Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Fwd: Iran


'Israel will not outsource its vital security interests to anyone, "not even to our closes and most trusted allies," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in London on Wednesday.

 

"The State of Israel was founded precisely so that our fate would remain in our own hands. When it comes to the very future of Israel, and its vital security interests, we cannot… and will not outsource the responsibility for making the decision. Not even to our closest and most trusted allies," he said.

 

"We live in a tough neighborhood, one in which there is no mercy for the weak and no second chance for those who cannot defend themselves; "a villa in the jungle", as I once put it. In such a place, it is imperative to remain strong, open-eyed, with both feet on the ground," Barak said. "We always say that a pessimist in the Middle East is merely an optimist with experience," he added.'

 

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=290012

 




--
Best wishes,

John Coffey

http://www.entertainmentjourney.com

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Libya

'They had eyes in the sky, ears on the ground--and emails in the pipeline with minutes after the attack on Benghazi began. They watched and listened in real time, as terrorists stormed the compound, firing rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. An email sent during the seven-hour long battle that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and agent Sean Smith is entitled, "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack." Add it all up and the conclusion is inescapable:…'

Fwd: Slick Brochure


'"You know President Obama hasn't really given us a vision for a second term agenda," he said. "Just a couple of days ago he came up with a slick new brochure. You know, with less than two weeks left to say, 'Oh I do actually have an agenda.'"

 

As Ryan continued to mock the plan a man in the crowd interjected with his own description.

 

"It is a slick – well, comic book, that was his word – to me a slick re-packaging of more of the same," Ryan said.

 

On Tuesday, Obama's re-election team released 19 pages outlining the plans he hopes to institute if he wins a second term in office and an accompanying television ad set to air in nine battleground states. The booklet is largely a rehash of policies previously proposed, but is a response to critics who have charged the president with offering few specifics on his second term agenda.'

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/ryan-likens-obama-plan-to-slick-new-brochure/

 



China-Japan

'Uichiro Niwa, the businessman who was removed from his post as ambassador to China because of his moderate, don't-rock-the-boat views on the Senkakus (he is still serving temporarily, since his designated successor died of a heart attack before he could take the post), said sadly:

 

    "Now, Chinese TV programs constantly show the Japanese flag and a photo of my face," the ambassador said. "And the TV says in simple language that Japan is a thief who stole Chinese territory. Even elementary-school children can connect the flag, theft and my photo. In China, I am feeling like I'm the ringleader."

 

    Niwa said many Japanese volunteers teaching Japanese or working as caregivers, on a program by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, were also feeling a sense of great tension.

 

    "This is the first time they report such a situation since I came to China," said Niwa, who became ambassador to China in 2010. [7]

 

The fundamental flaw of the pivot strategy was acknowledged by Campbell himself when he referred to the rising hostility between Japan and China, engendered of course by past and present factors but exacerbated by the pivot.

 

    We are worried that persistent high-level tensions are eating away at Sino-Japanese goodwill, at enormous linkages that have developed people to people, on culture, on business ... it is stirring negative feelings on both sides ... We recognize that damage has been done, and we're worried about it.

 

These people are learning to hate each other for contemporary as well as historical reasons, and there isn't a lot the United States can do about it.'

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NJ27Ad02.html

 

Fusion

'The National Ignition Facility in Livermore, California, has been called a modern-day moon-shot, a project of "revolutionary science," and "the mother of all boondoggles."

 

NIF, as it's known, is a five-billion dollar, taxpayer-funded super laser project whose goal is to create nuclear fusion – a tiny star – inside a laboratory. But so far, that hasn't happened.

 

The facility, which began operating in 2009 after a decade of construction at a cost of almost $4 billion, points 192 football-field-sized lasers at one tiny capsule the size of a peppercorn and filled with hydrogen. It creates degrees of heat and pressure never before achieved in a lab.

 

Standing outside NIF's target chamber in 2008, about a year before NIF's dedication, Director Ed Moses called NIF "more far-out, and far cooler than anything in science fiction or fantasy."'

http://science.kqed.org/quest/audio/in-livermore-still-waiting-on-nuclear-fusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=in-livermore-still-waiting-on-nuclear-fusion

 


I am still scared

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331828/two-polls-have-chicago-terrified-josh-jordan#

 




Friday, October 26, 2012

Fwd: What a quote


'I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.' Thomas Jefferson





Fwd: China

From: larry.r.trout


'New York Times blocked by China after report on wealth of Wen Jiabao's family:

Authorities censor publication after revelations that the premier's relatives have accumulated billions during his leadership:

 

China's foreign ministry has accused the New York Times of smearing the country by reporting that the premier Wen Jiabao's extended family has controlled assets worth at least $2.7bn (£1.67bn).

