BEIJING (Reuters) – Police in western China's restive Xinjiang on Monday "gunned down" several rioters who attacked a police station and killed at least four people, though an exile group said the incident started when police fired on peaceful protesters.
The violence was the worst Xinjiang has experienced in about a year. Last August, seven Chinese military police were killed when a member of the Uighur minority rammed them with an explosives-laden vehicle in the Xinjiang border region.
State television said the latest incident took place in the desert city of Hotan when a mob attacked a police station, taking hostages and setting it on fire.
Two hostages, a paramilitary policeman and a guard died in the violence, as well as several of the attackers, it reported. Six hostages were freed.
"Police gunned down several rioters who attacked a police station and killed four people in Hotan city," the official Xinhua news agency said.
"Rioters broke into the police station shortly after 12 p.m. (0400 GMT). They assaulted the police, took hostages and set fire to the station," it added, citing the Ministry of Public Security.
"The police quickly converged on the scene and shot a number of rioters while freeing six hostages."
The situation has now been bought "under control", the state television said, and a team from the state anti-terrorism office was on its way to the scene.
The Xinjiang government was not immediately available for comment.
Dilxat Raxit of the Germany-based World Uyghur Congress said residents in Hotan had told his group that police opened fire on a peaceful protest, leading to fighting between the two sides.
"The people cannot stand the government's repression any longer," he said by telephone. Reuters was not able to independently verify his account.
"VIOLENT SEPARATIST GROUPS"
Beijing often blames what it calls violent separatist groups in Xinjiang for attacks on police or other government targets, saying they work with al Qaeda or Central Asian militants to bring about an independent state called East Turkestan.
Many Uighurs -- a Muslim, Turkic-speaking people native to the region -- chafe under rule from Beijing and restrictions on their language, culture and religion.
They now make up less than half of Xinjiang's population after decades of immigration by the majority Han from other parts of China.
In July 2009, Xinjiang's capital Urumqi was rocked by violence between majority Han Chinese and minority Uighurs that killed nearly 200 people.
Since then, China has executed nine people it blamed for instigating the riots, detained and prosecuted hundreds of others and ramped up spending on security, according to state media and overseas rights groups.
Last month, Kazakhstan extradited a Uighur schoolteacher who had been granted U.N. refugee status to face charges of terrorism in China, brushing off concerns he could be tortured and that the charges against him were trumped up.
Xinjiang is strategically vital to China and Beijing has shown no sign of loosening its grip.
A vast swathe of territory, accounting for one-sixth of China's land mass, Xinjiang holds oil, gas and coal deposits and borders Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Central Asia.
(Editing by Yoko Nishikawa)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
CHART: Federal Reserve Dollar Destruction
Chart demonstrating the decline in the dollar's purchasing power from 1913 to 2005. And it's only gotten worse since '05, with the latest figures showing the dollar having lost 98% since the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913.
---
Bonus clip...
Video - Bernanke admits to Ron Paul that 'Inflation Is A Tax' - July 16, 2008
Source - Washington's Blog
UK on the verge of Bankruptcy !!!!!!
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15751
Peter Schiff - 'Moodys should downgrade US debt to junk' (18-Jul-11)
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15749
71% of Americans Would Rather See Spending Cuts than Stimulus, According to Latest American Pulse™ Survey
Over 5,000 Americans participate in the American Pulse Survey conducted twice a month, and the most recent survey was conducted 7/5/11-7/7/11. The latest results show that most Americans would rather see the government cut spending than try to boost the economy with more spending. Also, the majority agrees a debt ceiling is necessary, Social Security is worth saving and the U.S. should drill its own oil.
Worthington, OH (PRWEB) July 13, 2011
In order to heal the wounded economy, the U.S. government could cut spending or spend more in an attempt to boost the economy. 70.7% of Americans would rather see Congress curb spending, according to the latest American Pulse™ Survey of 5,296 respondents. 84.4% of Republicans, 73.2% of Independents and 58.6% of Democrats agree:Which should happen first in order for recovery to happen quicker?
