A trillion here, a trillion there, why doesn't congress take a pay cut? nm
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-10
In Reply to: More from yesterday's debate - Backwards typist
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
How much is $1 trillion?
Million...billion...trillion. We get so used to hearing these words that they have no meaning. They even sound alike, so we forget how much larger a billion is than a million, and how much larger a trillion is than a billion.
Imagine that you're holding ten $1 bills in your hand. Lay them down on the table one at a time at a rate of $1 per second. 1...2...3...4...etc.
Okay, you've now just spent $10 in ten seconds. To spend $1 trillion at this rate would take you 32,000 years,laying down $1 every second of every day of every week of every year. Spending Obama's $3.75 trillion budget would take you 120,000 years.
Put another way, the first homo sapiens is thought by evolutionists to have appeared about 110-120,000 years ago. Personally, I don't think so, but let's say he did. If Mr. H.S. had discovered a pile of $3.75 trillion lying around, and if he and one of his descendants in every generation since then had spent the money at a rate of $1 per second, his descendant in the year 2009 could have handed the last dollar to Obama.
I've just received this news flash. The search for the H.S. descendant has failed. In his place, American taxpayers will hand our last dollar to Obama instead. Anyone who believes that tax increases are coming only for those who make $250,000 and up are deluding themselves. If nothing else, the prospect of raging inflation lies ahead, and we all pay sales taxes as a percentage of the price of everything we buy, so if the tax bill isn't in your annual return, it will come through the back door, down the chimney or some other way.
Agree with that but where is the other 3 trillion
Obama's social programs will need minimum of 3 trillion MORE to pay for all those government agencies, deep pockets to oversee all those government agencies, and then more government agencies to oversee those government agencies to make sure they are doing what they're supposed to be doing....yea, right, I'm not falling for it.
3.5 trillion dollars and that's a low ball estimate. where will it all come from after he brings our money back from Iraq? No one wants to address that.
He can't get that kind of money from the 5% rich he seems to have so much bitterness towards, so where will it come from?
This is nothing to celebrate, unless another trillion
nm
Or Obama's 3.5 trillion in taxes
xx
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion
(Okay. Everyone in Congress and the White House, empty your pockets.)
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion (Update1)
By Mark Pittman
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.
"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.
The Fed stepped into a rescue role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The central bank loans don't have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP.
Total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time Nov. 6. It rose by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion, in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA.
'Been Bamboozled'
Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."
Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn't receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.
On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.
In response to Bloomberg's request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing "an unprecedented crisis" in which "loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects."
Data Provider
The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.
While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as "IDC." One of the e-mails' subject lines refers to "Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008."
Brian Willinsky, a spokesman for Bedford, Massachusetts- based Interactive Data Corp., a seller of fixed-income securities information, declined to comment.
"Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure," Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed's Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.
'Dangerous Step'
"In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information," she wrote.
New York-based Citigroup Inc., which is shrinking its global workforce of 352,000 through asset sales and job cuts, is among the nine biggest banks receiving $125 billion in capital from the TARP since it was signed into law Oct. 3. More than 170 regional lenders are seeking an additional $74 billion.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg lawsuit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages.
'Right to Know'
"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
"It would really be a shame if we have to find this out 10 years from now after some really nasty class-action suit and our financial system has completely collapsed," she said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks that handed over collateral including stocks and subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site.
Borrowers include the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., the country's biggest bank by assets.
Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.
'Complete Truth'
"Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now."
The Bloomberg lawsuit said the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression."
In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret exemption could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers, said Bruce Johnson, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle. That expansion is not contained in the freedom-of-information law, Johnson said.
"I understand where they are coming from bureaucratically, but that means it's all the more necessary for taxpayers to know what exactly is going on because of all the money that is being hurled at the banking system," Johnson said.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;
Last Updated: December 12, 2008 11:35 EST
Like the 2002 Bush $1.3 trillion tax cut for the wealthy
decimated the $128 billion FY 2001 surplus, shifted the tax burden to the middle class while he went on a deficit spending spree and brought their ever diminishing numbers to their knees by September 2008? You want me to vote for the guy who backed up these policies 90% of the time, the same guy who has yet to utter the words "middle class" in a public forum during this entire campaign? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances on the change train.
