News - Category 'Pre 2008 Election'

Wall Street Bailout-Fire Paulson Letter

02 Oct : 18:35 Category: Pre 2008 Election

Letter to the President



Simple solution to this bank bailout, and it is a bank bailout since they will not be charged with a crime, they will not be held accountable for their misappropriations of funds, they will not be held accountable for their misuse of Credit Default Swaps or other derivative instruments:

FIRE PAULSON!!!!!!!

No matter what you say Mr. President the American people, who all of you in Washington are in your terms to serve, at a ratio of 20:1 do not want this bailout.

We don't care what we lose as long as you do not socialize our economy and economic system. You nor anyone else has any right to place our GDP, our hard work, entrepreneurial efforts or pure labor and other services, in to a pool for sake of bad debt. We the people are tired of this line of thinking, the one that says the United States Government dictates the outcome.

Honor our Founders and the Constitution of the United States of America, Honor the soldiers fighting and those who died, those who suffered, and those who still suffer by firing Hank Paulson and not putting this fiscally irresponsible socialist liberal bill on ours heads and the heads of our grandchildren, especially since you are going out of office.

This nation's people and their addiction to everything being so convenient and easy, their being so lost in image and spectacle versus genuine character, commitment, honor and courage, is entirely the fault of the lending practices in this nation and the banks who thrived from it.

The crooks who ran these banks are counting on you and Paulson, counting on the American People to pay for their mistakes while the banks are relentless and unforgiving about debts owed to them. Taxing agencies offer no relief either. Prices on oil fall throughout the last 30 years but prices on gas stay high due to taxes imposed during the higher fuel costs that never get repealed.

Mr. President do not listen to Hank Paulson any longer. Like FDR Mr. Paulson remains working on schemes to assure his old friends get a hand, that their banking community, which purposefully trades to intertwine itself into every facet of the economy, will require a new duty, a new tax, on the taxpayer. They want you to commit the Faith and Credit of the United States once more for the sake of whatever failed scheme they got caught in.

Please sir I implore you, fire Hank Paulson and our economy will turn up just from that alone. Do not keep promoting "The United Socialist Republic of America," which is what it seems is occurring.

Paulson is a serious shame and George W. Bush, Christian to Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for letting him talk you into this and committing this fraud on the American People. Fire Hank Paulson.

Thank you for reading.


printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Wall Street Bailout - Hindsight & $700 billion

27 Sep : 19:01 Category: Pre 2008 Election

Hindsight Is 20/20, or So It Is Said



The question I have is why Senator McCain didn't bring up that Congress can pass and own the bailout bill on their own since they control both houses, that the democrats want this legislation, and most important of all....


While the democrats are proud of the fact they blocked the ability of Americans to take a portion of their social security and invest it in the stock market, with the current financial disaster they have nothing to be proud of.

The original Bush plan was "to privatize" up to 4% of the amount paid into social security from our paychecks, based on the election of the individual to do so, meaning 96% still goes to social security. And though speculation has proven unwise, this could have created an alternative pool of capital that may have done better than the rest of the stock market, surely it could have done worse. Certainly it is possible that the oversight by treasury would have invested these private accounts poorly.

Yet remember this private investment idea was taken directly from the choices that government employees have , such as Senators, Congresspersons, the President, Vice President, and others throughout the Federal government. They get to put portions of their retirement funds into private investment choices we don't get, investment choices that are managed by the government. Bush's "privatization of social security" was the sharing of this system with the public, a private exclusive system to public employees. Note that John McCain wants to share this same system, he may have always supported this program since a capitalist nation does run on private capital and enterprise, the signs of successful labor.