Cut spending to reduce national debt
Adults 18+: 70.7%
Republicans: 84.4%
Democrats: 58.6%
Independents: 73.2%
Spend more to stimulate the economy and job market
Adults 18+: 29.3%
Republicans: 15.6%
Democrats: 41.4%
Independents: 26.8%
Source: American Pulse™ Survey, July 2011
For a complimentary report, click here or fill out the form below.
With heated debt ceiling negotiations taking place in Washington and Americans’ eagerness to cut government spending, it should come as no surprise that the majority thinks a limit on debt is needed. 70.5% say a set debt limit is “Necessary.” 80.1% of Republicans, 72.2% of Independents and 65.3% of Democrats agree.
Further, 74.4% of Americans have little or no confidence that the government’s economic policies will get the economy back on track. 88.7% of Republicans, 77.6% of Independents and 57.9% of Democrats share this lack of confidence.
In a political game of “Would You Rather…?”, parties also appear to agree on some of the largest issues facing the nation.
7 in 10 Americans (70.4%) would rather pay more in taxes in order to have Social Security available to them when they retire. 80.6% of Democrats, 70.6% of Independents and 59.1% of Republicans agree. The other 3 in 10 Americans (29.6%) would rather sacrifice Social Security benefits and pay less in taxes right now.
83.0% of Americans would rather harvest domestic oil, and 92.0% of Republicans, 82.5% of Independents and 78.0% of Democrats agree. The other 17.0% prefer to preserve our resources and continue buying oil from overseas.
Other Key Findings among Americans:
- Nearly 2 in 3 (63.0%) sort of agree or fully agree with the beliefs of the Tea Party movement. 37.0% do not agree at all.
- The top 3 words used to describe the Tea Party movement: Good (3.6%), Conservative (3.5%), Crazy (2.7%).
- 55.5% of Americans agree with the Obama administration’s talking point that taxing “millionaires and billionaires” more could help save the economy.
- Almost half (49.1%) think it is not at all or not very likely that the government will be able to get the economy back on track before debt surpasses GDP, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will happen in 10 years.
- 60.9% would rather have Sarah Palin on their side in a street fight, but 54.6% would call Michele Bachmann for help if they were arrested. Want to know which of these women Americans would rather have serve as President? Click here for the special report or fill out the form below.
The American Pulse™ Survey is collected online by BIGresearch® twice a month exclusively utilizing SSI’s U.S. panel covering topics such as politics, pop culture and the economy. 5,296 respondents participated in the 1st July American Pulse conducted 7/5-7/7/2011. Margin of error is +/- 1.4%. http://www.biginsight.com Survey Sampling International (SSI)
Bringing together Survey Sampling International and Opinionology, SSI is the premier global provider of world-leading sampling, data collection and data analytic solutions for survey research. SSI reaches respondents in 72 countries via Internet, telephone, mobile/wireless and mixed access offerings. Value-add services include questionnaire design consultation, programming and hosting, data processing and real-time reporting. SSI serves more than 2,000 clients, including the top 50 research organizations. It has 30 offices serving clients around the world.
BIGresearch
Chrissy Wissinger
chrissy(at)bigresearch(dot)com
Randi Honkonen
randi(at)bigresearch(dot)com
614.846.0146
SSI
Ilene Siegalovsky
Ilene_siegalovsky(at)surveysampling(dot)com
203-567-7230
###
Obama Is Lying - There's Plenty Of Money To Continue Paying Social Security If The Debt Ceiling Is Not Raised
Video - Rep. Jan Schakowsky On WLS Chicago - July 13, 2011
The proof comes at the 3:20 mark, but the entire clip is worth seeing.
Related story from last week:
The proof comes at the 3:20 mark, but the entire clip is worth seeing.
Related story from last week:
AP: Mortgage 'robo-signing' continues in Michigan, other states
Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven't read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures.
County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as "robo-signing," remain widespread in the industry.
