Monday, January 7, 2013

Barack Obama’s $7 million Hawaii vacation is an insult to America’s struggling middle class


Barack Obama: making sacrifices for his country?
$16.4 trillion – that’s the latest figure for America’s massive national debt. Nearly $6 trillion of this debt was racked up in the first term of the Obama presidency – a 50 percent increase. It is horrifying to imagine what the debt will be when Obama leaves the White House in 2016, unless Congress has the willpower to stand in the way.
Meanwhile, as the world’s superpower is literally drowning in debt, President Obama is basking in the warmth of the beaches of Hawaii, at an exclusive resort way beyond the financial reach of most Americans. The president pays the cost of his own family’s accommodations, but there are a large number of associated costs which are paid from the public purse.
What is the actual cost of Obama’s lavish vacation to the American taxpayer? A staggering $7 million, according to veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler, who wrote in his blog earlier this week:
In a move that is rich in irony, President Obama agreed Tuesday night to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does almost nothing to rein in spending and then jetted out to Hawaii to resume his vacation at an extra cost of more than $3 million to taxpayers.
The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.
The added cost was incurred because by the time the Obamas return from Hawaii – whenever that is – the president will have used Air Force One to travel to Honolulu and back twice.
The White House doesn’t like to publish the costs of presidential vacations, but Koffler has done the sums:
Air Force One is known to cost about $180,000 an hour to fly. Based on an estimated 18 hours roundtrip flying time for the jet between Washington and Honolulu, the travel cost alone of Obama’s decision to return to Hawaii amounts to around $3.24 million. And that doesn’t include the price tag for the massive security operation required to move the president or the cost of the cargo plane that follows Air Force One around.
As Koffler notes, President Obama could easily have saved taxpayers a good deal of money:
The Obamas could have saved taxpayers millions by returning from Hawaii together after Christmas and then resuming their vacation at one of the many ritzy resorts that lie outside of Washington. If the beach is a must, even a trip to Florida would have been far less expensive.
Or they could have simply stayed at the White House or Camp David, each a luxurious government-run installation, billing taxpayers a relative pittance.
According to Koffler, "the total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more."
The message this sends is one of sheer contempt for the American taxpayer. $7 million may be viewed by the White House as a drop in the ocean compared to the overall size of America’s federal debt, but it is the principle that counts. The vast majority of American people simply couldn’t afford the kind of vacation enjoyed by the US president, not least at a time when 12.2 million Americans are still out of work.
For most of America’s embattled middle class, who, unlike the president have already returned to work, this kind of luxury is simply unimaginable in the current economic climate. And they’ve just been hit hard with a significant rise in their payroll taxes due to the expiration of the Social Security tax break. According to the Tax Policy Center, 77 percent of US households will now be paying more in federal taxes following this week’s fiscal cliff deal.
Barack Obama benefits from a largely deferential liberal press in the United States which rarely questions his opulence in office. It would be unthinkable for the British prime minister to act in the same manner. If David Cameron flew off to Hawaii and billed the British public £5 million for his Christmas vacation, he would be out of a job.
President Obama frequently calls on the American people to make sacrifices, but he is simply unwilling to lead by example and do so himself. In a speech in Virginia back in April 2011, Obama famously declared:
We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice. And if we’re asking community colleges to sacrifice, if we’re asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make a little sacrifice, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.
The president is elected to serve his country, rather than lord over it, a message which appears to be completely lost on the present White House. The federal government is simply running out of money, and America faces economic ruin unless spending is cut dramatically and the vast entitlements system is reformed. Barack Obama’s Hawaii vacation is merely a symbol of his wider presidency – a culture of impunity and extraordinary arrogance, reckless spending, a striking lack of accountability, and a shameless let them eat cake mentality. America’s middle class deserves to be treated better than this from a president who fails to practice what he preaches.



Bill Gross: Fed Claims To Own Billions in Fort Knox Gold; “With Nothing In The Vault To Back It Up—Amazing!”

Bill Gross, founder of Pimco, the world’s largest bond fund with over $1.92 trillion under management, penned a new piece entitled, “Money for Nothin’ Writing Checks for Free.” In his editorial, he called attention to the near $10 trillion explosion in global central bank money issuance since 2006, and the impending doom historically associated with a “money for nothing” monetary policy.
His conclusion: The whole charade will soon hit a brick wall. 
Of particular interest were his comments on gold, commodities, and the “Fort Knox Fairy Tale…ie. Fed gold certificate claims on Fort Knox bullion holdings which may or may not actually exist.
Says Gross, “Supposedly they [the US Fed] own a few billion dollars of “gold certificates” that represent a fairy-tale claim on Ft. Knox’s secret stash, but there’s essentially nothing there but trust…$54 trillion of credit in the U.S. financial system based upon trusting a central bank with nothing in the vault to back it up. Amazing!”
Gross comments on the end-game picture in saying, “…[G]overnment financing schemes such as today’s QE’s or England’s early 1700s South Sea Bubble end badly…The future price tag of printing six trillion dollars’ worth of checks comes in the form of inflation and devaluation of currencies either relative to each other, or to commodities in less limitless supply such as oil or gold.”
Bottom Line: Pimco’s $1.9 trillion in wealth is closely watching gold. When “inflationary dragons” reemerge (as he puts it), what impact might a percentage of that $1.9 trillion have on the metals and commodity markets?
Thoughts are welcomed.
Photo source.

