to the Tom and Mary Publics and mutual funds and corporations and pension plans of the country and we all would like to know about it. Just when are these treasury bonds going to be defaulted opon because some of these treasuries come due every month. If the U.S. government were to default on the treasury bonds the ramifications would make the fall of Lehman Brothers* look like the local shoe store going out of business. If the US government defaults on its loans (Treasury Bonds) it will be the end of the world as we know it. This is not hyperbole. This is fact.

*For those who do not know, the fall of Lehman Brothers is the straw that broke the economies of the world’s back in 2008***. Bankers who think they own the world were more scared than a normal person can even imagine. There is a very good "This American Life" about this. It explains a lot in terms even I could understand. I highly recomend it!

** U.S. debt is considered by the free markets to be the safest in the world as indicated by the interest rate that the bonds pay. What is the interest rate on Greek Debt? Or any European debt? When lehman failed "...investors everywhere sold assets across the board and sought refuge in the safest securities they could find, government bonds. (NY Times a couple days after Lehman went belly up.)"

***The Dow Jones closed down just over 500 points
Several money funds and institutional cash funds had significant exposure to Lehman with the institutional cash fund run by The Bank of New York Mellon and the Primary Reserve Fund, a money-market fund, both falling below $1 per share, called "breaking the buck" (Google it if you don't know what "breaking the buck" means or listen to the "This American Life" up above.
Putnam Investments, a unit of Canada's Great-West Lifeco, shut a $12.3 billion money-market fund as it faced "significant redemption pressure" (This means they didn't have the money to pay their clients back) on September 17, 2008.
Close to 100 hedge funds used Lehman as their prime broker and relied largely on the firm for financing.
In Japan, banks and insurers announced a combined 249 billion yen ($2.4 billion) in potential losses tied to the collapse of Lehman.
Lehman was a counterparty to mortgage financier Freddie Mac...
After Constellation Energy was reported to have exposure to Lehman, its stock went down 56%...
In Hong Kong more than 43,700 individuals in the city have invested in HK$15.7 billion of "guaranteed mini-bonds" from Lehman.
This was just the tip ot the iceberg as history played out. If the U.S. government defaulted on its Treasury Bonds (Government debt) this stuff with Lehman would look like a shoe store bankruptcy.

How do these Republicans think they can get elected? Romeny shits all over the people of Michigan (Let Detroit Go Bankrupt), one of his four or five home states, as if he is owed the crown simply because he exists. Sontorum and his money honey thinks they they can shit all over 98% of women and the Republican men in congress think they can tell women all about contraception without one woman there to give any input. Is it any wonder how they destroyed the economy of the world when they are so blind to everything?

Romney.. .1/2%er
Gingrich.... serial adulterer
Santorum...Google it
Ron Paul....dope smoking repugs who like to get laid

Obama...luckiest man alive!

Sucio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2012 03:55AM by miguel sucio.

Are you his cousin or half brother? ROTFLMFAO Again!

Best pissing match in town ...!

Republicans started out thinking that they were going to have a cakewalk into the White House. They were practically measuring for drapes (As the opposition likes to say.). Now with their clown car of candidates they are down to Rush Limbaugh with this ridiculous attack on all of us godless, evil liberals out there who just want to have "mindless sex" with all day with no consequences. This from a four time married guy with no kids who was busted with pockets full of Viagra (Illegally prescribed to somebody else.) coming back from The Dominican Republic, one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, in his private plane filled with him and friends and his little blue pills.
When all you have is saying that liberals just want to have "mindless sex" with all day and that Obama hates America I would say that you are not going to get Independents to vote for you. When your main message is about access to contraception;

Quote
“He (Obama) is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church,” Santorum said, referring to the decision by the Obama administration to require institutions that provide health insurance to cover birth control and emergency contraception.

you are in a downward spiral. Sure the Republicans will get the 20%ers (the base) but everybody else are not that stupid. Where are the jobs that Boneher and McConnell promised when they took over in 2010? It is looking like the Democrats are the ones creating the jobs because the Republicans don’t seem to be doing anything and their message has changed from jobs to religion. Except for when Romney is doubling down on killing jobs.

