Open Letter to Scott Murphy

Below is a recent email I sent to our Representative.  Below that is his letter.  Feel free to republish this email.

Mr. Murphy:

I received your email note. I realize no one takes the time to write a substantive letter anymore, let alone read bills, but the letter was not well received on any level. 

Either we have a top down government, which the Constitution was written to prevent, or we trust each other to work hard and contribute to the economy, which is how we became the morst producive and safest country in history.  If we trust the people, we do not surpress them or, as Jefferson would say, confiscate their property.

We do not need the government to confiscate property, micro manage, and promote useless public service jobs, then announcing, with fanfare, that the government will now begin the next five year plan of stupid ideas flowing from academia and established power centers. Ethanol comrs to mind as really stupid project, almost as bad as hydrogen.  Can you recall any centralized economic plan actually working?  We need to elect some ex-Russians.

Didn't the CBO find solar generation was about .03 percent of power production, recently?  And I think the figure for projected wind production was .06%.  

Concern over these "green' black holes is delusional; it leads to a conclusion that there is mass mental illness or systemic lying.  Hybrid cars have a massive energy footprint.  Electric cars will require a massive increase in energy production (and generationally long grid construction), which to the 1930's mind of government will mean centralized power plants with many union workers.  

Biodiesel is a good idea, so the government taxes it so it cannot compete with diesel fuel, that way we can continue to import billions of barrels of oil that we are told we shouldn't import which justifies not drilling here and making believe solar energy is a solution.  Do you see any logic, here? I only see insanity.

Until President Bush II arrived, the EPA was charged with spending billions to improve gas mileage, a pointless expense considering we were at the end of that technology; now, it is charged with preventing oil production and gasoline distillation, allegedly because some poiticans have been overwhelmingly convinced that my car causes global warming, as the 400,000 year temperature curve continues downward.   

Contrary to the speech last night, the AEC is in charge of making sure there are no nuclear plants being planned, let alone built.  If they were planned, they would be, again, foolish in design using massive structures (targets) rather than decentralized pebble reactors that are safe, require much less fuel, and produce a fuel with a short half life and can't meld down.  For an education, visist KAPL.

In short, let the market find the solutions.  Government never has and can't.  It produces nothing and in a few years will will have a deficit of 98% of the GDP. The next stupid thing we will do to deal with this insanity is devalue our money so as to screw countries and businesses who believed in us.  I suspect the government already knows citizens and their property are disappearing.  It is called voting with your feet.  Apparently, no one remembers what happened in England and why the money left.

What sort of person thinks the government has any answer?  Greedy, thoughtless people just take the drugs offered by the government and don't even realize they are hooked and have to dance for the pusher.

Until recently, I was of the opinion that our education has so been dumbed down the citizens that they would accept all manner of unconstitutional actions and the establishment of an oligarchy, but I am thinking now I may have been premature in that assessment.  I suppose we still have a small window of time to amputate.  The only resistance to tyranny flows from an intelligent populace. 

Stop and consider the enemies this state has identified:  people in medicine, insurance, banking, financial professions, Wall Street (whatever that is), large corporations, oil companies, gas companies, coal companies and utilities, as well as people over, say, 65, and anyone who has built an estate. Also, anyone with a large car has to be reeducated and taxed. (Flying personal jets is OK).  You can learn much about anyone by looking at their enemies. 

We don't need to be insulted with notions of bad people (aka the waskaly wepublicans)  playing politics, or, gee, the hard work is yet to come.  One way to stop the playing of politics is to vote against every incumbant, unless he or she prove they accept the Constitution, demonstrate fiscal common sense, and are people of honor. That would solve that problem.  

As to the argument that we would lose experienced people who know how things work, I respond, good point, thank you. We need an army and a post office, not advice on dying or teaching geography.  