Peter Schiff - Prices And Interest Rates Will Rise In 2013 | XRepublic

Peter Schiff - Prices And Interest Rates Will Rise In 2013 | XRepublic

Rand Paul - "The Two People Who Voted For Balancing The Budget Were kicked Out Of the Committee" | XRepublic

Rand Paul - "The Two People Who Voted For Balancing The Budget Were kicked Out Of the Committee" | XRepublic

Memo to Congress: Cut the Crap About Capitalism (And Stop Pretending You Represent Us)

The "American people" you pretend to represent do not exist.  It's all of us out here in the "real America" – you know, the one outside the beltway – who do exist.  We work for a living, nurture our kids, support our schools, obey the laws you make, and, yes, pay our taxes.  Meanwhile, the great majority of your kind (with a few notable and indispensable exceptions), enjoying benefits, incomes, and privileges our kind will never know, steadfastly refuse to speak for us.
You may have noticed that we are a very diverse society.  This diversity is a great strength, except when it's not, like when it divides us so deeply and irreconcilably that we are paralyzed by it.  What divides us as a people more than anything else now is ideology.  Not religion, not race, not political affiliation, but ideology.
Watching Congress fumble, stumble, and sink into ever-deeper disrepute one could easily get the impression that the problem is partisanship:  "Conservatives" and Republicans versus "Liberals" and Democrats.  In fact, however, that's not the case since you've so mangled these  words that they no longer have any real meaning.
So-called Tea Party Republicans using Fox News like a mass-media manure spreader are extremists incompatible with traditional conservatism in the U.S.  Extremists in Congress now typically use the word "liberal" as a pejorative and absurdly label liberals as "socialists"!  Terms that once framed our political discourse are meaningless, hopelessly stuck in the sludge of ugly propaganda and smear tactics thanks in no small part to such distinguished lawmakers as Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee in the Senate or Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann, and Steve King in the House.

You pretend to care about – and fight over – all sorts of phony issues.  You don't really give a damn about affordable health care for the masses.  You have given yourselves the best health care money can buy and we pay for it.  You ballyhoo about "choice" and "death panels" and other red herrings that have nothing to do with the real reason you oppose what you dismissively and derisively call "Obamacare".  This is but one of many examples of your hypocrisy and cynicism.  Here's a short list of others and a lie that goes with it:
  1. Issue: Oil and gas.  Lie: "fracking" is about energy independence.            
  2. Issue: Global warming.  Lie: there's no consensus among climate scientists that it's a problem.
  3. Issue: Gun control.  Lie: The 2nd Amendment is about the inalienable right of private gun ownership.
  4. Issue: Campaign finance.  Lie: The 1st Amendment requires Congress and the Supreme Court to treat corporations as people; giving money to politicians is a form of free speech.
  5. Issue:  Corporate taxes.  Lie:  US corporations pay taxes at effective rates that are the highest in the world.
  6. Issue:  Individual taxes.  Lie: a low "capital gains" tax boosts economic growth; better to finance government with high taxes on "earned income" and payroll taxes.
Article image
If honest differences are not at the root of Washington's dysfunctional state, what is?  In a word, capitalism.  Not the concept we normally associate with "free markets" (a myth) or even market economies (the true science behind the myth).   What extremists in Congress would have us believe is that "capitalism" – the ideology – is synonymous with market forces enshrined in the discipline of economics (often inaptly called the "dismal science"). Pure rubbish.
Capitalism as it is used in the current lexicon of extreme partisan politics in Congress has nothing to do with economics.  The extremists have hijacked the term to deflect public attention from the real motives behind the false rhetoric of freedom from "free markets" to "free speech".  In so doing, they have polluted political speech and economic thought to the detriment of the nation.
Words are important.  We can't think without language.  True liberals and conservatives alike know that the absence of efficiently functioning markets is a prelude to economic catastrophe.  And that's the key:  efficiently functioning markets.
Markets for goods.  Markets for services.  Markets for ideas.  And, yes, markets for votes. It's the marketplace where Adam Smith's famed "invisible hand" works it's magic, where the forces of supply and demand theoretically generate the highest quality goods at the lowest price.  Now apply that principle to our politics, to the way we elect members of the august body called Congress, and to the pathetic spectacle it has become both in our eyes and the eyes of the world.
Too many of our leaders have led us astray for too long now.  That goes for many Democrats as well as Republicans.  Nowhere has the damage been greater than in the way they have distorted the language of politics and economics.
Capitalism is now an ideology pure and simple, with a propaganda boilerplate and patter all its own.  It is used to camouflage the real truth, which is that Congress has sold out to corporate interests; that members of Congress are bought and sold in a behind-the-scenes market where votes and money are constantly traded; that America's megabanks and corporations  do not believe in competition but obsessively seek market-distorting tax favors, subsidies, federal rulings allowing "venture capitalists" to gobble up or destroy competitors and drive small businesses into extinction.
As voters and concerned citizens we need to be clear that the "debate" over conservative versus liberal solutions is not only false but pernicious.   Real liberals are no less dedicated to freedom and efficient markets than true conservatives – the ones, that is, without a host of hidden agendas that have nothing to do with macroeconomic theory and everything to do with microeconomic favoritism.
Economics is not a science dedicated to the enrichment of the 1%.  It's also not simply about the 99%.  It's really about the whole society.   We all stand to gain from fair markets – ones that are truly competitive, where the playing field is not rigged to produce the same "winners" and "losers" every time.  And that's the truth.
Readers are invited to add items to the list of issues and lies.  It's not only a cathartic exercise; it's also vital to changing the way Americans have been conditioned by the purveyors of capitalist propaganda to think about politics and economics.