Obama bailout up to just short of a trillion....
and he has been in office HOW long? lol. Doesn't count the billions we already spent. This is new spending. Talk about spending like a drunken sailor....lol. Hello democratic majority. LOL.
Correct....or the 3.5 trillion dollar social programs
@
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout...sm
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout
Obama and his staff receptive to ideas, Doyle says
By SCOTT BAUER • The Associated Press • January 3, 2009
MADISON — Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts.
Advertisement
The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team as well as congressional leaders.
They said that level of federal aid is needed to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and Washington, D.C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pegged at $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors' ideas.
"That's not to say they've told us this is what they'll do or they're with us all the way," Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation's governors.
Obama's aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.
A $1 trillion is equal to 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy's total output in a single year. A package of that size is likely to draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.
In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid.
The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.
"We aren't crying wolf," Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. "These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing."
Ohio's budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said.
A forecast from Global Insight shows that the economy hasn't hit bottom yet.
National economic growth is now expected to drop 1.8 percent this year, rather than increase 1 percent.
The U.S. labor market is expected to lose 3.7 million jobs during the downturn, with unemployment reaching 8.7 percent in the first half of 2010, it said.
That forecast assumes there will be a $550 billion federal stimulus package, roughly half of what the governors requested.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090103/GPG0101/901030590/1978
A trillion dollars being spent, 1100 pages
and the American people aren't allowed to look at it let alone the house and senate don't get time to read it? WTFrig is that all about?
Over a $10 trillion dollar deficit today? That didn't happen on O's watch.
Yes, they need to trim down a lot of the programs crammed in the current stimulus package. But I don't approve of McCain's, either. Giving the top 10% a tax break benefits NO ONE but the top 10%. They drink imported wines, buy designer clothes and travel to foreign destinations - how does that benefit the bulk of Americans? It takes $30,000 to $40,000 in gas just to fill up their yachts - who does that benefit? Not us. Instead of "screw the poor!" - how about "screw the rich!"
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
Well all the Dem congress can do...
is run pointless investigations and make absolutely ludicrous comments that like Pete Stark saying today on the house floor that all the President wants to do is send our sons and daughters to Iraq to get shot for his own entertainment. Mr. Stark and several other useless dems are the chimps, because they couldn't use crude tools much, much less legislate. They've proven that point quite well over the last 10 months.
Their majority is going to be fleeting if they keep this up, because even their own constituents are getting steamed at their lack of progress.
Congress
Actually the Congress should be smarter than to be snookered. They're snookered because they want to be. None of them are looking out for the American citizens. After all, would they give any of us billions of dollars in loans without knowing what we were going to do with the money? Think what they'd do if we borrowed money to buy a house and then spent the money on a posh vacation. We'd be in the federal pen is where we ordinary peons would be!!!
letter to Congress
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:59:37 -0800 (PST)
From: NT <nancyt1210@yahoo.com>
Subject: Open Letter to Congress from a Veteran and Military Dad
Stan Goff is Vietnam veteran and son served in Iraq. An Open
Letter to Congress from a Veteran and Military Dad On Power By STAN
GOFF, Dec. 2, 2005
(Disclaiming in advance for the rare exceptions in Congress)
If there is one thing we can always count on, it's politicians who
walk over human corpses to show fear only in the face of something as
formless and abstract as an opinion poll. Many of us in the veterans and
military families antiwar movement are well-versed on so-called
realism--and that deference we are supposed to exercise when we approach
elected officials, hat in hand, for a few crumbs of your attention and
support.
We understand power very well.
You are fighting each other for your careers, and you are retaining
your power over us through distance and guile, and trying to promote
that power by pretending you are hearing our concerns. But we have more
than concerns at stake here.
