Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Greek Financial Crisis Deepens


We are continuing our concern for what is occurring in Greece as well as the other PIIGS countries.  This deepening crisis can only worsen things here. When will we stop bailing out countries and businesses which should be required to go out of business or restructure? Of course a country cannot go out of business but it sure could sell assets and take other actions to improve itself financially.

As I read articles like the following, it sounds like the Greeks are holding a gun to the head of the Eurozone, can it be so? If so, should they not be allowed to fail?  If there is no fear of failure based on the premise that someone will bail us out, are we not opening the gate to more failures?

The near failures of GM and Chrysler and the bailouts of the banks should be a clarion call for us to realize that we should not be doing this.  What happens when the next big company comes to the government for a bailout, will it be granted?  If so, what is to stop any other large, mega-industry, multi-national company from demanding money from Uncle Sugar?  If not, would that tact be discriminatory or is it the way we should be doing business.?

Bail-outs of countries, companies or industries may be the right thing at that moment but it sets up future consequences that are far more dire.  No company or industry should be too large to fail. Failure is part of the free market system. If you build bad products, run the firm poorly or spend too wildly,  the business must go. It does the system no good if you keep bad apples around. A bailout tells others that they can do "stupid" things and the government will save them. When in reality, they are past saving.

The free market system is no different from nature's "survival of the fittest."  Yes, that may seem mean, but a weak company should be allowed to go out of business. From its ashes, new companies will rise. It must be that way!

How do you handle a country cannot be any different. It must either get control of its expenses and revenues or it must sell off assets or surrender its sovereignty. Saving weakness only weakens everyone.

So do I make sense?  Let us know.

Conservative Tom



Greece: No second bailout, no euro

Greek govt spokesman warns that country will have to leave euro without second bailout

ATHENS, Greece (AP) -- Greece's government warned Tuesday that the debt-crippled country will have to ditch the euro if it fails to finalize a second, euro130 billion ($169 billion) international bailout.
Spokesman Pantelis Kapsis said negotiations in the next three or four months with international debt monitors will "determine everything," including whether Greece escapes a disastrous bankruptcy.
Greece is being kept afloat by a first, euro110 billion ($142 billion) international bailout agreed in May 2010, after investors shocked by the country's huge budget deficit and debt mountain demanded sky-high interest rates to continue buying Greek bonds.
An additional bailout was agreed in October, when it became clear that the first batch of funds would not suffice, but that deal has yet to be finalized.
Sorting out the details of the bailout, which also foresees a euro100 billion writedown of Greece's privately held debt, is the main task of the coalition government headed by former central banker Lucas Papademos, whose short mandate is expected to expire in early April.
"This famous loan agreement must be signed, otherwise we are outside the markets, out of the euro and things will become much worse," Kapsis told private Skai TV.
In return for its first batch of rescue loans from its European partners and the International Monetary Fund, Greece imposed deeply resented austerity measures to contain its budget deficit — set to hit at least 9 percent of GDP last year despite repeated spending cuts and tax hikes.
Kapsis said further cutbacks, possibly including new taxes, might be required to address a revenue shortfall,
"We will see what the shortfall is and it is very likely that measures will be required," he said. "I also don't believe it is easy to impose new taxes, but what does cutting spending mean? To close down the public sector?"
"There is no easy solution," Kapsis said.
The details are expected to be determined during talks later this month with debt inspectors from the EU, the European Central bank and the IMF, who will determine whether the country receives its next loan installment.
"We can't take (approval of the next installment) for granted," Kapsis warned.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Will She Or Won't She Unlock Her Laptop?


Can A defendant Be required TO unlock HER encrypted laptop OR DOES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PREVENT THAT?


This is the issue facing a federal judge in Colorado.  If she is required to unlock it, all the information on the hard drive will be accessible to the prosecution.  She could be giving them the keys to her cell!

On the other hand, isn't her personal property protected by the fourth amendment? Should she be able to mount a defense and not give the prosecutors the ammunition for her firing squad?