D A M N….. Today’s "Bored" Installment, too….. cuz I’m currently ‘runnin out’ of my FAVORITE Drug….. (ie: RELIABLE Investment Option) :
.

Sad to see you're now BACK to your (curious) instinctual partisan in-fighting 'urges', PB......! The Nero Complex?????

NTL, VERY Nice “360” audio link.

Though, while a bit belabored on The Fairly Well Known (with its ‘Bigger Picture’ trends repeatedly referenced throughout this thread), I think that the larger issue quite relative here (that you seem to NOW be acknowledging!) is that THE Operating Fundamentals that founded “Breaking The Buck” (which had Alarm Bells goin-off as early as 05-06!) arguably CONTINUES to this very day. And THAT includes a very sluggish commercial paper market resulting predominantly from justifiable investor reluctance due in part to the last THREE years of noticeably continuing (UNregulated) ‘hands-off’ policy by the U.S. federal government and SEC = General oversight in mandated preventative measures (primarily Legal DEBT ratio caps AND capital requirements!) via obligatory transparency…… to ensure compliance….. And particularly, by (somehow) restricting collateralized debt obligations from being backed by risky loans that banks’ own traders KNOW are (still) likely to lose value…….!

Aka: CONtinuing “Slight Of Hand”???? (and a recommended IMF Johnson ‘full read’, again!) = [www.bloomberg.com]

Thus, as words like (legal) Ponzi Schemes and (leveraged) Roulette Wheels, ET AL, surely come to mind (and NOT so whispered anymore internationally), one must certainly have to acknowledge it IS that just such “UNchange you can believe in” amid U.S. Financial Markets that is precisely what is increasingly fueling current wide-spread discussion about the U.S. Dollar’s foreseeable credibility as a solvent, inherently ‘trustworthy’ instrument as the world’s ‘reserve currency of choice’…… And an earned trustworthiness that is certainly founded in VERY large part on the demonstrable credibility and reliable capability of its U.S. Federal ‘Managers’!

And THAT becomes a Big “ECHO” as it is now (equally widespread) recognized, as your own ‘360’ vid sooooo WELL noted, that “Bernanke himself is (purportedly) [/i]an EXPERT on The Great Depression. The fact the he could get it SO Wrong, that perhaps the people that THINK they “know”, are perhaps people who know far LESS than We think they know……”[/i]

And keep in mind too, that arguably THE Largest (frequently CONdescended as your Republican-esque) Deregulatory “anything goes” financial sector culprit laws were initiated during a Democratic-controlled U.S. federal government (in 1988+), arguably laying foundation to what has been the distinctly (requisite?) Top Down (trickle down?) Democrat led bail-out schemes (of the upper 2%) initiated over the past three years alone…… And noticeably by an insistently / reliably Bottom Up, ‘man of the people’ government.

Hence suggesting, “Is it any wonder how Republicans (alone) destroyed the economy of the world when they are so blind to everything”, is a bit disingenuous, if not indeed (historically DEMONstrable) “Hyperbole”……. NO?

And The Icing of course being the (unnerving) fact that “Business As Usual” apparently CONtinues in the (initially sub-prime)wake of ZERO jail sentences or even remotely approaching INDICTMENTS (let alone conclusive regulation!) curiously “rubber-stamped” under your current Administration, that has certainly raised some (international) eyebrows, TOO!

For One = [www.bloomberg.com]

For Two = [www.npr.org]

And perhaps of relative note here, For Three! = [www.opensecrets.org]



Thus (non-productive, self-serving politicizations aside), WHERE are all those (non-partisan) “exaggerated” realists…… errrr, IDIOTS….. when Push-Comes-To-Shove (as “it” UNarguably HAS….. right about now)?