THE ELEVENTH MARBLE

by Michael Rivero
Any five-year old child knows that if you put ten marbles into a tin can, you can only take ten marbles back out. No amount of wishful thinking, dreaming, or praying, will yield that eleventh marble from inside that can. That eleventh marble does not exist. It never did, and it never will. All discussions about the eleventh marble are the product of imagination. The eleventh marble is a fantasy.
Private central bankers issuing the public currency as interest-bearing loans operate on the belief that they can put ten marbles (dollars) into a tin can (the world) and magically get 11 marbles back out. Thus, we may conclude that the bankers are dumber than five-year old children! But unlike five-year old children, the bankers will take your home, your business, and your nation when they don't get that eleventh marble! The spoiled child may cry and throw a tantrum, but that will be the end of their upset. The spoiled banker, however, in his or her arrogant rage that they cannot have the eleventh marble their imagination says must still be in that tin can, may start a war before they will admit that eleventh marble was never really there.
Economies are like tin cans. Before you can take a marble out, you must have put a marble in. Nobody can give you a marble that does not exist, yet this simple reality is lost to the priests of that fantastic religion called "economics" in that unholiest of temples called the Private Central Bank. Their religious doctrine seems to be that there must always be an eleventh marble inside the tin can, and that the tin can unfairly withholds that eleventh marble, indeed cheats them of their right to the eleventh marble, purely out of spite. That faith in the existence of the eleventh marble, unseen and improvable, is the article of faith the religion of banking rests on. It is far easier to burn the heretics than to question the dogma.
Today we see the bankers, having already retrieved their ten marbles from the tin can, flogging the world for that missing eleventh marble. Greece does not have that eleventh marble, so they turn to Germany and ask, "Do you have an eleventh marble", and Germany replies, "Sorry, but the bankers already took the ten marbles they put in our tin can, and we are searching for an eleventh marble ourselves. Try the Americans." The Americans, of course, have only just surrendered the last of their ten marbles back to the bankers and are looking under seat cushions for that missing eleventh marble nobody seems able to find.
But the eleventh marble will never be found. After all that mayhem brought down on the tin can there still will be no eleventh marble. It does not exist. It never did, and it never will.
The problem with all modern reserve banking systems is that the moment the first bank note goes into circulation as the proceed of a loan at interest, more money is owed to the banks than actually exists. Ten marbles have been put into the tin can, but the bankers see 11 marbles owed back to them. Sooner or later the non-existence of that eleventh marble will create a crisis of faith. People will stop believing in the religion called private central banking, and that crisis of faith will bring the system crashing down, as did the Temple of Baal in ancient times when the Syrians saw through the priests' trickery. This evil magic of creating money out of debt was a fraud all along, as fraudulent and silly as the idea that one can put ten marbles into a tin can, and take out eleven.

In ages to come economists will look back at this failed experiment in debt-based currency, and dump it into the same category of human folly as Tulip mania, The Nation of Poyais, Credit Mobilier, the Great South Seas Company, and Mortgage-Backed Securities.

Inside a Failed State - Zimbabwe


Zimbabwe, once one of the most prosperous nations in Africa, now has the lowest life expectancy and highest inflation rate in the world. Life has become an everyday struggle for survival. The supermarkets in Bulawayo are all empty. According to the shopkeeper, the last time they had bread was “a month ago”. Filming secretly undercover, journalist Ginny Stein captures the desperation everywhere. “There is no water. Nothing, just nothing”, laments ‘Tony’. “Children are hungry, everyone is hungry. Our government is a monster”. Even if there were things in the shops, most people couldn’t afford them. A teacher’s monthly salary now buys the equivalent of one McDonald’s family meal. Malnutrition is taking its toll on people’s health. “Up to 75% of the people coming in have diarrhea and vomiting”, states Dr Thandazani. The fear is that these problems will only get worse. In July, the government forced businesses to half their prices. Now it’s proposing to nationalize 51% of all white-owned businesses. “The economy must be in the hands of Zimbabweans”, states Ambassador Khaya Moyo. But unsurprisingly, manufacturers and retailers feel they’re being made new enemies of the state.

Rome v. America: when nations die

It is said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. While listening to the details about Congress’ latest financial deal, along with all the hype regarding the Newtown tragedies, several similarities between ancient Rome and these United States came to mind. I then decided to do a little research into the reasons Rome fell – thinking that the similarities between the gladiator games and our violent entertainment, along with our out-of-touch bureaucrats and Rome’s notoriously out-of-touch Senate would take center stage. I was not prepared for what I found. The list of similarities nearly knocked me off of my chair.
St. Peter's Square, Vatican City (within Rome)
St. Peter’s Square, Vatican City. Wide-angle view. Photo: Francois Milan. CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License
The debate about all the issues that lead to the collapse of Rome is still going on and probably will be for some time. The truth is that there were many issues that contributed to the fall of Rome. The ones listed below are the ones that most historians agree with and the ones that bear disturbing similarities to conditions in America today. Read them and weep – or get mad and do something to change the road we’re on. Everett Hale once said: “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!”