We don't need a government that started the concept of red lining, then, when it was followed, made it a crime and forced bad loans inside the red lines only to be amazed with the economy collapses caused by bankruptcy and failing banks. Nor a government that, having destroyed the system, takes people's money to make things worse.  Did you know your pension fund is run by AGI?  Funny, huh. At least, in the middle of the collapse we had a presidential candidate who said to his economic advisors - tell me the right thing to do; I can sell it.  

In America anyone can become president, as was demonstrated at the meeting of advisors and last night during the State of the Never-ending Camapign, so there really is no need for technical competence, experience or wisdom.  The ignorance and self-dealing of our government officals hasn't brought us down, yet, but we have let this go on for too long. 

When it comes to a belief that the person is more important than the state, you are either with us or against us.  There is no middle ground.   

Gene Cunningham

Eugene J. Cunningham, MA, JD

28 Clinton St. 

No. 6

Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

518 879 1763

:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered..'

Thomas  Jefferson, 1802

---- On Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Congressman Scott Murphy  wrote ----

Website About Me Services News Issues Contact

Forward to a Friend Subscribe for Updates Dear Friend,  Tonight President Obama spoke to the issue that deserves attention above all else; jobs.   I believe that several of the President’s proposals will prove to be instrumental in our economic recovery.  We need targeted tax relief for small businesses, reform of the capital gains tax on startups, and most importantly, tax relief for our middle class families.   The need for job creation and an economic revival has never been greater.  That is why I echo the President’s call for investments in infrastructure and clean energy because “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”  We must continue to work to make Upstate New York a world leader in clean energy jobs. The President called not only for new programs to spur innovation, but for new reforms to remind Washington and Wall Street that business as usual just won’t cut it. We have fought for serious financial reform to create a system that is fair for Main Street and that prevents another bailout of Wall Street.  His message was not just that we must work to create jobs and turn our economy around, but that we must do away with the partisan bickering that has plagued Washington for far too long.  I especially appreciated his call for Congress to rise above the special interests and remember that we work for the people, not the other way around.   Washington simply cannot continue to turn every issue into a partisan fight.  We need to start working like families and small business owners, looking not for Democratic ideas or Republican ideas, but for common sense solutions that will provide the best results for our country.  Times continue to be tough and the hard work has only just begun.  I hope my colleagues join me in taking seriously the need to work together, the need to stop playing politics and solve our problems.  I will continue to work to build on the initiatives laid out tonight to rebuild our economy, get our fiscal house in order, and ease the burden on the middle class.  Sincerely, Scott Murphy Member of Congress

Click Here to view this email in your browser 
Click Here to be removed from this list

Who needs Dan Brown?

Maybe he did his job too well.

Recall the Clinton's lawyer also opted for "suicide" after cleaning out his attache case and, apparently, ordered his files to be shredded.

I will try to follow this report to see if there is anything to support a suicide.

Chief of Davos Security Dead in Apparent Suicide

January 26, 2010, 10:18 pm

 

Markus Reinhardt, the police official in charge of security at the World Economic Forum, was found dead on Tuesday in what authorities have described as a suicide.

Unpleasant news hit the World Economic Forum on Tuesday, after local authorities aid they had found the police commander heading security dead, in what looked like a suicide.
The head of the police in the Swiss canton of Graubuenden, Markus Reinhardt, was found dead in his hotel in Davos, the police of the south-eastern canton said in a media release on its Web site, according to Reuters.
“All indications point to a suicide,” it added.
Mr. Reinhardt has headed the canton’s police force since 1984.
Police Captain Marcus Suter would become head of the security operation in Davos, the police said.
Go to Article from Reuters via The New York Times »

First Amendment or Censorship?

I wanted to address the recent First Amendment case.  I will key off the New York Times reportage, as it will be the most left and ends based, as opposed to means based, which is what the First Amerndment addresses.  I do go over this often, but I think it is necessary to repeat: an ends based basis for laws and rulings leads to tyranny. The Bill of Rights preserves due process - the fair and regulated MEANS.

Our nation is one defined by due process, not ends justifying the means, or it used to mean that.