It is because we understand power that we haven't the slightest
intention of allowing ourselves to be used to promote your careers past the
2006 elections. If you fail to demand US withdrawal now, you are
supporting the war; and if you support the war, as far as we are concerned,
you can go straight to hell in 2006.
It is because we understand power that we are not going to forgive
and forget that when the war fever was up, fed by the lies of
Republicans, the war was facilitated by the eager xenophobic complicity of most
Democrats, and by the slavish obedience of the corporate press. Most of
you not only co-signed what you knew to be an illegal invasion--you have
continued to sign the checks to perpetuate the war.
You wanted to be lied to about the war, because the polls supported
the war, and you were sniffing the political air.
It is because we understand power that we know that most of you did
this out of craven opportunism and a concern for your political
ambitions--knowing full well that no one you loved was likely to be sent home
without a limb, without an eye, without a life.
It is because we understand power that we know how cynically cavalier
you are with the lives of others, and how narcissistically
self-promoting.
It is because we understand power that we understand why many of you
are backpedaling in your support for the war. You are maneuvering to be
critical of the war. You demand the administration provide an
effective exit strategy. And you haven't said a goddamned substantive
thing, as the cameras shutter away for you. And you want us to play
along--so you can beat Republicans without taking a single real position. You
don't want to stop this war. You want to win an election. By the time
you win that election, another thousand troops and another 20,000 Iraqis
could be dead. We do not calculate time the way you do.
It is because we understand power that we know most of you will stand
by while those of us with less privilege see our loved ones sent to
kill and die. The real corpses produced by the exercise of power are no
more to you than a political calculation.
We understand power, because we know what really stands behind it.
Power is embodied in the mounted cops you use to police our protests.
Power is expressed by the armed guards for your gated communities. Power
is the ability to kill and maim and get away with it, even if you dress
it up in $5,000 suits and trot it out on the talk-show circuit, on
C-Span, in your interviews with CNN.
Power is projected onto other peoples using your Cruise missiles and
A-10s and Bradley fighting vehicles and the people who join the
military. And the price of that power doesn't merely come from our pockets. We
probably wouldn't fight you about how you rob us for your pork barrel
defense contracts. The price that has us in motion right now--you really
must understand this, because it means we will never back off--is
exacted on the bodies of human beings.
The price is exacted with mortars, with IEDs, with high powered rifle
ammunition, with bombs, with the same A-10s and Bradleys; and it is
exacted on the bodies of our loved ones and the loved ones of the Iraqi
people.
That's why we are not going to grant you the power to manipulate us,
to contain us, to corral us, or to pimp our grief over this war and its
costs on behalf of your political careers or the needs of a political
party. That's why were are going to be rudely explicit when we say that
your bombast against the Bush administration--as if they did this
without your help--in calling for a more effective exit strategy and
demanding that people merely think about a plan for withdrawal from Iraq
that will take months or years this verbiage is meaningless and
manipulative. We will never stand for studying a withdrawal, for phasing a
withdrawal, for delaying a withdrawal, for setting conditions for a
withdrawal, or for partial withdrawal. Never.
Our demand from the beginning remains unchanged. It is for
withdrawal, and for immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal; and if
political careers go up in smoke as a consequence, we do not give a good
goddamn. People are dying in Iraq as a direct result of this war every
single day. Go back to your fucking law offices and let our children live.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial
withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while those military sedans
continue to roll up in front of people's houses to announce the extinction
of a human being to his or her family and while the bodies are dropped
into the fresh graves at the cemeteries of Iraq.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial
withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the poisons accumulate in
the soil and water and food of Iraq, and in the bodies of Iraqis and
occupation troops.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial
withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the hospitals fill up
with the lamed, maimed, blinded, and disfigured.
Gradual, phased, planned, strategized, conditioned, delayed, partial
withdrawals get implemented, if at all, while the grief and horror
associated with this criminal war become the daily emotional fare of more
and more people, occupation forces and Iraqis.
