Nearly 40 million people lived in poverty in the United States last year as the recession forced the first significant rise in the US poverty rate in five years, the US Census Bureau said in a report Thursday.

The official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, according to the Census Bureau’s annual “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States” report.

The rise marked the first time since 2004, when the poverty rate climbed from 12.5 percent to 12.7 percent, that the percentage measure of US poor rose significantly, said David Johnson, head of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division at the Census Bureau.

“2008 represented a period that was entirely within the recessionary period, which started in December 2007, so I think everyone expected an increase in the poverty rate,” he said.

The number of Americans who lived in poverty also rose last year, from 37.3 million people in 2007 to 39.8 million people in 2008, “a level that is similar to other high levels we have experienced, in 1993 and 1960,” said Johnson.

In the United States, a person or family is considered poor if their income is less than the poverty threshold for their size of household.

The poverty threshold for one person in 2008 was just under 11,000 dollars, and for a family of four was 22,025 dollars.

Related Posts:

• GE: 10,000 applications for 90 factory jobs
• Police stop more than 1 million people on street

Marcy Newman, body on the line

August 30, 2009 jordan flaherty, who is one of my favorite journalists has covered, and continues to cover, the man-made disaster that is new orleans after hurricane katrina has a new article marking the four year anniversary, which details the ongoing state of homelessness in new orleans in black agenda report: Crawling through a hole in a fence and walking through an open doorway, Shamus Rohn and Mike Miller lead the way into an abandoned Midcity hospital. They are outreach workers for the New Orleans organization UNITY for the Homeless, and they do this all day long; searching empty houses and buildings for people, so they can offer services and support. “We joke about having turned criminal trespass into a fulltime job,” says Rohn. Up a darkened stairway and through the detritus of a thoroughly scavenged building, Rohn and Miller enter a sundrenched room. Inside is Michael Palmer, a 57-year-old white former construction worker and merchant seaman who has made a home here. Palmer – his friends call him Mickey – is in some ways lucky. He found a room with a door that locks. He salvaged some furniture from other parts of the hospital, so he has a bed, a couch, and a rug. Best of all, he has a fourth-floor room with a balcony. “Of all the homeless,” he says, “I probably have the best view.” Mickey has lived here for six months. He’s been homeless since shortly after Katrina, and this is by far the best place he’s stayed in that time. “I’ve lived on the street,” he says. “I’ve slept in a cardboard box.” He is a proud man, thin and muscled with a fresh shave, clean clothes and a trim mustache. He credits a nearby church, which lets him shave and shower. But Palmer would like to be able to pay rent again. “My apartment was around $450. I could afford $450. I can’t afford $700 or $800 and that’s what the places have gone up to.” Keeping himself together, well-dressed and fresh, Mickey is trying to go back to the life he had. “I have never lived on the dole of the state,” he says proudly. “I’ve never been on welfare, never collected food stamps.” Palmer rented an apartment before Katrina. He did repairs and construction. “I had my own business,” he says. “I had a pickup truck with all my tools, and all that went under water.” Palmer is one of thousands of homeless people living in New Orleans’ storm damaged and abandoned homes and buildings. Four years after Katrina, recovery and rebuilding has come slow to this city, and there are many boarded-up homes to choose from. The Greater New Orleans Community Data Center counts 65,888 abandoned residential addresses in New Orleans, and this number doesn’t include any of the many non-residential buildings, like the hospital Mickey stays in. Overall, about a third of the addresses in the city are vacant or abandoned, the highest rate in the nation. UNITY for the Homeless is the only organization surveying these spaces, and Miller and Rohn are the only fulltime staff on the project. They have surveyed 1,330 buildings – a small fraction of the total number of empty structures. Of those, 564 were unsecured. Nearly 40% of them showed signs of use, including a total of 270 bedrolls or mattresses. Using conservative estimates, UNITY estimates at least 6,000 squatters, and a total of about 11,000 homeless individuals in the city. UNITY workers have also found that not all people living in New Orleans’ abandoned homes are squatters. In the last three months alone, they have found nine homeowners living in their own toxic, flood-damaged, often completely unrepaired homes. These are people living in buildings – identified as abandoned and not fit for human habitation – that they (or extended family members) actually own, but cannot afford to repair. The abandoned building dwellers they’ve found are generally older than the overall homeless population, with high rates of disability and illness. The average age of folks they have found is 45, and the oldest was 90. Over 70% report or show signs of psychiatric disorders, and 42% show signs of disabling medical illnesses and problems. Disabling means “people that are facing death if not treated properly,” clarifies Rohn. “We’re not talking about something like high blood pressure.” flaherty also recently traveled to gaza with a delegation from new orleans and here is one of their recent video documentaries about palestinian political prisoners from gaza (and who also imprisoned in gaza):