So now, with this in mind note, that regarding the bailout proposal, the democrats claimed "a fundamental consensus" -- a consensus that never existed -- that the democrats began working hard on an actual deal, started to occur after John McCain suspends his campaign and returns to Washington. In other words, their dire language of "worst financial crisis since the great depression," and the urgency this was meant to convey, wasn't a fact of the matter beforehand according to Congress' actions under leadership of the democrats. It is no secret they were actually amending the 3 pages from Paulson with the 45 pages from Dodd, and others, to include 20% of the profits from this "bailout plan" be allocated to ACORN*(See bottom.). The democrats are not, nor do they appear to have ever been, working on mechanisms to assure the funds go where Paulson would need them to shore up our banking system as claimed. The democrats are working out sweetheart deals for their special interest groups to own a piece of 700 billion dollars instead.

The point is that their actions did not reflect any threat to their private investments, their exclusive program of segregated retirement funds that they get to invest as they choose, which is managed by the U.S. Government. No instead their actions reflect "business as usual" and "we welcome Chicago Machine Politics to Washington D.C."

The epiphany I woke up with is that while the democrats easily rail against John McCain on the idea of these private social security accounts as set forth above, and play with our "imagination of what would have happened if Bush had gotten away with privatizing social security to allow investment in the stock market," those, who can pass the bailout proposal without the republicans, the democrats, by claiming "a fundamental consensus," admit they are more than ready to:

Ask us to put out 700 billion dollars, $10,000 per household, to purchase the worst paper the banks have -- illiquid paper!

I don't agree with the bailout, whether it's Paulson's 3 pages or the democrats greater than 45. I am merely pointing out "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government" as we were warned by James Madison would be used regularly to destroy the principles of limited government established by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. This principle Madison warned of is being tossed about like a hot potato to a group of politicians who appear more than ready to carve out their piece of pie from it, and would sell out on principles they don't understand, like teenagers who break parental rules, because they do not realize the greater ramifications of their actions, similar to what may occur some 9 months after the instant gratification the teenager experiences. Paulson bringing this to the democrats, handing them the greatest opportunity to socialize our entire financial system, is an embarrassment and shame on George Bush, a president I admire but whose term is showing its beleaguered state. John McCain isn't signing on without making sure to kick the Devil out of the details, and appears to be doing all he can to assure this isn't the power transfer our Founding Fathers meticulously crafted the Constitution from 1779-1789 to avoid, an 11 year commitment to this nation.

Thus it would appear the Congressional republicans, lead by the House, are carrying on a major exercise in sobriety in hopes we, the American People, will act to support them. Due to the Ohm's Law relation of the desire to believe in messianic possibilities versus facing the hard work that needs to be done, I am not sure we can rise to this occasion, though I am hopeful or I wouldn't have even put this in a thread.

Thanks for reading.



*ACORN, as referenced in the bill, from what I understand, is not exactly (and this is typical of Chicago Politics) the "ACORN" that William Ayers and Barrack Obama gave funds to through their boardmembership together on "The Annenberg Challenge," Ayers Chicago Based foundation (this ACORN I'll refer to as "ACORN-CO" for "Community Organizers."). However, the ACORN referenced in the bill, which works with low income Americans to educate them on home buying, is the funding agent for ACORN-CO, a political subsidiary. In a way, ACORN-CO is similar to the lobbying groups of Freddimac and Fanniemae, though lobbying an entirely different voting group for favorable treatment in exchange for political favors. In Chicago Machine Politics this is known as "patronage."
printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Conspiracies?...Let's Start With Knee-Jerk Lies!

16 Sep : 19:45 Category: Pre 2008 Election
Let us not forget Sada, the number 2 official in Saddam's air force back during his reign of terror:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Just google "WMDs Syria" and a host of sites about this come up. I've posted it here before and am sure others of ACOC are aware of this, sadly, Sean Hannity and others concede the WMDs not being found instead of pursuing this, which I have sent to them and asked what happened, figuring it fell through the cracks as things do.

Did the same with Obama's acclaimed "$79 billion surplus" that Iraq has "sitting in American banks," http://wbz.com/pages/2755944.php?, nothing happens irrespective of it being untrue, http://www.gao.gov and download document d081031.pdf. I go over this in more detail in another thread.