No member of Congress has the moral right to dither on the question
of his or her precious career while a single constituent is facing the
fear of that devastating knock on the door. We say the emperor has no
clothes; and we say we know you when you feign concern with your eye
fixed firmly on your ambition.
An exit is not a strategy. An exit is a command.
If the commander in chief won't give that command, then you in
Congress--if you want to salvage anything that looks vaguely like a
conscience or a soul--will refuse to grant this administration another penny to
continue this war. We are not hearing you when you tap dance about
political realism. The mounting mass of corpses, that you have walked
over every time you voted a cent to continue this war, is about as real as
it gets. Don't you dare ever lecture military families and veterans
about realism. And don't you doubt that we understand power.
You may think you can respond to your careerist concerns in the face
of reversing polls. You may think you can pretend to do something, that
you can bewilder us into accepting half a loaf better than none.
To the tiny handful of you in Congress who have said what we say,
Out Now!, we commend you and thank you for your principled voices.
To those of you who are openly supporting this criminal
administration, we'll see you in the street, and history will consign your names to
the chapters about imperial bullying, comb-over machismo, and cognitive
mediocrity.
To those of you who call for half measures, phases, and strategies,
you are directly in front of us now. You are standing directly in our
path, and we are not going to go around you.
We are not going to commend you on being better than the
reactionaries.
We are not going to thank you for our half a loaf.
We are not going to try and give you the political cover you need to
wiggle around those shifting opinion polls while you salvage your
careers.
We do not love you. We find your ambivalence contemptible.
We love the people who are facing the real consequences of this war
while you schmooze your way through the chicken-salad circuits of
imperial power, nattering on about realism and phases and strategies.
You will not divert our attention away from you. You will redirect
neither our anger nor our will away from you. It is you who are standing
directly in our way; and every time you try to dicker about people's
lives with us like we are in street market, every time you try to pimp
our outrage at this crime, as a mere concern that only you are entitled
to address with your careerist half-measures, we will call you to
account. We will embarrass you. We will shine a spotlight on your cowardice,
your opportunism, and your grotesque cynical hypocrisy.
November 2006 is not an election to us; it is a body count. If you
think you can take us for granted over an election, think again.
Get it right, because we have never wavered on our position. The mass
of American society is moving toward us, not you. They are listening
more and more to us, and less and less to you. We are about saving lives,
not saving face. So get it right, and get it right fast. We are looking
at your political house with an eye to pulling it down.
We understand power very well.
Stan Goff is the author of Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the
US Invasion of Haiti (Soft Skull Press, 2000), Full Spectrum
Disorder (Soft Skull Press, 2003) and Sex & War which will be released
approximately December, 2005. He is retired from the United States Army. His
blog is at www.stangoff.com.
Goff can be reached at: sherrynstan@igc.org
Yep, the dems in congress won't do anything
until they have a dem as president. They know if they do something positive, such as helping us with our oil/energy problem, Bush will get the credit and they won't stand for that.
That is the facts people and it is so unbelievably ridiculous that these people who we vote in and pay 6-figure salaries to won't do their job. It's a huge joke and it scares the crap out of me.
Because he will likely have a majority in Congress....
and THAT is how you get things passed.
We have only had a dem congress for 18 months. nm
.
You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
Bush does what he wants regardless of the Congress, BUT..
...this is the SECOND time he snookered Congress: First with his Chicken Little rush to hurry up and go to war with Iraq (which most of us were stupid enough to buy hook, line and sinker, myself included).
Now the economic "crisis" that required us to hurry up and give more money to reward the Wall Street crooks who have already stolen from us WITH THE EXPRESS CONDITION that there be no oversight, that we simply hand the money over to former Wall Street guru Paulson (wink wink) and let him and Bush figure out (wink wink) with no questions asked regarding the identity of the recipients. (Apparently, they are changing the rules as they go along, as we saw today regarding where the money is going.)
If you REALLY want to get your blood boiling, read the following two articles. Seems everyone who is a decision-maker in the administration regarding this whole fiasco is a former employee of one of the failed companies.