 

A spokesman, Hong Lei, said the report "blackens China's name and has ulterior motives". Authorities have also blocked the news organisation's main and Chinese-language websites and banned searches for "New York Times" in English and Chinese on microblogs.

 

"China manages the internet in accordance with laws and rules," Hong told reporters at a daily briefing when asked why the sites were inaccessible.

 

The New York Times reported that several of Wen's close relatives had become extremely wealthy since his ascent to leadership. But in many cases their holdings were obscured by layers of partnerships and investment vehicles involving friends, colleagues or business partners, it said, in a detailed and lengthy account based on an extensive review of company and regulatory filings.

 

A single investment held on paper by Wen's 90-year-old mother Yang Zhiyun – a retired schoolteacher – was worth $120m five years ago, the New York Times said. It added it was unclear if Yang was aware of the holdings in her name.

 

The report is embarrassing not only for Wen himself – who comes from a modest background and is widely seen as the sympathetic, populist face of the government – but for the party. It is the latest in a string of unwelcome revelations about the vast wealth amassed by those around senior leaders.

 

Authorities blocked the Bloomberg website earlier this year after it exposed the multimillion-dollar assets held by the extended family of Xi Jinping, heir-apparent to the presidency. The news agency has also reported that relatives of the disgraced politician Bo Xilai accumulated at least $136m in assets.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/new-york-times-china-wen-jiabao

 



Libya

'CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say:

 

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

 

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

 

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

 

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators….'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

 


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Chuck Schumer paints Democratic nightmare scenario

But first on his list was the danger of Romney filling seats on the Supreme Court.

 

“If we have another conservative Supreme Court justice, I think it changes America dramatically for a generation,” Schumer said, both for the existing regulatory structure and social issues.  “I don’t think they will ever get Roe v Wade overturned in a legislative body. Even if it’s a Republican controlled one. But the Supreme Court could well do it. For the hard right, the gold mine is controlling the Supreme Court, and a Republican majority Senate brings them much further along to doing that.”

 

He added, “If we have another conservative Supreme Court justice, I think it changes America dramatically for a generation. I believe the hard right really believes that that is there number one way to rule America and move the clock back to the 1920s on economic regulatory fronts, which is what they seem to want to do. And if you have one more conservative Supreme Court justice, it will change America not for four years but for a generation in terms of empowering the people like Mitt Romney, the very wealthy, who say I don’t want your government to have its hands in my pocket. It will basically dismantle the regulatory structure we have.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/25/chuck-schumer-paints-democratic-nightmare-scenario/

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Fwd: Bank Denial of Service attacks

From: larry.r.trout

'The bank attacks are remarkable because they seem unstoppable, even with advance warning. Just how bad are banks suffering at the hands of attackers? Rodney Joffe, senior technologist at Internet infrastructure provider Neustar, said the best some banks can do to prepare is to have a sincere-sounding apology at the ready, backed up with a plan B that points customers to an alternative method of communication such as a call center.

 

"There is in fact no way to defend against it properly," said Joffe, who has helped banks try to recover from the attacks.  "We can mitigate the attacks to some extent, but it is very difficult to keep systems up…This is one of our worst nightmares."

 

The criminals identify themselves in their warnings as the "al-Qassam Cyber Fighters," purportedly part of Hamas' al Qassam military wing. The basic attack is nothing new:  It's a denial of service attack designed to make the banking websites unavailable. Bank sites are flooded with bogus Internet traffic so they are overwhelmed, and can only give the equivalent of a busy signal to customers.  But these attacks are very different, experts say, because of the sheer amount of bogus traffic that's generated…

 

But the biggest nightmare, he said, is that banks don't "defeat" the attacks with countermeasures. The criminals simply stop and turn their attention on another target, leaving bank security officials wondering when they might be victimized again. Capital One, for example, has suffered at least two separate service disruptions.'

http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14624198-why-your-banks-website-might-go-down-soon-and-why-hackers-seem-unstoppable?lite

 

Monday, October 22, 2012

Fwd: LG

From: larry.r.trout

'The bankruptcy of electric vehicle battery maker A123 Systems earlier this week turned a spotlight on the struggles of the Obama administration's push for green jobs of the future around electric cars, which has fallen short in employment and production. Now a new report says in one Michigan plant, built with $151 million in federal money to assemble battery cells for the Chevrolet Volt, workers have been paid for months to do nothing. According to WOOD-TV of Grand Rapids, Mich., the 300 workers at the LG Chem plant in nearby Holland have yet to ship a single production battery cell since the plant opened late last year. While employees have built battery cells for testing, those were shipped back to LG Chem's home labs in South Korea months ago, leaving workers to do odd jobs around the factory, volunteer for community projects or just sit and play Monopoly. Several say training also stopped months ago, leading some employees to quit in frustration.