The documents have come from several companies that process mortgage paperwork, and have been filed on behalf of several major banks. One name, "Linda Green," was signed almost two dozen different ways.
Lenders say they are working with regulators to fix the problem but cannot explain why it has persisted.
Last fall, the nation's largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork.
Since then, suspect paperwork has been filed not only with foreclosures, but also with new purchases and refinancings. Critics say the new findings point to a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. And they say it shows that banks and mortgage processors haven't acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry.
"Robo-signing is not even close to over," says Curtis Hertel, the recorder of deeds in Ingham County, Mich., which includes Lansing. "It's still an epidemic."
In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of "Linda Green," but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles.
Linda Green worked for a company called DocX that processed mortgage paperwork and was shut down in the spring of 2010. County officials say they believe Green hasn't worked in the industry since. Why her signature remains in use is not clear.
"My office is a crime scene," says John O'Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, which is north of Boston and includes the city of Salem.
In Guilford County, N.C., the office that records deeds says it received 456 documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1, 2010, through June 30. The documents, mortgage assignments and certificates of satisfaction, transfer loans from one bank to another or certify a loan has been paid off.
Suspect signatures on the paperwork include 290 signed by Bryan Bly and 155 by Crystal Moore. In the mortgage investigations last fall, both admitted signing their names to mortgage documents without having read them. Neither was charged with a crime.
And in Michigan, a fraud investigator who works on behalf of homeowners says he has uncovered documents filed this year bearing the purported signature of Marshall Isaacs, an attorney with foreclosure law firm Orlans Associates P.C. in Troy. Isaacs' name did not come up in last year's investigations, but county officials across Michigan believe his name is being robo-signed.
O'Brien caused a stir in June at a national convention of county clerks by presenting his findings and encouraging his counterparts to investigate continued robo-signing.
The nation's foreclosure machine almost came to a standstill when the nation's largest banks suspended foreclosures last fall. Part of the problem, banks contended, was that foreclosures became so rampant in 2009 and 2010 that they were overwhelmed with paperwork.
The banks reviewed thousands of foreclosure filings, and where they found problems, they submitted new paperwork to courts handling the cases, with signatures they said were valid. The banks slowly started to resume foreclosures this winter and spring.
The 14 biggest U.S. banks reached a settlement with federal regulators in April in which they promised to clean up their mistakes and pay restitution to homeowners who had been wrongly foreclosed upon. The full amount of the settlement has not been determined. But it will not involve independent mortgage processing firms, the companies that some banks use to handle and file paperwork for mortgages.
So far, no individuals, lenders or paperwork processors have been charged with a crime over the robo-signed signatures found on documents last year. Critics such as April Charney, a Florida homeowner and defense lawyer, called the settlement a farce because no real punishment was meted out, making it easy for lenders and mortgage processors to continue the practice of robo-signing.
Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. It can mean a qualified executive in the mortgage industry signs a mortgage affidavit document without verifying the information. It can mean someone forges an executive's signature, or a lower-level employee signs his or her own name with a fake title. It can mean failing to comply with notary procedures. In all of these cases, robo-signing involves people signing documents and swearing to their accuracy without verifying any of the information.
Most of the tainted mortgage documents in question last fall were related to homes in foreclosure. But much of the suspect paperwork that has been filed since then is for refinancing or for new purchases by people who are in good standing in the eyes of the bank. In addition, foreclosures are down 30 percent this year from last. Home sales have also fallen. So the new suspect documents come at a time when much less paperwork is streaming through the nation's mortgage machinery.
None of the almost 1,300 suspect Linda Green-signed documents from O'Brien's office, for example, involve foreclosures. And Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina's Guilford County, says fewer than 40 of the 456 suspect documents filed to his office since October involved foreclosures.
Banks and their partner firms file mortgage documents with county deeds offices to prove that there are no liens on a property, that the bank owns a mortgage or that a bank filing for foreclosure has the authority to do so.