Here is the argument as proposed by the NYT: 

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

The rest of the article is blather.  It is an overt and successful attempt to whip up fear, anger, and whatever among those who have no idea what is going on; that is, they read the New York Times. The NYT and Chuck Schumer don't want any ads that might contradict their positions on state control and socialism.

It is, of course, disingenuous for Mr. Obama to say the big Wall Street banks, this week's enemy, will buy ads for the GOP.  In fact, and it is well known, Wall Street is democratic.  This fact is irrelevant to those who already have control of most media.  The latest relevant poll show something like 92% of "journalists," an archaic term meaning someone who reports on facts as objectively as possible, are liberal. 

As proactive liberals filter information, why let anyone else register an opinion?

The paragraph above is a fair synthesis of the argument:  free speech vs. we don't like what freedom will bring.

What is amazing is that there is even a discussion that follows this analysis. With a straight face people say "Sure, free speech is OK, but there are reasons why it may be something I don't like."  Let you in on a secret, it is called "free" speech.  The article goes on:

The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, [says the NYT] and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.

The decision will be felt most immediately in the coming midterm elections, given that it comes just two days after Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and as popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses continues to boil.

Doesn't anyone on the Times see what they are saying?  The argument is: Geez, there may be stuff published I don't like. I am assuming there must be legal arguments in the 90 pages dissent, but none are presented here. All we hear about is a dislike for potential ads.

 

From the decision: 

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Times:

The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

 This case is certainly one worth reading on a long ocean voyage there being 180 pages of which Justice Stevens dissented to the tune of 90 pages. Of course, these days, one can offer opinions and vote on things not even read, but at least, here, we take a look at what one side (The NYT)  is saying.


Of note:

Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements, at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals. “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on this point.

The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing. “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”  {The left has this interesting view - if an elected Congressman is corrupt, it is not his fault for making a corrupt vote - its the system that allowed him to be tempted.}

Justice Kennedy responded that “by definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”

...The majority cited a score of decisions recognizing the First Amendment rights of corporations, and Justice Stevens acknowledged that “we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment.”  {But, so what, we don't like the possible results of freedome.}

But Justice Stevens defended the restrictions struck down on Thursday as modest and sensible. Even before the decision, he said, corporations could act through their political action committees or outside the specified time windows.{If there is no problem here, why resist this decision?}

Please understand what Justice Stevens is saying - I don't like what could happen.
 

This sort of determination is NOT the role of a traditional judge.  Now, "activists" judges disagree and do whatever they want. An activist judge will not say:  "Well, I really like X, but I have to rule against it because the Constitution restricts it." No, they say times change and the Constitution has to grow.

There was hoopla about The McCain-Feingold law that contained an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials. So, NBC news could say whatever it wanted about a subject, but a corporation that was actually involved in the matter could not.  This is supposed to be fair, I suppose. Bottom line:

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion said that there was no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and other corporations and that the dissent’s theory would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, on television news programs, in books and on blogs.

Justice Stevens responded in an odd immaterial observation:

...that people who invest in media corporations know “that media outlets may seek to influence elections.” He added in a footnote that lawmakers might now want to consider requiring corporations to disclose how they intended to spend shareholders’ money or to put such spending to a shareholder vote.

This case is about the First Amendment, not confused notions of intent, spin, or investors.  Is there an argument in favor of  post-natal abortion among the poor because it makes sense to kill children because a large percentage of them will be criminals? Their right to life is secondary to a notion that fewer criminals si a justifiable end?

On its central point, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Justice Stevens’s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

The crazy, right-wing logic, as traditional judges are called, is: 

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Tick Tick Tick

Can't offer anymore concern.  Just look at thegraph Greg sent me. 

You can buy EFTs on the downside.  I have built up a little in NASDAQ, but you may as well stay with a common indicator, the S & P.  The "ultra short" index EFT (moves faster than the market) is     SDS. 

