Why are we so easily mislead....?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
I do not understand this Sudden...Acute ...finanicial crisis....and understand less the Rescue plan...but i do understand greed.How is that shit sandwhich.....?
The following links may provide some answers..although i cannot attest to the accuracy of the stories...they say truth is stranger than fiction....in the very least, they provide a look at past History...
What Is Money?
The Greatest Robbery of America The History of America’s Money System
Change the Money, Change the Country
The Greatest Robbery of America The History of America’s Money System
Change the Money, Change the Country
THIS IS THE GREATEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!
The Federal Reserve Bank only creates the Principal - not the usury or interest that it lends to the U.S. government. Therefore the usury can NEVER be repaid and the end result is foreclosure and bankruptcy.
In 1765, the Bank of England demanded that the American Colonies pay taxes in British specie or coins which the people did not possess. If they had borrowed from the Bank of England to pay the tax, the end result would have been the same: foreclosure and bankruptcy with the Bank owning everything!!
The "Federal" Reserve Bank loans the U.S. government their own "money" at usury or interest!!The perfect monetary system of free coinage of silver and gold was destroyed in 1873…………………...
The Federal Reserve Bank only creates the Principal - not the usury or interest that it lends to the U.S. government. Therefore the usury can NEVER be repaid and the end result is foreclosure and bankruptcy.
In 1765, the Bank of England demanded that the American Colonies pay taxes in British specie or coins which the people did not possess. If they had borrowed from the Bank of England to pay the tax, the end result would have been the same: foreclosure and bankruptcy with the Bank owning everything!!
The "Federal" Reserve Bank loans the U.S. government their own "money" at usury or interest!!The perfect monetary system of free coinage of silver and gold was destroyed in 1873…………………...
The Great Switch: Banks Rob People
Wednesday 24 September 2008
by: Jim Crotty, t r u t h o u t Perspective
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)
The US government is on the verge of making an unprecedented financial commitment, likely to cost $700 billion, to buy the bad securities held by large US and foreign financial institutions. Having driven our economy to the edge of financial destruction, the Lords of Finance now want the public to put up the money needed to save them and their firms from collapse. Maybe men don't bite dogs, but banks do rob people.
In response to the collapse of unregulated financial markets in the early 1930s, the American people decided to tightly regulate the financial system so that it could never again threaten the US economy. The Depression-era regulations worked effectively until the late 1970s, helping to create the best economic performance in US history. When our financial system was buffeted by high inflation in the late 1970s, it became necessary to reform the regulatory process so it would be effective in the new economic era. But instead of reform, the rise to power of anti-government, right wing forces - reflected in the election of President Reagan in 1980s - led to a radical deregulation process. By the end of the Clinton presidency, radical deregulation was completed.
Deregulation - in concert with rapid financial innovation that made complex financial products such as derivatives and mortgage-backed securities possible - created a volatile pattern of financial booms and crises. Each crash led to bailouts by affected governments, which only increased incentives to financial firms to expand further and take greater risks, since there were massive profits to be made in the upturn while the public paid to limit their losses in the downturn. The new era thus saw an explosion in the size and profits of financial firms. Financial assets were less than five times the size of the US gross domestic product (GDP) in 1980, but over ten times as large in 2007. In the US, the share of total corporate profits generated in the financial sector grew from 10 percent in the early 1980s to 40 percent in 2006. As financial markets grew larger and thus more dangerous, the pressure on governments to bail them out increased proportionately.
The recent boom was driven by the rapid rise in home prices in the decade ending in 2006. The fact that home buyers and mortgage lenders assumed housing prices would never decline sustained the boom, and the fact that banks and mortgage brokers were paid large fees to originate mortgages and large fees to service them generated momentum. Since most of these mortgages were not held by their originators, but rather sold to others, it made sense for banks and brokers to maximize the flow of mortgages, even if that meant selling mortgages that were likely to default if home prices stopped rising or interest rates rose substantially. Investment banks received similar fees to package the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to banks, hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies around the world. These securities were essentially highly leveraged risky bets that housing prices would keep rising. They were so complicated that no one knew what their price should be. Thus, they could only be sold because credit ratings agencies such as Fitch and Moody's gave them AAA ratings. The agencies provided overly optimistic ratings only because they were paid by investment banks to do so.