The signature of a qualified bank or mortgage official on these legal documents is supposed to guarantee that this information is accurate. The paper trail ensures a legal chain of title on a property and has been the backbone of U.S. property ownership for more than 300 years.
The county officials say the problem could be even worse than what they're reporting. That's because they are working off lists of known robo-signed names, such as Linda Green and Crystal Moore, that were identified during the investigation that began last fall. Officials suspect that other names on documents they have received since then are also robo-signed.
It is a federal crime to sign someone else's name to a legal document. It is also illegal to sign your name to an affidavit if you have not verified the information you're swearing to. Both are punishable by prison.
In Michigan, the attorney general took the rare step in June of filing criminal subpoenas to out-of-state mortgage processing companies after 23 county registers of deeds filed a criminal complaint with his office over robo-signed documents they say they have received. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office has said it is conducting a banking probe that could lead to criminal charges against financial executives. The attorneys general of Delaware, California and Illinois are conducting their own probes.
The legal issues are grave, deeds officials across the country say. At worst, legal experts say, the document debacle has opened the property system to legal liability well beyond the nation's foreclosure crisis. So someone buying a home and trying to obtain title insurance might be delayed or denied if robo-signed documents turn up in the property's history. That's because forged signatures call into question who owns mortgages and the properties they are attached to.
"The banks have completely screwed up property records," says L. Randall Wray, an economics professor and senior scholar at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
In the Massachusetts case, The Associated Press tried to reach Linda Green, whose name was purportedly signed 1,300 times since October. The AP, using a phone number provided by lawyers who have been investigating the documents since last year, reached a person who said she was Linda Green, but not the Linda Green involved in the mortgage investigation.
In the Michigan case, a lawyer for the Orlans Associates law firm, where Isaacs works, denies that Isaacs or the firm has done anything wrong. "People have signatures that change," says Terry Cramer, general counsel for the firm. "We do not engage in 'robo-signing' at Orlans."
To combat the stream of suspect filings, O'Brien and Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina's Guilford County, stopped accepting questionable paperwork June 7. They say they had no choice after complaining to federal and state authorities for months without getting anywhere.
Since then, O'Brien has received nine documents from Bank of America purportedly signed by Linda Burton, another name on authorities' list of known robo-signers. For years, his office has regularly received documents signed with Burton's name but written in such vastly different handwriting that two forensic investigators say it's highly unlikely it all came from the same person.
O'Brien returned the nine Burton documents to Bank of America in mid-June. He told the bank he would not file them unless the bank signed an affidavit certifying the signature and accepting responsibility if the title was called into question down the road. Instead, Bank of America sent new documents with new signatures and new notaries.
A Bank of America spokesman says Burton is an assistant vice president with a subsidiary, ReconTrust. That company handles mortgage paperwork processing for Bank of America.
"She signed the documents on behalf of the bank," spokesman Richard Simon says. The bank says providing the affidavit O'Brien asked for would have been costly and time-consuming. Instead, Simon says Bank of America sent a new set of documents "signed by an authorized associate who Mr. O'Brien wasn't challenging."
The bank didn't respond to questions about why Burton's name has been signed in different ways or why her signature appeared on documents that investigators in at least two states have deemed invalid.
Several attempts by the AP to reach Burton at ReconTrust were unsuccessful.
O'Brien says the bank's actions show "consciousness of guilt." Earlier this year, he hired Marie McDonnell, a mortgage fraud investigator and forensic document analyst, to verify his suspicions about Burton's and other names on suspect paperwork.
She compared valid copies of Burton's signature with the documents O'Brien had received in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and found that Burton's name was fraudulently signed on hundreds of documents.
Most of the documents reviewed by McDonnell were mortgage discharges, which are issued when a home changes hands or is refinanced by a new lender and are supposed to confirm that the previous mortgage has been paid off. Bank of America declined comment on McDonnell's findings.
In Michigan, recorder of deeds Hertel and his counterparts in 23 other counties found numerous suspect signatures on documents filed since the beginning of the year.