The SDS goes up in value as the market goes down.  It goes up faster than the S & P goes down, so it is gambling like a daily double.  If you don't like gambling, buy silver, but this is a very good gamble.  Its a very attractive risk/reward.  The only down side is the S & P goes up forever from here.  Hence, it is a good hedge, as well, against anything you may do that assumes an upside. 

The SPX below is not what to buy, unless you think all is well and going up.   Article

Remember, you make serious money when blood is in the streets.

Lying liars revealed

1.  From Irene:n  Here

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

(John Novis)

The Middle Rongbuk Glacier in the Himalayas

Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

• 119 Comments

Recommend? (69)

The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035,,, “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”....  (Right, just a one time major flaw.)





2. 

World Health Organization to review swine flu response

By Imogen Foulkes BBC News correspondent in Geneva

Swine had been less deadly than feared

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is to review its handling of the HIN1 swine flu pandemic, once it is over.

The WHO has been facing charges from some European politicians that it exaggerated the dangers of swine flu. 

...As a result wealthy countries spent billions on medicines which many believe are now unnecessary. Across Europe, governments are trying to resell their stockpiles of swine flu vaccine. 

 The Council of Europe is planning an investigation, to begin later this month, into whether pharmaceutical companies influenced public health officials to spend money unnecessarily....  (Duh) 


3.  Daily Mail

The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

• Comments (748)
• Add to My Stories

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

 

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2....  (God, what along article.  I think the British must read more.)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0dHNzndFT

Today's Bonus: The Woman Who Strayed

I received this from my brother Denis.  I have to say it lifted my spirits; hope you like it.

I will embed something here, but if you read emails, then try:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds8ryWd5aFw

A Progressive Word

Below is a revealing blog excerpt from a "progressive" (i.e. Marxist) who was advocating weaning the movement from the suck-up Democratic Party. That is, who care about Coakley - written before the election. 


Like terrorists these people will sacrifice their own children.  This makes them effective strategists. The operative notion is dominance without regard for means - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until I kill them.


Flip over the argument, most people will vote for a crappy Republican, but it goes both ways, rather than let the other gang win. The Crypts get their votes and the Bloods get theirs. From Mars, it is hard to see any differences.


This dull reaction breeds simpleton candidates and a nirvana of feel good policies. Elections are decided by the "middle" who have no political theory. Thinking they are superior pragmatists, they go by debates, commercials, suspect books, crowds, and so on.  


Sometimes they like people who talk tough on crime, sometimes on saving money, other times the need to get big bad business people, then to elect them. Without a political theory, they apply hedonism, thinking they live in a democracy. This may work where people are well educated and morally sound, but this is assuming too much to provide a history. (Oh, we live in a republic - huge difference.) 


The progressive logic below would suggest you let your weak running dog fail while you vote ideology, once you have gained a foothold. 


There is always the thought that the least of evils is the way to determine a vote (this is a Limbaugh view).  This view prides itself on being practical. Others, many of them, would say, let the gutless Republican fail and vote for ideology. There is much to recommend this approach. Look where the milk-toast Republican Party finds itself; it is the "me-too, but I am better" party.


The Parliamentary system permits ideological voting, but this result in a psychotic pendulum of governments and strange bedfellows. You look at Europe and understand why we like a yin-yang system, but clever people can trick voters in the U.S.  Unlike in Europe they have to lie to do so.  Ours is a "Parliament of Whores" as the book of that name describes it.


So, we have the Marxists, most thinking they are progressives and so on, leading the Democratic Party off the cliff. The political strategists don't care. They will actually push their army over the cliff when the time is ripe, and it is appears we are close to that cliff. This year, dozens of cannon fodder will be tumbling off the cliff, if they don't retire early.


Yesterday's Brown election may have been a tipping point as to the return of conscious voting. Or, Brown pulled over some Democrats because of his centerfold. 