Bush has always held America and Americans in contempt. I now hold Congress in contempt and place the blame squarely on them for being stupid enough to believe Bush again.
Fed loans to AIG make Paulson's previous employer rich
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=335924
---
And just last week, the Federal Reserve hired a BEAR STEARNS reject.
Federal Reserve Hires Bear Stearns Fox to Fix the Hen House
November 6, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com Another sign the economic system cannot be fixed.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5646.3994.0.0
Congress should tell him to sell the jet!
sale of the jet would provide about 15% of the bailout money they are asking for. okay, not sure of that percentage as my math skills are sorely lacking but either way common sense is most definitely lacking.
CONgress - that's funny -nm
x
Congress looks at Big 3 plans...... sm
Congress has looked at the Big 3's plans to cut costs in order to "qualify" for a bailout, the amount of which has now grown to $34B. Nancy Pelosi seems to be in favor, so my bet is they will get it.
Some of the concessions the auto makers are ready to make is slashing the executive pay, getting rid of executive bonuses, postponing employee merit raises for next year, suspending health care payments into a union health care plan, and possibly getting rid of the controversial job banks.
Ford said they only wanted a standby line of credit with the government in case the other two go belly up. GM seems to be the one hurting the most.
I really have to wonder, will a bailout REALLY help or will it just postpone the inevitable with the rest of the economy dying the way it is???? 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97737508&ft=1&f=1001
At least Congress is looking at something. The Bush
administration has blocked any kind of transparency and refuses to be acountable to the American citizens who are funding the Wall Street giant giveaway.
The General Accounting Office says the Wall Street bailout isn't being policed properly:
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers want the Treasury to do a better job of insisting that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.
In the first comprehensive review of the rescue package, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has no mechanisms to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions.
"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The auditors acknowledged that the program, created Oct. 3 to help stabilize a rapidly faltering banking system, was less than 60 days old and has been adjusting to an evolving mission.
But auditors recommended that Treasury work with government bank regulators to determine whether the activities of financial institutions that receive the money are meeting their purpose.
In a response to the GAO, Neel Kashkari, who heads the department's Office of Financial Stability, said the agency was developing its own compliance program and indicated that it disagreed with the need to work with regulators.
Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/the-bailout-isnt-being-po_n_147982.html
P.S. Neel Kashkari, formerly of Goldman Sachs (a/k/a the fox guarding the hen house), just recently got his job. His bio:
http://www.ustreas.gov/organization/bios/kashkari-e.html
I agree. The ones in congress who think it is okay
I do NOT want to fund this crap, but I am sure maybe some of the 25 in the stimulus might be okay, but then again MAYBE NOT. IF and ONLY IF some of the 25 others parts mentioned in the stimulus were okay, then I agree to add on later, but NOT NOW.
Control of Congress???
If you don't know what you are talking about - maybe you should venture to a safer topic, like, I don't know, knitting? Bush vetoed and obstructed the Dems at every turn (do you read?). Just like right now - the pubs are obstructing and delaying at every turn. Same old games just a different President. Obama is getting a crash course in "Politics as Usual." He may have been woefully mistaken in believing the 2 parties could work together. Won't happen. The pubs will trumpet their BS and obstruct everything they can all in the name of trying to exert their power. They don't give a rats about what happens to the American people. They really don't. They want to keep big corporations and banks in power - not We The People. Do you really think they care if people stay in their houses or not? NO. The problem is all these banks with empty houses they can't sell. Gotta save the mortgage companies and Banks - screw the people. There will be some kind of bendover in the new mortgage contracts with lower interest - watch and see. WHAM! It'll hit those people right between the eyes just when they thought things were going good, that is, if the economy turns around - which I doubt. Not enough cooperation.
Yeah! Joe for Congress. He's my guy!
x
And it is usually Congress that prevents
them from pursuing their promises.....
How could he VOTE when he isn't in congress?
duh
In Congress We Trust....NOT
SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not
The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security
Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...
