HotStockMarket › Groups › stonerangers forum › Discussions › Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell.

Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell. - Page 13

post #241 of 1312
Thread Starter 

A little off topic but.....

 

'UFO' at the bottom of the Baltic Sea 'cuts off electrical equipment when divers get within 200m'

  • Object is raised about 10 to 13ft above seabed and curved at the sides like a mushroom
  • Hole is surrounded by an strange rock formation that expedition team can not explain
  • Stones are covered in something 'resembling soot' which has baffled experts
  • Divers say phones and some cameras switch off when close to the object

By Eddie Wrenn


 

 

 

The divers exploring a 'UFO-shaped' object at the bottom of the Baltic Sea say their equipment stops working when they approach within 200m.

Professional diver Stefan Hogerborn, part of the Ocean X team which is exploring the anomaly, said some of the team's cameras and the team's satellite phone would refuse to work when directly above the object, and would only work once they had sailed away.

He is quoted as saying: 'Anything electric out there - and the satellite phone as well - stopped working when we were above the object.

'And then we got away about 200 meters and it turned on again, and when we got back over the object it didn’t work.'

 
Hefty trajectory: The Swedish diving team noted a 985-foot flattened out 'runway' leading up to the object, implying that it skidded along the path before stopping but no true answers are clear

Hefty trajectory: The Swedish diving team noted a 985-foot flattened out 'runway' leading up to the object, implying that it skidded along the path before stopping but no true answers are clear

 

 

Diver Peter Lindberg said: 'We have experienced things that I really couldn’t imagine and I have been the team's biggest skeptic regarding these different kind of theories.

'I was kind of prepared just to find a stone or cliff or outcrop or pile of mud but it was nothing like that, so for me it has been a missing experience I must say.'

Member Dennis Åsberg said: 'I am one hundred percent convinced and confident that we have found something that is very, very, very unique.

'Then if it is a meteorite or an asteroid, or a volcano, or a base from, say, a U-boat from the Cold War which has manufactured and placed there - or if it is a UFO...

'Well honestly it has to be something.'

The quotes were first reported at NDTV. The Mail Online has reached out to the Ocean X team for clarification.

 
More questions: The divers found soot-covered rocks that encircled an egg-shaped hole that went into the object at its center, and have no idea what any of it means

The team did get some pictures, such as these soot-covered rocks that encircled an egg-shaped hole which went into the object at its center, and have no idea what any of it means

 

 
No clarification: The divers made their sonar discovery public but waited a year to make the dive because they had to gather enough funding and base off of weather conditions

No clarification: The divers made their sonar discovery public but waited a year to make the dive because they had to gather enough funding and base off of weather conditions

 
Landing spot: The exact coordinates of the object have not been released, but it is confirmed to be somewhere at the bottom of the Botnia Gulf in the Baltic Sea between Finland and Sweden

Landing spot: The exact coordinates of the object have not been released, but it is confirmed to be somewhere at the bottom of the Botnia Gulf in the Baltic Sea between Finland and Sweden

 

 
 
The sonar picture of the unidentified object resembles the famed Star Wars ship the Millennium Falcon

The sonar picture of the unidentified object resembles the famed Star Wars ship the Millennium Falcon

The object was first found in May last year, but because of a lack of funding and bad timing, they have were not able to pull a team together to see for themselves - just the strange, metallic outline, and a similar disk-shaped object about 200 metres away.

During their visit, the team saw a 985-foot trail that they described 'as a runway or a downhill path that is flattened at the seabed with the object at the end of it'.

As it was before the recent dive, the story behind the object is anyone's guess, from a 'plug to the inner world' to the Millennium Falcon ship from Star Wars.

 

While the Ocean Explorer team is understandably excited about their potentially earth-shattering find, others are slightly more sceptical and are questioning the accuracy of the sonar technology.

In the past, such technology has confused foreign objects with unusual- but natural - rock formations.

Part of the trouble they face, however, is that they have no way of telling what is inside the supposed cylinder- whether it is filled with gold and riches or simply aged sediment particles.

They're hoping for the former, and history seems to be in their favour.

 

The Baltic Sea is a treasure trove for shipwreck hunters, as an estimated 100,000 objects are thought to line the cold sea's floor.

The company have created a submarine that they hope will appeal to tourists and wannabe shipwreck hunters who will pay to take a trip down to the bottom of the Baltic Sea to see for themselves.

A further dive will take place in the coming weeks.

