Sunday, December 30, 2012


Jean-L�on G�rome - Sklavenmarkt in Rom
In the good old days, after George Washington and the boys won the war to free us from the bank of England's predatory and impoverishing practices, they set up a "revolutionary" economic system. The government created and issued all the public currency, spending it into circulation to purchase what the government needed, then after the currency circulated through society to fuel commerce, was taxed back to the government to balance the books. Simple!

Click for larger image Banks existed, of course. But they were kept off to one side, and use of the banks was optional for the people of the United States. It was possible to go through one's entire life without dealing with a bank if one chose to do so.

Click for larger image This system not only reserved the choice whether to use the bank to the people, but it was a stable system, because as debt increased, the people could voluntarily choose to stop borrowing from the bank! That was one of the most important freedoms won during the revolution; the freedom to say "no" to the banks!

Click for larger image Then, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President changed the structure of the nation's economy and stole your freedom to say "no"! The economic system was reverted to a mirror of that same system the nation fought a revolution to be free of. The power to issue money was taken away from the government and given to the bankers and from that day onward, ALL money in circulation was created as the result of a loan at interest from the bankers to the government, to business, and to the people. There is no exception. Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There is no money in circulation in the United States that did not start out as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal Reserve system.

Click for larger image From that moment on, the freedom of the people to refuse to borrow from the banks and to refuse to pay interest was stripped away. To participate in the commerce of the United States at all means being forced to use money loaned at interest, to the profit of the bankers and the impoverishment of the public. Your freedom to say "no" was stolen by Congress in 1913, without your permission and before you were born.
When you have lost the freedom to say "no", when you have no choice but to pay a percentage of your earnings as interest to the bankers whether in private debt or taxes to cover the gargantuan debts by the US Government itself, you are a slave to the bankers. And because more money is owed to the bankers than actually exists, because of the interest charged on the loan that created the money, the debt-slavery is permanent! No matter how hard you work, no matter how much you sacrifice, the debt can never be paid off. The system is intentionally designed to trap the nation's population permantly in unpayable debt, to make them slaves to that debt and to the bankers. This is the purpose behind the design of the Federal Reserve, the International Monitary Fund, the European Central Bank, and indeed every private central bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest. This is why today every nation is drowning in created debt, and slaved to the private bankers. That is the reason for ever increasing taxes and decresing benefits; to pay the bankers their unpayable interest on the public currency.
For that enslavement to succeed, your right and freedom to refuse that bank's interest-bearing money must be stripped away. The government must force you to use that private central bank's currency, loaned to you at interest, via the Legal Tender Laws. Therein lies your slave chains. You are ordered by the government, on pain of prison, to use the banker's money, and to pay the interest charged by the bankers through your taxes.
Free people have the right to say "no." Free people have a right to decide for themselves what medium of exchange they will use and to choose not to involve the bankers!
There is no freedom without the freedom to say "no." Slaves cannot say "no" when ordered to surrender the products of their labor to their masters.
You are a slave.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
Slavery exists only because the slaves have been taught to believe that slavery is the way the world is supposed to be. Beliefs are chains used to enslave free people. No chains of steel ever bound a human tighter than the chains made of the beliefs with which we are indoctrinated while young in the state schools and the churches.
Slaves used to be held prisoner by their belief in rule by divine right. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that divine right is only an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Then slaves were held prisoner by their belief in rule by chattel ownership of one's body. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that one person owning another is an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Today the modern slaves (that is YOU) are held prisoner by their belief in compound interest; that they owe money that never existed to repay money created out of thin air. And you modern slaves will regain your freedoms when you realize that private central banking is just another illusion created by the enslavers to trick you into obedient servitude.
Stop believing.
Cry freedom!

This Chilling Economic Report Is Getting Passed Around By CEOs

Over an early-morning coffee with the chief executive of an FTSE 100 business last week, talk turned to the outlook for 2013. Where I had expected some guarded optimism, instead I heard a chilling analysis.

