This week has been a doozy! American media can't get enough of the few hundred OWS crowd it seems. The blow-by-blow coverage of the mob mentality doesn't astound me, it sickens me. A few hundred slackers getting together and sharing STD's for some reason isn't the same as 46,000,000 on food stamps.
Of half of the American work force NOT paying a dime in tax.
Or open borders, wide-open borders.
Or a bankrupt Social Security System.
Or the Obama healthcare billl that is holding up corporate hiring.
Or the sound bites that the GOP candidates spout at each other.
Or the military industrial complex "owning" Obama and opening up a new revenue stream in Australia this week.
Or $600,000,000 missing from citizens accounts at MF Global.
Or the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low to rob and plunder the retirees of America.
On second thought, there are plenty of sales to be found in your Christmas shopping. Get after it this weekend so you won't have to deal with the thieves at the mall next week and the week after. But be careful of your personal spending because your country owes $15,000,000,000,000, yes folks, that is Trillion in debt.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving. We have much to be thankful. Gratitude is a gift, share it.
Today, we are fortunate to call ourselves American. And give some thought to many Native Americans this week for taking good care of the first settlers to our shores. They needed all the help they could get then. In many ways, we still need all the help we can get now.
Friday, November 18, 2011
CNBC cheerleaders
are at it again.........Cramer telling the world how bad Europe is compared to the United States takes the cake. Leaving the sound on when watching CNBC is grounds for termination around here.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Darla Leslie, NAJA
Your resignation was rather unusual.
What "fix" is needed other than some smarts about handling money?
What "fix" is needed other than some smarts about handling money?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sad numbers for America, my children and yours..........
Too sad for commentary, but here is some math: total US debt has increased by 41.5%, or $4.4 trillion, from $10,626,877,048,913 on January 20, to $15,033,607,255,920, under Obama as president.
(as a reminder the most recently updated debt ceiling is $15.194 trillion)
(as a reminder the most recently updated debt ceiling is $15.194 trillion)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Geez, all I wanted for Christmas was some CRP fields..........
Secret farm bill’ primed for passage in debt deal
- 11/15/11 05:15 AM ET
Lawmakers on the House and Senate Agriculture committees are trying to write a new five-year farm bill through the supercommittee process.
The legislators are using the supercommittee to avoid what would be a more public, election-year debate in 2012, when the current farm bill expires and new legislation would be scheduled for writing, according to critics of the effort.
“We call it the secret farm bill,” said one environmental activist, who worries that if the lawmakers succeed, it will prop up U.S. farm payments through 2017.
The legislators are using the supercommittee to avoid what would be a more public, election-year debate in 2012, when the current farm bill expires and new legislation would be scheduled for writing, according to critics of the effort.
“We call it the secret farm bill,” said one environmental activist, who worries that if the lawmakers succeed, it will prop up U.S. farm payments through 2017.
Environmental groups and poverty advocates say the supercommittee should dismiss the recommendations from the farm-state lawmakers, which are expected to be delivered later this week. The recommendations are expected to propose the replacement of some existing farm payments with a new crop insurance program and new payments that would be linked to commodity prices.
While some of the changes lawmakers are expected to propose would save billions on paper, critics say the new farm payments could balloon in cost if commodity prices fall.
Opponents also worry the lawmakers are trying to get around longtime critics of the farm bill who for years have said the legislation is a symbol of waste that costs taxpayers money while hurting farmers in poor countries who do not receive similar levels of support.
“They are completely trying to write a whole new farm subsidy program,” a second activist said. “They are making an end-run around people who question these programs.”
An advantage of locking in the changes through the supercommittee is that the panel’s recommendations must get an up-or-down vote in Congress. That would give less leverage to opponents of farm subsidies.
Ben Becker, a spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee, defended the effort to propose farm bill changes to the supercommittee.
“Either the supercommittee would in essence write the Farm Bill, with no hearings or public input, or the Agriculture Committees and the communities we represent would have a voice. Democrats and Republicans are working hard within the process that’s been imposed on us to develop a sound bipartisan and bicameral recommendation that members of both parties can support,” he said.
But the secrecy of the process has even some farm lobbyists raising questions.
While some of the changes lawmakers are expected to propose would save billions on paper, critics say the new farm payments could balloon in cost if commodity prices fall.
Opponents also worry the lawmakers are trying to get around longtime critics of the farm bill who for years have said the legislation is a symbol of waste that costs taxpayers money while hurting farmers in poor countries who do not receive similar levels of support.
“They are completely trying to write a whole new farm subsidy program,” a second activist said. “They are making an end-run around people who question these programs.”
An advantage of locking in the changes through the supercommittee is that the panel’s recommendations must get an up-or-down vote in Congress. That would give less leverage to opponents of farm subsidies.
Ben Becker, a spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee, defended the effort to propose farm bill changes to the supercommittee.