Why did so many large financial institutions borrow so much money to invest in such risky securities? The answer lies in the way their top people are paid. Financial firm "rainmakers" get most of their compensation in the form of bonuses tied to the profits of their enterprise. When markets are booming, profits and bonuses are maximized by borrowing lots of money - investment banks borrowed $32 for every $33 of assets they owned in 2007 - and taking high risks with it. For example, in 2006, Goldman Sachs had a banner profit year and the average bonus for its 25,000 employees was $650,000. But most of this money was paid to those at the top, with key traders taking home $50 million. Everyone knew that such risk-taking would eventually lead to disaster when markets turned down, but they would not have to give back the big bonuses from the boom.
When housing prices began to fall in 2006, the game was up, though it took another year before the crisis broke out. Once it did, the gravitational pull of reverse leverage accelerated the downfall. Firms that borrowed heavily to buy assets used the value of the assets as collateral for their loans. When asset prices started to fall, so did their collateral value. Their creditors demanded that they put up additional cash, which forced them to sell assets. Of course, this made asset prices fall faster. Soon, financial firms across the globe found the value of their assets and the value of their capital plunging along with the price of their stock. As usual, they rushed to government regulators to save them.
In the US, the Fed responded to the crisis by extending massive loans to commercial banks, and, for the first time since the Great Depression, to investment banks as well. The Fed exchanged US Treasuries for shaky mortgage-related securities in such large quantities that the proportion of its $800 billion in assets invested in government bonds fell from 91 percent in August 2007 to 52 percent one year later. It later offered to lend money in exchange for any security, even corporate stocks. In addition, the Federal Home Loan Bank increased its loans to banks by almost $300 billion between June 2007 and June 2008, a rise of 43 percent.
In the Bear Stearns rescue, the Fed in effect bought $29 billion worth of devalued securities from the failing investment bank. The collapse of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, two firms that own or insure almost $5 trillion in mortgages (and made their top executives fabulously rich by investing in shaky mortgage-backed securities in the boom) led to their nationalization; the taxpayer is now liable for their losses, which could hit $100 billion. The US government, which the Lords of Finance told us should stay out of financial markets, now owns the largest financial companies in the world.
The Fed then effectively nationalized AIG, one of the largest insurance companies and biggest financial speculators in the world, at a cost of $85 billion, even it does not regulate and has no responsibility for, insurance companies. The rout was on.
Finally, in mid September, when even these unprecedented interventions proved unable to calm financial markets, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, former CEO of the top investment bank Goldman Sachs, proposed that the government put up an additional $700 billion of taxpayer money to buy most of the bad assets held by financial corporations. This would be the largest bailout in history. At the same time, the government announced a blanket guarantee of the $3.5 trillion money market mutual fund industry.
By this time, Paulson (or Goldman?) seemed to be in control of the bailout process. His initial proposal stated that all decision-making power over the dispersal of this enormous amount of money was to be in his own hands. Neither the courts nor other government bodies would be able to exercise oversight of Paulson's handling of the money. Since the proposal said nothing about which securities would be purchased, or what firms would receive payouts, or how the prices of securities would be valued, Paulson (or Goldman?) was actually proposing that the president and Congress simply give him up to $700 billion to distribute to his cronies as he saw fit. As economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it: "Mr. Paulson is demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review 'by any court of law or any administrative agency.'"