Their sonar pictures show that the object is a massive cylinder with a 60 metre diameter and a 400 metre-long tail. A similar disk-shaped object was also found about 200 metres away.
Their sonar pictures show that the object is a massive cylinder with a 60 metre diameter and a 400 metre-long tail. A similar disk-shaped object was also found about 200 metres away.
 

The Ocean Explorer team's sonar pictures show that the object is a massive cylinder with a 60 metre diameter and a 400 metre-long tail deep in the Baltic Sea. A similar disk-shaped object was also found about 200 metres away

 
Unidentified treasure: Shipwreck divers are perplexed by the oddly-shaped object that they found at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

Unidentified treasure: Shipwreck divers are perplexed by the oddly-shaped object that they found at the bottom of the Baltic Sea

Tourist trips: Diver Peter Lindberg is hoping to take wealthy tourists down in this submarine to see the object

Tourist trips: Diver Peter Lindberg is hoping to take wealthy tourists down in this submarine to see the object

post #242 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Cyprus Officially Requests Bailout And Next On Deck: Slovenia May Request Bailout Next Month PM Says

 
 



 

Because once you pop, you can't stop.

From Bloomberg:

 
 

Slovenia may ask for an international bailout if lawmakers fail to adopt legislation next month that would limit public spending, Prime Minister Janez Jansa said in an interview with a local radio station.

 

“July will be the moment of truth since parliament will vote on the golden fiscal rule and on changes to the way referendums are organized,” Jansa was quoted as saying in an interview with Koper-based Radio Ognjisce. “If we continue to get more and more debt, we will see a Greek scenario here and this generation will have to pay dearly for the stupidity of those that have delayed decisions.”

John Nash was a genius for a reason: defecting is stupid, but if you defect, defect first. Or at least be among the first. It seems Europe has finally had its first lesson in game theory and is learning fast.

 

 

 Cyprus Officially Requests Bailout

 
This has to be a record:
 
  • GREEK FINANCE MINISTER RAPANOS RESIGNS; PRIME MINISTER ACCEPTS

This is the same guy who was appointed last week, and who fainted after seeking the official Greek numbers. In fact we are not sure he ever got an official appointment. And elsewhere:

 

  • CYPRUS REQUESTS EU AID
  •  
  • CYPRUS SEEKS EXTERNAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM EURO AREA: China just said NEIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #243 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Prudens Speculari
Criminal Syndicates, Nothing More.


Posted: 27 Jun 2012

 

 Was sitting down last night after playing in a charity golf tournament, reflecting on whether the title of my post yesterday Global Cess Pool of Serial Liars & Banking Stooges. Kept thinking it might have been a little too harsh, that not everyone in the industry is like that. For a moment, I considered penning a little pick me up piece offering the bright side to such filth.


Then I awoke to the Barclays news today. For those unaware, Barclays was charged and has now settled (of course neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing right?) with the CFTC that it manipulated and made false reports related to interbank lending rates LIBOR. For those interested in some of the details on these thugs, you can read the CFTC report here.


Here is a couple of snippets from the report:

 


"Barclays’ Unlawful Conduct to Benefit Derivatives Trading Positions"
Now that's nice.

 


"Barclays’ Unlawful Conduct at the Direction of Senior Management"
  
Really, at the direction of senior management huh? And their punishment?


"Barclays said that Chief Executive Bob Diamond and three other top executives—Chris Lucas, Jerry del Missier and Rich Ricci—will forgo their annual bonuses for 2012." 
 Give up their bonus, why thats heresy. I can only imagine how that 4th marriage trophy wife will react to that development.
Regarding these thugs and their actions here's what CEO Bob Diamond had to say;
"Nothing is more important to me than having a strong culture at Barclays,"


How lovely. Strong culture huh Bob, if you mean culture of criminality then you're spot on. Check out the Barclay's mission statement from their web site.
Our Framework, code and rules“Good corporate governance practice is an important ingredient in creating and sustaining shareholder value, and ensuring that behaviour is ethical, legal and transparent.”
Barclays Chairman Marcus Agius.