You'd think that when a sitting U.S. Senator abuses an unbiased report prepared for the entire Congress by the GAO, by either outright lying or being so inept he doesn't know the difference between "revenue" and "surplus," in regard to a factual report in black and white, not subject to "oh I meant blah blah" excuses, that conservatives, we the right, would jump on this issue, especially in light of the plethora of information that Heroes like George W. Bush have had to sift through, trust others opinions on, hire the right people to assist with, in executing the office of President of the United States of America. Mistakes like this can be catastrophic, we found this out with George Tenet, who was hired by Clinton and kept on by Bush, only to provide the intelligence we relied on, which intelligence didn't include the information provided by Sada.

Remember when they called Bush dumb?....Hell they still do because he's not a former lawyer, not a part of the liberal elite, not thinking with a mind to expanding the employment of those in the legal community through endless legislation and specialized bureaucracy like the rest of the Washington cocktail crowd. Imagine how that "dumb" plays here with Senator Obama, apparently illiterate, unless of course he'll admit he relied on someone else's interpretation and hadn't read it himself, or, purely, that he lied, which I'd imagine will not come until he parts the Red Sea and heals the planet -- around the same time hell freezes over.

If not for the job Obama is applying for this would be meaningless, however, I submit:

- If Obama relied on someone else, then his judgment in picking people to aid him is suspect, which leads to how important the Supreme Court Justice issue is in this election.

- If Obama lied intentionally, then clearly he doesn't deserve the job, unless that is the qualification to be president purely because Bill Clinton lowered the bar: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" with eyes staring straight into the camera and certain that such an act would put the question to rest -- Sure it's a private affair, fine, then admit it and that it's private, show Europe there is little difference between American and European liberals when it comes to scandal in high office, but at least you didn't lie to we who put you in office and entrusted you with that privilege.

- If Obama himself made this mistake and admits to it, apologizing for promoting anti-Iraq sentiment, with the potential of putting our troops in harms way very quickly, that's great, but I am sure we'd all be dead from turning blue by then.

- If Obama hasn't the capacity to admit the mistake, then we must ask ourselves if we can trust someone so disillusioned with themselves to be Commander-in-Chief, to negotiatiate with the President of Iran, to represent us before the United Nations and the G8 (oops minus Russia? we can only hope), to deal with Russia, South Korea, and hell all of the above scenarios apply to this trust issue really.

See no matter how many people disagree with Bush, even hate him, there is a reality to what happened here when you look at the explanation of the number 2 official of Saddam's air force, Sada, and join that with George Tenet as CIA director, hired by Bill Clinton. Sadly the conspiracy theorists go off in every other direction, anything but point to liberals, point to the political favor system known as "patronage" in democratic circles, common throughout the Daley Machine, its arguable origin in America, at least in its blatant immoral use. Listening to these many things said, the various political debts being paid by patronage shown to the machine in developing theories based on the political debtor's background and education, I initially started to believe it was an inside job, and was close to believing Bush did it, until I did a simple bit of research on Minuro Yamasaki and the unique design of the World Trade Center Towers http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller4.html:

"Facing seemingly insurmountable technical challenges, Yamasaki and his team of engineers and architects nevertheless figured out a way to construct the world’s tallest buildings on that site. They had to anchor the towers in granite that was 70 feet below the adjacent Hudson River. To do this they made a "slurry wall," something that engineers had used for a subway system in Milan. Like the hull of a ship, this steel and concrete-reinforced wall kept river water from flooding the 500 by 1000-foot wide area of excavation. Two other innovations – load-bearing exterior walls and a "skylobby" system – substantially increased the amount of useable space on each floor. This enabled Yamasaki to have room for his plaza and still meet the square footage requirement for the center. Like he did with his 20-story IBM building in Seattle, Yamasaki provided structural integrity to the towers by placing steel columns around the outside of the building – 236 of them spaced 22 inches apart. These vertical columns, 1353 feet high, along with the 47 in the central core, provided sufficient support for each floor to eliminate the need for any interior columns. Each tower had 254 elevators. Skylobbys, where people transferred from express to local elevators (on floors 44 and 78), divided the tower into three sections. He stacked the shafts for local elevators that serviced the lower, middle, and upper thirds of each tower one on top of the other. Yamasaki and his team thereby made 75 percent of each floor available for rent, compared with 50 percent per floor in other skyscrapers—and they built those towers for the same cost as a conventional skyscraper half as tall.