These are interesting questions and it will be even more interesting regardless of the outcome of this judge's opinion.  We are sure this will be taken to the higher courts.

We believe the fourth amendment should rule the day in the end, however, it will be a long slog until we get there. However disgusting, revolting, illegal, or immoral an activity might be, we cannot make it easier on these tough cases for in the future, the lower standard can be applied against you and me.

What do you think?

Conservative Tom



FED. JUDGE TO DECIDE IF GOV’T CAN FORCE DEFENDANT TO UNLOCK ENCRYPTED LAPTOP

  • Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:28am by Liz Klimas Liz Klimas
In 2010, authorities took Ramona Fricosu’s Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop with a warrant in a case investigating real estate fraud. But the laptop really couldn’t provide authorities with any information: it was encrypted.
Now, Wired reports, a U.S. District Court Judge is set to ruleon whether Fricosu should be forced to open up her computer. It’s the first time such a case will be decided in federal court.
Here’s what both sides are saying on the issue, according to Wired:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Marcia Hoffman said (.pdf) in a court filing that the very act of requiring Fricosu to input her password into the laptop would be incriminating “because it might reveal she had control over the laptop and the data there.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Davies said(.pdf) said there is no Fifth Amendment breach, and that it might “require significant resources and may harm the subject computer” if it tried to crack the encryption.
Hoffman cites the Fifth Amendment, which states “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” The EFF believes that in compelling Fricosu to enter or provide her information, it would be violating this right.
According to Davies, Fricosu should be ordered by the Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn to open up her laptop in order to comply with the warrants that merited the computer’s seizure believing evidence pertaining to the case exists on the device. In response to Hoffman stating that unencrypting the computer could be incriminating in itself, Davies writes in her statement that Fricosu is already tied to the laptop because it was found in her bedroom sitting on her laptop case.

Repeating History


Over the past couple months,  we have tried to make the point that cuts in the military, although fashionable, will come back to kick us in the backside.  In the following article, Admiral James Lyons does a great job of communicating the issue we are facing.

We do not want to face another Pearl Harbor, but the drastic cuts being proposed and required under the Debt Limit crisis, will create a similar environment as was the mood in the country prior to WWII.  At that time we were, as a country, very isolationist. We did not want to intervene in the European or Asian War.  We had no dog in those fights. 

However, Pearl Harbor changed all that. We now had been attacked and within days were in full wartime mode. Cars, appliances and most manufacturing were turned into war production.  Consumer goods were put on hold so the plants could turn out goods to support the war effort.

We must learn from the past, it is a good teacher, if we listen!  Will we learn the lessons or repeat them?  We think there is a good chance of repeating them. 

David, who is a faithful commentator on this blog is indicative of the prevailing attitude expressed very well by him.  It is their beliefs (and Ron Paul's) that should pull back our troops, cut back spending, and reduce or eliminate new programs.  He is entitled to his opinions, however, we disagree.

America is the only Superpower, at this moment. With that role comes some responsibility to the world to maintain some sort of order.  We have troops in (way to many countries, in our opinion) over 90 countries which definitely could be reduced. However, by having troops in countries like South Korea, we are the stabilizing force. If we pulled out, the North would attack within months but they will not if we are there.

Reducing military levels, equipment and readiness is a poor decision and we hope those in  Washington will come to agree with us.

What do you think? Do you agree with me or is David right?