The CEO said he had been reading a new paper from Boston Consulting Group headed “ Ending the era of Ponzi finance ”. The lessons he had taken from it were miserable.
The West was not going to find its way to the right economic path with a little tweaking at the edges, the CEO said. What is needed is a wholesale overhaul of the economic system to tackle record levels of public and private debt. Was anyone brave enough to do it, he wondered aloud.
I asked him to send me the report. He did.
The BCG study by Daniel Stelter which is doing the rounds of corporate C-suites does not pull its punches. In fact, its punches are really just a softening-up exercise for a barrage of kicks and painful blows aimed at anyone who thinks that kicking the can down the road is a suitable substitute for radical action.
At the heart of the analysis is the issue of debt. A report by the Bank of International Settlements, the study notes, found that the combined debts of the public and private sector in the 18 core members of the OECD rose from 160pc of GDP in 1980 to 321pc in 2010.
That debt was not used to fund growth – perfectly reasonable – but was used for consumption, speculation and, increasingly, to pay interest on the previous debt as liabilities were rolled over.
As soon as asset price rises – fuelled by high levels of leverage – levelled off, the model imploded.
The issue is brought into sharp focus by one salient fact. In the 1960s, for every additional dollar of debt taken on in America there was 59c of new GDP produced. By 2000-10, this figure had fallen to 18c. Even in America, that’s about a fifth of what you’ll need to buy a McDonald’s burger.
Coupled with the huge debt burden are oversized public sectors and shrinking workforces. The larger the part the Government plays in the economy, the lower the levels of growth.
A report by Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson in 2011 – cited by BCG – found that for every increase of 10pc in the size of the state, there is a reduction in GDP of between 0.5pc and 1pc. Across Europe, the average level of government spending is 40pc of GDP or higher, and is as much as 60pc in Denmark and France. In emerging markets, it is between 20pc and 40pc. This gives non-Western economies an automatic growth advantage.
This material should be gripping politicians in Westminster, not just CEOs in central London. The size of the workforce is falling across the developed world, with the United Nations estimating that between 2012 and 2050 the working-age population in Western Europe will fall by 13pc. This comes at a time when we have a pension system not much changed since the era of the man who invented it – Otto von Bismarck.
What does the West need to do to right such fundamental imbalances?
Mr Stelter and his colleagues do offer some solutions. First, there has to be an acknowledgement that some debts will never be repaid and should be restructured. Holders of the debt, be they countries or companies, should be allowed to default, whatever the short-term pain of such a process.
In social policy, retirement ages will have to increase. People will have to work harder, for longer and should be encouraged to do so by changes in benefit levels that do little – at their present level – to reward work at the margin.
The size of the state should be radically reduced and immigration encouraged. Competition in labour markets through supply-side reforms should be pursued.
Where governments can proactively act – by backing modern infrastructure – they should. High-growth economies are built on modern railways, airports, roads and energy supplies. Allowing potholes to develop in your local roads is a symptom of a wider malaise and cash-rich corporates should be pushed, through tax incentives, to invest their money in developed as well as emerging economies. Energy efficiency – to save money, not the planet – should be promoted.
As Mr Stelter says, many chief executives might understand the problem but not see it as immediately relevant to them. Profit margins across Europe have returned to the levels of 2005. Money is cheap due to the printing presses of the central banks and ultra-low interest rates. Short-term, things look OK – there has been little real pain despite the efforts of some to portray every necessary efficiency move as a “cut” of calamitous proportions.
But in the end, business needs growth in the wider economy to flourish. There needs to be a radical rethink of the way the West organises itself. Many of the ideas of Mr Stelter and his team are the right ones, although the tax burden being what it is in the UK, many would find it hard to stomach the thought of more tax rises that the BCG report recommends. At some point the relationship between taxed income and willingness to innovate turns negative.
I would suggest the UK is very near that point.
BCG’s arguments are, of course, not new. In a recent programme on the Bank of England for BBC Radio 4, I interviewed the Oxford economist, Dieter Helm. “I think it’s important to understand there are very different views about what happened in the crisis,” he told me.
“Some people think that this was some kind of Keynesian event, that our problem after the crash was deficient demand and therefore what we had to do was stimulate the economy.
“In other words, where we were in 2006 in terms of our consumption and spending was perfectly sustainable.
“[But] what’s going on is a massive postponement exercise and I think that means that the sustainable level of consumption we will end up with will be lower than it would have been if we’d faced up to the reality of our economic mess that was created by the great boom of the 20th century and the enormous splurge of spending and asset bubble of the early years of the 21st century.”
As we know, George Osborne’s austerity plan is not actually much of a plan, with government debt levels increasing for the rest of this Parliament. But in politics, the choice is not simply between what is being proposed and
Shangri-La. It is about what is being proposed and the alternative – and the Labour alternative is more spending. Most people know which one we should be choosing so that worried FTSE 100 CEOs can sleep a little easier.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our readers a peaceful festive period and hope – whether you are Chancellor or pleb – that December 25 brings all you hope for.