Link: bodyontheline.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/homeless-in-new-orleans-prisoners-in-gaza/

Related Posts:

• A Video Which Israel Does Not Want You See

Source

NEW YORK — New York City is buying one-way plane tickets for homeless families to leave the city and head to Georgia or anywhere else they want to go. It’s part of a Bloomberg administration program to keep the homeless out of the expensive shelter system, which costs $36,000 a year per family. More than 550 families have left the city since 2007. All it takes is for a relative to agree to take them in. The city employs a travel agency for domestic travel and the Department of Homeless Services handles international travel. City officials say there are no limits on where a family can be sent and families can reject the offer. Families have been sent to 24 states and five continents, mostly to Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas and Puerto Rico.At least one family picked Paris, France and New York paid $6,332 for their tickets. Another flew to Johannesburg, South Africa, with the city picking up the tab for the $2,550 tickets. City officials say none of the relocated families have returned to city shelters.

Related Posts:

• End “The Fed Scam” Now!
• U.S. kids aren’t going to Israel just to live on a kibbutz these days—some of these are willing to take on the Israeli military in the West Bank
• A cold start to fall: over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set in the USA this last week
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level

Humanity will achieve the dubious distinction this year of having more than 1 billion members of its species living in hunger for the first time in history.

The number of undernourished is estimated to soar by about 100 million over last year, to 1.02 billion, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

The 11 percent surge in the world’s hungry is primarily a product of the global economic crisis, combined with persistently high food prices. World economic output is expected to decline by more than 3 percent this year—the first global contraction since the Second World War. The economic crisis, the FAO notes, “has reduced incomes and employment opportunities of the poor and significantly lowered their access to food.”

The world’s hungry are concentrated in Asia and the Pacific (642 million), Sub-Saharan Africa (265 million), Latin America and the Caribbean (53 million), and the Near East and North Africa (42 million). Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest concentration of hungry, while the Middle East and North Africa saw the most rapid growth in the number of hungry people (13.5 percent).

The agency’s definition of hunger is based on the number of calories consumed. Depending on the relative age and gender ratios of a given country, the cutoff varies between 1,600 and 2,000 calories a day.

It is likely the FAO figures significantly underestimate the number of people suffering from hunger. A study published earlier this year found that 12 million children are at risk of inadequate food in the United States (see, “US: 12 million children face hunger and food insecurity”). FAO figures estimate the total number of hungry people in the entire “developed world” (including the US and Europe) at 15 million.

According to the FAO, the growth of hunger is not the result of a decline in food production. Cereal production, for example, will only slightly decrease this year from 2008. Instead, “the poor are less able to purchase food, especially where prices on domestic markets are still stubbornly high…. At the end of 2008, domestic staple foods still cost on average 24 percent more in real terms than two years earlier; a finding that was true across a range of important foodstuffs.”

In other words, the sharp growth in hunger is due not to a lack of capacity, although global food production could be significantly increased given a rational and scientific allocation of agricultural resources. Instead, the rise in social misery results from the fact that millions more people are now unable to afford the most basic necessities.

The FAO highlights three aspects of the present crisis that make it particularly severe. First, it follows the rapid growth in food prices in the years 2006-2008. This bubble was driven in part by speculative activities of investors pouring money into commodities as the financial crisis developed. This preceding surge in prices eroded any buffer created by households to cope with economic shocks (see figure).

Second, the crisis is global. The FAO notes, “When economic crises are confined to individual countries, or several countries in a particular region, governments can make recourse to instruments such as currency devaluation, borrowing or increased use of official assistance to face the effects of the crisis.”