What stands out to me here is I am thoroughly shocked that Marcus Agius doesn't have the title Sir before his name. Hope this episode doesn't affect his ability to secure his place among the nobility. (Marcus make sure your grease check doesn't bounce as that will surely put the kibosh on your knighthood.
As a result of all this, Barclays was fined $160million by the Dept. of Justice $160 million, $200 million by the CFTC,  and £59.5 million ($93.08 million) by the FSA. Anyone care to guess what this amount represents in relation to the profits garnered by Barclays from the scheme? What a sad joke this all is. Actually this whole looting and pillaging shtick is getting old and tired. Even the Attila and his Huns must have gotten a little bored of plundering everything they encountered. These entities are criminal syndicates, nothing more, posing far greater threat than any mobster or drug lord. Until there are consequences commensurate with the sins this plot of lawlessness will play out over and over again.

post #244 of 1312

Found this interesting. I wouldn't say its an absolute fact, but I wouldn't repudiate it as being a conspiracy or as flat out absurd. Just keep an eye for anything and everything. Humans have been taught many of lessons before. Let us hope they've learned something. 

 

 

Rockefeller Foundation Predicts 13,000 Dead at London 2012 Olympics; BBC Says Over 100,000

 

A 2010 Rockefeller Foundation document entitled“Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” outlines a scenario which results in the death of 13,000 during the 2012 Olympics.

The first worrying prediction begins in 2012 when ‘the pandemic the world had been anticipating for years’, finally hits, infecting nearly 20 percent of world population and claiming 8 million lives. Due to this pandemic, the Rockefeller Foundation outlines how the public will welcome a more authoritative government and a tighter control across all aspects of life, including Biometric IDs for all citizens.

 

From a different blog....

 

First I had the experience of alerting Berlin to a false flag event for the opening of the women’s football championship (26-06-2011). Then I was warned in London about a false flag re the Olympics and googled. Now this from Argentina:

‘Are the London Olympics a target for a False-Flag Attack?

“The two fundamental elements for a successful Strategy are: Secrecy and Surprise!” Juan Domingo Perón - Argentine President & Statesman

 It might be wise to take a closer look at some unnerving indications that the London Olympics might be the stage for a horrific “False Flag” attack, as part of the Global Power Master’s strategic need to break their present global political and economic deadlock.

“False Flag” attacks happen when a militarily strong Nation stages a controlled and very high profile military or terror attack on its own territory and interests, then immediately blaming it on a target foreign power or entity, using it as an excuse to wage war.

Such events carry their tell-tale signs; their “stigmata” so to speak because, when planned, they must include some sort of “communication or cueing mechanism” so that those in the know can make sure neither they, nor their associates, nor loved ones should happen to be in “the wrong place at the wrong time”.

 

Then, they go on to define “the matrix of four very different futures” in store for Mankind:

“(1) Lock-Step: a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian  leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback” (you can almost see them watering at the mouth over this one!).

(2) Clever Together: A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues”  (definitely no sign whatsoever that today’s power brokers are doing anything even remotely leading to that!)

“(3) Hack Attack: An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge” (more slurpy Power Elite mouth watering with this one!), and,

“(4) Smart Scramble: An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems” (and where the powerless suffer and die, whilst the powerful go into high-tech-security ‘business as usual’ mode…)

 

Link: http://wewhoopposedeception.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/crying-wolf-the-2012-olympic-bombing-which-killed-13000/

 

post #245 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Paul's full Fed audit bill approved unanimously by House committee


Reason magazine reports that U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's unadulterated legislation to audit the Federal Reserve in full, including its dealings with foreign banks, was approved yesterday in a unanimous vote by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

What's the odds that the senate  doesn't vote for it or Obama issues yet another 'executive order' to stop it? Obama has issued 108 executive orders most of which are to skirt around congress so that he can do what he wants.

post #246 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Will All the Money Printing Lead to Hyperinflation?

Published: Wednesday, 27 Jun 2012 | 12:45 AM ET
 
By: Moorad Choudhry
Treasurer, Corporate Banking Division, Royal Bank of Scotland
 

 

 

Fiat money is a wonderful thing is it not? Truly one of the more useful developments in society since humans first learned to think / speak, that one can put in a day’s work and be rewarded with a piece of paper, which can itself be exchanged for something as marvelous as a punnet of strawberries or a Fender Jazz Bass.

 

 
So easy, right? And not a large wheel-barrowful of paper as citizens would have needed in the Weimar Republic, but a small scrap that is literally like Monopoly paper. (The 500 euro ($632) note, at approximately 404 pounds, is coincidentally exactly one week’s average gross salary for workers in the UK in 2011. Just think, all that purchasing power contained in a piece of paper measuring 160 x 82 mm! And in Bangladesh that note would be 60 percent of average annual salary…).

 

The public could be forgiven for wondering where the money comes from. Originally, that is. What is backing up the value implicit in a bank note?