 

The $300 million plant was launched by President Barack Obama in July 2010, at a bipartisan ceremony where Obama hailed the LG Chem plant and similar efforts by A123 as "jobs in the industries of the future," saying it was key for the United States to build not just more electric vehicles and hybrids but their batteries as well. The LG Chem's plant initial contract called for workers to build lithium-ion battery cells, 288 of which are used in every Chevy Volt -- and which are now made in South Korea and shipped to a GM plant in Michigan.

 

At the time, General Motors was still expecting to sell as many as 60,000 Volts a year worldwide, but after demand failed to match those expectations, GM cut back production. The automaker's on track to sell about 20,000 Volts in the United States this year, and has declined to offer future production estimates; the Cadillac ELR coupe version of the range-extended electric car will go into production next year, but isn't anticipated to be a huge seller. At one point, the plant was also expected to supply batteries to the electric version of the Ford Focus, but LG Chem provides those cells from South Korea as well. Ford has only sold 228 Focus Electrics so far this year, and its sales plans for the$40,000 Focus seem limited to meeting California emissions rules.'

 

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/workers-chevy-volt-battery-plant-built-federal-money-182043143.html

 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Fwd: 47 percent context

Unless we can grow the economy and deal with the debt, there may not be enough money left to provide anyone benefits. 

From: david.j.wendel

Yeah, I'm not sure we'll survive the retirement of the baby boomers either.  I still have visions of enfeebled old people dying in the streets.  I don't see a way out of that.  I'm just pretty sure there will be more old people in the streets under a heartless republican regime than a compassionate socialist democratic regime.  (Sorry John, I know I punched some buttons there that you've called me on before, but that's still how I feel.)

 

I still think that Romney and those that paid $50k per plate do feel some animosity to the poor.  I find them to have the attitude of: I got mine, it's your own fault that you don't have yours.  I've yet to see any indication that that's not what they think.  That's what the occupy wall street protest was all about.

 

David Wendel

Fwd: 47 percent context


From: larry.r.trout@

'One in five Americans—the highest in the nation's history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance.

 

That's more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.

 

Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

 

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more

than the nation's average disposable personal income ($32,446).

 

At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

 

In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.

 

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government's budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years'

 

 

 

 

 

The great and calamitous fiscal trends of our time—dependence on government by an increasing portion of the American population, and soaring debt that threatens the financial integrity of the economy—worsened yet again in 2010 and 2011. The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction of both trends or face economic and social collapse. Yet policymakers made little progress on either front since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published. Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes. Related to these disturbing trends, publicly held debt continued its amazing ascent without any plan by the government to pay it back. As if those circumstances were not dire enough, the country is about to witness the largest generational retirement in world history by a population that will depend on currently bankrupted pension and health programs.

 

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government highlights the gathering fiscal storm clouds. Unsustainable increases in dependent populations predate the recent recession—and continuing economic morass—and have continued to rise since the economy collapsed in 2008 and 2009. There is one silver lining to those clouds: A few policymakers and independent public policy groups have advanced plans for restoring fiscal balance in Washington. Among them is The Heritage Foundation. Heritage calls its fiscal plan Saving the American Dream. The Heritage plan reforms and funds those government programs that matter most to people who need the government's help, and it frees the private sector to create the millions of jobs that will dramatically reduce the growth of dependence on government.

 

Virtually no issue so dominates the current public policy debate as the future financial health of the U.S. government. Americans are haunted by the specter of enormously growing mountains of debt that suck the economic and social vitality out of this country. Only the intrepidly stagnant and jobless economic recovery garners more attention, and many are beginning to believe that even that sluggishness is tied to the nation's growing burden of publicly held debt.[1]

 

Of course, the roots of the problems produced by the great and growing debt lie in the spending behaviors of the federal government. Annual deficits far greater than the government's revenue are fueling explosive levels of debt. One such significant area of rapid growth is those programs that create economic and social dependence on government.