“Either the supercommittee would in essence write the Farm Bill, with no hearings or public input, or the Agriculture Committees and the communities we represent would have a voice. Democrats and Republicans are working hard within the process that’s been imposed on us to develop a sound bipartisan and bicameral recommendation that members of both parties can support,” he said.
But the secrecy of the process has even some farm lobbyists raising questions.
“All big legislation is written behind closed doors, but they are doing this is in such a compressed way,“ one longtime agricultural lobbyist said. “I am having trouble finding out what’s going on.”
The proposals from Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who have been negotiating for weeks, are expected to include a new type of revenue-based insurance for some crops as well as a bolstered price-triggered payment for other crops.
The Agriculture committees had been asked to deliver recommendations on $23 billion in cuts over the next 10 years by Nov. 1, but they missed that deadline.
Different commodity groups have been trying to maximize their payments by pushing their own formulas, which has lengthened and complicated the lawmakers’ effort.
The $23 billion package is expected to include billions in cuts to nutrition and conservation programs, but the biggest chunk, estimated at $13 billion, would come from payments to farmers.
Stabenow has focused on a new revenue-based “shallow loss” insurance program that is supported by corn, wheat, barley, soy and canola farmers.
Lucas, with the support of rice and peanut farmers, wants to modify the existing price-based payment to farmers for those crops.
Payments to cotton farmers have been a sticking point, and they are set to get their own program, also linked to commodity prices.
Farmers now receive “direct payments” that are based on historical production. This means that even if the farmer produces nothing, payments from the government can still be received.
The farm safety net includes subsidized crop insurance and countercyclical and marketing loan payments that rise when prices fall. These latter payments are intended to help farmer survive dramatic changes in world prices.
Outrage over direct payments going to farmers who no longer farm has led the Agriculture committees to largely agree that direct payments need to be replaced.
Stabenow’s proposed “shallow loss” insurance program would complement traditional crop insurance. The program would pay farmers for small losses typically not covered by existing insurance.
The proposed replacement payments for cotton, rice and peanuts would be based on higher “target” prices. If the market falls below the higher “target,” the government would pay farmers the difference through countercyclical payments or marketing loans.
The American Farm Bureau decided to oppose the shallow-loss proposal, arguing that it will encourage farmers to take on excessive risk.
Environmental and international poverty advocates are against the whole process.
The groups believe higher price-based payments promote overproduction and distort world trade, hurting farmers in the Third World and causing them to cut down rainforest in search of more income.
This story was updated at 11:21 a.m.
The proposals from Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who have been negotiating for weeks, are expected to include a new type of revenue-based insurance for some crops as well as a bolstered price-triggered payment for other crops.
The Agriculture committees had been asked to deliver recommendations on $23 billion in cuts over the next 10 years by Nov. 1, but they missed that deadline.
The $23 billion package is expected to include billions in cuts to nutrition and conservation programs, but the biggest chunk, estimated at $13 billion, would come from payments to farmers.
Stabenow has focused on a new revenue-based “shallow loss” insurance program that is supported by corn, wheat, barley, soy and canola farmers.
Lucas, with the support of rice and peanut farmers, wants to modify the existing price-based payment to farmers for those crops.
Payments to cotton farmers have been a sticking point, and they are set to get their own program, also linked to commodity prices.
Farmers now receive “direct payments” that are based on historical production. This means that even if the farmer produces nothing, payments from the government can still be received.
The farm safety net includes subsidized crop insurance and countercyclical and marketing loan payments that rise when prices fall. These latter payments are intended to help farmer survive dramatic changes in world prices.
Outrage over direct payments going to farmers who no longer farm has led the Agriculture committees to largely agree that direct payments need to be replaced.
Stabenow’s proposed “shallow loss” insurance program would complement traditional crop insurance. The program would pay farmers for small losses typically not covered by existing insurance.
The proposed replacement payments for cotton, rice and peanuts would be based on higher “target” prices. If the market falls below the higher “target,” the government would pay farmers the difference through countercyclical payments or marketing loans.
The American Farm Bureau decided to oppose the shallow-loss proposal, arguing that it will encourage farmers to take on excessive risk.
Environmental and international poverty advocates are against the whole process.
The groups believe higher price-based payments promote overproduction and distort world trade, hurting farmers in the Third World and causing them to cut down rainforest in search of more income.
This story was updated at 11:21 a.m.
Unbelievable
This Mr. Evans from the FED on CNBC is clueless about how America lives.
So very sad for America.
Rick Santelli schooled this guy on common sense for America. Great work again Rick!!
So very sad for America.
Rick Santelli schooled this guy on common sense for America. Great work again Rick!!
From where I sit........
If you're at a party and someone tells you they work for a "creditor's rights" firm, dig a little. If they tell you "I work in real estate finance", ask what that means. Ask if residential judicial and non-judicial foreclosures constitute part of their work. If they say "yes", walk away. De-friend them on Facebook. Anything. Shame them and make those that do this work for their masters question their efforts and who they work for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)