The orthodox answer can be found in any textbook on economics of course. Ultimately the central bank backs up the value of paper money, with its "promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…" but of course since currencies came off the gold standard this promise to pay isn’t in the form of equivalent assets of intrinsic value, like gold, but just more of the same paper money.

But what is the central bank? An arm of the government. The Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, even the European Central Bank with its jurisdiction across multiple national boundaries, are not private institutions in the way that a fruit ‘n’ veg stall or Microsoft are privately owned. They are branches of the government (or governments).

 

 

Right now we have the ECB lending money to banks, who in turn lend (some of) it to governments. A very handy circle of money that provides (unarguably much needed) term liquidity to banks but also enables them to have funding power to purchase sovereign debt , which the banks use as collateral for their borrowing at the ECB.

We have the ECB’s own “bond-buying” program, handy for sovereign authorities that see their borrowing being financed by an institution that is, ultimately, a creation of their own (there is a big difference between a private institution and an “independent” one).

The circle is more obvious with the explicit quantitative easing program in the U.S. and UK. The Bank of England holds over 30 percent of the UK government bond market as part of its quantitative easing (QE) operations and there is talk of increasing this number.

 

At what point should we start to worry that that number is too high, that we have a branch of government lending to the government? 40 percent? 50 percent? 100 percent? The longer QE goes on and the more people keep talking about increasing it, the more one might start to worry about diminishing value of money and demanding more of it for the same work rate.

Because it has no more intrinsic value than Monopoly money, fiat money retains its value only because of confidence. As central banks print more and more money, all else being equal, its real value must decline. That explains partly the desire of the German government to enforce public sector spending controls as the price of saving the euro. Otherwise a blanket bailout without cuts in spending would just be a road to inflationary ruin.

But is there something more at stake here than just an orthodox macroeconomic argument about inflation? Does the ability to keep printing money without any real control or discipline, creating a circular flow of money in which one branch of government lends to another branch of government, undermine confidence in the concept of paper money itself?

 

And does it amount to a hidden tax on the private sector's purchasing power? The value of what one earns today will not be what it was in a year’s time, it will be lower. If we take QE and “bond buying” to its ultimate conclusion, that could be a lot lower. And then we might indeed need a wheelbarrow, virtually loaded onto our debit cards of course, when we go out to buy those strawberries …

 

The author is Professor Moorad Choudhry, Treasurer, Corporate Banking Division, Royal Bank of Scotland.

post #247 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Doug Casey on the Coming Eurocrash

 

JUne 27, 2012

post #248 of 1312
Thread Starter 

310009_433758223324760_625610233_n.jpg

post #249 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Jesse's Café Américain

"Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.'" Kurt Vonnegut

 

27 June 2012

Criminal Manipulation in the News

 

There were two new developments in the ever unfolding crime drama known as the Anglo-American financial system.

Peter Madoff, brother to infamous Bernie and long time 'chief compliance officer' for the Madoff fund, is pleading guilty to the charge of 'falsifying documents.' As you may recall Harry Markopolos had attempted to call the fraudulent nature of the Madoff investment model to the attention of the regulators for years and was ignored, ridiculed, and threatened.

The bigger news of the day was the settlement with Barclays in the absolutely egregious fraud of fixing the LIBOR market rate. The Bank will pay a $450 million fine and incur no criminal penalties or trading sanctions. The American CEO Bob Diamond says he will forgo his personal bonus as well.

Other banks were involved, but Barclays has settled. Barclays Pays 450m to End LIBOR Prove

Bart Chilton of the CFTC was on the news claiming victory for the regulators.

A read of the some of the emails discovered in the case shows that the manipulation was almost as blatant and obvious as placing food orders at a takeaway restaurant.
Ah hey old boy, our positions are up against it, so would you be a good chap and knock 50 basis points off LIBOR for us tomorrow morning please.

Anything for you my good man. Consider it done.

 

The Bloomberg TV crowd had fun with this story about Barclay's, with Matt Miller chuckling that the fine is 'only six weeks profits' for the Bank, and the market obviously doesn't take it seriously because 'look at the stock price.' Barclay's stock finished the day down 3 cents.

Manipulating LIBOR is a BIG deal, one of the worst and most pervasive frauds to actually come to light since the widespread fraud in the CDO market.

That the firm faces no criminal charges, will not be barred from any markets, and is taking what the financial commentators dare to taunt openly as a minor fine is a disgrace.

And those who say that the markets should be without regulatory oversight and set the key interest rates without outside interference are living a romantic or ideological fantasy.