I mean, like…. uh…. well…. YOU know, ALL of dem REAL “toxic assets” = [www.youtube.com]



Hmmmmmm, perhaps time for some Stephen Covey’s “realism” ???? = “What is the percentage likelihood that this problem can be reversed with further discussion? If the chance of resolution is less than 10% then you need to cut your losses!”

IE: Habit #1 = “Response-able” (aka: Adios, y Suerte….. to us ALL!) = [www.stephencovey.com]

Ooooops, typo correction = 1998+

The Federal government was not really controlled by the Democrats in 1998. Even though Clinton was President, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republicans and the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. Clinton signed the legislation (Repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act if that is what KR is talking about.) but if Clinton would have vetoed it it would have been overridden because it passed with a huge majority. Way more than the 66% needed. It does go to show though, that Clinton was not the far left liberal that the right wing would have you believe because if he was such a far left liberal he would have vetoed the bill and made a big deal about it. He would not have pushed for the passage of NAFTA among other conservative things he did while he was in office. But again, I digress. So even though the repeal (Known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. I think it may have been known by another name too but it escapes me.) was written by Republican Phil Gramm* and Republican Jim Leach and Republican Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. it had plenty of Democratic backing (there was one Democrat who was looking into a crystal ball and saw what was going to happen. Watch the video. It is amazing he, Byron Dorgan, exactly called what would happen down to the timetable. (Here is Rachel Maddow explaining it.) Both videos are short.) but I would say that the Federal government was controlled by Republicans especially since Clinton was damaged by his impeachment.

I have no idea what Democrat led bail-out schemes KR is talking about.

Seeing as the Republicans were in power with the majorities in the House and the Senate and the presidency up until 2006 when the Democrats took the majority of the House but NOT the senate and the policies (from 1998 up to and past 2006 until 2008) that led to the crash were Republican, yes I can confidently say “Is it any wonder how Republicans destroyed the economy of the world when they are so blind to everything” and not have it be hyperbole. Rather I believe it is fact. So no, it is not disingenuous.

Yes it is maddening that there is nobody in jail and there are no indictments. It angers every liberal I have ever come across. It is absolutely disgusting. Maybe someday some of these criminals can be put behind bars. This has been the object of discussion among liberals all over the internet. It boggles the mind how at least some of these villains could not be put away. Angelo Mazilo from Countrywide comes to mind. The CEO of Goldman Sachs (Lloyd Blankfein) is another. He is the one who was selling "shitty deals" to his clients. There are numerous others that could and should be put away. I cannot understand it but there is no indication that a John McCain administration would be doing any different. Unfortunately we have a two Party system. We need at least a four Party system. Having said that, there is no way Obama could get legislation though that would regulate these financial institutions so that they could not do this again. Even the weak Dodd-Frank bill and any other financial regulations Newt and his fellow Republican clowns can come up with, comes under attack by the likes of Newt Gingrich often. And having said that I can’t even imagine where we would be under John McCain.

*Surprise surprise, Phil Gramm quit the Senate and went to work for UBS AG (A huge Bank on par with Citi, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America) as a Vice Chairman of the Investment Bank division. UBS.com states that a Vice Chairman of a UBS division is "...appointed to support the business in their relationships with key clients." (This means he lobbies his friends in the U.S government.) He joined UBS in 2002 immediately after retiring from the Senate.

I am not partisanly (Is that a word?) infighting. I am pointing out my observations regarding the candidates in the election. How else is a person to decide who to vote for? This graph shows what I was talking about up a couple posts about independents.

I love this stuff. Here is another "This American Life" (Player) (Here is the Webpage with discription of the podcast) that describes what happened and what is happening with the Euro and how it came to be and what is going on in Greece. I like it so much because it does not come from a right or left angle and it explains things in a way that is very understandable. I don't have to replay it or go read it over and over to decipher it. I always want to cut to the chase when I hear or read about these kind of things but with This American Life I wish it would go on and on. So for a very good explanation about what happened and is happening in Greece and the Euro, give it a listen.