Third, poorer countries are “more financially and commercially integrated into the world economy” and are therefore “far more exposed to changes in international markets.” They are highly susceptible to rapid changes in global demand or supply and credit restrictions.

Another related factor not mentioned by the FAO has been the way in which the US government has monopolized credit markets to fund its multi-trillion-dollar bank bailouts, exploiting the privileged position of the American dollar to do so. Poorer countries do not have this privilege and are facing higher borrowing costs as a consequence.

The FAO takes note of the growth in interest rates for debt to “developing countries” along with the complete absence of available credit for some nations. The economic crisis has led to other rapid shifts in capital markets, including the drying up of foreign direct investment.

Many poorer countries are seeing a sharp decline in remittances from migrants, by 5 to 8 percent. The FAO notes: “What is more, remittances have usually been resistant to shocks and often even increased during economic crises in recipient countries. The countercyclical effect of these transfers is unlikely to happen this time due to the global dimension of the current recession.”

The FAO also expects foreign aid to drop by 25 percent to the poorest 71 countries. Total official development assistance (ODA) aid from all countries has been about $100 billion a year—as compared to bank bailouts running in the trillions and a US military budget of more than $500 billion.

Countries that rely on exports have been particularly hard hit by the economic crisis, and world trade is anticipated to fall between 5 and 9 percent this year.

The implications of the rapid deterioration of the global economy and the consequent decline in living standards for millions of people were not lost on UN officials. Dr. Jacques Diouf, director-general of the FAO, commented: “The silent hunger crisis…poses a serious risk for world peace and security.” Josette Sheeran of the World Food Program noted, “A hungry world is a dangerous world.”

Many commentators pointed to the possibility of a repeat of the food riots that broke out in 2008. Earlier this year, the G8 countries met to discuss the global “food emergency.” Little emerged from the conference save a mutually expressed concern about the danger of social upheaval and revolution.

Related Posts:

• Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened

Positive Affirmation of What I Already Know About the Hollowco$t

Brandon Dean
WizardofOswald.com
May 28th, 2009

the remains of ethnic German victims of the Polish pogroms before WWII. if you don’t know what that means, LOOK IT UP.

*

One of the people I work with is a kid about 20, who’s grown up living in his German grandparents’ house. His grandparents were alive during WWII, and the old lady who lives in their front house (also German) was an adult during the war.

When he was 15, this kid I work with (let’s call him Adrian) got in a huge fight with the “crazy” old lady in the front house, when she told him Hitler was not the devil, and that there was no holocaust. Adrian screamed at her and called her a nazi in his ignorant fury, and has not spoken to the lady in over five years, though he lives in the house behind her.

Last week, during work, I brought up the hollowco$t, and was explaining to everyone there how it is a big lie, and explaining why it was a big lie. To everyone’s credit, all present–by the end of about a ten minute explanation–were more than open to the idea, and interested in investigating this alleged farce.

Here’s the clincher: almost everyone I work with has Jewish “blood” to some degree, including me. My great grandmother was Jewish. Don’t worry, it’s not a conspiracy–almost everyone who grew up in Los Angeles has some Jewish blood in them it seems. Wait–maybe it is a conspiracy…

Anyhow, by the end of a couple hours of discussion, there were six people who had to know more. I’ve directed them to www.waronyou.com and my site, amongst others.

In any case, the next day Adrian came back to work with a wild-eyed look on his face. He pulled me aside, and in hushed tones, he told me how he couldn’t stop thinking about everything I had said, but that he was very skeptical of it. That night he asked his grandparents their opinion on the holohoax.

His grandmother immediately jumped up with a smile on her face (at the inquisitiveness and honesty of her grandson), and screamed “the holocaust never happened! they have lied to us about our people! Hitler…”

Then her husband, Adrian’s grandfather, interrupted her—”Stop!” he looked at Adrian and said “We don’t know anything about it. Don’t ever bring it up with us again.”

Then his grandfather stormed out of the room. After he left, Adrian’s grandmother leaned close to Adrian and said “Go talk to [the old lady in the front house]. She was there, and she saw what happened to our people.”