Do governments manage rates? Of course they do. That is a role of the Fed. They do it for policy decisions, and spend some time announcing and discussing those actions.

But this is not the same thing as private firms manipulating rates secretly for their private profit at the sake of other's losses. People who say they are equivalent are serial self-deceivers, and probably blinded by ideology.

Have no illusions. The fix is in, and often, in these markets. Those who scoff at such assertions as 'conspiracies' might bear both Madoff and Barclays in mind, not to mention Enron.

There will be more revelations of criminal conspiracies to defraud the public and the markets in the coming months. But LIBOR is very significant. It is a market touchstone. And it was foul for a long time.
 
post #250 of 1312
Thread Starter 
 
Posted 2012-06-28 09:42
by Karl Denninger
akcs-www?get_gallerynr=86

No folks, it's not just one bank.

It appears it was basically all of them.

 

If you transacted in any loan that was tied to this rate at any time in the last several years, you probably got rooked, whether it was for pennies or thousands.

According to the WSJ:

Other banks that have disclosed they are under investigation include Citigroup Inc., C -2.77% HSBC Holdings HBC -3.88% PLC, J.P. Morgan Chase JPM -3.45% & Co., Lloyds Banking Group LLOY.LN -5.79% PLC and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. None of these banks have been charged with any wrongdoing in the matter by U.S. or U.K. regulators.

 

Isn't that special? Why yes, it is.

 

Now if we could just see something approaching accountability.

 

But we won't, you know, just as we didn't when JP Morgan was involved in the disastrous Jefferson County Alabama scheme that landed several local folks in Alabama in prison on various corrupted-related charges.

 

The people -- who got screwed blind and sideways with permanently-larger sewer bills as a result of the corruption, got nothing back from the banksters -- they are still paying for the screwing they had inflicted on them.

 

I'm not one for vigilante justice, but one does have to wonder -- at what point do the people simply stop putting up with this crap?

post #251 of 1312
Thread Starter 

The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision

By Neal Boortz

6/29/2012

 

Do Americans – do you -- really understand the gravity of what happened in the Supreme Court yesterday? Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?

 

Answer? No, you probably don’t. You really can’t be faulted for that, I guess. After all, our wonderful government school system was designed to educate you, but only to the point that you don’t become a threat to your political rulers. The American people are a product of those schools, and the American people are, by and large, acting in the manner proscribed by those who “educated” them.

 

I spent the better part of yesterday listening to various pundits and reading blogs and columns about the ObamaCare decision. I think a lot of people are missing something here; missing something very important. The Court’s ruling on ObamaCare grants the Congress of the United States the power to command virtually any action – any action that would not in and of itself constitute a crime – of any individual in this country, and to demand compliance with that command or be penalized. The federal government can now regulate virtually any human activity in which you wish to engage, and to regulate whether or not you will be allowed to refuse to participate in that activity, so long as a penalty is attached to your noncompliance.

 

Perhaps I’m not making my point here; so let me try some scenarios:

Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do  in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.

The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof … perhaps even start watching MSNBC for a minimum of one hour every night. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power. Well … the watching MSNBC requirement might violate the 8th Amendment. They’ll just have to work around that one.

 

Remember when some reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the individual mandate was constitutional? Her reply? “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Now she can simply say “Taxing authority, bub. Taxing authority.”

This is a sad day indeed for our Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. It’s perfectly fine, though, since there’s a fine for non-compliance. This column is short – because the message is simple. Sit back now and try to imagine anything the federal government cannot require of you – just so long as there is a penalty if you say “no."

post #252 of 1312
Thread Starter 

Trampled Underfoot

by Charles Goyette

June 29, 2012

 
 
   

 

Like Alien vs. Predator, it’s an epic battle of powerful forces locked in combat. Only this is a battle of economic forces. And as in the old black and white movies, when Godzilla and other monsters battle, ordinary human beings count for nothing. They are trampled underfoot.

In the same way when powerful economic forces like inflation and deflation are engaged in mortal combat.

The victims of these titanic struggles can be numbered in the millions; the hardships inflicted are incalculable. While it is a needless battle, the showdown between the forces of inflation and deflation has been fought many times.

 

It is a tiresomely predictable cycle. The Fed blows up a bubble. The bubble pops. To protect powerful financial interests from loss, the Fed hunkers down to either blow up a new bubble, or to try to reinflate the one that just popped.

The latest round got underway in earnest with the Federal Reserve’s inflating the housing bubble. But even that had its roots in the previous round of Fed manipulations.