>> I am pointing out my observations regarding the candidates in the election <<

And I am merely pointing out (throughout this tread) that “history” appears to confirm that The Continuum of U.S. government policy and ever-sequential ‘new laws’ (impacting financial markets at minimum) tends to follow a general, directional linear sequitur demonstrably irrespective of WHICH “side of (your) isle” is in power…….. (with the potential current ‘larger consequences’ referenced hereof)!

THAT said, MY main interests are essentially two-fold (right about now!):

1). To now pay VERY close consideration to (and welcome additional insight of) the unfolding “inevitabilities” in our Post Lehman’s WORLD, with near-SOLE focal attention on “response-able” option in protecting one’s personal ASSet.

2). That I THOROUGHLY appreciate ALL of your thoughtful and informative links as duly welcome Food For Thought. ISR, I can only hope that MY particular links provide you (et al) with “equal appreciation”, amid what I can only presume (and hope) is THE shared Goal of #1……!

Entonces, atentamente, Gracias Señor……. a continuar……. Por que TODOS de Nosotros necesitamos de Nosotros MISMOS…… (eh).

Humble Pie?????....... INDEED! = [www.youtube.com]

PS:

>> The Federal government was not really controlled by the Democrats in 1998. Even though Clinton was President, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republicans and the Senate was controlled by the Republicans <<

Well…. Certainly Agreed.

BUT, you can’t ‘have it both güeys’, neighbor....... (no matter how hard ya try)!!

To claim deficit “fault” to be SOLELY that of a Republican Administration when ‘HE’ in fact was faced with negotiating (ie: increased spending trade-offs) with either a Democrat majority-held House or Senate (or BOTH), and then turn right around and claim NON-Presidential (deficit) liability / culpability when the contextual ‘Tables Are Reversed’ is …… well….. a little “disingenuous” TOO!

Egualmente for the deserved accolades of ANY particular Administration! IE: Presidential ‘credit’ taken during incumbency for policy initiatives forthcoming as a DIRECT RESULT of an opposing party’s control of the either the House or the Senate (or BOTH) during THAT particular Presidential Administration’s White House “occupancy”! Right?

IMHO, falling into THAT TRAP is commonly referred to as the (intended decoy of) Classic “Divide And Conquer”….. ever-historically ‘useful’ as operatively ‘reliable’ in distracting ANY electorate!

Thus ultimately, I’m sorta forced to return to my (“pan-specific”) observation above about the (documentable) generally consistent “Continuum of U.S. government policy” directions / directives irrespective of who’s in power…… in very large part.

The only 'real' noticeable difference I observe (on the outside lookin in) from administration-to-administration appears to be the actual “WHO” that is on the receiving end of such ‘linear sequitur’ policy! Cuz JFTR, there certainly ARE as many multi-millionaire / billionaire Captains Of Industry Democrats maneuvering to “feed at the (taxpayer) trough”, as there certainly ARE Republican…… EH! Like the American electorate itself, definitively 50 / 50.

IOW, our era seems to have tragically lost the fundamental (1950s-style) goals of working for benefit of the “health” of The Entire Country as a whole, versus the now perennial maneuvering of Special Interests towards increasing advantage and narrow personal gain…… on EITHER “Side Of The Isle”.

Thus once again, The Larger Goal (in this current “environment”) NOW appears to be (scrambling) to make informed decisions that preserves personal ‘wherewithal’ from being legally EXPROPIATED……. albeit to cover “other people’s (insider loss) errors”!

IE: Been There / Done that….. (neighbor)! = [www.youtube.com]



AND……(thus)…… ALWAYS Watch-Out for dem ol “hanging chads” (in 2012 too), as "keeping your powder dry" might ALSO be considered Sage Advice!!