Conservative Tom


Today’s defense cuts are recreating conditions that led to Pearl Harbor

By Adm. James A. Lyons

The Washington Times
December 12, 2011
As we mark the 70th anniversary of Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor of Dec. 7, 1941, America is on the verge of committing the same mistakes that helped plunge our nation into its most grievous war. The first mistake then was to impose the strategic restraints of “political correctness” on our Hawaiian military commanders. Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, was ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold R. Stark to prepare the fleet for deployment but not do anything provocative that might offend the super-sensibilities of the Japanese. Lt. Gen. Walter G. Short, commanding general of the U.S. Army Force in Hawaii, who was responsible for the air defense of the Hawaiian Island including Pearl Harbor, was ordered not to take any offensive action until the Japanese had committed an “act of war.”
Does it sound familiar? The political correctness imposed on our commanders leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, regretfully, resonates in today’s military, including the war on terrorism and our efforts to defend ourselves from China.
A second mistake then – about to be committed again – is the gutting of our military readiness, which, at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was a national disgrace. It was so bad that Gen. George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the Army, and Adm. Stark wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asking him not to issue any “ultimatum” to the Japanese because they knew the U.S. Pacific Fleet was numerically inferior to the Imperial Japanese Navy. Compounding the problem, Gen. Short was not provided with basic resources, including adequate surveillance and fighter aircraft. He was given only three mobile radar stations with coverage out to 120 miles that could only be operated between 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. each day due to lack of personnel and power.
Fortunately, over the years we have learned the hard lesson that unpreparedness invites aggression. President Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” is as valid today as it was 30 years ago. The Cold War was won based on that strategy. Today, however, with fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military as well as our resources have been severely strained. While we still have the resources to protect our national security and achieve our objectives, political correctness has imposed restricted “rules of engagement” on our warfighters, resulting in many unnecessary fatalities.
No enemy has been able to defeat our military. Our forces represent the best of America and guarantee not only our national security but provide the recognized military underpinnings to support our friends and allies against aggression.
The threats we face today cannot be ignored. We are being challenged by China not only in the western Pacific but globally. Their spread of nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan and Iran has been destabilizing. Nor can their transfer of weapons and missiles to Iran be swept under the rug. A resurgent Russia, plus an unstable Middle East with a nuclear-equipped Iran, must be factored into any threat equation. Since we have not displayed political will when directly confronted by Iran, a nuclear Islamic Republic will be uncontrollable in the Middle East and possibly elsewhere.
While our military has always had the conventional resources to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon infrastructure, that capability will be severely constrained in the future as a result of the supercommittee’s budget stalemate. Panetta has stated that such severe cuts will “gut the military.” With the threats we now know exist, our national security will be in danger.
There are some members of Congress who have suggested that the mandatory cuts to defense should be modified. In a recent Politico-Battleground poll, the American people by an overwhelming 82 percent reject further cuts to our national defense. However, that sentiment does not appear to resonate with President Obama, who has categorically stated that he will veto any change to the mandated defense cuts. Clearly, such draconian cuts place our national security in jeopardy. One of the president’s key duties under our Constitution is “to provide for the common defense.” A presidential veto would raise the question: What is the real objective? What lesson do we have to learn over again?
Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Will Egypt Renounce The Sinai Peace Agreement?


What happens when one party to an agreement decides that it is in their best interests to void the contract?  What happens to the guarantor of the contract? Should there be a punishment for the person who exits?


These are all questions being asked about the Sinai Peace Agreement between Israel and Egypt.  It is becoming apparent that the latter will void the agreement that has stood since it was signed during the Carter Administration.  The "new management" in Egypt which is composed of many from the Muslim Brotherhood want no arrangement with Israel and have proposed a plebiscite to determine the direction the country should take. We believe the agreement will be voided.

Therefore, we get back to our original questions.  Is there a punishment?  Not really. As we understand it, each pledged to enforce the Agreement and the US guaranteed it.  So how does the US get out of its "guarantee" or should it?  And if it does, what does it say about other countries to which we have made assurances? Does it hurt our future negotiations with Israel, Egypt and other countries in the Mid East if we do not live up to these agreements?

We suppose we could say that all the original participants other than Carter are dead and that times had changed as well as administrations. Or we could try to get another agreement. Or we could throw up our hands and leave the area.

The only option that the Obama Administration has is to insist that the terms of the agreement be enforced. That a vote by the Egyptian people cannot undo what has been agreed upon by previous leaders. Both sides are stuck with the negotiated document. Otherwise, the US must insist that the Sinai be returned to Israel and other damages be assessed against Egypt.