Adding insult to injury, Paulson planned to privatize the bailout process. Wall Street firms hired by Paulson would decide how much to value the bad securities the public had to buy from ... Wall Street firms. These firms would, of course, be paid lots of public money to provide this service. Moreover, Paulson and Bernanke tried to panic the Congress into accepting their Trojan Horse by arguing that if Paulson's proposal was not accepted without revision within a few days, global financial markets would collapse. Congress was to be stampeded by fear into rubber-stamping legislation that would complete the process of a virtual government takeover of a huge share of the country's financial system by one man. This was reminiscent of President Bush's successful effort to get Congress to quickly authorize his war in Iraq. There were no penalties for financial firms or their rainmakers in the proposal, and no new regulation to prevent this fiasco from recurring a few years down the road.
This is, literally, unbelievable. As recently as spring 2007, Paulson argued that excessive regulation was crippling American finance in its battle for global financial supremacy: the government should stay out of financial markets. And Goldman Sachs, along with other large investment banks, played a key role in packaging and selling the mortgage-backed securities that led to the crisis - the same securities they now want to pawn off on the taxpayer. Paulson is a representative and charter member of the Lords of Finance who foisted this corrupt and absurd system of deregulated financial markets on the American public - a system that created financial instability and rising inequality, pressured the public time and again for money to clean up the messes they made, and used their ill-gotten money and power to corrupt the political process. Having done this, the Lords of Finance now want total control of $700 billion in public money to allocate to themselves.
Wednesday 24 September 2008
by: Jim Crotty, t r u t h o u t Perspective
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)
The US government is on the verge of making an unprecedented financial commitment, likely to cost $700 billion, to buy the bad securities held by large US and foreign financial institutions. Having driven our economy to the edge of financial destruction, the Lords of Finance now want the public to put up the money needed to save them and their firms from collapse. Maybe men don't bite dogs, but banks do rob people.
In response to the collapse of unregulated financial markets in the early 1930s, the American people decided to tightly regulate the financial system so that it could never again threaten the US economy. The Depression-era regulations worked effectively until the late 1970s, helping to create the best economic performance in US history. When our financial system was buffeted by high inflation in the late 1970s, it became necessary to reform the regulatory process so it would be effective in the new economic era. But instead of reform, the rise to power of anti-government, right wing forces - reflected in the election of President Reagan in 1980s - led to a radical deregulation process. By the end of the Clinton presidency, radical deregulation was completed.
Deregulation - in concert with rapid financial innovation that made complex financial products such as derivatives and mortgage-backed securities possible - created a volatile pattern of financial booms and crises. Each crash led to bailouts by affected governments, which only increased incentives to financial firms to expand further and take greater risks, since there were massive profits to be made in the upturn while the public paid to limit their losses in the downturn. The new era thus saw an explosion in the size and profits of financial firms. Financial assets were less than five times the size of the US gross domestic product (GDP) in 1980, but over ten times as large in 2007. In the US, the share of total corporate profits generated in the financial sector grew from 10 percent in the early 1980s to 40 percent in 2006. As financial markets grew larger and thus more dangerous, the pressure on governments to bail them out increased proportionately.
The recent boom was driven by the rapid rise in home prices in the decade ending in 2006. The fact that home buyers and mortgage lenders assumed housing prices would never decline sustained the boom, and the fact that banks and mortgage brokers were paid large fees to originate mortgages and large fees to service them generated momentum. Since most of these mortgages were not held by their originators, but rather sold to others, it made sense for banks and brokers to maximize the flow of mortgages, even if that meant selling mortgages that were likely to default if home prices stopped rising or interest rates rose substantially. Investment banks received similar fees to package the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to banks, hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies around the world. These securities were essentially highly leveraged risky bets that housing prices would keep rising. They were so complicated that no one knew what their price should be. Thus, they could only be sold because credit ratings agencies such as Fitch and Moody's gave them AAA ratings. The agencies provided overly optimistic ratings only because they were paid by investment banks to do so.