Table: Parallels between ancient Rome and modern America

Factors that contributed to the fall of Rome
Similar factors that exist in America today
Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor Antagonism between the President and Congress, as well as between our two major Parties
Economic factors included:
  • Trade deficits
  • Inflation
  • Poor management by government
  • Poor leadership in government
Economic factors include:
  • Trade deficits
  • Inflation
  • Poor management by government
  • Poor leadership in government
Decline in morals – especially in the rich upper class. Decline in morals – especially within the entertainment and sports industries.
Political corruption was rampant Political corruption is rampant
Constant Wars Constant Wars
High unemployment within the working class, resulting in increasing dependency on government Rising unemployment within the working class, resulting in increasing dependency on government programs.
High cost of the “Dole” which was government supplied bread and entertainment for the non-working poor. High cost of government dole, including food stamps, Medicaid, extended unemployment insurance and other government entitlement programs.
Unrestricted trade agreements with foreign nations, resulting in Roman citizens not being able to compete with foreign trade. Free trade agreements that have resulted in loss of American jobs, since Americans cannot compete with foreign low wages.
Class warfare between the rich and the poor. Government inspired class warfare between the rich and the poor.
Increased government subsidies enabled citizens to live comfortably without working. Increased government entitlements allow citizens to live comfortably without working.
The mob and the cost of games – the roman government provided circuses for the unemployed. Government now supplies cell phones and many perks for those living below the poverty line.
Decline in ethics and values – the decline in Roman ethics and values is well-known and needs no further explanation America has experienced a decline in ethics and values that cannot be argued and needs no further explanation.
Decline in morals led to the destruction of families. It was not common to have two parent households. Decline in morals is leading to the destruction of families. It is now common to have single parent households.
Barbarian Invasion For America, this can be considered to be Islamic terrorists.
Expansion of government – Ralph Martin Novak, author of “Christianity and the Roman Empire,” stated:“…whereas at the start of the third century A.D. the Roman emperors employed only about 300 to 350 full-time individuals in administering the Empire, by 300 A.D. this number had grown to some 30,000 or 35,000 people.” Expansion of government. It has been said that today you will work for the government one way or another.
High taxes were instituted to fund growing government and its programs. High taxes are being instituted to fund growing government and its programs.
Government ceased being the servant of the people and became its nanny. The Nanny State is increasing exponentially.
Practices of infanticide were justified and legal. Abortion is justified and legal.
Gladiator games, chariot races, and forms of violence were considered entertaining. Violent games of all kinds are considered entertaining.
Paganism and religious tolerance ruled – except for Christianity. Religious tolerance rules – except for Christianity.
Decline of the military and reduced incentives to join, including lack of respectable leadership. Attempts to disrespect and underfund the military have thankfully been unsuccessful.
Citizenship granted to foreigners Amnesty and disregard for immigration laws.
Romans became globalists instead of nationalists. Americans are encouraged to become globalists, abandoning patriotism.
Decline in education, which had previously been conducted privately within homes. Prosperous Roman families began to hire Greeks to teach their children. The Greeks taught humanistic and godless philosophies. Decline in education by government-run schools. Our government-run schools teach secular humanism and evolution, which portends that supernatural creation did not occur.

Here Comes The Student Loan Bailout

2012 is the year the student loan bubble finally popped. While on one hand the relentlessly rising total Federal student debt crossed $956 billion as of September 30, and was growing at a pace that will have put it over $1 trillion by the end of 2012, the one data point confirming the size, severity and ultimately bursting of this latest debt bubble was the disclosure in late November by the Fed that the percentage of 90+ day delinquent loans soared from under 9% to 11% in one quarter.


Which is why we were not surprised to learn that the Federal government has now delivered yet another bailout program: this time focusing not on banks, or homeowners who bought McMansions and decided to not pay their mortgage, but on those millions of Americans, aged 18 to 80, that are drowning in student debt - debt, incidentally, which has been used to pay for drugs, motorcycles, games, tattoos, not to mention countless iProducts. Which also means that since there is no free lunch, all that will happen is that even more Federal Debt will be tacked on to replace discharged student debt loans, up to the total $1 trillion which will promptly soar far higher as more Americans take advantage of this latest government handout. But when the US will already have $22 trillion in debt this time in four years, who really is counting? After all, "it is only fair" that the taxpayer funded "free for all" bonanza must go on.
The latest debt bailout, not surprisingly is not titled "Yet another taxpayer funded bailout for those who bought things they can't afford on credit" as that would not be very politically prudent, especially for those politicians who still have taxpaying citizens as their voters. Instead, its name is the much more PC: "Pay as You Earn Repayment Plan." Alas, it really should be called the former, because what it does is it incentivizes Americans to borrow even more Federal student loans, well aware that there will now always be a cap on the associated monthly interest payment which will never leave a mark regardless what the full underlying loan notional is. It also provides for full debt discharge should the borrowers end up with cushy Federal jobs - because the one thing the US government needs afford is more debt-saddled government workers.
What is the "Pay as You Earn Repayment Plan"? The WSJ explains:
A new federal program should make it easier for some recent college graduates to keep their student-loan payments manageable.
The new option, known as the "Pay as You Earn Repayment Plan," lets eligible borrowers sharply lower their monthly loan payments and qualify for loan forgiveness quicker than they might otherwise.
"It's a very good safety net for students who borrow too much," says Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the financial-aid site FinAid.org. "If your debt exceeds your annual income, you will probably benefit."

Pay as You Earn, which took effect on Dec. 21, "is designed to help offset the effects of the recession for student borrowers most likely to take a hit in this tough job market," says Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access and Success, which has pushed for the creation of income-based repayment plans.
Which in the New Normal, means everyone with a student loan will benefit. It also means, that courtesy of knowing this safety net is there, more and more people will take advantage of the government's latest generosity with other taxpayer's money.
What are the terms of this new bailout?
The new program comes at a time when rising student-loan balances—amid a still shaky job market—have weighed heavily on many families.