 

The 2012 publication of the Index of Dependence on Government marks the tenth year that The Heritage Foundation has flashed warning lights about Americans' growing dependence on government programs. For a decade, the Index has signaled troubling and rapid increases in the growth of dependence-creating federal programs, and every year Heritage has raised concerns about the challenges that rapidly growing dependence poses to this country's republican form of government, its economy, and for the broader civil society. Index measurements begin in 1962; since then, the Index score has grown by more than 15 times its original amount. This means that, keeping inflation neutral in the calculations, more than 15 times the resources were committed to paying for people who depend on government in 2010 than in 1962.'

 

Re: 47 percent context

For the most part it is true, except that I know a number of "poor" people who are conservative. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "david.j.wendel wrote:

So, do you agree with this quote?


From: Trout, Larry R

 

'There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other'

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video#47percent

 

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Who do you believe--Mitt, or your lyin' memory? - Roger Ebert's Journal


"Romney did not lie. His statements did not fit the caricature you believe about him, so you think he lied. Go to his campaign website. You will see positions there consistent with what he said at the first debate. And stop playing gotcha. Instead of debating issues, you focus on things like 47%. Eveyone knows what he meant. People receiving governmental aid more likely will vote for the Democrat. Romney apologizing now for that statement makes political sense, based on how it has been construed. Accept that Romney can win the election. A segment of voters still are as mad at Obama as they were at the time of the 2010 elections."

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Fwd: Debt

'What they're saying is that when it comes to debt and to the prospects for future debt, the U.S. is no "clean dirty shirt." The U.S., in fact, is a serial offender, an addict whose habit extends beyond weed or cocaine and who frequently pleasures itself with budgetary crystal meth. Uncle Sam's habit, say these respected agencies, will be a hard (and dangerous) one to break…

 

To keep our debt/GDP ratio below the metaphorical combustion point of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, these studies (when averaged) suggest that we need to cut spending or raise taxes by 11% of GDP and rather quickly over the next five to 10 years. An 11% "fiscal gap" in terms of today's economy speaks to a combination of spending cuts and taxes of $1.6 trillion per year! To put that into perspective, CBO has calculated that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and other provisions would only reduce the deficit by a little more than $200 billion. As well, the failed attempt at a budget compromise by Congress and the President – the so-called Super Committee "Grand Bargain"– was a $4 trillion battle plan over 10 years worth $400 billion a year. These studies, and the updated chart "Ring of Fire – Part 2!" suggests close to four times that amount in order to douse the inferno.

 

As one of the "Ring" leaders, America's abusive tendencies can be described in more ways than an 11% fiscal gap and a $1.6 trillion current dollar hole which needs to be filled. It's well publicized that the U.S. has $16 trillion of outstanding debt, but its future liabilities in terms of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are less tangible and therefore more difficult to comprehend. Suppose, though, that when paying payroll or income taxes for any of the above benefits, American citizens were issued a bond that they could cash in when required to pay those future bills. The bond would be worth more than the taxes paid because the benefits are increasing faster than inflation. The fact is that those bonds today would total nearly $60 trillion, a disparity that is four times our publicized number of outstanding debt. We owe, in other words, not only $16 trillion in outstanding, Treasury bonds and bills, but $60 trillion more. In my example, it just so happens that the $60 trillion comes not in the form of promises to pay bonds or bills at maturity, but the present value of future Social Security benefits, Medicaid expenses and expected costs for Medicare. Altogether, that's a whopping total of 500% of GDP, dear reader, and I'm not making it up. Kindly consult the IMF and the CBO for verification. Kindly wonder, as well, how we're going to get out of this mess.'

 

http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Damages.aspx

 

I have trouble with the argument because he is talking about in-budget items. 

Sunday, October 7, 2012

You can make a difference. It is up to you.

Despite what you may have heard about the polls, as of this date President Obama has a very commanding lead in the likely Electoral College for the 2012 presidential election.  If this concerns you, read on...

 

Politics is driven by unhappiness.  If people have nothing to complain about then they have little reason to be interested in politics.  However, almost everybody has some sort of gripe and many of those people want government to fix their problems.  But that is where we go wrong.  Government can't fix every problem.  When it tries to do so, it fails miserably and goes broke.  We are currently going bankrupt trying to fix everyone's problems.  

 

People get elected to political office by making contradictory promises to different groups knowing full well that they can't keep all of their promises.  

 

President Obama says that this election is a clear choice between two very different visions for the future of America.  He is correct.  The President's vision is one where the founding principles of this country were a mistake, so he wants to "Move Forward" toward a European style socialism, where the GDP per capita is half that of the United States, the countries are drowning in debt and there are riots in the streets.  When he says that he wants to change America, he means it.  We have had 4 years with up to 1.5 trillion dollar deficits and unfathomable debt.  The national debt is around $204,000 per family of 4 and increasing every minute.  We cannot afford 4 more years of this because we will be forever impoverished.