Why did so many large financial institutions borrow so much money to invest in such risky securities? The answer lies in the way their top people are paid. Financial firm "rainmakers" get most of their compensation in the form of bonuses tied to the profits of their enterprise. When markets are booming, profits and bonuses are maximized by borrowing lots of money - investment banks borrowed $32 for every $33 of assets they owned in 2007 - and taking high risks with it. For example, in 2006, Goldman Sachs had a banner profit year and the average bonus for its 25,000 employees was $650,000. But most of this money was paid to those at the top, with key traders taking home $50 million. Everyone knew that such risk-taking would eventually lead to disaster when markets turned down, but they would not have to give back the big bonuses from the boom.
When housing prices began to fall in 2006, the game was up, though it took another year before the crisis broke out. Once it did, the gravitational pull of reverse leverage accelerated the downfall. Firms that borrowed heavily to buy assets used the value of the assets as collateral for their loans. When asset prices started to fall, so did their collateral value. Their creditors demanded that they put up additional cash, which forced them to sell assets. Of course, this made asset prices fall faster. Soon, financial firms across the globe found the value of their assets and the value of their capital plunging along with the price of their stock. As usual, they rushed to government regulators to save them.
In the US, the Fed responded to the crisis by extending massive loans to commercial banks, and, for the first time since the Great Depression, to investment banks as well. The Fed exchanged US Treasuries for shaky mortgage-related securities in such large quantities that the proportion of its $800 billion in assets invested in government bonds fell from 91 percent in August 2007 to 52 percent one year later. It later offered to lend money in exchange for any security, even corporate stocks. In addition, the Federal Home Loan Bank increased its loans to banks by almost $300 billion between June 2007 and June 2008, a rise of 43 percent.
In the Bear Stearns rescue, the Fed in effect bought $29 billion worth of devalued securities from the failing investment bank. The collapse of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, two firms that own or insure almost $5 trillion in mortgages (and made their top executives fabulously rich by investing in shaky mortgage-backed securities in the boom) led to their nationalization; the taxpayer is now liable for their losses, which could hit $100 billion. The US government, which the Lords of Finance told us should stay out of financial markets, now owns the largest financial companies in the world.
The Fed then effectively nationalized AIG, one of the largest insurance companies and biggest financial speculators in the world, at a cost of $85 billion, even it does not regulate and has no responsibility for, insurance companies. The rout was on.
Finally, in mid September, when even these unprecedented interventions proved unable to calm financial markets, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, former CEO of the top investment bank Goldman Sachs, proposed that the government put up an additional $700 billion of taxpayer money to buy most of the bad assets held by financial corporations. This would be the largest bailout in history. At the same time, the government announced a blanket guarantee of the $3.5 trillion money market mutual fund industry.
By this time, Paulson (or Goldman?) seemed to be in control of the bailout process. His initial proposal stated that all decision-making power over the dispersal of this enormous amount of money was to be in his own hands. Neither the courts nor other government bodies would be able to exercise oversight of Paulson's handling of the money. Since the proposal said nothing about which securities would be purchased, or what firms would receive payouts, or how the prices of securities would be valued, Paulson (or Goldman?) was actually proposing that the president and Congress simply give him up to $700 billion to distribute to his cronies as he saw fit. As economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it: "Mr. Paulson is demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review 'by any court of law or any administrative agency.'"
Adding insult to injury, Paulson planned to privatize the bailout process. Wall Street firms hired by Paulson would decide how much to value the bad securities the public had to buy from ... Wall Street firms. These firms would, of course, be paid lots of public money to provide this service. Moreover, Paulson and Bernanke tried to panic the Congress into accepting their Trojan Horse by arguing that if Paulson's proposal was not accepted without revision within a few days, global financial markets would collapse. Congress was to be stampeded by fear into rubber-stamping legislation that would complete the process of a virtual government takeover of a huge share of the country's financial system by one man. This was reminiscent of President Bush's successful effort to get Congress to quickly authorize his war in Iraq. There were no penalties for financial firms or their rainmakers in the proposal, and no new regulation to prevent this fiasco from recurring a few years down the road.