這架飛機為紅翼(Red Wings)航空擁有,並證實是由捷克飛抵莫斯科。飛機失事原因仍在調查中,當地傳媒報導,事發時莫斯科正下著微雪。


On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were "irrelevant."
What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?
. . .
The Premise
The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
—The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.
It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
  • California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
  • Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
  • Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
  • Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
Bill BensonBill would like to thank those who've contributed or shown support in the fight against fraudulent taxation. Click here to help.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
Important Headlines

The continued BANKING FRAUD and Money Laundering for Drug Cartels, Support a TAX on All Wall Street Transactions Now!

For years the Banks and Bankers have been rewarded for the Destruction of the US Economy through fake Derivative and Illegal bets on Mortgages.
It is time to TAX Wall Street for the countless Billions of dollars that are traded daily. This 1% Tax should be applied to the National DEBT as American's and their Children's Children didn't sign on ANY dotted lines to assume this Illegal debt.
While Bankers have received millions of dollars in bonus pay, Millions of American's have lost everything! It is time to put the TAX on those that created the World's Problems, AUSTERITY is Coming to the US because of the failed Federal Reserve who refuses to say who received what monies but says the People of America must repay these hidden loans.

This Is How The Banksters Took Control Of You!!!

Japan’s Production Slumps to 2011 Quake-Aftermath Low: Economy

Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg
Containers are stacked at a shipping terminal in Tokyo, Japan. Japan's exports fell for a sixth month in November and the trade deficit swelled, underscoring the challenge that incoming Prime Minister Shinzo Abe faces in reviving growth.
Japan’s industrial output tumbled more than forecast to the lowest level since the aftermath of the record 2011 earthquake, bolstering the case for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to unleash large-scale stimulus.
The 1.7 percent drop in November from October exceeded all 27 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey, a government report showed today in Tokyo. The nation also remained mired in deflation, with consumer prices excluding fresh food dropping 0.1 percent from a year before, compared with a central bank goal of 1 percent and Abe’s desired target of 2 percent.
With neighbor South Korea reporting a jump in production almost double the highest estimate among economists surveyed, Japan’s data may strengthen the new Abe administration’s determination to drive down the yen and force the Bank of Japan (8301) to add monetary stimulus. On the fiscal front, Abe has told ministries to compile emergency spending proposals by Jan. 7.
“Weakness in exports is the major drag on Japan’s economy,” said Yoshimasa Maruyama, chief economist at Itochu Corp. (8001) in Tokyo. “Given the weak state of the economy, Abe’s government may need a large-scale stimulus program to boost growth.”
Maruyama sees 5 trillion yen ($57.8 billion) to 10 trillion yen of initial support measures and says that it’s “almost a done deal” that the BOJ will move to a more aggressive inflation target in January.
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index gained 0.4 percent as the Nikkei 225 Stock Average climbed 0.7 percent to close with the biggest annual gain since 2005. The yen weakened to the lowest since August 2010 amid speculation of more stimulus.