 Progressives, please help defeat Coakley:

It is very important that progressives help defeat Coakley. Please read my explanation. The more power the folks in the Democratic Corporate Suck Up wing of the party gain, the more we will have to fight to make the party move to the left. I do not think that many progressive Democrats understand that putting such people as Coakley into power is worse than having a Republican in the seat. Just being in the Democratic Party does not and will not ensure a progressive agenda. Do you not see that? So, if you get her into the seat, what makes you think she will be any better than Lincoln, or Nelson, or Lieberman! It will, in fact, ensure that there will be NO progressive agenda. It was not the Republicans who failed us of late. It was the Democrats. We will never succeed as long as the Dem’s can talk liberal and vote corporate...

I fully agree with your premise, but the closest I can come to joining you is to promise not to support Coakley’s candidacy...

I think there’s something revolutionary going on: people (including me) are starting wean themselves of the Democratic Party, and the farther we step away from party politics, the clearer we see. It’s like having the scales fall from our eyes, and it’s a liberating feeling. Just my opinion.

Recent input

Rather than work, I offer a few recent headlines, mostly from the commie NYT so you can't doubt the information.  

One should be able to see the big picture start to resolve. While each item is important as to its subject, connect the dots.  These dots are in front of us every day and like that storied frog in a pot of slowly warming water, we lose sensitivity, then die.

1.  Obama Plan: A 10-Year Bank Tax to Recoup Bailout

January 14, 2010, 6:25 AM

... “My determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people {unlike the Obamas} who have not been made whole, and who continue to face real hardship in this recession,” Mr. Obama said in his remarks. [Class envy and hatred]

...The president called the tax a “financial crisis responsibility fee,” a name that suggests its political purpose as well as its fiscal implications... Many, includingGoldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, have repaid their federal funds with interest and the government has also made money in selling the banks’ warrants that it held as collateral.

[And now for the socialism report]...While the banks maintain that taxpayers made money from the bailout, losses are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help troubled homeowners avert foreclosures....  [Perhaps a financial crisis responsibility fee on the Democrats, starting with Cuomo, Frank, Todd, and Clinton]

2.

Banks, Experts Eye Possible Ways Around Obama Fee

• SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT

By REUTERS

Published: January 14, 2010

Filed at 6:04 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - No sooner does Washington propose a new tax than an army of experts tries to figure out ways to avoid it...

"This law could be a real boon for lawyers and consultants like me. There are tremendous opportunities for coming up with new mechanisms to avoid it," said Bert Ely, a bank consultant in Alexandria, Virginia.


3.

Democratic Leaders Reach Compromise on Taxing Health Plans [that's right, if you can afford a health plan, you are taxed, you scum, unless you are in a union.]

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

The White House and Congressional leaders have reached a tentative deal on a proposed excise tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance plans...

...The Senate bill currently would impose a 40 percent tax on the amount of policies for individuals above $8,500 and family plans above $23,000. [But wait! We can't let this happen to socialists.]

House Democrats and organized labor groups have been resisting the tax, which they say will hit many union-sponsored health  plans and force an increase in medical expenses for many middle class families....

[My old story of the discussion between two Yankee farmers:  One is explaining socialism and how it makes sense.  He says, "Say I have six Rolls Royce, well, we take three and and give them to you."

 "That sounds good." .... This goes on for a few examples. The second farmer likes this socialism.  

Then, the farmer says, "Say you have twenty cows.  You keep ten and I get ten."  Suddenly. the other farmer says, "Wait, wait, you know I have twenty cows."

Here ends Marxism, but if you let it in, it will takes decades before people will understand what happened, if they are not dumbed down and turned into those cows.]

4.  LEGAL

N.Y. Fed Told A.I.G. Not to Disclose Swap Details

January 7, 2010, 6:11 AM

Update | 12:13 p.m. Starting in November 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under Timothy Geithner began urgingAmerican International Group, the huge insurer that the government had bailed out, to limit disclosure on payments made to banks at the height of the financial crisis, e-mail messages obtained by DealBook show...