Rick Santorum
Age: 53
Rent-a-mogul: Investment manager Foster Friess
Thinks he's running for: Pope
Central campaign theme: "Libertine men and scarlet women and ragtime, shameless music that'll drag your son, your daughter into the arms of the jungle animal instinct! Mass'teria!!!"
Base: Conservatives who admire the sincerity of his whackdoodle beliefs
Debate persona: Wally Cleaver meets Father Coughlin
Fun fact: His use of sweater vests caused a national non-spike in the use of sweater vests

Ron Paul
Age: 76
Rent-a-mogul: PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel
Thinks he's running for: the Walter Huston role in Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Central campaign theme: "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be cured with gold and bake sales."
Base: People who receive his liberal views through their left ear, his conservative views through their right ear, and in between is a lot of static.
Debate persona: Gepetto on a bad day
Fun fact: He's not available for leprechaun gigs at St. Patrick's Day parties this year, but 2013 is wide open.

Mitt Romney
Age: 64
Rent-a-mogul: Donald Trump
Thinks he's running for: Fifth head on Mount Rushmore
Central campaign theme: "I'm running for president, for Pete's sake!"
Base: the elusive and endangered species country clubbus Republicanus
Debate persona: love child of the Brady Bunch dad and Captain Queeg
Fun fact: Harper's Index says that 2 percent of Americans believe his middle name really is "Mittens." Well...isn't it?

Newt Gingrich
Age: 68
Rent-a-mogul: Gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson
Thinks he's running for: Baron Vladimir Harkonnen's seat
Central campaign theme: "Take a bath. Get a job. To the moon!"
Base: Georgia Republicans. And the current Mrs. Gingrich.
Debate persona: Poppin Fresh on a really bad day
Fun fact: His arteries are lined with velvet.

Puerto Bill, I really liked your link that describes and explains the Greek crisis. Thanks

Klasp you are welcome. Anybody listening to these podcasts, just the three (including this one below), will know more than 95% of the rest of the population about what happened and why. You will understand more than most of the politicians. You will understand why the bank bailouts were a good thing (except for the way they did it*). You will know the regulations are often good** in spite of what people like Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and FOX News say. So here is one more podcast. This one about the mortgage meltdown fiasco.

This American Life 355: THE GIANT POOL OF MONEY
Audio player only.
This show came out in May of 2008, before the meltdown but after the mortgage balloon pop. That makes it all the more interesting. We learn what is "The Global Pool of Money". We learn that when Alan Greenspan says (This from the podcast.) “The (garbled-I think he is talking about the Fed) stand prepared to maintain a highly accommodative stance of policy for as long as needed to promote satisfactory economic performance” it is central banker speak that means, “Hey global pool of money. Screw you.” They tell us why these toxic mortgages were given to people who could not afford them. How somebody making $40,000 a year could get a $550,000 loan. We learn how and why these mortgages fell apart and why they caused so much trouble. You will know more than 95% of everybody else. It is fascinating and fun or easy to listen to. You will want to hear more.

I really like the way these guys explain things. Again, it is not from a right or left perspective. It is from a “how did this happen and let’s explain it in a way everybody can understand” perspective.

From the web site; "A special program about the housing crisis produced in a special collaboration with NPR News. We explain it all to you. What does the housing crisis have to do with the turmoil on Wall Street? Why did banks make half-million dollar loans to people without jobs or income? And why is everyone talking so much about the 1930s?"

*The banks had to be bailed out. There is no question. What was wrong was the way they were bailed out. There were not enough restrictions placed on the money that was given to them. For example; Goldman Sachs and BofA and AIG and others were given 10s of billions (100s of billions?) of dollars. They took a lot of that money and not only shored up their capital positions they gave themselves million dollar bonuses for the year. The year that they destroyed the economy. They should never been allowed to do give themselves bonuses. Also the Government should have taken over the banks. At least they should have taken over Citi Group (or whatever they call themselves now). Of course we know the reaction that the Republicans had when the government when they (we) took over General Motors. They called it socialism and Government Motors etc. Even that we now know that GM is doing quite well, we saves well over a million jobs (2 million? 3 million? It is debatable how many million.) and have paid back almost all the money and just posted their biggest profit EVER!. Also the CEOs of the banks should have been fired. That did not happen. GM, or the government I should say, fired the CEO of GM and then let the next CEO go as well.