Fiscal Steps

Retail sales stagnated in November, a separate report showed in Tokyo today, while the jobless rate was 4.1 percent. The seasonally adjusted industrial production index fell to 86.4, the lowest level since April 2011.
Monetary policy will be loosened further, while Abe will introduce big fiscal pump-priming,” said Kiichi Murashima, chief economist at Citigroup Inc. in Tokyo.
Japan’s economy contracted for the two quarters through September, meeting the textbook definition of a recession. Gross domestic product may shrink an annualized 0.5 percent in the final three months of this year, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey. Exports slid for a sixth month in November on Europe’s crisis and tensions with China.
In contrast, South Korea’s industrial output exceeded estimates in November and the nation’s current-account surplus rose to a record, signaling that a growth recovery may take hold in Asia’s fourth-largest economy.

Korean Gains

South Korea’s output rose 2.3 percent from October when it advanced 0.7 percent, Statistics Korea said today. The median estimate of 10 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for a 0.8 percent gain. The surplus was $6.9 billion.
Improvements in the U.S. economy and signs of a rebound in China are brightening the outlook for South Korea’s shipments even as austerity measures in Europe set limits. President-elect Park Geun Hye, who will take office in February, may oversee a 3 percent economic expansion next year after 2.1 percent growth in 2012, according to Finance Ministry estimates.
Elsewhere in Asia today, China Commerce Minister Chen Deming said 2012 foreign trade growth may be about 6 percent, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Foreign direct investment may be $110 billion this year, it said. Thailand posted a current-account surplus of $392 million in November.
In France, the number of people actively looking for work rose to the highest since April 1998 in November while a final reading of the nation’s gross domestic product last quarter will probably show a 0.2 percent expansion, a Bloomberg News survey showed. Retail sales probably fell in Spain and rose at slower pace in Sweden from a year earlier, separate surveys showed.
The U.S. will report pending home sales.

Barack Obama 'optimistic' over last-ditch 'fiscal cliff' deal

President has four days left to reach agreement with Republicans and stop sudden tax rises

President Obama said he was “modestly optimistic” that the US can avert the looming ‘fiscal cliff’ after a meeting with Congressional leaders last night.
Lawmakers have thus far failed to agree on an alternative to the more than $600bn (£370bn) in tax rises and spending cuts due to automatically come into force in the New Year, and hopes of a pact had been diminishing daily since negotiations broke down before Christmas.
But last night, Mr Obama signaled the possibility of a stripped-down deal after meeting with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the top Republicans in the House and Senate respectively, and their Democratic counterparts Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The Oval Office discussion, described by the President as “constructive”, was also attended by the US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner.
The President said Mr Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, and Mr McConnell had agreed to work on a deal that could be passed in time, potentially on Sunday evening, when the House is scheduled to hold a special session. He added that if they failed to come to an agreement, he would ask Congress to vote on a basic package that would protect middle class Americans from tax hikes and maintain unemployment benefits for the more than 2 million who had been out of a job and claiming state aid for more than six months.
No details were forthcoming about the deal in the works in the Senate - but the Washington Post, quoting people briefed on the White House meeting, said the package would likely protect unemployment benefits and shield taxpayers form the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise hit some 30 million households. Arguments, however, were said to be continuing on where to set the threshold for tax hikes, whether it should be $250,000, as the President initially proposed, or higher.
“I still want to get this done,” Mr Obama insisted after the meeting, which last just over an hour. Proclaiming that the “hour for immediate action is here, it is now,”he added: “Senators Reid and McConnell are working on... an agreement as we speak... But if an agreement isn’t reached in time ... then I will urge Senator Reid to being to the floor a basic package for an up or down vote.”
Mr Reid, who on Thursday warned that a deal was unlikely, also expressed guarded optimism last night, although he warned that a proposal hand’t yet been agreed. “We have a number of different directions we’re going to try to take and we’re going to see what can be worked out... We’ve got to do it now,” he said.
Mr McConnell said: “I’m hopeful and optimistic.” There was no immediate word from Mr Boehner.
Worst case scenario: No deal is struck...
* This week would be the last time that more than two million Americans who have exhausted the basic six months of state unemployment aid receive welfare payments as a special measure lapses.
* Americans on salaries between $40,000 and $65,000 would see their incomes shrink by an average of $1,500 a year. But the initial impact in January would be far less – an average of $130, according to the Tax Policy Center.
* The biggest risk of a delayed pact is to the stock market. Although it has been easing in recent days, investors have not displayed panic as they watch the negotiations. That could change at a moment's notice.