In June, their findings led the Michigan attorney general to issue criminal subpoenas to several firms that process mortgages for banks, including Lender Processing Services, the parent company of DocX, where Linda Green worked. On July 6, the CEO of that company, which is also under investigation by the Florida Attorney General's office, resigned, citing health reasons.
County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as "robo-signing," remain widespread in the industry.
The documents have come from several companies that process mortgage paperwork, and have been filed on behalf of several major banks. One name, "Linda Green," was signed almost two dozen different ways.
Lenders say they are working with regulators to fix the problem but cannot explain why it has persisted.
Last fall, the nation's largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork.
Since then, suspect paperwork has been filed not only with foreclosures, but also with new purchases and refinancings. Critics say the new findings point to a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. And they say it shows that banks and mortgage processors haven't acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry.
"Robo-signing is not even close to over," says Curtis Hertel, the recorder of deeds in Ingham County, Mich., which includes Lansing. "It's still an epidemic."
In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of "Linda Green," but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles.
Linda Green worked for a company called DocX that processed mortgage paperwork and was shut down in the spring of 2010. County officials say they believe Green hasn't worked in the industry since. Why her signature remains in use is not clear.
"My office is a crime scene," says John O'Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, which is north of Boston and includes the city of Salem.
In Guilford County, N.C., the office that records deeds says it received 456 documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1, 2010, through June 30. The documents, mortgage assignments and certificates of satisfaction, transfer loans from one bank to another or certify a loan has been paid off.
Suspect signatures on the paperwork include 290 signed by Bryan Bly and 155 by Crystal Moore. In the mortgage investigations last fall, both admitted signing their names to mortgage documents without having read them. Neither was charged with a crime.
And in Michigan, a fraud investigator who works on behalf of homeowners says he has uncovered documents filed this year bearing the purported signature of Marshall Isaacs, an attorney with foreclosure law firm Orlans Associates P.C. in Troy. Isaacs' name did not come up in last year's investigations, but county officials across Michigan believe his name is being robo-signed.
O'Brien caused a stir in June at a national convention of county clerks by presenting his findings and encouraging his counterparts to investigate continued robo-signing.
The nation's foreclosure machine almost came to a standstill when the nation's largest banks suspended foreclosures last fall. Part of the problem, banks contended, was that foreclosures became so rampant in 2009 and 2010 that they were overwhelmed with paperwork.
The banks reviewed thousands of foreclosure filings, and where they found problems, they submitted new paperwork to courts handling the cases, with signatures they said were valid. The banks slowly started to resume foreclosures this winter and spring.
The 14 biggest U.S. banks reached a settlement with federal regulators in April in which they promised to clean up their mistakes and pay restitution to homeowners who had been wrongly foreclosed upon. The full amount of the settlement has not been determined. But it will not involve independent mortgage processing firms, the companies that some banks use to handle and file paperwork for mortgages.
So far, no individuals, lenders or paperwork processors have been charged with a crime over the robo-signed signatures found on documents last year. Critics such as April Charney, a Florida homeowner and defense lawyer, called the settlement a farce because no real punishment was meted out, making it easy for lenders and mortgage processors to continue the practice of robo-signing.
Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. It can mean a qualified executive in the mortgage industry signs a mortgage affidavit document without verifying the information. It can mean someone forges an executive's signature, or a lower-level employee signs his or her own name with a fake title. It can mean failing to comply with notary procedures. In all of these cases, robo-signing involves people signing documents and swearing to their accuracy without verifying any of the information.
Most of the tainted mortgage documents in question last fall were related to homes in foreclosure. But much of the suspect paperwork that has been filed since then is for refinancing or for new purchases by people who are in good standing in the eyes of the bank. In addition, foreclosures are down 30 percent this year from last. Home sales have also fallen. So the new suspect documents come at a time when much less paperwork is streaming through the nation's mortgage machinery.