Essentially approximately 80% of the load was transferred to the outside wall, only 20% in the core, 236/47.

Now if I could find this rather telling description of where the bearing weight is being distributed so easily then so could anyone else, especially those terrorists who failed when trying to blow up what they thought was the central bearing column of the buildings in the first attempt to take down the World Trade Centers, and nothing happened.

Endlessly conspiracy Bush hating expert after expert discusses their knowledge of buildings, their knowledge of explosives, yet not a one discusses the unique one-of-a-kind design of these buildings or their expert knowledge of Minuro Yamasaki and architecture.

So like I said George W. Bush is a Hero to me, and hopefully history will annal his accomplishments with a highlight of this moment of crisis, 9/11, so perfectly as to illustrate, as a reminder,how easily some in our nation give up on America, the haters, the extremists, among us, liberals who saw a rally point out of the deaths of 3,000 Americans, a rally point they've used to dog Bush throughout his Presidency, instead of be Americans first. And they wonder why we see them as unpatriotic....

9/11 was a tragedy for us in this way, that those who hated a President before we were attacked saw the attacks on these towers as fuel to promote and foster Bush hate amongst the rest of us instead of rising to the occasion as Americans united to deal with whatever enemy, foreign or domestic, had committed this atrocity. Breaks my heart to see.

Apologies for length and thank you for reading.


printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Change?....Where?

10 Sep : 18:38 Category: Pre 2008 Election
Around August 9th 2008 Senator Obama delivered his debut democratic party radio address (http://wbz.com/Obama-delivers-democratic-radio-address/2755944) and stated in it:

"The second thing we learned this week was that the Iraqi government now has a 79 billion dollar budget surplus thanks to their windfall oil profits. And, while this Iraqi money sits in American Banks, American taxpayers continue to spend 10 billion dollars a month to defend and rebuild Iraq. That's right, America faces a huge budget deficit, Iraq has a surplus.

"Now Senator McCain promises to continue President Bush's open ended commitment to The War in Iraq while refusing to pressure Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own country...." (Emphasis mine.)

During the first Bill O'Reilly interview Obama brought up Iraq, "they have 79 billion," in response to something O'Reilly said. And even more recently, in rejecting Bush's Iraq troop withdrawal plans, Barack Obama stated "taxpayers 'will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus.'" (Emphasis mine.) Which commentary is quoted from and can be found here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26621558/.

The point sitting United States Senator Obama appears to be raising is resentment, a resentment of Iraq. Many may see him trying to delineate that we are spending 120 billion a year on Iraq while Iraq can afford their own expenditure, a certain message Senator Obama would like everyone to take away from this comment. The trouble is that the facts Senator Obama worked with, "learned," are from a GAO report which does not arrive at his conclusion.

What absolutely must be said here: Iraq has no "79 billion dollar surplus" sitting in American banks.

Iraq is poised, for the first time in 3 years, to have a 38-50 billion dollar budget surplus this year according to that same GAO report, however, 22 billion is already being requested as a budget supplement and recently it was reported that Iraq is seeking to have the U.S. submit bids to supply them with high tech aircraft, two key points that would indicate Iraq is "taking responsibility for their own country."