Vladimir Putin Puts the Halt to US Adoptions of Russian Children, and I Don’t Care

There is a big fuss being made over Russian President Vladimir Putin banning further adoptions of Russian children by Americans.  Putin’s act is said to be in retaliation for the United States passing legislation condemning alleged human rights violations by the Russian government.
In the first place, the American Zionists display a yard of guts in condemning anyone for human rights violations, considering the fact that the Bush regime that committed genocide on the people of Iraq is being harbored and protected here in the United States.
We have seen a lot of coverage on this issue with a thousand US couples whimpering and whining because they will not be allowed to complete their adoptions of Russian children.  This country belongs to all American nationals and I don’t recall giving my permission to take from my grandchildren to give to any other children anywhere in the world.

The people who can afford these international adoptions are well to do and so these foreigners are destined to have a better life than the average American child being raised by working poor parents.
I think back to the video piece showing the little American boy living in a storm drain in Las Vegas with his mother and father.  These were formerly middle class Americans, that is before the great fraud/theft.  This little American boy was standing beside his pregnant mother and talking about how his unborn sibling was going to be better off being adopted out.
When I think of this I become steeled.  Not one more son of a bitch from anywhere in this world is welcome here until our people, the American nationals, have their lives back.  And if these people participating in these international adoptions do not like it, they can go to Russia, become Russians, and adopt as many as they please.
Our country has taken a hard blow and in these trying times ahead we must become hardened and determined to take care of our own.  We are the American nationals of the American race.  United we will stand, and quite frankly until we have secured our own country the rest of the world can go to hell.
God bless the Republic, death to the international corporate mafia, we shall prevail.

Light bulb ban on horizon : Future dims for the survival of cheap, reliable illumination

The Washington Times reports on the fascist movement gaining steam in March:
Part of the resistance to the CFL bulbs, most of which are made in China, stems from the fact that they contain mercury. The Environmental Protection Agency had to create a suggested regimen to deal with the extreme hazard of broken fluorescents. The first step is to have people and pets leave the room, which then must be aired out for five to 10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. Next, any central-air heating or air-conditioning system must be shut down. Homeowners then must collect materials needed to clean up the broken bulb. EPA warns, “Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.” There’s much more, including recycling directions. A shattered incandescent bulb, by contrast, can just be tossed in a garbage bin without triggering an environmental calamity.
Just a reminder to those who like freedom of choice and convenience.

How an Astounding New Right-Wing Lie About the Economy Was Born

Insensitivity to human plight taken to new extremes.