Unfortunately, none of these things will happen.  Egypt will renounce the Agreement, keep the Sinai, allow thousands of illegal immigrants (Al Queda, Hamas) to find their way into  Gaza. Washington will wring its hands and blame Israel for Egypt's change of heart. "If only they would be more flexible on the demands of the Palestinians this would not have happened."  So much for American guarantees!

With the guarantees gone, so is the influence that America will have in the region. If the participants cannot depend upon us an "honest broker" to negotiate a deal with which both sides can live and to enforce the agreement against any violating party, why would anyone enter into discussions?  

We doubt the Administration realizes the precipice on which they are standing.  American influence, not only in the Middle East but world wide, stands in the balance. If we walk away from the guarantees we made and let the agreement fall by the wayside, no one will ever take us seriously again.

This is a dangerous time and it appears to us that America is ready to walk away from responsibilities which in the long run will be dramatically bad for us.

So, what do you think? Should we allow Egypt to walk away  and if not, what should we do?

The following article gives another viewpoint.

Conservative Tom




The land-for-peace hoax

Caroline Glick - CarolineGlick.com,  January 6th, 2012

The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.
The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.
Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.
Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel – that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace – will be exposed as worthless lies. As we are already seeing today, no one will stand up for Israel's rights. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.
As it has become more apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties will hold an absolute majority in Egypt's democratically elected parliament, Western governments and media outlets have insistently argued that these anti-Western, and anti-Jewish, movements have become moderate and pragmatic. Leading the charge to make the case has been the Obama administration. Its senior officials have eagerly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi is reportedly mediating negotiations between the US and the Taliban.
Qaradawi, an Egyptian who has been based in Qatar since 1961, when he was forced to flee Egypt due to his jihadist politics, made a triumphant return to his native land last February following the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak. Speaking to a crowd of an estimated two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Qaradawi led them in a chant calling for them to invade Jerusalem.
Over the years, Qaradawi has issued numerous religious ruling permitting, indeed requiring, the massacre of Jews. In 2009, he called for the Muslim world to complete Hitler's goal of eradicating the Jewish people.
As for the US, in 2003, Qaradawi issued a religious ruling calling for the killing of US forces in Iraq.
BOTH THE Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are happy to cater to the propaganda needs of Western journalists and politicians and pretend that they are willing to continue to uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But even as they make conditional statements to eager Americans and Europeans, they consistently tell their own people that they seek the destruction of Israel and the abrogation of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Jonathan D. Halevi documented last week in a report on Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist positions on the future of the peace between Egypt and Israel, while speaking to Westerners in general terms about their willingness to respect the treaty, both groups place numerous conditions on their willingness to maintain it. These conditions make clear that there is no way that they will continue to respect the peace treaty. Indeed, they will use any excuse to justify its abrogation and blame it on Israel. And they will do so at the earliest available opportunity.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the US will cut off military aid to Egypt in the wake of Cairo's abrogation of the peace treaty. But it is impossible to imagine that the Obama administration will abide by the US's commitment as the guarantor of the deal and demand that Egypt return Sinai to Israel. Indeed, it is only slightly more likely that a Republican administration would fulfill the US's commitment as guarantor of the peace and demand the return of Sinai to Israel after Egypt's democratically elected Islamist regime finds an excuse to abrogate the peace treaty.
It is important to keep this sorry state of affairs in mind when we assess the prospects for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This week, following months of intense pressure from the US and the EU, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met face to face for the first time in 16 months. According to Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, who hosted the meeting, the Palestinians submitted their proposal on security and border issues to Israel. The sides are supposed to meet again next week and Israel is expected to present its proposals on these issues.