Typically, federal student loans must be repaid within 10 years. At current interest rates, that can work out to a monthly payment of roughly $300 for a borrower with $26,000 in debt.

Pay as You Earn, by contrast, limits student-loan payments to 10% of "discretionary income" as defined by government formulas. Borrowers who make regular payments could have the remaining unpaid amounts forgiven after 20 years.
So much for student debt being non-dischargeable: borrow hundreds of thousands, but make your monthly payment of a hundred or so bucks, and in 20 years you will be debt free, courtesy of US taxpayers. Actually, scratch that: one doesn't even have to make a payment!
In some cases, borrowers with low incomes could be required to make a zero-dollar payment and would still be considered current on their loan. Monthly payments can increase or decrease each year based on the borrower's income and family size.
For those who think getting full debt forgiveness in 20 years is far too long, why there's a loophole for that too: just go "work" for Uncle Sam:
Borrowers with public-service jobs may qualify for loan forgiveness after just 10 years.
As for eligibility "constraints":
To be eligible for the program, borrowers must have taken out their first federal student loan after Sept. 30, 2007, and received at least one federal student loan after Sept. 30, 2011. Borrowers also must meet eligibility cutoffs based on the size of their debt, their discretionary income and family size.

The U.S. Department of Education's Pay As You Earn calculator, available at studentaid.gov, can help you determine if you qualify. Borrowers can apply for the program online or by contacting the loan servicer that collects their payments on behalf of the federal government.
In other words, virtually all people who were responsible for the diagonal take off in the Federal student loan total in the current depression are now eligible for what will eventually be full debt discharge.
So let's get this straight:
  1. go to some "everyone who applies is admitted" community college
  2. take on the biggest Federal loan one can get
  3. use the proceeds for everything besides the tuition (of course)
  4. be unable to find a job after graduation (naturally)
  5. plead poverty, accusing evil employers who don't hire those who majored in Foosball, and make "zero" payments while remaining in "compliance"
  6. get a job working for the government, wait ten years, and have the entire loan magically disappear.
And there it is: incentives for the common, and very much broke, man in the New Normal.
If there is anyone out there who thinks this will not result in a "charge it" feeding frenzy and that the Federal student loan total will not go absolutely parabolic going forward, please raise your hand.
Of course, what is not discussed, is who is on the other side of all those forgiven loans. And the answer, dear taxpaying US readers, is starting at you in the mirror. Because all the Federal government will do is transfer the unfunded obligation, which has already been used to satisfy the purchase of goods and services, from one individual to the whole group.
But when one is dealing with the government of a country that is no longer even fit to be defined as "banana", what is adding one more trillion between already insolvent counterparties.
Finally, yes, this means the Fed just tacked on one more year of QE to its $1 trillion/year in US debt monetization, which also means the Fed's balance sheet will now also be used for to fund student loan forgiveness, among so many other things.
Insolvent students of the world, unite!

US Urged to Mint 'Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin' To Solve Debt Ceiling Debate

The Trillion Dollar Solution?
The Trillion Dollar Solution?
A formal petition has been submitted to the White House urging President Barack Obama to authorise the minting of a trillion dollar coin in an effort to solve the bitter partisan debate over its legal debt limit.
While it has to date gained less than a thousand signatures - well shy of the 25,000 required for an official response from the government - the petition nonetheless outlines a peculiar wrinkle in the on-going battle between Republican lawmakers and their Democratic rivals in the US House of Representatives.
Having recently agreed on a tax deal that will increase government revenues by around $620bn over the next decade, Congress now has less than two months to broker a compromise on spending cuts that would trim the requested $3.8tn budget. If and when that deal can be reached, Republicans say, they'll agree to vote for an extension of the debt ceiling, which the US technically breached on 31 December and will fully surpass, according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, on 28 February.


The petition's aim, according to its advocates, is to bridge the gap between Congressional approval of a multi-trillion budget and Congressional reluctance to increase the borrowing limit in order to create the money.
By law, the US government is not permitted to simply create money on its own in order to meet its obligations. The quasi-independent US Federal Reserve was designed to allow it to put money into circulation by purchasing Federal government debt issued by the Treasury. However government bonds, bills and other securities held on the Fed's balance sheet count towards the $16.4tn debt ceiling.
In effect, the petition's supporters argue, commanding the Treasury to print a $1tn coin - something which is theoretically legal - would allow it to deposit that amount with the Federal Reserve, which could then put an equivalent amount of cash into the economy without the Treasury having to issue debt against it.
The result, in purely simplistic terms, would be a trillion cash creation that avoids the breaching of the debt ceiling and prevents the US economy from slipping back into recession.
Several problems, however, prevent the unlikely scenario from ever happening, not least of which would be the inherent damage such money creation would do to the value of the US dollar, which Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke argued in 2002 had value "only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply."
Bill Gross, who manages the world's biggest bond fund for PIMCO, wrote Thursday that the world's most important central banks have issued more than $6tn dollars' worth of "essentially free" money into the global economy since the financial crisis in a misguided recovery effort that could erode stocks, bonds and currencies for generations to come.
Gross also noted the central paradox in the strategies of fiscal and monetary policy in most of the world's largest economies, where central bank purchases of government debt create what Bernanke called "essentially costless" money at the same time politicians are demanding the most significant spending cuts in at least half a century.
"Investors and ordinary citizens might wonder then, why the fuss over the fiscal cliff and the increasing amount of debt/GDP that current deficits portend," asked Gross in his monthly Investment Outlook column. "Why the austerity push in the U.K., and why the possibly exaggerated concern by U.S. Republicans over spending and entitlements?"
Comparing the $6tn committed by the six biggest central banks in the world since 2009 to the South Sea Bubble of the 1700s, Gross argues that the future cost of such policies will come "in the form of inflation and devaluation of currencies either relative to each other, or to commodities in less limitless supply such as oil or gold."