I am now waiting to hear the results of his conversation with the old lady in the front house. Understandably, Adrian must approach it delicately, given the fact that he screamed at her the last time he talked to her… And apparently, she’s very old now, and a tad crazy, but we’ll see…

We need to record the testimonies of the people who were there, before all of them are dead, and all we have to look at and listen to is the Jewish press.

FREE ERNST ZUNDL! FREE FREDRICK TOBEN!

FREE THE TRUTH!

copyright Brandon Dean 2009

Related Posts:

• Fractures in the Truth Movement, Part II
• List of Dead Scientists
• Fractures in the “Truth” Movement
• Did Hitler Betray Rudolf Hess?
• On Television and Radio, Talk of Obama’s Citizenship

Mises Daily by Mark Brandly | Posted on 5/26/2009 12:00:00 AM

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It’s now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program “remains challenging” and “need(s) to be addressed soon.” A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem.

Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people’s money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

As long as a lot of people die before collecting any benefits, or die without collecting many benefits, the system is financially sound. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. With people living longer, the worker to beneficiary ratio has fallen to 3.1-to-1 and within 20 years it’s expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. Due to this falling ratio, over the years the feds have raised tax rates and now must consider further adjustments.

Let’s look at the revenue side of things. Each worker’s income below about $106,800 is taxed at a 12.4 percent rate. There are no deductions for this tax. All income is taxable income. Even those in the lowest income brackets have roughly one-eighth of their income taken from them to fund the Social Security system.

Few workers, however, understand the tax burden of the Social Security system. On their paychecks, they see that 6.2 percent of their gross pay goes to pay for Social Security. What they don’t see is that employers match this tax payment with an equal 6.2 percent payment. It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that’s not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker’s gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers.

Currently, the Social Security Administration is running a budget surplus. For 2008, Social Security revenues totaled $805 billion and benefit payments and administrative costs were $625 billion, resulting in a surplus of $180 billion. Over the years, the system has run up an overall surplus totaling $2.4 trillion.

What has happened to this surplus? The SSA took in $180 billion more than it spent in 2008. However, the federal government spent this $180 billion on other programs. Since the funds were spent on something other than Social Security, the government declares that it loaned itself the $180 billion, calling such “lending” intragovernmental debt. For all Social Security revenues that are spent on non-Social Security programs, the Treasury department issues bonds to the SSA and those bonds are held in the Trust Fund. Surely we can have confidence in anything called a Trust Fund.

Think of this type of lending for a moment. The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it’s deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It’s the same with families. Parents don’t lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.

How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let’s say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes.

The interest on the bonds in the Trust Fund is another issue. In 2008, the SSA racked up $116 billion of interest payments on its $2.4 trillion of bonds, interest payments that were made in the form of more Treasury bonds for the Trust Fund. The government loans itself money and then issues bonds (read, higher taxes) to pay itself interest on that lending. This is not an insignificant amount. In the last ten years, the SSA has collected $754 billion of interest on its share of the intragovernmental debt.

Though the SSA is currently running a budget surplus, its financial position is rapidly deteriorating. With the glut of upcoming retirements, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling and Social Security spending is rising much fast than its revenue source. A year ago, the SSA estimated that the system would be solvent until 2017. Falling revenues due to the recession have resulted in a new estimate of 2016. At that point, the system will need additional tax revenues to be able to pay the promised benefits.

The Trustees Report declares that, starting in 2016, the “deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037.” This is sleight of hand. The actual day of reckoning is 2016, not 2037. By 2037, the Trust Fund will be depleted. But the Trust Fund is irrelevant. Regardless of the status of the Trust Fund, if the current estimates are correct, beginning in 2016, the system will need significant additional tax revenues.

The shortfall starts in 2016, but increases rapidly. According to the report, Social Security–tax income will only be able to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037.

The report calls for “an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two” to bring the system into actuarial balance.

$20 $17

Social Security: another legacy of FDR

Making the system sustainable will require higher taxes or benefits reductions. These reductions could be achieved by either reducing the benefits per recipient or reducing the number of beneficiaries — say, by raising the minimum age requirements. The solution is to give workers a negative rate of return on the money that is taken from them. It would also help if some workers collected no benefits at all. Workers who are taxed and then die before collecting any benefits are a boon to the system. Maybe the federal government should rethink its war on tobacco.