There are several reasons that these talks are doomed to failure. The most important reason they will fail is that even if they lead to an agreement, no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is sustainable. Assuming for a moment that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas goes against everything he has said for the past three years and signs a peace deal with Israel in which he promises Israel peace in exchange for Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, this agreement will have little impact on the Palestinians' view of Israel. Abbas today represents no one. His term of office ended three years ago. Hamas won the last Palestinian elections in 2006.
And Hamas's leaders – like their counterparts in the Muslim Brotherhood – make no bones about their intention to destroy Israel. Two weeks ago at a speech in Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh proclaimed, “We say today explicitly so it cannot be explained otherwise, that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]… We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine.”
In his visit with his Muslim Brotherhood counterpart, Mohammad Badie, in Cairo this week Haniyeh said, “The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas by definition is a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core, and its goal is liberation.”
WITH HAMAS'S Brotherhood colleagues taking power from Cairo to Casablanca, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which supposedly peaceseeking Fatah will win Palestinian elections. It is in recognition of this fact that Abbas has signed a series of unity agreements with Hamas since May.
So the best case scenario for a peace deal with the Palestinians is that Abbas will sign a deal that Israel will implement by withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and expelling up to a half a million Israeli citizens from their homes. Hamas will then take power and abrogate the treaty, just as its brethren in Cairo are planning to do with their country's peace treaty.
This leads us to the question of what the diplomatic forces from the US, the EU, and the UN who have worked so hard to get the present negotiations started are really after. What are they trying to achieve by pressuring Israel to negotiate a deal that they know will not be respected by the Palestinians?
In the case of some of the parties involved it is fairly obvious that they want to weaken Israel. Take the UN for example. In 2005, Israel withdrew all of its military forces and civilians from Gaza. Rather than reward Israel for giving up land with peace, the Palestinians transformed Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks against Israel. And in June 2007, Hamas took over the territory.
Despite the fact that Israel is wholly absent from Gaza, and indeed is being attacked from Gaza, no one has called for the Palestinians to give the territory back to Israel. The UN doesn't even recognize that Israel left.
Last September, the UN published yet another report labeling Israel as the occupier of Gaza. And in accordance with this fiction, the UN – along with the EU and the US – continues to hold Israel responsible for Gaza's welfare.
Ironically, Hamas itself denies that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. In an interview with the Ma'an news agency on Tuesday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar openly admitted that Gaza is not under occupation. Speaking of Fatah's plan to launch massive demonstrations against Israel, Zahar said, “Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”
Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah can all freely tell the truth about Israel and their commitment to its destruction without fear of any repercussions. They know that the Western powers will not listen to them. They know that they will never have to pay a price for their actions. Indeed, they know they will be rewarded for them.
Since the inauguration of the land-for-peace process between Israel and the PLO 19 years ago, the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their bad faith. Israeli land giveaways have consistently been met with increased Palestinian terrorism. Since 1996, US- and European- trained Palestinian security forces have repeatedly used their guns to kill Israelis. Since 1994, the PA has made it standard practice to enlist terrorists in its US- and European-funded and trained security forces.
The US and Europe have continued to train and arm them despite their bad faith. Despite their continued commitment to Israel's destruction and involvement in terrorism, the US and the EU have continued to demand that Israel fork over more territory. At no point have either the US or the EU seriously considered ending their support for the Palestinians or the demonstrably fictitious land-for-peace formula.
As Israel bows now to still more US and EU pressure and conducts land-for-peace talks with Fatah, our leadership may be seduced by the faint praise they receive from the likes of The Washington Post or even from the Obama administration. But this praise should not turn their heads.
To understand its feckless emptiness, all they need to do is direct their attention to what happened this week in Cairo, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists secured their absolute control over Egypt's parliament. Specifically, our leaders should note the absence of any voices demanding that Egypt respect the peace treaty with Israel or return Sinai.
The time has come for Israel to admit the truth. Land-for-peace is a confidence game and we are the mark.

Obama's Re-Election Plan

A lot of people, pundits and non-pols alike have suggested that Obama will be a one term President due to the unemployment situation and the poor state of the economy.  We say: "hold the presses!"  To declare Obama dead is a bit premature. 