This is, literally, unbelievable. As recently as spring 2007, Paulson argued that excessive regulation was crippling American finance in its battle for global financial supremacy: the government should stay out of financial markets. And Goldman Sachs, along with other large investment banks, played a key role in packaging and selling the mortgage-backed securities that led to the crisis - the same securities they now want to pawn off on the taxpayer. Paulson is a representative and charter member of the Lords of Finance who foisted this corrupt and absurd system of deregulated financial markets on the American public - a system that created financial instability and rising inequality, pressured the public time and again for money to clean up the messes they made, and used their ill-gotten money and power to corrupt the political process. Having done this, the Lords of Finance now want total control of $700 billion in public money to allocate to themselves.
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. Frank Herbert
If only they WOULD put Country over Ego.
October 13, 2008 at 14:16:53
Resignation letter from the McCain Palin Campaign
by Robyn Crane Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
YES WE CAN'T! WE ARE PUTTING OUR COUNTRY FIRST AND SUSPENDING OUR CAMPAIGN FOR GOOD!by John McCain and Sarah Palin October 13, 2008
My Friends,
Over the past few days I have come to realize that my campaign for President has devolved into a national disgrace. The negative campaign tactics I have unleashed are dangerously dividing our country while fueling religious and racial hatred along socio-economic lines. In my ruthless attempt to win the Presidency at any cost I have abandoned any principles of decency I once had and am now only a shadow of my former self to everyone who knows me or thought they knew me, or once respected me. Also I have come to realize that my unfair and disgustingly false attacks on Senator Obama's character, which were thinly disguised attempts to link him and his wife Michelle to Muslim terrorists, have been the last thing anyone who claims to be putting "Country First" would do. And worse, I may have even placed him and his family in danger from the radical and dangerous extremists who now inhabit and infect the base of my party - a group I once denounced but decided I needed to vigorously cultivate by turning myself into a "flip-flopper" in order to win this election. I encourage my fellow Senators to file ethics charges against me for having done something so disgraceful like this.
Basically the energized base of the Republican party - a bunch of religious extremists - only care about preventing abortion even in cases of rape or incest. My friends, they are even against stem cell research to cure diseases! The bumpersticker of my base reads: God, Guns, and Guts! These people will mindlessly chant: USA!! USA!! USA!! at my rallies versus even attempting to understand the many serious issues facing our country in these troubling times. In other words the base of the GOP that I need to get myself elected President consists of too many mindless nitwits and/or dangerous religious extremists and racists. That's why I thought I could stoke their fear and anger against Senator Obama to try and win this election. It was a grave mistake and a very bad gamble on my part. My friends, the country has turned against this kind of politics and my polling numbers have plummeted. I realize I no longer have any chance of winning this election. Also I can no longer associate myself with "extremists" and fringe people like this and those who rally these kinds of nasty and ignorant people to support my campaign. Wealthy people like Cindy and myself would never have anything to do with people like this if I weren't running for office. We really detest these clueless ignorant crackpots and most everything they stand for.
As an example of what I have unleashed: At recent rallies, supporters of mine have yelled out: “Treason!”, “Terrorist!”, “Kill him!”, "Bomb Obama!", and “Off with his head!” against Sen. Obama. I have also heard these unhinged people yell out racial epithets. And now I regret not taking any stand against these kinds of outbursts at the moment they were uttered. My friends, I can no longer be a party to inciting my supporters to acts of vigilantism against Sen. Obama in order to try and win an election. With our racially motivated slurs against Sen. Obama, Sarah and I helped to stoke these monsters and now we must do everything we can to distance ourselves from them in an attempt to tamp down their anger and rage. That is why I am suspending my campaign for good. YES, WE CAN'T!