This system is a massive income-redistribution scheme, taking one-eighth of most workers’ incomes. The total tax burden is hidden from the workers. The tax revenues have been used to cover the deficits in the rest of the government’s budgets, and the only way to make the system sustainable is to give the participants a negative rate of return on their money.

The Social Security system has run its course. It’s unfair and it’s economically destructive. It’s time for the program to be abolished.

Mark Brandly is a professor of economics at Ferris State University and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Send him mail.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• America’s “Money Machine”
• Dollar Is Dirt, Treasuries Are Toast, AAA Is Gone
• US to borrow 46 cents for every dollar spent
• Nothing More Than Inflation, Voodoo Finance And Smoke And Mirrors

by Shannon Moriarty

Published February 10, 2009 @ 10:14AM PST

Last month, unemployment rates surged to 7.6 percent. As the jobless population becomes older and more educated, many are ending up with no car, no job prospects, no health insurance, and – before long – no home. Will the dramatic increase of unemployment change the face of homelessness in America?

According to data from the Labor Department, more jobs have been lost in the past 12 months than any other period since the government began keeping records in 1939. Perhaps most disconcerting is that experts predict unemployment will get worse before it gets better. In 1991 and 2001, unemployment didn’t hit its peak until two years after those recessions ended.

As unemployment becomes worse, community-based organizations are noticing a change in their clientele. Shelters are seeing clients who are more representative of the newly unemployed. Here’s what one non-profit, Partnering for Change, reported on their blog just last week:

In recent months we’ve noticed a change in the needs of our program feeding homeless children. I’ve mentioned, there are over 11,000 elementary age children in Orange County, CA who are homeless. They are homeless for different reasons. But here’s a scenario you wouldn’t think would take place:

Two able body parents in their early 30’s. He has a 4 year college degree in marketing, she went to a technical school in information technology. Both are smart with a willingness to work. They have 3 kids, ages 8, 5 and 2. But guess what, they are both unemployed….for 9 months now.

What would you do? When your unemployment runs out and no matter how hard you try, you can’t seem to get a job? How would you feed your family? How would provide shelter?

Unfortunately this family is representative of the new face of homelessness in our community. The college educated family forced to leave their rental home and bounce around from motel to motel with no money for food to feed their children.

Another organization in St. Louis, the St. Patrick Center, has adjusted it’s employment services to meet the needs of the newly unemployed white collar workforce. They have launched a networking and job training program to connect laid off workers with employment opportunities:

Officials at the St. Patrick Center said an obvious need in the region — with roughly 7,800 professional people laid off in the past four months — prompted the effort. Missouri’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate hit 7.3 percent in December, its highest mark in 25 years.

According to Business Week, over 200 suited professionals showed up for the first meeting.

Given that shelters and community safety nets are already grappling with shrinking budgets and increased demand, this economic outlook is downright scary.

[Photo from the Patriot-Ledger: "Father Bill's Place has seen a 25 percent increase in the numbers of homeless it serves since one year ago. Scott, 41, an unemployed laborer whose wife is also sheltered at Father Bill's walks to his bunk on the men's side of the shelter. On days that the temp dips below freezing, the homeless can stay in the shelter for the day."]

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• America’s “Money Machine”
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• Employers are Just Using the Recession to Stick it to Workers
• State Budget Troubles Worsen: 46 states are facing shortfalls

In the late Seventies and early Eighties, there was a punk band from England called Crass. The angriest, most rebellious thing I’d ever heard as a teenager was their song entitled “Don’t Tell Me You Care.” Applied to any atrocious act, it fits any of the times we’ve known well. Those of us born in the 1970’s have grown up in a world which constantly becomes more fake, more corrupt, and less inhabitable…

You shit-head slimy got it alls
You crap-eyed ghosts with greasy balls
You wicked matron stabbing hard,
Grabbing while the going’s good
Administrators vicious smile
Dancing on the body piles
Slipping your sly fingernails
Impaling flesh on battlefields
The decaying corpses help you up
To your position at the top

The last few weeks have shown not only the unbelievable contempt Israelis have for their Palestinian neighbors, but also the contempt they hold for the entire world. There are no doubt peaceful Israelis, but they are completely marginalized in the face of the Gazan Agenda.