Posted By Sibel Edmonds On 4th May 2009 @ 13:41 In Dennis Hastert, NSA, National Security, Mainstream Media Failure, Accountability, U.S. House, FBI, Henry Waxman, U.S. Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Legacy, Jane Harman | 54 Comments
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds
I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."
The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results [1] highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.
The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations [2] regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.
Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...
Hastert Redux
I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article [3], which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.
Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported [4] that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'
In a recent article [5] for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."
And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"
Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.
I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal [6], to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal [7]; from his 'Land Deal' scandal [8] - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal [9].
All for One, One for All?
How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.
Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:
In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF [10], where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.
I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.
In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'
What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit [11] of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.
And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.
This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'
Rotten at its Core
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.
Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported [12], albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped [13] by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.
Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.
Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'
We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'
But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.
Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.
As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.
And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas [14] they are serving as a mouthpiece for.
Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.
Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.
Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.
I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.
These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.
Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers
==
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes [15], a detailed feature in Vanity Fair [16] and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG [17]. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. [18]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com
URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117
URLs in this post:
[1] results: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p...uspo.html.com/
[2] revelations: http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
[3] article: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[4] reported: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...r-turkey-2009-
04-10.html
[5] article: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00016/
[6] scandal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...l_officia.html
[7] scandal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...son/index.html
[8] scandal: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1740900.shtml
[9] scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/wa....html?_r=2&hp
8;ex=1160020800&en=a3fbb0550d8f4163&ei=5094&partne r=homepage
[10] SCIF: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=55745,00.asp
[11] FBI's pursuit: http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/PressRelease-March5-07.htm
[12] reported: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...549069,00.html
[13] dropped: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_dropped.html
[14] agendas: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/articl...orter-goss-fin
ger-jane-harman
[15] lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in526954.shtml
[16] feature in Vanity Fair: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[17] articles here at The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=58
[18] National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.: http://nswb.org
a pick-me-up for Congress???
you're kidding right?? Pick them up from what? all the hard work they have been doing finding new ways to spend our money??
My congress person is
Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH - and yet another d*mned lawyer) who is a ''freshman.'' She has spent the last 20+ years with her face in the public trough: school board, county commissioner, has run for this and that (treasurer, etc.) lost a very close congressional election in 2006 (absentee votes gave her opponent the edge) and finally the party decided it was her turn to go to Washington in 2008.
She is all over local radio today selling the ''larger issue'' of energy independence that Cap & Trade will guarantee. Riiight. I have e-mailed and faxed her offices all week but I doubt there is much point, since her yes-vote is the bag. Still, gotta try. She will not have the excuse that she thought she was serving her constituents by following the party line.
Ahem...that was due to what was done in Congress during those years....
and you should really give credit where credit was due...there was a Republican majority in congress during most of Clinton's years as President and THAT is where all the changes are made, friend...in CONGRESS. So, on behalf of the Republican majority congress during the Clinton years, THANK YOU SO MUCH for endorsing the job they did, but please to give them the credit along with Mr. Clinton for all those years of prosperity you enjoyed.
I really love the way you paint it with such a broad brush...like Bush in and of himself could do any of those things. One man CAN'T. Congress is in the driver's seat. And the sound bite of most of the world not dependent on our good will hate us. And who would that be? France? They have ALWAYS hated us. It started right after we liberated their country during World War II and they immediately told us to get out. Yeah, the French, they loved us. Russia? Yeah, they realllyyy loved us. China? Wellll, they certainly loved Bill and Hill and the offshoring they did...google them and China some time for a real eye opener. Canada? Yeah they hate us, until they need to come here for medical care they can't get in their own country because of socialized medicine. Exactly what countries loved us before Bush and hate us now?
If you really want it back like it was in Bill's time, let's elect a Republican Congress. You will have it back then. And it really doesn't matter as much who is President...it matters who has the majority in Congress. And what pray tell has the Democratic majority done since they have been in office? Zip, zilch, nada as far as I can see. All those promises they made? Not one have they met. Why are you not posting about that?
credit to the repub congress
Are you KIDDING me? They shut down the government in a tiffy fit. They fought him tooth and nail on everything. They spent countless time and money trying to impeach him. You need to get a library card an USE it, girlfriend.