When Alan Greenspan at the Fed drove interest rates down sharply in the 1990s to provide cheap liquidity to the banks, he inflated the dot com bubble. When it popped, the Fed manned the money pumps, blowing up money and credit conditions again.

Between January 2001 and May 2003, Greenspan pushed the Fed funds rate all the way down from 6.5 percent to 1 percent, where it was left for a year. This time the result was the real estate bubble and trillions of dollars of debt-driven housing price inflation.

 

Bubbles always pop. When the housing bubble popped in a stunning deflation of home prices, the Fed did the only thing it knows how to do: Inflate. And thus the colossal battle was joined once again.

With the popping of the bubble and deflating home prices, the losses have been huge: household losses in home equity, investor losses in mortgage paper, bank losses in foreclosed homes and defaults, job losses in real estate and the construction trades. So what’s the metric in terms of the deflation of money and credit conditions?

 

Michael Shedlock has been an astute observer of the deflationary side of the battle. He recently cited a report showing credit money contraction of $6 trillion since March 2008.

Meanwhile, on the inflation side of the battle, the Fed responded by creating trillions in new money, buying the trashed mortgage debt securities of the privileged banking cartel and the downgraded debt of the U.S. government.

Central banks around the world are no different. Europe is engaged in the same bubble/ bust cycle. Buying elections and the favor of the people, debtor governments borrowed and spent more than they could repay. The European Central Bank served the privileged banking cartel by created trillions of euros for banker bailouts and central bank bond purchases.

 

You will note in following the European crisis, that no matter how often the central banks extend more such credit, nothing is resolved in the process. This is understandable because – although it isn’t described this way – the extension of credit is only another way of saying the creation of more debt. More debt. For a problem that consists of too much debt to begin with.

In the case of the Federal Reserve’s serial bubble blowing – the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, and the current bond bubble – the central bank drives the affair with the creation of state credit and fiat money.

 

A healthy and sustainable boom results from the formation of new capital or net new savings. The Fed’s boom is neither healthy nor sustainable. It is not driven by new savings and capital. The Fed produces only a bubble. The new money and credit rushes into one or another favored sector of the financial markets, depending on the prevailing political conditions. But eventually the bubble must burst.

And like the terrified citizens trampled underfoot as the try to flee the destruction of battling behemoths in films like King Kong vs. Godzilla, the central bank’s needless cycle of inflation and deflation destroys the people’s livelihoods, crushes their savings, and tramples their prosperity.

 

By this time the damage should be familiar:

  • The median net worth of American families fell 40 percent between 2007 and 2010. Predictably, the middle class took the biggest hit, while the wealthiest families’ median net worth actually rose.
  • Between 10 to 11 million home mortgages are underwater; Almost seven percent of home mortgages are seriously delinquent, 90 days or more past due.
  • One in seven Americans is on food stamps. The cost of the programs has exploded, up 135 percent from 2007 to 2011.
  • Unemployment persists at depression-era levels.

 

We are victims of a needless cycle, explained Ludwig von Mises, one that is driven by politics:

Economic theory has demonstrated in an irrefutable way that a prosperity created by an expansionist monetary and credit policy is illusory and must end in a slump, an economic crisis. It has happened again and again in the past, and it will happen in the future, too.

If one wants to avoid the recurrence of periods of economic depression, one must start by preventing the emergence of artificial booms. One must prevent the governments from embarking upon a policy of cheap interest rates, deficit spending, and borrowing from the commercial banks.

 

This is, of course, a very difficult task. Governments are in this regard very obstinate. They long for the popularity that booming business conditions seldom fail to win for the party in power. The unavoidable crash, they think, will appear only later; then the other party will be in power and will have to account to the voters for the evils which their predecessors have sown.

The governing classes, those who benefit most from inflation, keep inflating bubbles which in turn must deflate. Most people, once they understand that they are victimized by this process, will long to be freed of it. They will wish to live in an environment of stability. They will want to be free to restore prosperity for themselves and their families.

 

But this is a barren hope. Like collateral damage in war, ordinary human beings count for nothing. The people will be trampled as long as central banking and fiat money persist.

post #253 of 1312

Stone, do you have a link to the Obamacare Plan?

 

I did not read it because of the absurb and unconstitutional way it was pushed through Congress.  I did read notes from many of the posts that you and our friends made from reputable sources. 

 

(I have my on opinion on this) The way this administration has acted is with false promises.  Things like "give me your support" and I will make you a cabinet member....then not following through after he was elected.  Many say "everyone has their price".