None of the almost 1,300 suspect Linda Green-signed documents from O'Brien's office, for example, involve foreclosures. And Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina's Guilford County, says fewer than 40 of the 456 suspect documents filed to his office since October involved foreclosures.
Banks and their partner firms file mortgage documents with county deeds offices to prove that there are no liens on a property, that the bank owns a mortgage or that a bank filing for foreclosure has the authority to do so.
The signature of a qualified bank or mortgage official on these legal documents is supposed to guarantee that this information is accurate. The paper trail ensures a legal chain of title on a property and has been the backbone of U.S. property ownership for more than 300 years.
The county officials say the problem could be even worse than what they're reporting. That's because they are working off lists of known robo-signed names, such as Linda Green and Crystal Moore, that were identified during the investigation that began last fall. Officials suspect that other names on documents they have received since then are also robo-signed.
It is a federal crime to sign someone else's name to a legal document. It is also illegal to sign your name to an affidavit if you have not verified the information you're swearing to. Both are punishable by prison.
In Michigan, the attorney general took the rare step in June of filing criminal subpoenas to out-of-state mortgage processing companies after 23 county registers of deeds filed a criminal complaint with his office over robo-signed documents they say they have received. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office has said it is conducting a banking probe that could lead to criminal charges against financial executives. The attorneys general of Delaware, California and Illinois are conducting their own probes.
The legal issues are grave, deeds officials across the country say. At worst, legal experts say, the document debacle has opened the property system to legal liability well beyond the nation's foreclosure crisis. So someone buying a home and trying to obtain title insurance might be delayed or denied if robo-signed documents turn up in the property's history. That's because forged signatures call into question who owns mortgages and the properties they are attached to.
"The banks have completely screwed up property records," says L. Randall Wray, an economics professor and senior scholar at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
In the Massachusetts case, The Associated Press tried to reach Linda Green, whose name was purportedly signed 1,300 times since October. The AP, using a phone number provided by lawyers who have been investigating the documents since last year, reached a person who said she was Linda Green, but not the Linda Green involved in the mortgage investigation.
In the Michigan case, a lawyer for the Orlans Associates law firm, where Isaacs works, denies that Isaacs or the firm has done anything wrong. "People have signatures that change," says Terry Cramer, general counsel for the firm. "We do not engage in 'robo-signing' at Orlans."
To combat the stream of suspect filings, O'Brien and Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina's Guilford County, stopped accepting questionable paperwork June 7. They say they had no choice after complaining to federal and state authorities for months without getting anywhere.
Since then, O'Brien has received nine documents from Bank of America purportedly signed by Linda Burton, another name on authorities' list of known robo-signers. For years, his office has regularly received documents signed with Burton's name but written in such vastly different handwriting that two forensic investigators say it's highly unlikely it all came from the same person.
O'Brien returned the nine Burton documents to Bank of America in mid-June. He told the bank he would not file them unless the bank signed an affidavit certifying the signature and accepting responsibility if the title was called into question down the road. Instead, Bank of America sent new documents with new signatures and new notaries.
A Bank of America spokesman says Burton is an assistant vice president with a subsidiary, ReconTrust. That company handles mortgage paperwork processing for Bank of America.
"She signed the documents on behalf of the bank," spokesman Richard Simon says. The bank says providing the affidavit O'Brien asked for would have been costly and time-consuming. Instead, Simon says Bank of America sent a new set of documents "signed by an authorized associate who Mr. O'Brien wasn't challenging."
The bank didn't respond to questions about why Burton's name has been signed in different ways or why her signature appeared on documents that investigators in at least two states have deemed invalid.
Several attempts by the AP to reach Burton at ReconTrust were unsuccessful.
O'Brien says the bank's actions show "consciousness of guilt." Earlier this year, he hired Marie McDonnell, a mortgage fraud investigator and forensic document analyst, to verify his suspicions about Burton's and other names on suspect paperwork.
She compared valid copies of Burton's signature with the documents O'Brien had received in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and found that Burton's name was fraudulently signed on hundreds of documents.