If you are talking about the war debt, your congress did...
when they voted to go to Iraq. Would not have passed without Dems' support as well.
Who controlled congress until 2007 whenever
Which side of congress voted down any suggestion of setting time limits or considering troop withdrawals. Which candidate voted against the war 5 years ago? Which candidate brought a timetable for troop withdawal up for consideration in February 2007? Who lobbied to defeat that initiative? Which party is now trying to highjack that same initiative and take credit for it in an election year? Simple questions. Direct answers, please.
Hasn't McCain only been in Congress also?
What executive experience does he have? From your answer, Palin seems more qualified than McCain even.
So did the majority of Congress, Dem and Repub...
or nothing would have passed. Sheesh. You act like McCain passed every bill all by his lonesome. Let's be real here.
I agree, but congress will never let Obama
do everything he wants to do anyway. They never do for any president. When they do agree on something, congress will always have something in it for them or their interests and the middle class pays out nose for it.
Well, he ain't alone.......congress full of money
xx
Letter to Congress re the bailout. sm
The bailout has stalled. Please contact your reps and tell them NO to the bailout. Phone calls, emails, and letters are having an impact. People have already lost their homes and jobs. According to experts in economics, this is going to cause inflation to soar and a depression.
Letter below is from someone who is on the verge of losing their home, and gave permission to copy it.
Almost 300 years ago the founders of this country believed in freedom and liberty so much that they risked everything—their property, prosperity, comfort, honor, and even their very lives—on the near impossible gamble of taking on the world’s greatest superpower, at that time, to win the liberty that we enjoy today. That example has inspired Americans through the ages until the present day to reach for greatness despite the presence of risk and uncertainty. Against these dangers the intrepid push forward, knowing the price of failure, yet never succumbing to fear because our system is so robust in its scope that failure can be overcome and the rewards of hard work eventually achieved. In these troubled financial times, we are tempted by fear to shy away from the responsibility that liberty requires and instead hearken to the safety net of socialism. George Washington and his men had no safety net. The price of failure for them was certain death.
More money can always be made, but once we give up our freedom for socialism we can only buy it back with blood and death. CongressPerson, that is too high a price for the rescue of a few banks that should have known better. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. Let the markets buy up their assets and redistribute them as only a free market can. Bring back sound money and the value backed currency the Constitution requires. Stop the central bankers at the Federal Reserve from ruining our country. There will be some pain, just like there was in the winter at Valley Forge, but in the spring, the economy will thrive again just as did the army that won our freedom.
I call on you now CongressPerson to fight for our freedom. Fight with all your might and strength the way our troopers did at Cowpens. Do not surrender. Do not sell us out. Fight for us and our liberty CongressPerson, as if we were about to lose it…because we are.
RJH
Norman, OK
PS I am a homeowner in distress. I stand to avoid the specter of foreclosure if you pass the bailout…but PLEASE DON’T PASS IT! I would rather lose my house than see America lose her freedom. In time I can buy another house.
Dems are in control in Congress
If you're looking for someone to blame, you're going to have a short walk to the nearest mirror for voting those boys into power.
Should Congress be Perp-Walked (of course!)
This is a very reputable place to go for news (cousin to wnd.com).
What kind of msg are those younger than us learning from this? Easy: that socialism is the answer. That should scare the krud outta everyone.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307667278225125
Members of Congress get the best healthcare that...sm
money can buy by the U.S. government and Obama wants us to have it too.
I think he incumbent party AND Congress
it is very important that you vote. If nothing else, you can examine your incumbent's voting record and see what you think. Here's a really good site I use:
http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm
Since the democrats in Congress took over 2 years
nm
but Democrats control congress.
Did you miss that?
He knows DC, knows how to get results, Congress, Senate,
Yeah. Sounds like a real scary threat. Do qualified, highly skilled and immensely experienced people such as this always intimidate you so?
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
|