 

If money or gold were not the promised carrot for the Supreme Court, their is one thing that is.

 

If we are heading toward a one world spin of our financial and legal system, a false promise to a Supreme Court judge would be the creation of an International Supreme Court.  International Laws do not have range and it would be a very nice carrot to all the judges to lead that position.

 

Remember, this is my personal opinion to those that read my posts, here.  I usually post for rhetorical responses, so if you have an opinion, yea or nay, please know that I look for any and all opinions for those that want to respond.

post #254 of 1312

USDA suggests food stamp parties, games to increase participation

 

 

 

 

 

 

While spending on the food stamp program has increased 100 percent under President Barack Obama, the government continues to push more Americans to enroll in the welfare program.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embraced entire promotional campaigns designed to encourage eligible Americans to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program.

“Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the agency advises. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”

The agency’s most recent outreach effort targets California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and the New York metro area with radio ads.

The ads have been running since March and are scheduled to continue through the end of June — at a cost of $2.5 million — $3 million, CNN Money reported Monday.

post #255 of 1312
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sameiemas View Post

Stone, do you have a link to the Obamacare Plan?

 

 

 No, and it's probably 5,000 pages and unreadable. Remember when Pelosi said 'we don't have to read it, we just have to pass it'?

post #256 of 1312
The saddest thing about Obamacare was that originally, there were 5 justices who supported striking down the entire law. But then Justice Roberts decided to change his vote in the last minute and sided with the liberals. I think that some Chicago style politics was involved and that made Roberts vote the way he did. He was compromised or threatened. I also find it strange that he wrote that the individual mandate was a tax when no where does it state that it's a tax. Not even Obama and the liberals called it a tax, but a penalty. Had it stayed a penalty (which it is) then Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional and that is how it was originally ruled, IMO.
post #257 of 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom08 View Post

The saddest thing about Obamacare was that originally, there were 5 justices who supported striking down the entire law. But then Justice Roberts decided to change his vote in the last minute and sided with the liberals. I think that some Chicago style politics was involved and that made Roberts vote the way he did. He was compromised or threatened. I also find it strange that he wrote that the individual mandate was a tax when no where does it state that it's a tax. Not even Obama and the liberals called it a tax, but a penalty. Had it stayed a penalty (which it is) then Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional and that is how it was originally ruled, IMO.

 

Obama did argue that it was a tax and that Congress had the right to impose taxes. That's the reason it was passed by the Supreme Court.

post #258 of 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sameiemas View Post

Stone, do you have a link to the Obamacare Plan?

 

I did not read it because of the absurb and unconstitutional way it was pushed through Congress.  I did read notes from many of the posts that you and our friends made from reputable sources. 

 

(I have my on opinion on this) The way this administration has acted is with false promises.  Things like "give me your support" and I will make you a cabinet member....then not following through after he was elected.  Many say "everyone has their price".

 

If money or gold were not the promised carrot for the Supreme Court, their is one thing that is.

 

If we are heading toward a one world spin of our financial and legal system, a false promise to a Supreme Court judge would be the creation of an International Supreme Court.  International Laws do not have range and it would be a very nice carrot to all the judges to lead that position.

 

Remember, this is my personal opinion to those that read my posts, here.  I usually post for rhetorical responses, so if you have an opinion, yea or nay, please know that I look for any and all opinions for those that want to respond.


Sis try this site.........http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

post #259 of 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom08 View Post

The saddest thing about Obamacare was that originally, there were 5 justices who supported striking down the entire law. But then Justice Roberts decided to change his vote in the last minute and sided with the liberals. I think that some Chicago style politics was involved and that made Roberts vote the way he did. He was compromised or threatened. I also find it strange that he wrote that the individual mandate was a tax when no where does it state that it's a tax. Not even Obama and the liberals called it a tax, but a penalty. Had it stayed a penalty (which it is) then Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional and that is how it was originally ruled, IMO.

The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

By Kate Hicks

6/28/2012

John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.

So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say[s] what the law is,” as Marshall said so long ago.

The Good News

First: let’s give credit where it’s due. Roberts made it abundantly clear that he’s not a fan of the actual policy. Moreover, he shifted responsibility for this policy back to the American people, and revealed his respect for the separation of powers:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Unhappy with the ruling though you may be, the wisdom contained in that paragraph alone ought to cheer you. And I promise, there’s more!

Now then. What hath he wrought?