The report that Senator Obama derived what "we learned" is located on the web at http://www.gao.gov as document GAO-08-1031.pdf and entitled "Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq, Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus." You'll find on Acrobat page number 19 of this report a section entitled "Iraq's Financial Deposits through 2007 and Budget Surplus" that the amounts in the Development Fund for Iraq at the New York Federal Reserve Bank are an accumulation from 2005-2007 of 29.4 billion dollars or approximately 10 billion dollars per year on average. You'll also find the following statement for 2008, the year of the successful McCain proposed Surge:

"As displayed in table 4, we estimate that Iraq’s budget surplus for 2008 could range from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, based on the six scenarios we used to project export oil revenues by varying price and volume of export. (See app. III for the six scenarios projecting export oil revenues.) This estimate is based on the assumption that the expenditure ratio in 2008 will be the same as the average expenditure ratios from 2005 to 2007 except expenditures for war reparations (5 percent of estimated oil export revenues), which will vary with differing scenarios for oil exports." (Emphasis mine.)

Please also note the use of the phrase "budget surplus." The maximum estimated budget surplus amount is 50.3 billion (22 billion of which is sough as a budget supplement, a portion of the remainder for re-building their air force by purchasing planes from the United States.). Mr Obama's claim of a $79 billion surplus makes for great fiction because it is 29 billion dolllars more than the actual maximum budget surplus estimated by the GAO around the time when oil futures contract prices were just beginning to fall and still selling near peak levels (approx $140 per barrel).

Of course one wonders, Where did Senator Obama get the 79 billion dollar amount? This 79 billion dollar figure appears on Acrobat page 24 of the GAO report, under the section "Conclusion:"

"Iraq, with the third largest oil reserve in the world, has benefited from the recent rise in oil prices and generated billions of dollars in revenues. In 2008, Iraq will likely earn between $67 billion and $79 billion in oil sales..." (Emphasis mine.)

Please note the use of the word "sales" and the word "likely."

It would appear Mr. Obama does not know the difference between "oil sales" and "budget surplus" to the tune of almost 29 billion dollars when it meets his political purposes. This more importantly appears to be a significant detail when considered in light of the job he is applying for and the tens of thousands of pages of legislation, treaties, agreements and other instruments placed before the President of the United States regularly for his signature, and, sometimes translated from a foreign tongue. Now if it is a mistake, it is a mistake we cannot afford in the Oval Office. Yet, if it is purposeful, and I am inclined to believe it is, this type of misrepresentation (lying) is the same old dirty politics, and results in his message of "change we can believe in" being entirely disingenuous. We do not need another person who will look directly into the camera or microphone and lie to the American People as President of The United States, one in particular, Bill Clinton, was enough.

Now additionally yet slightly less significant, please note the use of the words "scenario" and "estimate" from the GAO report. These indicate a time reference to future events, something I'd think the President of a University Law Review would know. And this only exacerbates what appears on balance to be Senator Obama, a sitting U.S. Senator, appearing to intend to generate anti-Iraq sentiment. Either he and/or one or more of his 300ish advisors, including Lawrence Summers a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, viewed, confused, and stated that these "oil sales" amounts are a drawable "surplus" available to Iraq "now" in discussion, and as though that amount, which for the last 3 years was less than 10% of our monthly expenditure, is a sufficient amount to rebuild Iraq (Essentially, "Their 10 billion a year is enough to rebuild their country."). Barack Obama believed that interpretation or representation of these amounts and their entire value from this politically motivated view.

Consider now, from a view of what's best for America, how much less progress would have occurred in Iraq at $10 billion a year vs our 120 billion a year @ 10 billion a month, and thus the resentment of America by Iraqis and the Malaki government, how our "illegal occupation," as some see it, would have dragged on and on, and, how this places our troops in harms way for a longer duration than necessary if we can do something about it. Apparently this type of political management of a war being proven unsuccessful in Vietnam wasn't enough and Barack Obama along with the "anti-war" liberals would have liked to take another crack at it. And any who might suggest we had no business being there in the first place, I submit, we had over 300,000 reasons to be there: Kurds who'd been killed by Saddam with chemical weapons, a WMD, and Saddam doing nothing to set aside fears he had or was using WMDs, though the killing of those Kurds left little doubt. Not trying to confuse anyone with the facts, honest.