Most of the documents reviewed by McDonnell were mortgage discharges, which are issued when a home changes hands or is refinanced by a new lender and are supposed to confirm that the previous mortgage has been paid off. Bank of America declined comment on McDonnell's findings.
In Michigan, recorder of deeds Hertel and his counterparts in 23 other counties found numerous suspect signatures on documents filed since the beginning of the year.
In June, their findings led the Michigan attorney general to issue criminal subpoenas to several firms that process mortgages for banks, including Lender Processing Services, the parent company of DocX, where Linda Green worked. On July 6, the CEO of that company, which is also under investigation by the Florida Attorney General's office, resigned, citing health reasons.
Death and Budgets - New York Times starts hinting at euthanasia as solution to debt crisis.
I hope you had the chance to read and reread Dudley Clendinen’s splendid essay, “The Good Short Life,” in The Times’s Sunday Review section. Clendinen is dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or A.L.S. If he uses all the available medical technology, it will leave him, in a few years’ time, “a conscious but motionless, mute, withered, incontinent mummy of my former self.”
Instead of choosing that long, dehumanizing, expensive course, Clendinen has decided to face death as one of life’s “most absorbing thrills and challenges.” He concludes: “When the music stops — when I can’t tie my bow tie, tell a funny story, walk my dog, talk with Whitney, kiss someone special, or tap out lines like this — I’ll know that Life is over. It’s time to be gone.”
Clendinen’s article is worth reading for the way he defines what life is. Life is not just breathing and existing as a self-enclosed skin bag. It’s doing the activities with others you were put on earth to do.
But it’s also valuable as a backdrop to the current budget mess. This fiscal crisis is about many things, but one of them is our inability to face death — our willingness to spend our nation into bankruptcy to extend life for a few more sickly months.
The fiscal crisis is driven largely by health care costs. We have the illusion that in spending so much on health care we are radically improving the quality of our lives. We have the illusion that through advances in medical research we are in the process of eradicating deadly diseases. We have the barely suppressed hope that someday all this spending and innovation will produce something close to immortality.
But that’s not actually what we are buying. As Daniel Callahan and Sherwin B. Nuland point out in an essay in The New Republic called “The Quagmire,” our health care spending and innovation are not leading us toward a limitless extension of a good life.
Callahan, a co-founder of the Hastings Center, the bioethics research institution, and Nuland, a retired clinical professor of surgery at Yale, point out that more than a generation after Richard Nixon declared the “War on Cancer” in 1971, we remain far from a cure. Despite recent gains, there is no cure on the horizon for heart disease or stroke. A panel at the National Institutes of Health recently concluded that little progress had been made toward finding ways to delay Alzheimer’s disease.
Years ago, people hoped that science could delay the onset of morbidity. We would live longer, healthier lives and then die quickly. This is not happening. Most of us will still suffer from chronic diseases for years near the end of life, and then die slowly.
S. Jay Olshansky, one of the leading experts on aging, argues that life expectancy is now leveling off. “We have arrived at a moment,” Callahan and Nuland conclude, “where we are making little headway in defeating various kinds of diseases. Instead, our main achievements today consist of devising ways to marginally extend the lives of the very sick.”
Others disagree with this pessimistic view of medical progress. But that phrase, “marginally extend the lives of the very sick,” should ring in the ears. Many of our budget problems spring from our quest to do that.
The fiscal implications are all around. A large share of our health care spending is devoted to ill patients in the last phases of life. This sort of spending is growing fast. Americans spent $91 billion caring for Alzheimer’s patients in 2005. By 2015, according to Callahan and Nuland, the cost of Alzheimer’s will rise to $189 billion and by 2050 it is projected to rise to $1 trillion annually — double what Medicare costs right now.
Obviously, we are never going to cut off Alzheimer’s patients and leave them out on a hillside. We are never coercively going to give up on the old and ailing. But it is hard to see us reducing health care inflation seriously unless people and their families are willing to do what Clendinen is doing — confront death and their obligations to the living.