Welcome to Freedom Above Fortune

You’ll notice that the name of this organization is "Freedom Above Fortune" rather than "Freedom Without Fortune" or "Freedom Instead of Fortune". "Freedom Above Fortune" is an organization dedicated to the concept that no amount of real or perceived economic prosperity ("fortune") is worth trading for your liberty. This is not to say that pursuing economic prosperity is, in and of itself, bad. Rather, it is to say that those who are willing to put their freedom at risk for a few pieces of silver, similar to the manner in which Judas betrayed Jesus Christ, are shortsighted and foolish. If you are willing to sell your freedom for short term financial security, real or perceived, the willingness to sell your very soul can’t be far behind.
Freedom Above Fortune was founded by Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate.

Catastroika HD (Subtitles ENG and PT)


The creators of Debtocracy analyze the shifting of state assets to private hands. They travel round the world gathering data on privatization and search for clues on the day after Greece’s massive privatization program…

Welcome to Freedom Above Fortune

You’ll notice that the name of this organization is "Freedom Above Fortune" rather than "Freedom Without Fortune" or "Freedom Instead of Fortune". "Freedom Above Fortune" is an organization dedicated to the concept that no amount of real or perceived economic prosperity ("fortune") is worth trading for your liberty. This is not to say that pursuing economic prosperity is, in and of itself, bad. Rather, it is to say that those who are willing to put their freedom at risk for a few pieces of silver, similar to the manner in which Judas betrayed Jesus Christ, are shortsighted and foolish. If you are willing to sell your freedom for short term financial security, real or perceived, the willingness to sell your very soul can’t be far behind.
Freedom Above Fortune was founded by Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate.

In Defense of the Second Amendment (without - there wouldn't be a united states of america - no enity can conquera america)

The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers. This, of course, was an agreement among officers.
The Americans honored no such agreement. Americans would target the officers from hundreds of yards away. The chain of command of British troops was disrupted by the American rifle. This was considered unsportsmanlike. But the Americans did not honor the same rules and sportsmanship.
This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army. George Washington only had two major victories, Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy). His army was usually unable to make direct confrontations in the field with the British Army. In contrast, militia units, firing from a distance against massed armies, and then running into the woods, could not be dealt with by British Army tacticians. The British armies were always tied to the cities. They could not venture far into the countryside to get food, because too many of them would be gunned down by militia members. They were dependent upon the British Navy to deliver supplies to them.
It was therefore impossible for the British to win that war. For as long as the Americans would stay in decentralized units, firing from a distance into the organized troops of the British, the British could not extend military control, and therefore political control, over the Americans. The Americans kept fighting until British taxpayers grew weary of funding the war, and until the French, during one 30-day period, provided the naval support to block the British Navy from resupplying Cornwallis's Army. George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.