**If anybody listened to the the podcast about the Credit Default Swaps (And if you listen to this podcast here) not only will you understand why they need to be regulated but you might be stunned to know that they are still NOT regulated. Of course it does not make it any easier to regulate these things when you have the Republican candidates for president and the Republican leaders and non leaders in congress and FOX News screaming as often as they can that regulations are ruining everything.

Sorry to ramble. I just find it fascinating and interesting and like to pass it along.

>> Like to pass it along << (!!)



>> Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act …… (aka: the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999?)…… if Clinton would have vetoed it, it would have been overridden because it passed with a huge majority. Way more than the 66% needed. <<

While a sort of a CYA avoidance, PB, few people really know The REAL ‘why’ of such contrary-to-philosophy ‘back flips’ (or of The Fine Print LURES frequently buried deeeeply IN such U.S. bills). Though Clinton’s 2008 tax returns of $112 Million Net Worth after essentially seven years of (both) “unemployment”, after leaving The White House with a reported net worth of but only $1.3 Million, just MAY lend relative insight to The Reasoning behind such “contrary-to-philosophy ‘back flips’”……. (eh).

Regardless, “it” NTL appears to simply demonstrate my “linear sequitur” observation above, demonstrably irrespective of which (insistently purported) ‘philosophy’ is currently occupying your White House ‘in control’ (over The Tough)!!!!!..... Including the real basis of per-Presidential Administration-given “credit” (OFTEN terribly misrepresented By INTENT).

In this latter regard, the distinctly (purportedly) Republican-esque AVID support of “Wall Street over Main Street” is UNdeniably evident in BOTH of your last two (purportedly “for the people”) Democrat Administrations…… including the (baited ‘non-understanding’ of) “the past three years of (top 2%) Bail-Out Initiatives”……. closely mirroring the (arguably questionable) $700B in previous Top Down (“for the rich”) TARP funds, eh!

Similarly, while the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 was indeed to be heralded (albeit equally duly credited to the majority Congressional vote at the time), the essential 1993 ratification of continuing NAFTA (UNarguably a Reagan Plan initiation) is of equally demonstrable “point” about “WHO” gets The Eventual Credit…… And of equally demonstrable point too with “The Tables Reversed” is with the 1994 ratification of the World Trade Organization (superseding GATT) and the Y2K approval of "permanent normal trade relations" with China. BOTH policies are certainly relative to demonstrating the overlapping (often indistinguishable!) Right v Left operative ‘behavior’ (somewhat negating insistent L-v-R ‘philosophy’ differences)……. as well as suggesting the shared (combined?) “culpability / fault” of the currently resultant circumstances AND inevitabilities thoroughly referenced herewith (including The Euro Crisis…… for similar reasons).

And FTM (stateside), DITTO for The Maiden Lane “Act” BTW (AIG)…… and (UNarguably) the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ……. = “for the rich” initiatives demonstrably LED by then (Democrat) Federal Reserve Bank chairman Ben Bernanke!

IOW (from a ‘90s’ AND ‘2000s’ perspective), just such incumbent Administration “credit” is (in so many cases) demonstrative of the policy unfoldments initiated by but the PREVIOUS Administration that have simply come-to-fruit through The Economic Machinery 1-4+ years later in a subsequent incumbency! Hence, such “Republian-esque” policy initiative continuances are (arguably?) what in large part actually LED TO (an equally ONCE Republican-esque) CONcept of a Balanced Budget, AND the record budget surpluses under Clintonomics via increased federal coffer revenues forthcoming from just such (80s AND 90s!) UNleahed business activity through previous Administration initiatives (NAFTA initiatives, at minimum)…..