There are many ways to think about the finitude of life. For years, Callahan has been writing about the social solidarity model — in which death is accepted as a normal part of the human condition and caring is emphasized as much as curing.
In the online version of this column let me provide links to three other essays, which offer other perspectives on why we should accept the finitude of life and the naturalness of death. They are: “Born Toward Dying,” by Richard John Neuhaus, “L’Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?” by Leon Kass and “Thinking About Aging,” by Gilbert Meilaender.
My only point today is that we think the budget mess is a squabble between partisans in Washington. But in large measure it’s about our inability to face death and our willingness as a nation to spend whatever it takes to push it just slightly over the horizon.
Clendinen’s article is worth reading for the way he defines what life is. Life is not just breathing and existing as a self-enclosed skin bag. It’s doing the activities with others you were put on earth to do.
But it’s also valuable as a backdrop to the current budget mess. This fiscal crisis is about many things, but one of them is our inability to face death — our willingness to spend our nation into bankruptcy to extend life for a few more sickly months.
The fiscal crisis is driven largely by health care costs. We have the illusion that in spending so much on health care we are radically improving the quality of our lives. We have the illusion that through advances in medical research we are in the process of eradicating deadly diseases. We have the barely suppressed hope that someday all this spending and innovation will produce something close to immortality.
But that’s not actually what we are buying. As Daniel Callahan and Sherwin B. Nuland point out in an essay in The New Republic called “The Quagmire,” our health care spending and innovation are not leading us toward a limitless extension of a good life.
Callahan, a co-founder of the Hastings Center, the bioethics research institution, and Nuland, a retired clinical professor of surgery at Yale, point out that more than a generation after Richard Nixon declared the “War on Cancer” in 1971, we remain far from a cure. Despite recent gains, there is no cure on the horizon for heart disease or stroke. A panel at the National Institutes of Health recently concluded that little progress had been made toward finding ways to delay Alzheimer’s disease.
Years ago, people hoped that science could delay the onset of morbidity. We would live longer, healthier lives and then die quickly. This is not happening. Most of us will still suffer from chronic diseases for years near the end of life, and then die slowly.
S. Jay Olshansky, one of the leading experts on aging, argues that life expectancy is now leveling off. “We have arrived at a moment,” Callahan and Nuland conclude, “where we are making little headway in defeating various kinds of diseases. Instead, our main achievements today consist of devising ways to marginally extend the lives of the very sick.”
Others disagree with this pessimistic view of medical progress. But that phrase, “marginally extend the lives of the very sick,” should ring in the ears. Many of our budget problems spring from our quest to do that.
The fiscal implications are all around. A large share of our health care spending is devoted to ill patients in the last phases of life. This sort of spending is growing fast. Americans spent $91 billion caring for Alzheimer’s patients in 2005. By 2015, according to Callahan and Nuland, the cost of Alzheimer’s will rise to $189 billion and by 2050 it is projected to rise to $1 trillion annually — double what Medicare costs right now.
Obviously, we are never going to cut off Alzheimer’s patients and leave them out on a hillside. We are never coercively going to give up on the old and ailing. But it is hard to see us reducing health care inflation seriously unless people and their families are willing to do what Clendinen is doing — confront death and their obligations to the living.
There are many ways to think about the finitude of life. For years, Callahan has been writing about the social solidarity model — in which death is accepted as a normal part of the human condition and caring is emphasized as much as curing.
In the online version of this column let me provide links to three other essays, which offer other perspectives on why we should accept the finitude of life and the naturalness of death. They are: “Born Toward Dying,” by Richard John Neuhaus, “L’Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?” by Leon Kass and “Thinking About Aging,” by Gilbert Meilaender.
My only point today is that we think the budget mess is a squabble between partisans in Washington. But in large measure it’s about our inability to face death and our willingness as a nation to spend whatever it takes to push it just slightly over the horizon.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 15, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Death And Budgets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)