In Defense of the Second Amendment

by garynorth [at] garynorth [dot] com
GaryNorth.com

I want to go over in considerable detail the fundamental issues of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms.
There is a great deal of emotional commitment in the United States to one of two extreme positions: (1) the right of every non-felon adult citizen of the United States to own any weapon he chooses, and (2) the right of the government of the United States to outlaw the ownership of firearms.
I am hard core. I would extend this right to convicted felons who have served their time or have made restitution to their victims. I would not let the federal government revoke this fundamental right of citizenship.
To understand the Second Amendment, we need to go back to something like the beginning.
FEUDALISM AND POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
In English common law in medieval times, meaning as late as the 13th century, the feudal legal system limited ownership of military weapons to members of the knightly class, and those classes over the knights. In other words, the ownership of weapons had to do with legal status.
The common man, meaning a peasant, could not be called into military service. Military service was a matter of inheritance of land and status, and this inheritance mandated military training, which created a military mindset. Thus, the weapons associated with this class, which was also a matter of social status, were not to be shared with the peasantry. This placed the peasantry at an obvious disadvantage in terms of military power. It also extended to political power. They had little political power. They were represented mainly by priests.
One of the marks of the knightly class was the right to wear armor. Armor was heavy. So, a peasant who had a simple walking staff was in a position to knock a knight off his horse. A knight in shining armor who was lying on the ground could not get up by himself. He was defenseless. So, the fact that a peasant not under a knight's authority was not allowed to carry a sword, or a bow and arrow, did not necessarily place him at a complete disadvantage, one-on-one, when dealing with a knight on horseback. It all depended on the tactics of surprise. The knight who was not expecting to be knocked off his horse might be at a disadvantage.
Peasants early on learned how to use walking sticks as weapons. Peasants could not be deprived of their walking sticks. So, they retained a degree of power which was not legally associated with their class. The movie scene of Robin Hood, an outlaw from the knightly class, battling Little John on a log over a stream was unlikely. Little John would easily have killed him. Knights were not trained in the use of staffs.
Anyone who possessed expensive weapons began with a competitive advantage in the use of power. The knightly class was careful to guard its legal rights. Magna Carta was a document created by the barons to defend their rights against the king. These rights were jealously guarded both against intrusions of power from below, as well as any intrusions from above. It was part of a hierarchical social and legal social order.
There is no question that, under most circumstances, the knightly class could deal with the peasants in the field of military battle. There were peasant rebellions from time to time. But, over the centuries, the knightly class did prevail against attempts by the peasants to overturn the legal status of the knightly class.
One of the advantages of this system was that civilians, meaning peasants and the people who lived in towns, were to be left alone by the warriors. They were not to be slaughtered in a military confrontation. Warriors were to do battle with other warriors. Warriors were not to use the specialized implements of warfare against civilians. This was a good arrangement for civilians.
GUNPOWDER
Gunpowder signaled the end of feudalism. It did not cause this decline, but it accompanied it. Armies became professional. Mercenaries appeared. Legal access to weapons was no longer based on birth and legal status. With the demise of the feudal order after the 14th century, and the rise of professional armies, which were funded by taxation rather than by a grant of land by the king to specific families, access to military training became available to common men. The more that the armies depended upon conscription, or payment by the central government, the greater the demands for the right to vote by the lower classes.
This demand became open during the Puritan revolution of the 1640s in England. Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army was made up of commoners as well as members of the higher social orders. Puritans believed in the exercise of the franchise in their local congregations. English Puritans were Congregationalists. They did not believe in a hierarchy of bishops, nor did they even believe in the hierarchy of presbyteries. Presbyterianism was a Scottish concept, not an English Puritan concept. So, with the triumph of Cromwell and the New Model Army, the issue of the franchise became an important political issue. Debates were held in 1647 within the New Model Army over what constituted the right to vote. The Levelers, who were not Communists, believed that the franchise should be extended to members of the New Model Army, irrespective of their wealth. This was opposed by the upper classes, including Cromwell, but there was an open debate over the issue. Cromwell's son-in-law, Ireton, argued for wealth, meaning personally owned land or money, as the basis of the right to vote. Rainsboro, a representative of the Levelers, argued that mere residence in the land should qualify a man to vote.
With the coming of the rifle in the 18th century, it became possible for independent farmers -- "peasants" -- to purchase the implements of war. These could be used for hunting. Civilians were still not part of the warrior class, but as the price of weaponry fell, beginning in the early 18th century, a shift of political power also began to take place.
In the second half of the 18th century, the common citizen in the British colonies of North America possessed a rifle. In most cases he was a man of the countryside. He had the ability to use it. For the first time, weapons that were available to common people had equal firepower to weapons available to the central government.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
So, the central government faced a crisis. The colonists in North America were in a position to resist the King's will. After 1763, resistance against the King's representatives increased, and the ability of the King to impose his will on these upstarts became more a matter of finances than technology.
The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers. This, of course, was an agreement among officers.
The Americans honored no such agreement. Americans would target the officers from hundreds of yards away. The chain of command of British troops was disrupted by the American rifle. This was considered unsportsmanlike. But the Americans did not honor the same rules and sportsmanship.
This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army. George Washington only had two major victories, Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy). His army was usually unable to make direct confrontations in the field with the British Army. In contrast, militia units, firing from a distance against massed armies, and then running into the woods, could not be dealt with by British Army tacticians. The British armies were always tied to the cities. They could not venture far into the countryside to get food, because too many of them would be gunned down by militia members. They were dependent upon the British Navy to deliver supplies to them.
It was therefore impossible for the British to win that war. For as long as the Americans would stay in decentralized units, firing from a distance into the organized troops of the British, the British could not extend military control, and therefore political control, over the Americans. The Americans kept fighting until British taxpayers grew weary of funding the war, and until the French, during one 30-day period, provided the naval support to block the British Navy from resupplying Cornwallis's Army. George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.
 