By Joshua Holland

December 27, 2012 "
Information Clearing House" -  There's a new economic myth that's now being amplified by the conservative media. It demonizes vital public services and suggests that the poor are doing just fine thanks to the largesse of the country's “makers.” Conservatives are being told that the United States is now spending vast fortunes combating poverty—more than we dedicate to national defense, Social Security and Medicare.
This new spin is notable not for its mendacity—although it is completely divorced from reality—but because its origins are easily traced, allowing us to see how these kinds of distortions come to be. This one originated with the work of an analyst at the Heritage Foundation who is well known for his intellectual dishonesty. It was then picked up by Republican staffers on Capitol Hill, who lent the claim credibility by requesting a Congressional Research Service report on the analysis. They then further distorted the narrative before distributing it to friendly writers at conservative media outlets, who dutifully reported the falsehood. It will soon become conventional wisdom on the Right, further distorting conservatives' view of taxes and spending.
Several conservative outlets had the story before Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard, but his piece is the one that's been cited by hundreds of conservative blogs, right-wing radio talkers and Fox News. Halper, citing “the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee,“ framed the story like this: “[W]elfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.”
For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.
Common sense should tell you that this is a ridiculous claim. Given that the United States has one of the weakest social safety nets in the world, it's pretty obvious that we're not spending more on each family in poverty than the median income—or more on the poor than we spend on defense, Social Security and Medicare. But let's dig into the details.
The first problem with this claim is mathematical rather than ideological. The story is that we spend $168 per day for each family in poverty. But the eligibility cut-offs for most of the 80 or so programs identified by Senate Republicans are higher than the poverty line; in many cases, significantly higher.
Given that there are around 600 different eligibility requirements for these programs, most determined by the states, it's difficult to calculate an average without a staff. But in Colorado, which I chose because it tends to be ideologically middle-of-the-road, the average eligibility cut-off for the 10 means-tested federal benefits listed here is $18,075, or 62 percent above the federal poverty line.
The myth can be expressed mathematically like this: Total Spending On “Welfare”/Families in poverty = $168 per day. But these services benefit many more people than those struggling under the poverty line—one may as well divide those costs by the total number of rabbits or blue cars in the U.S.
The reality, expressed mathematically, is: Total Spending On “Welfare”/Those who receive benefits = $24.77 per day. That's a lot less than $168.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines “welfare” like this:
a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
But that definition represents only a small share of the programs identified by the Republican staffers. Many, or most, are things no reasonable person would ever call “welfare.” There's aid to communities recovering from natural disasters; a number of job training programs; education grantsfrom Head Start for pre-schoolers to Pell Grants for low-income college students; money to enforce child support orders; programs that improve teachers' skills; and even screening programs to detect breast and cervical cancer in low-income communities.
Halper writes that the programs provide “direct or indirect financial support,” but “indirect” is a key sleight-of-hand. A number of the programs identified by the Republican staffers provide money to institutions and communities rather than indviduals in need. Included is a program that gives money to “eligible colleges and universities to strengthen their management and fiscal operations,” funding for Americorpswhich trains and places teachers in low-income communitiesand another that gives rural communities assistance upgrading their water and sewage systems.
I asked an economist and budget expertwho didn't want to be namedhow a grant for community projects can be considered “means-tested.” He explained that they aren't. Instead, they're awarded according to “a variety of considerations, including the median income of a jurisdiction's residents.” He added: “If you want to call that means-testing you are welcome to do so, since in America we are all entitled to our own definitions.”
The important takeaway here is that many of the programs that serve these communities provide benefits to people who aren't poor. When the federal government helps a rural community upgrade its water system, it may well help a lot of poor people, but clean water will come out of the taps of everyone in that community, rich, poor or somewhere in between. Aid to universities that serve a lot of low-income students will also help that university's middle-income students. And when you help a town with a lot of low-income residents rebuild after a natural disaster, the richest person in town will also benefit.
Another example: according to the Congressional Research Service, a number of the education programs included on the list result in “students from relatively well-off families receiving assistance, as there is no absolute income ceiling on eligibility.”
Fifty years of political science tells us that Americans hold a very favorable view of most programs that help the poor, especially educational and job training programs which, in theory at least, help them lift themselves out of poverty. But there is one exception: Americans don't like “welfare.”
In his classic book, Why Americans Hate Welfare, sociologist Martin Gilens found that significant majorities of Americans told pollsters that they wanted to increase public spending to fight poverty at the same time that majorities said they were opposed to welfare. Gilens concluded that this disconnect was driven by a widespread belief that “most welfare recipients don't really need it,” and by racial animus – “perceptions that welfare recipients are undeserving and blacks are lazy.”
This is all very well understood by everyone who had a hand in creating and amplifying this new falsehood. If you take programs that offer low-income people job training or adult literacy or legal servicesor programs that fund community health centers and improvements in public worksand call them “welfare,” you can instantly turn very popular programs into something else: handouts for the “undeserving” poor. And that's just what they're trying to do.
A great deal of conservative economic views are shaped by myths. Think about the fact-free narrative that slashing tax rates for the wealthy will result in more revenues coming into the government's coffers, the common claim that half of the country pays no taxes, or the idea that increasing domestic oil production can lower global oil prices enough to bring down the price of a gallon of gas here at home.
So it will be with the idea that the federal government spends a trillion on “welfare.” But this particular myth is interesting in that we can trace its provenance, see where it came from, how it was amplified, and how it was shaped along the way.
In May, Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation's “senior research fellow on family and welfare studies,” testified before the House Budget Committee. He identified 79 of what he described as “means-tested welfare” programs, with a total price tag of $927 billion (in combined costs to the federal government and the states).
Who is Robert Rector? He's an analyst with a long and storied history of suggesting that the poorest Americans are living quite well. Andy Kroll profiled him for Mother Jones when it was reported that Rector had been the source of Mitt Romney's universally debunked claim that Obama had “gutted” the work requirements of Bill Clinton's welfare “reforms.”
Rector, wrote Kroll, is “a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is 'idiotic.'” In 2011, “he questioned the government's assertion that more than 30 million people were poor by pointing to different 'modern amenities' they owned. The people the government calls poor, he wrote, 'are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term,' while the real poor 'are a minority within the overall poverty population.'”
In calling all manner of programs “welfare,” Rector's testimony was intellectually dishonest. But his math was accurate. Instead of dividing the money spent on these programs by the number of families living in poverty, Rector noted that “some means-tested assistance goes to individuals who are low-income but not poor.”
The result of doing the math right is that, rather than spending $61,320 per year for every family living under the poverty line, as Senate Republicans claimand Daniel Halper and others parrotthe real number is, according to Rector's own testimony, “$9,040 for each lower-income American (i.e., persons in the lowest-income third of the population).”
Regardless of the number, at this point the claim was being made only by a Heritage Foundation fellow of dubious distinction. But Rector's testimony before the House Budget Committee so impressed Jeff Sessions' staff, that they asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a report examining the total cost of programs that help low-income Americans, either directly or indirectly.
The report they got back from CRSwhich identified four more programs than Rector hadgave added credibility to Rector's original claim. But the authors were was careful to note that their analysis didn't look only at “welfare.” And they noted that it included programs that aren't in fact means-tested at all. Programs were included, according to the report, if “they (1) had provisions that base an individual’s eligibility or priority for service on a measure (or proxy) of low or limited income; or (2) target resources in some way (e.g., through allocation formulas, variable matching rates) using a measure (or proxy) of low or limited income.”
The authors added: “A few programs without an explicit low-income provision were included because either their target population is disproportionately poor or their purpose clearly indicates a presumption that participants will be low-income.”
The CRS report looked only at federal spending. Jeff Sessions' staff added the states' contributions as well as a big lie—iit seems they decided to divide total spending on what they call “welfare” by the number of families in poverty rather than the number of people who benefit from these programs, in the process turning $9,000 in spending per household into $61,000.
The CRS report is dated October 16. The National Review ran an item two days later, when Jeff Sessions issued a press release, and Fox News amplified the claim two days after that. Both reports mentioned the total price tag for these programs—close to $1 trillion—but neither cited the $168 per day claimed by Sessions' staffers. It was that framing, featured in the headline of Daniel Halper's Weekly Standard piece, that appears to have driven the myth to the larger conservative media.
The end result is that a lot of Americans are woefully misinformed about what we spend on anti-poverty programs, and what those programs look like. Traditional welfare—now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—costs the federal government just $16.5 billion, a fraction of what's now claimed by the Right. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, even when one uses a very expansive definition of “welfare,” only “13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.”
So we have another gap between what is “true” in the conservative media bubble and the objective facts. In the real world, we spend about $25 per day on the needy. But, according to Fox News, the figure is $168.
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He's the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy.

Money as Debt 3 - The Rothschild mafia (Paul Grignon)

What are the problems with our current money system? Part 1 of Money as Debt III – Evolution Beyond Money, takes a critical look at the fundamentals of today’s money system, conceptually and in terms of its design arithmetic
Part 1 is a review, and an expansion upon, information provided in Money as Debt, and Money as Debt II – Promises Unleashed. It is advantageous to have seen the first two movies of the Trilogy because it is quite unfamiliar material for most people.