 

The president's vision, along with most of our recent presidents, is based on Keynesian economics.  Keynesian economics believes that the government can boost the economy by spending more during an economic downturn.  There are many problems with this, the most important one is that it has failed repeatedly.  This kind of thinking lead to Japan's "lost decade" and a worsening of the Great Depression.   One reason it doesn't work is that the money has to come from somewhere, either through higher taxes, or from the credit markets which puts us deeper in the hole.  The Keynesian approach is like taking water from one end of a swimming pool to fill up the other end.  All that is really accomplished is that government appropriates and misuses resources that could be better used by the free market.  Government spending also tends to enrich some people at the expense of everyone else.

 

Our government has been financing some of its excessive spending by printing money, which is a hidden inflation tax on you and me because it makes our money worth less.  It would be O.K. if the monetary supply were deflating, but the actual money supply has been wildly inflated by government policies. The government has been deliberately deceiving us about the real monetary inflation rate, so therefor we should expect major price inflation in the years ahead.

 

The Federal Reserve just announced that it is going to indefinitely spend $40 Billion per month to buy troubled assets in an effort to help the economy.  This is going to benefit banks, businesses, and people with large asset portfolio's, but we are the ones who are going to pay for it because they are buying the troubled assets with inflated money.  

 

 

A presidential race should be about the policies that the two candidates want to implement.  Instead, President Obama has tried to divert the discussion by attacking Romney for who he is, which is a wealthy businessman.  We have had wealthy businessmen as presidents before so it should not be a big deal.  But President Obama engages in these attacks because it is hard to run on his record or his policies, both of which are dismal.  This is the worst economic recovery since The Great Depression.


President Obama has tried to make tax rates an issue, but he disregards the fact that dividends are taxed twice.  We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which hurts business and hinders job growth.

 

President Obama says that we should not return to the policies that got us in the financial mess in the first place.  Which policies were those?  Democrats created Government Sponsored Enterprises nicknamed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that bought up 80% of the loans made in the United States and then sold these loans to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities that were touted as safe with the implied backing of the federal government.  These GSE's were championed by Democrat leaders like Barney Frank.  In addition, Democrats, primarily Jimmy Carter and later Bill Clinton, championed The Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to make loans to people who weren't credit worthy.  It is true that banks might not have cared about these bad loans because the GSE's bought them up, but the end result was a huge housing bubble and financial bust created solely by government interference in the market place.

 

We need to once again declare our independence from European style government, and from excessive wasteful government spending.  Our new Independence Day will be November 6th when the voters will decide that they have had enough and are ready for a change.  This could be the most important choice we will ever make.  The outcome of THIS election will determine the course of our country for the remainder of our lifetimes.  Let's not wait 4 more years to decide that we have made a mistake.  

 

 

If you want to make a difference, there is something that you can do right now that won't cost you anything.  You can forward this email to everyone you know.


Best wishes,

John Coffey

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Fwd: Mexico


'Mexico's government expressed concern that the US may cancel a 16-year-old agreement setting the price for its tomato exports, saying it will urge Washington not to opt for protectionist measures…

 

The existing bilateral pact is known as a "suspension agreement" because the Commerce Department in 1996 halted an anti-dumping investigation against Mexico and negotiated a minimum price for imports of Mexican tomatoes.

 

The US imported $8.5 billion worth of farm products from Mexico last year, more than from any other nation. Tomatoes accounted for nearly a quarter of the total.'

 

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/10/04/75--Mexico-urges-US-to-avoid-tomato-war-.html

 

Thursday, October 4, 2012

FW: Debate

Romney did not score a KO, but he had Obama on the ground and was kicking him in the ribs.

Obama sounded like a drunk in the bar that keeps saying the same thing over and over again.

You really just wish he would shut up and go away. I really like the part where Romney said

to Obama “you can’t just make up your own facts”. Who knows if it will really make a difference

in the election

 

Michael Roesner

 

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Why Capital Gains Taxes Are Lower - Investors.com

Business income is different from employees' income in another way. The profit that a business makes is first taxed as profit and the remainder is then taxed again as the incomes of people who receive dividends.


The biggest losers from politicians who jack up tax rates are likely to be people who are looking for jobs that will not be there, because investments will not be there to create the jobs.


Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/100112-627745-why-capital-gains-taxes-are-lower.htm#ixzz28AUPwvdC