My friends, I have made many other mistakes in this campaign as well. The media, whom I have falsely and repeatedly accused of liberal bias to incite my base, correctly reported I wanted to pick my dear friend, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as my running mate. Senator Lieberman and I both share the same imperialistic neocon views about using our military FIRST anywhere in the world to protect Israel's interests regardless of what it does to our own country when we act this way unilaterally based upon lies and fear. But I realized that Sen. Lieberman's views on abortion would have cost me the base of my party and without that base I could not win. So instead of doing the right thing and picking a well-respected and highly qualified person as my Vice President even if not Sen. Lieberman, I chose Sarah Palin. I therefore did not put "Country First". I picked Sarah Palin because I hoped to steal some votes from disaffected women supporters of Hillary Clinton. I should have known better. Clinton supporters and most women have nothing in common with someone like Sarah Palin or her views. I also picked Sarah Palin because I was impulsive and thought I needed to do something dramatic to energize my stale campaign. I knew my base was naive and gullible enough to fall for Sarah Palin and they did! To be fair, Sarah Palin only did what she was told. The campaign knew we couldn't allow her or any of her family to speak to the media unscripted. We were quite fortunate the media never demanded much from Sarah Palin nor her family. Instead they quickly found a way to turn the Palins into "C-grade celebrities" to boost their ratings. This helped our campaign for a short time. But even that effort failed once Sarah's lack of curiosity and knowledge of issues was exposed. Now she and her family are of little use to this campaign.
So now it's time for the Palins to head home to Alaska. Sarah needs to spend her time taking care of her Down's baby instead of using him as our campaign's right-to-life prop. Her younger children and teenage daughter also need to be back in school where they have belonged for over a month. Sarah needs to make sure her unwed teenage daughter Bristol receives better sex education counseling. The family needs to make sure both older children get immediate drug counseling including their eldest son, Track who's in Iraq because he couldn't get into college. The Palin family have many serious family issues they should be dealing with instead of spending their time running for office. Sarah will have all she can handle in Alaska to avoid being impeached for serious violations of state ethics laws. Obviously my campaign didn't vet Sarah Palin very well and this is yet another serious mistake my campaign has made. So the Palin family will be heading back to Alaska soon and I wish them well. You will just have to find another redneck dysfunctional family to satisfy your own weird entertainment needs.
During my campaign I also thought I could win with cheap sloganeering. I figured all I needed to do was repeat the label "Maverick" enough times and people would think I was a different kind of politician and candidate than George Bush. I was even foolish enough to believe I could steal Sen. Obama's message of "Change" and use it for myself. I actually thought that despite my long career in the House and Senate while supporting Bush almost 95% of the time, Americans would be dumb enough to believe I stood for change. How crazy was that? I owe the American people my sincerest apologies.
Also during my campaign I actually thought everyone understood why I had to associate with lowlifes, misfits, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and religious zealots in order to win the election. Did anyone really think Cindy and I would ever invite a Sturgis, South Dakota motorcycle type crowd over to our Sedona estate for a BBQ? You've got to be kidding!
My friends, I was way too old and decrepit and in unstable health to run for President. That's why I couldn't release all of my medical records and had troubling remembering things on the campaign. This too reflected bad judgment on my part.
I have attempted to describe some of the more serious blunders I have made in this campaign and the reasons for them. No candidate for President can make this many disastrous mistakes in a campaign and expect to win. Why? Because it's a reflection of one's poor judgment. No sane American should consider me qualified nor capable of holding high office and becoming your next President. The country cannot afford to have a President who doesn't demonstrate much better judgment than I have demonstrated during my entire life and more specifically this campaign. Nor should my reckless and careless decision-making during the campaign be rewarded by your vote for me.
So I wish to apologize to every American for what I have done to you and what I have subjected our country to during this campaign. I also wish to apologize to the Obama family for the viciousness of my attacks and lies. Cindy and I will try and reimburse all of our supporters for any monies of yours we collected and spent post convention on this misguided campaign. Effectively and immediately I am suspending my campaign because I realize this is THE ONLY way I can really put my COUNTRY FIRST.