So much for well thought out and nuanced elite liberal intellect. I submit instead that this appears a certain and specific use of misrepresentation of information that was provided by this GAO report to U.S. Senator Obama to assure he has certain facts that will aid him as a sitting U.S. Senator in reviewing upcoming legislation, a very factual and unbiased report. This certainly does appear to be a more than irresponsible use of this information by Senator Obama if these misrepresentations were intentionally done to bolster his bid for the White House.


Forgivable Error

On the other hand it can easily appear to anyone who might read through this report who then contrasts how the information in the report was used by Senator Obama, to conclude that Mr. Obama appears to be entirely inept when it comes to finance, and, by misuse of this information, foreign policy. I have yet to see anyone ask the Prime Minister of Iraq "How are you going to spend the $79 billion budget surplus your country has sitting in American banks according to Barack Obama?" That's a conversation that may quickly lead to strained relations with Iraq, and, while our troops are still there. However imagine if this were a mistake made in discussion with Iran, Korea, Russia, or any host of nations who've hated America from it's inception, hostile to us for sake of hostility. Could this type of error weaken negotiating positions? Could it embolden enemies, or at least give them talking points to achieve political inroads in governments that don't like us much anyway? Apparently Senator Obama isn't accustomed to thinking so comprehensively, or, as it appears here, caring enough to do so. It's forgivable as a mistake if he admits it, however, I'd say he'll likely part the Red Sea before any such admission would occur.


Conclusion

This GAO report does explain a proposed $22 billion supplemental budget the government of Iraq is seeking and that will lower the estimated surplus (Acrobat page 20). I believe that this activity is where the Iraqi's are asserting their self governance and thus not requiring that "Senator McCain pressure Iraq into taking responsibility for themselves." The report includes a breakdown of expenditures that indicate the Iraqi government is almost matching the U.S. amounts, which, by the way, haven't been expended to the extent of the amounts allocated (Acrobat page 21).

It certainly appears to me that Mr. Obama's use of this GAO report is entirely irresponsible and a glaring reminder of politics as usual because articulation and repetition of a blatant lie which can generate anti-Iraq resentment as easily as it misrepresents the financial status of Iraq and our financial relationship with them, demonstrates absolutely no interest in doing what is best for America, and thus appears entirely done for political purposes, a demonstration that Mr. Obama would mislead the entire American people for the sake of partisan politics.

Understand there is more of this type of talk in the radio address and certainly one could chalk it up to political rhetoric, however those, especially liberals who were alive during the 60s, cannot help but walk away with an anti-Iraq sentiment reminiscent of the Vietnam protests of the 60s and early 70s along with the energizing of their positions in opposition to, not just the War on Iraq, but the Global War on Terror just because it's a "War." I have tried desperately not to believe Mr. Obama, a sitting U.S. Senator, is intending to generate this, yet due to his repetition of this misrepresentation, this misinformation, this lie of a "$79 billion budget surplus," I can no longer believe he has any good intention for America.

Many have claimed his change of position on some issue as telling and with some measure of import to his character, however those are explainable by his having other or new information to consider in same fashion as John McCain, a proper use of intelligence. Here with this GAO report however, Mr. Obama's specific recurring re-statement is derived from a factual report submitted to him in assistance as a sitting U.S. Senator, a report he apparently cannot comprehend or mis-read entirely, or, relied solely on his advisers to brief him on and never read himself. This report wasn't prepared by the GAO with any intention of bias as it is available to members of Congress to inform them, it is prepared for them. Thus misrepresenting these facts, as Mr. Obama has and continues to do, is sadly a blatant and certain lie. Sad because he is a sitting United States Senator who has known the Grace of promise in being an American and appears ready and willing to throw that away.

By the above account of what Senator Obama has achieved with this "$79 billion budget surplus" lie to the American people, and its recurring use -- a discount of the work of our U.S. Armed Forces and our allies, the Malaki Government, and the freedom of the people of Iraq -- Senator Obama has provided this American with enough to absolutely question his patriotism.

Thank you for your time and for reading this entire.


printer friendly create pdf of this news item
Go to page   <<