The Gazan Agenda consists of one simple truth: Israel must destroy Gaza. They’ve planned to do it all along, and they still mean to. Their complicit American media will (and is) faithfully roll over on their backs in a supine gesture of gushing pleasure at being able to serve their powerful overseas masters.

You shit-head slimy want it alls
You bind the baby as it crawls
And crush its head, the soft new skull
Burst its brain and keep it dull.
You own its mind, you murderous thief
Grind it down with bloodied teeth
And feed it up with national pride…
Progress through self-sacrifice
Not for themselves, but you, you scab
You raid the bodies of the dead

We’ve known what Israel was about since the beginning: feigning victimhood to gain political support. I usually tacitly point out the difference between Judaism and Zionism, and there’s no time for a history lesson now, but here there is no need to point out that difference. The suffering Zionism has caused on Judaism is the same suffering Zionism has caused on the rest of humanity.

You shit-head slimy make it alls
With dead meat dripping as you walk
Don’t talk of justice or respect
You shit soaked armchair moralist…
What right is yours that others lives
Are yours to smash and kill and bind?
It’s your security that they bleed for
Your definitions that they die for
You stack your dead heroes with no more thought
Than some accountant at their work

It’s very easy to find articles in the alternative press nowadays written by folks who are no longer afraid to call a Jew a Jew. There are many researchers who believe Zionism is the material result of focused Judaism. But the simple fact is that there has been a Jewish Anti-Zionist movement since Zionism was created. Most Jews have no idea of the evil things written in the Talmud, and would be disgusted by its utter intolerance toward humanity.

You shit-head slimy got it alls
Crap-eyed ghosts were maggots crawl
Tired old jerk-offs with your bodyguards
Those muscle-pimps with forty-fives
You gutless automatic butchers
Bullet shitting dumbhead hookers
It’s your heartless failure they protect
While you deny the shame of your neglect
All you can see is your brutal success
And damn the dead and fear the mess

But let’s call a spade a spade: Israel has little to do with Judaism or any religion. There are fake Jews in Israel just like there are many fake Christians here in America, and there are probably fake Muslims in the Middle East; it just stands to reason…

But the utter inhumanity shown in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks is enough to make an old campaigner like myself puke in his suit. I’ve been following the atrocities of the New World Order for almost twenty years now, and I have not been this disgusted since the Waco Church was burned to the ground by the US BATF and FBI. All I can seem to muster is the words to the Crass song:

You shit-head greedy have it alls
You cheat and lie and jargonize
That your success is also ours
That what you take you take for us
While your ambition scrapes the living dry
And your solutions are archaic battle cries

You dead meat eyesore death pushers
Look elsewhere for your arselickers…
The face that stares back from the mirror
Reflects the reality of your horror!
So don’t tell me you care, shit-head
You betray the dead as you curse life
Eat you own shit leader of this nation…

…This is our World!!!

Copyright Brandon Dean 2009

Related Posts:

• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• The State of Israel: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, Part 1
• Propaganda is making the Truth Movement Totally Irrelevant
• The Kingdom of Lies
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days

25 Mountain House cases

Anxiety and bearish outlooks abound wherever one cares to look today. There’s precious little a concerned citizen can do in reaction to global forces spinning out of control. But we all do what we can. At Safecastle, we’re particularly happy to give our customers this holiday-season opportunity to become better positioned for what looks like rough times ahead.

The demand for gold has similarly erupted—Q3 of 2008 showed global sales 45% higher than the quarter before, which itself set the previous high-water mark.

Survival gear and emergency food producers are shipping product as fast as they can get it through their facilities and onto the loading docks. Using packaging technologies that deliver shelf lives measured in years and even decades, producers of storage food are experiencing unprecedented demand today for their products.

Victor Rantala, owner of the crisis preparedness company Safecastle LLC, said: “Our business volume this year will triple over last year, and most of this increased activity has come in the last 3-4 months.