Respectfully,
John McCain
Headlined on 10/12/08:The Mailer That Put the Final Nail in the McCain Campaign Coffin
by Rob Kall www.opednews.com
Close to 100 million Americans received mailers last week, or will receive them next week that will put the last nail in the coffin of the McCain Pailin campaign. It wasn't sent by Obama, nor by 527 group, not by any non-profit or even a political organization.
It didn't mention McCain or Pailin, Obama or Biden. Didn't mention taxes or Iraq, Gay Marriage or Abortion or any other campaign hot button topic. But the mailer, personalized, received by tens of millions of Americans, perhaps 100 million, in the past week, or in the next week, is the single envelope that will have caused John McCain and many republican incumbents to lose their seats. I got one addressed to my youngest son on Thursday, then another addressed to me on Friday.
by Rob Kall www.opednews.com
Close to 100 million Americans received mailers last week, or will receive them next week that will put the last nail in the coffin of the McCain Pailin campaign. It wasn't sent by Obama, nor by 527 group, not by any non-profit or even a political organization.
It didn't mention McCain or Pailin, Obama or Biden. Didn't mention taxes or Iraq, Gay Marriage or Abortion or any other campaign hot button topic. But the mailer, personalized, received by tens of millions of Americans, perhaps 100 million, in the past week, or in the next week, is the single envelope that will have caused John McCain and many republican incumbents to lose their seats. I got one addressed to my youngest son on Thursday, then another addressed to me on Friday.
The first envelope I received, for my son, was a quarterly mutual fund report-- where we have most of his college savings. The letter reported that since the beginning of the year, the savings were down 30%-- even though the fund was a "blend" fund. The next envelope, which I received on Friday, was a quarterly report on my IRA, also down over 30%. These reports were sent out on September 30th, before the market dropped an additional 19%.I knew the numbers I was looking at were much worse, just ten days later. Tens of millions of Americans, maybe over 100 million Americans have received their quarterly statments this week for IRAs, mutual funds, 401Ks, etc.. They're all get a mailer that is causing much pain, much stress, acute realization that the economic crisis has hit home.
They're probably still arriving, as I write this, for a few more days. We've seen the result in the polls. The response will grow. The pundits, if they've guessed this is about anything else, are probably wrong. It's hard to imagine, after eight years of Bush and primarily Republican rule, most Americans not concluding that the GOP and its approach to government and the economy caused their pain, their loss, their fear for the future.
It's hard to imagine McCain's campaign getting anywhere with their desperate gambits-- abortion this week, what, terrorism next week? Or raising taxes? They saved the average family $2000 or $5000 in taxes over the past eight years and cost them $35,000 or $200,000 in lost retirement savings or depreciated home value. No. The most powerful election-affecting mailer this cycle is being sent by the financial companies that so many Americans put their trust in. Those quarterly notices are all Obama needs. If he and the DSCC and DCCC congressional campaign committees are smart, they'll run ads this week referring to those notices.
They'll remind the voters who discontinued the regulations that prevented financial institutions from leveraging themselves so badly-- Henry Paulson. They'll remind voters who pushed for earlier deregulations-- Phil Gramm, McCain's primary economic mentor. But that's all icing on the cake. Obama and most of the Democrats running for congress could probably do almost nothing, from this point on (they don't want people to think that, of course. They want the campaign to re-double efforts.) These are sad times. Reality is far more powerful than any campaign words. For the neocons, the corporatists and their theocon supporters, the chickens have indeed come home to roost-- and they've shit all over almost every American.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
http://stealbackyourvote.org/We must NOT let the tactics of Karl Rove succeed this election...
be viligant.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most spine chilling McCain video you will ever see.
It is important we connect the dots..between McCain-Palin and a growing US military theocracy..this video and the article by Frank Rich...are part of the same philosophy...a philosophy that uses God, patriotism and wild speeches to ignite hatred and violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)