Commerce Clause” is everywhere in the news today, and if you’ll recall, that was considered the basis for both upholding and striking down the mandate. Roberts threw out the government’s argument that it could regulate inactivity because of the “substantial effect” abstention from the market would have on the market as a whole. This, he said, was way too much power:

“Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him. […] Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

Moreover, he created a new precedent in Commerce Clause jurisprudence that limits its scope significantly, by accepting the distinction between activity and inactivity. In so doing, he created a concrete definition of Federal power that will influence the way Congress makes law in the future, and the way the Court interprets future Commerce Clause cases. Here’s the key passage to that effect:

“People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. […] The Government’s theory would erode those limits [on the Commerce Clause], permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, ‘everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.’ The Federalist No. 48, at 309 9 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.

It’s hard to see at first glance why we should celebrate this ruling, especially because it was evidently not enough for Roberts to overturn the mandate. But what Roberts did here was establish a defining limit on the Commerce Clause, which had heretofore not really existed. Congress is now restricted in its ability to use this very broad power, in that it cannot compel individuals to participate in the market. Consider, also, the wide array of tools at Congress’ disposal under the Commerce Clause to ensure compliance. Roberts has ruled that Congress can’t criminalize not buying something because of the effect abstention will have on the market. Indeed, that was at issue in this case; the fact that it’s unconstitutional is a win for liberty.

Furthermore, Roberts narrowed the definition of “substantially effects” to encompass activity that is already occurring, and curtailed Congress’ power to presuppose, and then regulate, activity.

“The proposition that congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. […] But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.”

Now, think back to the time when constitutional challenges to the mandate first began to surface: every legal scholar worth his salt, conservative or liberal, believed the Court would kill the activity/inactivity distinction. Yet that was the major victory the conservatives won in this case, and it’s now legal precedent. The mandate itself lives on, but Congress may never apply the full force of the U.S. government to compel anyone to make a purchase. This, the fight for the Commerce Clause, was the real war. And the right won it. Perhaps the fruit isn’t ripe yet, but it will prove juicy in time.

So now, to turn to the legal reasoning for why the mandate remains law. In other words…

The Bad News

Here’s Roberts: “And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”

You may keep your law, he says. But let me redefine it for you.

In the opinion, Roberts applies a test from an earlier case, Drexel Furniture, to determine whether the “penalty” meets all the requirements of a tax. It’s another long excerpt, but worth reading, as he’s very clear:

“The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance… Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement [i.e. it’s not punitive for breaking the law]. Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution.”

So here’s how it’s going to work from now on: the mandate is now just the “tax on not having healthcare,” which I’m sure will get a snappier name in the coming days, something akin to the “gas tax,” or the “income tax,” which most of us pay. Roberts says as much:

“[A]ccording to the Government…the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

So after he invalidated the Commerce Clause justification, he determined that really, the “penalty” doesn’t force participation in the market; hence, why he didn’t throw out the mandate with the Commerce logic. It’s not really forcing people into the market; after all, it didn’t criminalize not owning insurance. It just puts a tax on it, and Roberts notes that taxes are often used to induce certain behavior:

“But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. […] Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise money, but to encourage people to quit smoking. […] That Sec5000A seeks to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance does not mean that it cannot be a valid exercise of the taxing power.

Frankly, this doesn’t look like an expansion of the taxing power. Perhaps he’s articulating more clearly the intent behind so-called “sin taxes,” and other behaviorally-motivated taxes, but he’s not handing Congress more power. He’s just explaining a power they already had, and use.

Remember—he never said it was good policy, and in fact made it clear that he feels otherwise. What he did was invalidate an unconstitutional argument in defense of the policy, thereby banning it from future use, and then uphold a bad, but not unconstitutional statute, because it adhered to a permissible exercise of power. Congress passed a tax, he says, and it’s a bad one, and he doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it impermissible.

So, is this what the right really wanted to hear? Heck no! We like the dissent, where the whole thing goes. But Roberts is dumb like a fox, and it’s worth looking at the effects this ruling will have on the future, both near and far.

The Upshot

Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, says the CJ: ya raised our taxes. Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.

For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was re-characterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.

Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledged that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.

This third observation is one that isn’t immediately imminent, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare, and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.

So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.

post #260 of 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK View Post

 

Obama did argue that it was a tax and that Congress had the right to impose taxes. That's the reason it was passed by the Supreme Court.


I believe you are correct BobK,

but as with any politician he called it everything under the sun "but bad" to cover all the bases.

  Return Home
  Back to Forum: stonerangers forum
HotStockMarket › Groups › stonerangers forum › Discussions › Politics, society, and why everything is going to hell.