“By far, our best seller right now is Mountain House freeze-dried food. It stores for more than 25 years, it’s easy to prepare, and it tastes great. Outdoorsmen and adventurers consider it a preferred staple. Our customers, those who are looking at a future that looks very uncertain, see it as a way to lock in today’s prices and to ensure a level of peace of mind that is hard to otherwise put a value on.”

In response to the overwhelming demand for storage food and strains on customers’ budgets, Safecastle is offering an end-of-the-year sale on Mountain House freeze dried food in cans—which offer the longest shelf life of any storage food on the market. All Mountain House cans are 25% off list and ship for free to the continental U.S.A. The sale is running at the Safecastle Royal Buyers Club from December 6 to December 19.

Said Rantala, “Anxiety and bearish outlooks abound wherever one cares to look today. There’s precious little a concerned citizen can do in reaction to global forces spinning out of control. But we all do what we can. At Safecastle, we’re particularly happy to give our customers this holiday-season opportunity to become better positioned for what looks like rough times ahead.”

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• Bailout for the People
• America’s “Money Machine”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008

In an incredulous display of ignorance symptomatic of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, CNBC anchors laughed their way through an interview with respected economist Peter Schiff yesterday as he attempted to explain how an Obama presidency would negatively impact the U.S. economy.

Erin Burnett and Mark Haines of CNBC’s Squawk on The Street persistently interrupted Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, barely allowing him to finish sentences or even complete thoughts as he sought to explain how ‘Obamanomics’ will not address the problems at the core of the crisis and will instead perpetuate them.

“If we have stronger Democratic control of congress, which certainly looks likely, I think that is going to make matters worse, because not only does it make it easier for Obama to get his agenda through, but it also makes it easier for the Congress to get their stuff through. There’s no checks and balances whatsoever.” Schiff explained.

“As an American I think it is a disaster. Not that I’m a big pro McCain supporter, I think McCain’s policies would also make the situation worse, but unfortunately, I think if we get Obama in there we get a much bigger mandate. When he comes into office, it’s going to be as if capitalism has been repudiated and the new mandate is that we need more government,” he continued.

“It wasn’t the free market, ” Schiff urged, referring to the cause of the economic crisis.

“Remember, if it wasn’t for the Federal Reserve, which is a government entity, keeping interest rates much too low, we never would have had a housing bubble, we never would have had a subprime market. If it wasn’t for Fannie and Freddie, which are creatures of government, we never would have had the moral hazard necessary to allow Americans to borrow more money than they can repay.” asserted Schiff, who served as an economic advisor to Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign earlier this year.

Schiff attempted to explain how returning the economy to the way it was a few years ago, as Obama has promised to do, is not feasible because it was based on a bubble of borrowing and spending vast amounts of money.

“Getting Americans spending and borrowing again, as Obama has urged, is not the cure, it is the disease… He’s going to try and create bigger government, borrow a lot more money from foreigners, and spend it on government programs designed to encourage even more consumption, and of course, he is going to raise taxes…” Schiff urged.

Schiff then had to explain once more that he was not endorsing McCain by criticizing Obama, much to the confusion of the anchors who clearly struggled to stretch their imaginations beyond a right-left political paradigm.

“What you’re proposing is never going to fly politically,” Mark Haines spluttered, underlining perfectly how neither candidate in this election is offering any real change, and only represents a continuation of the entrenched and failed system of big government intervention.

Switching gears to talk of investment, Erin Burnett then made perhaps the most inane statement possible for a financial journalist;

“Gold has no inerrant value, unlike oil which does. Gold only has any value in so far as I want to believe it has value.” she stated.

The fact that gold has maintained inerrant value since the dawn of civilization seems to have washed over Ms Burnett, who clearly believes that paper money, essentially an IOU based on the perception of its worth, is more valuable than a rare and precious metal.

Peter Schiff attempted to interject and explain that Burnett’s logic was totally backwards, that it is fiat money that only has value as long as you want to believe it has, but the anchor simply spoke over the top of him commenting “This is a fun conversation”.

“It’s provocative if nothing else.” added Haines dismissively.

Watch the full cringe inducing exchange:

Schiff has repeatedly warned that America is on the brink of a long and deep recession, the root causes of which are continually being touted as solutions by both Presidential candidates. To describe his warnings as “fun” is astoundingly twisted.