As you know  we are not fans of the President but we are realists. We understand the power of the Presidency and incumbency. Domestically, if the economy is still in the tank and unemployment over 8%, the President will have a rough time getting re-elected. Whereas if the statistics indicate a 5% unemployment and GDP growth, it would be a different story.

Likewise, in  foreign affairs, if Iran gets its nuclear weapons and the Middle East is still a mess, once again Obama will have problems. On the other hand if there is a Israeli-Palestinian agreement or the world decides to terminate the Iranian nuke plant, the election will be different.

Our prediction is that all the positives we stated above will occur. Unemployment will be around 5-5.5%,  GDP growth will be around 3% per year and there will be foreign affairs successes.   Why? Because he can make it so.  For example, the following article by AP today.  Unemployment down to 8.5%, the lowest in 3 years!

Isn't it interesting, the election is eleven months away and all of a sudden the rate start moving down.  Call it paranoia but I smell a skunk. Also buried in these numbers, why do they not count those who have stopped looking for work? Are they not unemployed? Why don't we have some way of counting those who have taken a lower paying job just to bring in some money?

Another issue, why does the CPI not include gas and food?  The official answer is that these items are too volatile and make the index move too much. That might be true in "politics-world" but to the everyday Tom and Thomasina, these items effect our lives greater than any other purchase.  To ignore them is to ignore the real "cost of living" for regular citizens. In other words, the index has been manipulated to come up with the results the leaders want.

There is an old saying that "figures don't lie, but liars figure."  Government statistics are examples of the latter and Obama will take full advantage of them.

We assume that the word has been sent to the Commerce Department (unofficially of course) to make sure that the numbers reflect a decline in unemployment and GDP growth in the year before the election.  We would like to see that communication!

Watch the news in the upcoming months and we believe you will see this scenario appear.

Conservative Tom

Unemployment rate falls, lowest in nearly 3 years

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added a net 200,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The rate has dropped for four straight months.
The hiring gains cap a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn't happened since April 2006.
The steady drop is a positive sign for President Barack Obama, who is bound to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any sitting president since World War II. Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office in January 2009.
Still, the level may matter less to his re-election chances if the rate continues to fall. History suggests that presidents' re-election prospects hinge less on the unemployment rate itself than on the rate's direction during the year or two before Election Day.
For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. The unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent last year, down from 9.6 percent the previous year.
Economists forecast that the job gains will top 2.1 million this year.
The December report painted a picture of a broadly improving job market. Average hourly pay rose, providing consumers with more income to spend. The average work week lengthened, a sign that business is picking up and companies may soon need more workers. And hiring was strong across almost all major industries.
Manufacturing added 23,000 jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 50,000 jobs. Retailers added 28,000 jobs. Even the beleaguered construction industry added 17,000 workers.
A more robust hiring market coincides with other positive data that show the economy ended the year with some momentum.
Weekly applications for unemployment benefits have fallen to levels last seen more than three years ago. Holiday sales were solid. And November and December were the strongest months of 2011 for U.S. auto sales.
Many businesses say they are ready to step up hiring in early 2012 after seeing stronger consumer confidence and greater demand for their products.


Thursday, January 5, 2012

Where Oh Where Did The Money Go?

16 Trillion gone via secret bailouts to your favorite bank!  The following article is about the first GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve. These are dollars gone in addition to those about which we know! This is malfeasance in office and it is time the Fed is either closed down or opened up to the light of day. 


On top of getting these sweet heart bailouts, these are the same righteous bankers who will not conduct any (well, that is not  quite right, so let us say a few)  modifications or and changes to your home mortgage. "They got theirs, tough for you" seems to be the message that is being heard on Main Street.


If you doubt the material, go to the GAO study and read it there.


Thanks to silverbearcafe.com for publishing it.








http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/tricks.html



Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailoutsunelected.org
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted onSenator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.
To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.
In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.
Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation