And we are not talking about the deficit. We are talking about criminally fleecing the entire planet with a mortgage derivitive Ponzi scheme facilitated by the Bush Administration. Followed by free money to Wall Street and the Banks provided without conditions paid for by the US taxpayer.
As for Obama, I'm not sure he isn't one of yours.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') handful of high-ranking Obama administration officials this month delivered private briefings at the annual invitation-only conference held by an elite international organization known as the Bilderberg group.
The closed meeting of some of the most powerful business, media and political leaders in North America and Western Europe heard from top Obama diplomats James Steinberg and Richard Holbrooke, who detailed the administration’s foreign policy, while economic adviser Paul Volcker, chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, also gave a presentation at the heavily guarded seaside resort in Greece that hosted the event.
The Bilderberg group, which takes its name from the Dutch hotel where it held its first meeting in 1954, exists solely to bring together between 100 and 150 titans of politics, finance, military, industry, academia and media from North America and Western Europe once a year to discuss world affairs.
Its ultra-exclusive roster of globally influential figures has captured the interest of an international network of conspiracists, who for decades have viewed the Bilderberg conference as a devious corporate-globalist scheme.
PeakOil is You
THE General Motors Thread pt 3
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by Cid_Yama » Mon 01 Jun 2009, 22:15:40
link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')en. Barack Obama ditched his unsuspecting press entourage yesterday to attend a secretive meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But where did that meeting take place? Was it at the secretive Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Va.? So far, neither campaign is talking.
The 56th Bilderberg meeting is still going on this weekend at the Westfields Marriott, according to various sources. But attendance is a well-guarded secret – along with the agenda, which tends toward the promotion of globalist ideas.
Members of the press were outraged over the way Obama's campaign organizers covered up the meeting. Reporters were led to believe they would be getting on a plane back to Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago with the senator. But while they were in the airport, the presidential candidate remained in the area for a secret meeting.
Dulles is just three miles from the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, where Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, among other globalists, are gathered for the annual Bilderberg Group conference.
Bilderberg is a highly-secretive meeting where the most influential men and women of North America and Western Europe meet ostensibly to discuss policy. But the group has spent years promoting a globalist agenda, according to reports from journalists who have penetrated the meeting.
Attendees at the Bilderberg conference included Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the board of governors for the Federal Reserve.
Hillary Clinton is no stranger to Bilderberg. Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before he was elected president. According to reports, he attended again in 1999 when the meeting was held in Sintra, Portugal, and Hillary herself may have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Gibbs in a heated exchange caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way, and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
link
It would certainly explain alot.
Democracy is a fairy tale told to children so they are more easily exploited when they grow up.
The real ending to Mr Smith Goes to Washington is that he was shot on the floor of the Senate, buried out back, and all traces of his existence were expunged from the record.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by deMolay » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 00:41:40
Obama makes Bush the man he is blaming for all of America's woes look like a Chump Change artist. Obama has spent or has promised to spend a total of 14 Trillion since taking office............
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Business & Regulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: Business & Regulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
-
deMolay - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by deMolay » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 01:10:11
[edit] Regulatory changes 1995
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[52] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[53] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings were made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise it's regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[54]
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[55]
Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[56] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics)
[edit] Legislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[57]
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[58]
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[59][60]
In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act": [61]
the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA; [62]
the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[63]
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[64]
[edit] Regulatory changes 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[40] In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.[65]
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[52] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[53] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings were made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise it's regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[54]
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[55]
Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[56] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics)
[edit] Legislative changes 1999
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[57]
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[58]
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[59][60]
In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act": [61]
the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA; [62]
the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[63]
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[64]
[edit] Regulatory changes 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[40] In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA.[65]
"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
-
deMolay - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by Cid_Yama » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 02:44:43
Did you miss the Clinton at Bilderberg point.
Demolay, unless you ARE PART OF THE RULING CLASS, you are an idiot.
Yeah, that's it. Fight for your serfdom.
Keep believing Master is going to look down on you and reward you for your submission.
Glad I'm not one of you.
Demolay, unless you ARE PART OF THE RULING CLASS, you are an idiot.
Yeah, that's it. Fight for your serfdom.
Keep believing Master is going to look down on you and reward you for your submission.
Glad I'm not one of you.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by wisconsin_cur » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 02:51:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'A')nd we are not talking about the deficit. We are talking about criminally fleecing the entire planet with a mortgage derivitive Ponzi scheme facilitated by the Bush Administration. Followed by free money to Wall Street and the Banks provided without conditions paid for by the US taxpayer.
As for Obama, I'm not sure he isn't one of yours.
As for Obama, I'm not sure he isn't one of yours.
As is the case frequently, I am confused. Is it the on-going work of the ruling class (presumably for more than the last 8 years) that is to blame (the Bildenburg group first met in '54) or the morgage derivatives of the last 8 years that are to blame?
Also, if we did not have the mortgage mess would everything be ok or would we still be on our way to financial ruin or is there an ongoing, pre-2001 problem eating away at the foundation?
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-
wisconsin_cur - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by Cid_Yama » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 03:08:47
We had a surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration. Doesn't mean that being invited to join the power elite in exchange for some concessions didn't happen.
Glass-Stegall was the last impediment to the fleecing of America.
America died with Jimmy Stewart. Carter was our last opportunity to live in that world.
You want the world you got with Reagan and Bush? You got it.
We are nothing but pillagers of the world and the rest of the world now knows it. Good luck with that.
I hope the world bands together and kicks our ass.
Glass-Stegall was the last impediment to the fleecing of America.
America died with Jimmy Stewart. Carter was our last opportunity to live in that world.
You want the world you got with Reagan and Bush? You got it.
We are nothing but pillagers of the world and the rest of the world now knows it. Good luck with that.
I hope the world bands together and kicks our ass.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Tue 02 Jun 2009, 03:19:57, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Dollar Getting Hammered As GM Files Bankruptcy
by wisconsin_cur » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 03:16:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', '
')America died with Jimmy Stewart. Carter was our last opportunity to live in that world.
You want the world you got with Reagan and Bush? You got it.
')America died with Jimmy Stewart. Carter was our last opportunity to live in that world.
You want the world you got with Reagan and Bush? You got it.
I was 7 when Reagan was elected. I was more interested in how Whitey Herzog was going to change the pitching lineup of the St. Louis Cardinals than politics.
I am just trying to understand your position.
So it is not just the last 8 years but ~28 years (with 8 of those being a little less bad)? This is an expansion of the problem by about 340% so it does not seem to be an unimportant point.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-
wisconsin_cur - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