Americans fully understood this when the leaders wrote the Bill of Rights in 1790. This is why the Second Amendment was inserted into the Constitution. The voters understood that it was their ability to fight any organized army, through the organization of the militia, which was basic to their concept of citizenship. It was the citizen warrior, armed with a rifle that was every bit as good as that possessed by members of the Army, who was perceived as possessing final political sovereignty. The whole concept of "we the people," which introduced the Constitution, rested on the well-known ability of the American citizen warrior to grab his rifle and fight.
DEMOCRACY AND WEAPONS
Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University was an expert in the history of armaments in Western Europe. He is famous among conservatives for about 20 pages late in his book, Tragedy and Hope, in which he discussed the influence of the Morgan banking interests. Very few conservatives have ever read all of this book.
In chapter 2, "Western Civilization to 1914," on page 34, Quigley wrote a very important assessment of the relationship between weaponry and political power.
In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain).
The American Civil War transformed military tactics. The rise of the railroads and telegraphy made possible the coordination of the movement of mass armies. The only way that the American South could have won that war, other than simply by outlasting the Northerners on the battlefield, thereby weakening the will to continue the war among Northern voters, was to resort to guerrilla warfare. But the generals were mostly the products of West Point, or were promoted on the battlefield by graduates of West Point, and their concept was the same as George Washington's, namely, that centralized armies financed by the national government were the basis of military success. They were not in favor of guerrilla warfare. (This was not true of Nathan Bedford Forest, a businessman turned self-funded cavalry officer. He was a guerrilla, and he was highly effective.)
From the end of the Civil War until today, nations have been committed to what is sometimes called second-generation warfare. These are armies, navies, and air forces that can assemble massed firepower, using highly precise and very expensive weapons. These military units no longer can consistently defeat guerrilla movements on the ground. Fourth-generation warfare, meaning guerrilla warfare, is now reestablishing the sovereignty of the common man. Vietnam is the obvious case, but Afghanistan certainly qualifies. In the case of Afghanistan, the common man has always had the advantage. Nobody has been able to conquer Afghanistan for more than a few years. This goes back to Alexander the Great. The topography of the nation, and the commitment of its men to fight to the bitter end, meaning the bitter end of the invaders, has been such that these people have not been defeated.
The one Western European nation that fully understands this is Switzerland. Every Swiss male up the age of 60 is expected to serve in the military. Every Swiss male who serves in the military is expected to master the use of the rifle. It is a matter of honor to be a good rifleman in Switzerland. Bankers in their 50s compete against clerks in their 20s as marksmen. This has been true for five centuries. This is a nation of citizen warriors. It is a nation with a very weak central government, the weakest in the modern industrial world. The presidency is a symbolic office, and it is held on a rotation basis, with only one year as its term. Yet the nation's army can be mobilized in a matter of days. Switzerland has the longest history of political freedom of any continental European nation.
It is true that the Swiss surrender their ammo back to the local armory at the end of each summer's training. It is also true that the political tradition of democracy is so deeply ingrained that it would be impossible for any Swiss government to refuse to return those weapons the following summer. The Swiss are not a disarmed population. They simply let the government store the ammo during the year. The attitude is not that the government lets the citizens have access to weapons. The attitude is that the citizens allow the government to store the ammo. The mentality is completely different from the gun control advocates in the United States.
In every nation except Switzerland, gun control advocates want to centralize the ownership of any weapon that could be used systematically against agents of the government. This is not a random outlook. All the arguments about reduced crime are refuted by the statistics of increased crime whenever the government confiscates the guns of the population. Guns are as easily available to the criminal class as illegal drugs are available to the citizens and all other residents.
Gun control advocates insist that the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of the monopolistic government is a moral obligation. Why is it a moral obligation? It is a moral obligation because these people really do believe that the central government possesses legitimate original political sovereignty, an exclusive sovereignty, over the weapons that could be used against the central government.
It is one of those peculiarities that conservatives who say they believe in the right of gun ownership, and who sometimes even say that this is a means of defense against tyranny, are also in favor of invading foreign nations, when those foreign nations have adopted the concept of universal gun ownership that is comparable to the philosophy of American conservatism. The well-armed "little people" in Middle Eastern countries are able to defeat American invading troops, just as others like them did in Vietnam, precisely because the decentralization that is made possible by a diffusion of gun ownership and explosives is effective in combating the expansion of centralized political and military control. In other words, American troops cannot defeat these tiny countries, precisely because of widespread ownership of effective weapons that can be used against the occupying troops.

I just created my own White House petition - we petition the obama administration to: RESIGN!

we petition the obama administration to:

RESIGN!

It is clear at this point that the current administration refuses to deal with the real causes of our nation's problems. Despite abundant evidence of the link between prescription anti-depressants and violence, the administration scapegoats law-abiding gun owners. Despite open admissions of massive fraud on Wall Street, the administration continues to loot the American people to paper over the losses. Despite the documented lies of Saddam's nuclear weapons, the administration continues to use the same lies against Iran. Despite 16 years of global cooling, the administration continues to demand a carbon tax. By any reasonable definition of the American people, this administration is a failure.
Created: Jan 01, 2013

Signatures needed by January 31, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000

23,346

Total signatures on this petition

1,654

A whitehouse.gov account is required to sign Petitions.

WHY?

If you're logged in, but having trouble signing this petition, click here for help.

Who Pays More Tax in 2013?

WSJ ChartWall Street Journal Tax Report:  How Much Will Your Taxes Jump?, by Laura Saunders:
In the nick of time, and amid much political drama, Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act on New Year's Day—averting massive tax increases for nearly all earners that were slated to take effect Jan. 1.
Even so, millions of people soon will feel something less than relief from the new law.
While the top 1% of taxpayers will bear the biggest burden, many other families, affluent and poor, will pay more as well.
The most immediate change affects nearly all workers: Congress allowed a two-percentage-point cut for the employee portion of the Social Security tax to expire. As a result, each will owe up to $2,425 more in payroll tax this year than in 2012.
Beyond that, the new law's effects will be highly individualized—and in some cases highly painful. ... In essence, the new law "replaces uncertainty with confusion," says David Lifson, an accountant at Crowe Horwath in New York. "Only tax wizards can understand the entirety, especially for people earning between $200,000 and $450,000." ...
To help you get a grasp of your own 2013 taxes, the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in Washington, has devised a calculator, available on its website that can help you crunch the numbers.
  • Single Unemployed Person (Income: Under $10,000): Average tax rate: 6.9%; average federal tax change: Up $63 (20.9%)
  • College Student (Income: $10,000-$20,000):  Average tax rate: 6.4%; average federal tax change: Up $123 (14.7%)
  • Lower-Income Working Couple (Income: $20,000-$30,000): Average tax rate: 1.3%; average federal tax change: Up $279 (446%)
  • Retiree Household (Income: $30,000-$40,000):  Average tax rate: 4.0%; average federal tax change: Up $69 (5.1%)
  • Higher-Income Professional (Income: $150,000): Average tax rate: 22.0%; average federal tax change: Up $1,784 (6.5%)
  • High-Income Couple (Income: $350,000): Average tax rate: 25.6%; average federal tax change: Up $2,699 (3.9%)
  • Very High Income Household (Income: more than $1 million): Average tax rate: 38.5%; average federal tax change: Up $170,341 (15.5%)