And of equal note is that The Admitted Success of said Balanced Budget Act of 1997 indeed included (those terrible Republican-esque “for the rich ONLY”) Business TAX CUTS…… with the equally “heralded” (if not demonstrable) REsults thereof...... hence the slowly-but-surely, dramatically reduced resultant unemployment rate expenditures (via business reinvestment), with the subsequently increased payroll tax / income tax / capital gains revenues thereof…… (albeit temporarily amid now WTO “globalization”).

ANYGüey , another (case in point) interesting blurb here…… (from a Republican). = [www.nytimes.com]

And perhaps less appreciative (though equally “case in point”) here….. from a VERY ‘Left’ perspective! = [www.isreview.org]



And while protection of individual “wherewithal” (in our shared “Post Lehman’s World”) is again MY personal #1 “interest”, perhaps runnin A VERY CLOSE Second is the legitimate concern about the (ever-encroaching) New World Order……. resulting from (and continuing within) even the “for the people” Democrat Administrations….. TOO!

IE: The 1995 replacement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by the WTO has certainly heightened concerns among (REALIST) critics because its MUCH Stronger enforcement powers represent yet a further Shift In Power AWAY from citizens and national governments to a GLOBAL Authority run by UNelected “officials”……. (which HOPEFULLY does NOT make ANYONE simply yuan….. errrrrr, yawn).

Aka: (“indistinguishable”) One World Government? = [www.fpif.org]

C U I D A D O…… and may “God Bless”….. us ALL (globally)! = [www.youtube.com]

So you are saying that Clinton is not a liberal as the right wing and FOX News would have us believe. Liberals have been saying that for years. Same with Obama.
Anything is arguable but the $700 TARP was essential if there were to be no more Lehmans. Also it was Bush's baby. Not a Democratic administration.
Fanny and Freddy had to be bailed out. The bleeding had to stop. Who says Bernanke is a Democrat? He was appointed by Bush but that also does not mean he is a Republican either. I don't know what he is.
I think the Clinton economy was fueled more by the internet bubble than anything else.

Up above KR made some claims that I don't agree with and I guess need some explaining.

Who is “HE”? And when did I say “non-Presidential (deficit) liability/culpability?” I may have but conveniently do not remember. Or maybe I am not understanding you because it is very difficult for me to read your posts. I did say about Clinton, “I would say that the federal government was controlled by Republicans especially since Clinton was damaged by his impeachment” and that was because both houses (The House of Representatives and The Senate) were controlled by the Republicans but when Bush was in office he had a Republican majority for in both houses for 6 of the 8 years. I also gave examples of the administration mindset about deficits. Having said that, the whole thing is a kind of nuanced situation. For example; When dealing with any Bill or budget, congress can act in a way that the President pushes it by threatening a veto or negotiating an outcome by way of barter or using public pressure or other ways but if the congress thinks it can override a veto or maybe the congress does not care if a bill gets vetoed for a variety of reasons it may act even if they know it will be vetoed. In the Clinton case, if he did veto the Glass-Steigall repeal it would have been overridden. In Obama's case the Republicans in congress have voted against or blocked almost everything the Democrats put up. The Republicans even vote against their own bills if they perceive that Obama and/or the Democrats might get some credit. I wish you could be more clear about exactly what you are referring to. No matter what. I am not disingenuous. I am very sincere.

I guess we will just have to disagree on things. I have done my best to explain myself. Now I would rather talk about this coming election cycle than debate Clinton's administration or whether Bush was responsible for what happened during his years.

How about that Rick Santorum? He had Michigan wrapped up but he had to keep spewing the crazy. As a Liberal I wish he would have just pounded Romney about his problems and left religion alone. Damn.