“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information to the S.E.C.,” ...

The rescue of A.I.G., then, was the rescue of its counterparties, the banks that held the mortgage-backed securities, and the terms of that rescue, according to the e-mail messages, are precisely what the Federal Reserve urges A.I.G. to hide.

In the end, A.I.G. would pay Société Générale $16.5 billion, Goldman $14 billion in total, Deutsche $8.5 billion and Merrill $6.2 billion.

5.  This is the idiot who forced the banks to make the bad loans that precipitated the housing collapse. Soon, to be NY's next governor - perfect.

Cuomo Demands Bonus Data From 8 Big Banks

January 11, 2010, 12:11 PM

Update | 12:52 p.m. Andrew M. Cuomo, New York’s attorney general...sending letters to eight of the nation’s biggest banks demanding information on how they structured those payouts.

The letters to the banks ... seek “extensive” information on how big the bonus pools are, how they were allocated and what clawback provisions and vesting periods are built in as checks and balances. The information is due Feb. 8. (Read one of the letters after the jump.)

...Even though all eight of these banks have paid back most or all of their government investments, Mr. Cuomo argued that the latest round of bonuses was still made possible because of taxpayer aid. Because of the struggling economy, he said, he found it necessary to make sure these firms were not doing anything improper in doling out these payouts. [Does that make sense to anyone? I want to see if Ben and Jerry managers got large bonuses.]

{Do you get the Marxist approach to class warfare?  Oddly, these big mean banks are owned by pension funds, grandma, and 401 (k) account. The goon logic is some CEO or salesman made a big bonus, so cripple the bank. Don't doubt your 401 (k) is a target. Much depends on Tuesday's election in MA; buy silver}

6.  ON NY

Thursday, January 14, 2010

NY property taxes rose $2.5B in 2009

The Business Review (Albany)

• Print
• Email
• Reprints
• RSS Feeds
• LinkedIn
• Share
• Comments (2)

New Yorkers paid $2.5 billion more in property taxes from 2008 to 2009 despite widespread drops in property values, according to The Business Council of New York State Inc.

The research wing of the Albany-based lobby found taxpayers paid $46 billion in property taxes in 2009, a 6 percent increase from the total bill in 2008.

Businesses paid 40 percent, or $18.5 billion, of the total $46 billion bill last year. That makes property taxes the largest non-federal tax on New York’s private-sector employers...

=============

Think about this, property values are down significantly, lets just quess: 25% in the past few years, yet real estate taxes are UP.

Can you see your home is your target?  Real estate ownership is not owning land, it has become borrowing it.  Don't think the government cares if yo took out a big mortgage, your home value is decreasing and you taxes went up. As the old sages said, sucker.

Gotta go

SGS Unemployment Rate: 22%

I am too busy to write anything useful, so figure this out yourself.

NYT, 1/9/10:

U.S. Job Losses in December Dim Hopes for Quick Upswing 

By PETER S. GOODMAN

The government said the economy shed 85,000 jobs last month, surprising forecasters, while the unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent.

Each month, we lose tens of thousands of jobs and consider a drop in the number of  those filing for unemployment to be a great news.  So, how do we lose all these jobs and the unemployment rate remains at 10 percent? 


It is the same logic as the recent TIPS discussion - The government is in charge of making up the key numbers.  In our regular lives, we call that fraud.


Below is a chart from Shadowstats   Check there for several graphs. They are all revealing.  Check out the M 1 supply and the dollar value.  Then buy silver.


The fantasy figure these days is 10%.  We live in one of the best economies in the nation, now, so think about how many people do you know are out of work?  


See any trends below?


Pop quiz tomorrow.




===================

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Unemployment Data Series   (Subscription required.)  View  Download Excel CSV File   Last Updated: January 8th, 2010

Republishing our charts:  Permission, Restrictions and Instructions (includes important requirements for successful hot-linking)