I am not much on politics but I do love the current debate of who is most Christian. Maybe for Easter, one em will get crucified to prove they are most Christian. Or perhaps all of them will and we will be entertained over a debate who has the most Christ like expression while being crucified.

“The people who criticize America so much, are the ones who LOVE it so much……. THAT comes from The Innocence that we ALL have somewhere within us, that we must always fall back on.” - Samuel Fuller, writer / filmmaker



While previously noted that you are obviously / thankfully NO “idiot”, neighbor (and demonstrably so herewith!), I must confess that I AM a wee bit alarmed that you seemingly did / do NOT appear (even remotely!) to embrace / acknowledge The Primary, “Larger Implication” Observations above……. as apparently tending to prefer to get (Classically) enmeshed in the ever-finite details guaranteed to bog-you-down in the (intended) minutia decoying one from EVER coming to (realist) terms with such opaque “nuance” duplicity.

And while I personally prefer the (Larger Circle Perspective) “1950s Style” government operative ethics referenced earlier, I am further concerned that you frequently employ this “Fox News” reference as somehow being a catch-all Identity Box ‘symbol’ prejudicing any-n-all disagreement……! Cuz JFTR, I haven’t viewed THAT (disgraceful) dog-n-pony show, “combat as entertainment” (Legally Blonde) INFORMation farce in well OVER a decade! ISR, ALL of my particular “Food For Thought” links herewith have been to a wee bit different caliber of financial ‘legitimacy’ (demonstrably and necessarily).

Though, the fact that “it” is THE #1 “news” program in America certainly raises (yet AGAIN) International eyebrows, while emphasizing current Global (RE) evaluation of America’s intrinsic capability and ongoing current dependability “to lead”! And FTM, the well-observed (blatantly propaganda) 08 pre-election ‘coverage’ by CNN, TOO, justifiably drew distinct ‘cause for alarm’………… from the international perspective!

NTL, thank you for the W E L C O M I N G L Y concise audio link on The Euro. In fact, it IS just that link’s referenced Greek misrepresentation and general governmental “UNreliability” (via public truthfulness) that is The Primary Observations discussed throughout this thread. Albeit with such similarly justified Consumer Confidence being a little ‘closer to home’….. via the aforementioned requisite indictments (at MINIMUM!).

And while America’s (Newport Beach!) PIMCO in your audio link is perhaps VERY WELL-Named (if not hilarious in this case!!), my only interest here would be in knowing to WHOM “they” subsequently sold such ‘toxic’ Greek paper…… after the (KNOWN) fact…… as again contextually referenced multiply above as perhaps QUITE representative of BOTH the “house of cards’ legally UNregulated to date (pursuant to the Financial Services Modernization Act!), AND, of the fundamental continuing confidence in the “trustworthiness” of U.S. based investment / system ‘managers’…… which UNarguably lay-at-heart to EVERYTHING under discussion here.

Yeah, WHO got bilked NOW….. in a distinctly (legal) Lehman’s kinda güey…… yet TWO years after-the-fact…… in America (still).

AKA: Virtually ZERO “action” one year later HERE…… against your current President’s #1 Campaign donor! = [online.wsj.com]#

Thus, like the ‘value’ of a lot of OUR investments These Daze (neighbor), I can hear demo ol Wall Street SHREDDERS screamin as we speak (in the operatively useful 'delay'!)! = [www.youtube.com]



Thus, perhaps yet another ‘emerging’ Good Investment (ROI in Each OTHER..... "right about now")! = [www.davidkorten.org]

Santorum says, "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."
First of all Obama said, "Everyone should have the "opportunity" to go to college or acquire a "higher level of training skills."
Second of all; A snob?? Is it bad to give everybody and opportunity(!) for higher education?

Santorum could have won Michigan. Bummer he had to keep talking.

Today's fun fact; During the Obama administration more private sector jobs were created in three years than during the Bush administration in eight years.