Schiff is well respected amongst the major financial publications, primarily due to the fact that almost three years ago he accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon come to bust, and also that the crisis would extend to the credit lending industry.

Perhaps if more people had listened to voices like his several years ago, instead of laughing at them, which as we have seen is still the case, then the economy would not be in such a dire mess today and we may have a presidential candidate who speaks of enacting change and actually means it.

Instead the so called free world is today lumbered with a choice of endorsing a phony messiah or a dead duck, both representative of the fortified and irradicable Washington elite punch and judy show.

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy

Around the world there is an increase in interest in our food, health and environment. Where are products produced, how, why, by whom, how far have they travelled, how long have they been stored etc. The organic and local food movements have emerged as an intuitive and practical response to the increasing use of chemicals in food production, and to the growing alienation of industrial agribusiness from holistic agricultural systems. People have chosen to eat organic foods because they care about the health of their families and the health of the environment. Organic agriculture also enables people to support integrated, environmentally friendly agriculture, and appropriate technology, rather than chemical-intensive factory farming.

Support for organics has also grown as a direct response to biotechnology giants’ efforts to genetically engineer our food crops. Farmers and food buyers around the world were, and continue to be, enraged by the introduction of genetically engineered food crops. For many, the inevitable conclusion was that whereas the biotechnology companies stood to benefit from the entry of genetically engineered foods into the food chain, consumers, farmers and the environment shouldered all the risks.

Now, nanotechnology introduces a new wave of assaults on our foods. Nanotechnology is the high technology, atomically processed antithesis to organic agriculture, which values the natural health-giving properties of fresh, unprocessed wholefoods. It further transforms the farm into an automated extension of the high technology factory production line, using patented products that will inevitably concentrate corporate control. It also introduces serious new risks for human health and the environment.

Introduction to nanotechnology – what is it, why is it different

Nanotechnology is a powerful new technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. Nanotechnology embodies the dream that scientists can remake the world from the atom up, using atomic level manipulation to transform and construct a wide range of new materials, devices, living organisms and technological systems.

Nanotechnology and nanoscience involve the study of phenomena and materials, and the manipulation of structures, devices and systems that exist at the nanoscale, <100 nanometres (nm) in size. To put 100nm in context: a strand of DNA is 2.5nm wide, a protein molecule is 5nm, a red blood cell 7,000 nm and a human hair is 80, 000 nm wide.

The properties of nanoparticles are not governed by the same physical laws as larger particles, but by quantum mechanics. The physical and chemical properties of nanoparticles – for example, colour, solubility, strength, chemical reactivity and toxicity – can therefore be quite different from those of larger particles of the same substance.

The altered properties of nanoparticles have created the possibility for many new profitable products and applications. Engineered nanoparticles are used in literally hundreds of products that are already available on supermarket shelves – including transparent sunscreens, light-diffracting cosmetics, penetration enhanced moisturisers, stain and odour repellent fabrics, dirt repellent coatings, long lasting paints and furniture varnishes, and even some food products.

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Centre for Technology Foresight has predicted that nanotechnology will revolutionise all aspects of our economy and all aspects of society, with associated large-scale social upheaval.

How will nanotechnology be used for food production and processing?

Industry analysts and proponents predict that nanotechnology will be used to transform food from the atom up: “Thanks to nanotechnology, tomorrow’s food will be designed by shaping molecules and atoms. Food will be wrapped in “smart” safety packaging that can detect spoilage or harmful contaminants. Future products will enhance and adjust their color, flavor, or nutrient content to accommodate each consumer’s taste or health needs. And in agriculture, nanotechnology promises to reduce pesticide use, improve plant and animal breeding, and create new nano-bioindustrial products” – or so states the US Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ recent report on the use of nanotechnology in food and agriculture (available at http://www.nanotechproject.org).

The food and agriculture industries have been investing billions of dollars into nanotechnology research, with an unknown number of unlabeled nano food products already on the market. In the absence of mandatory product labelling anywhere in the world, it is impossible to tell how many commercial food products now contain nano ingredients. The Helmut Kaiser Consultancy Group, a pro-nanotechnology analyst, suggests that there are now over 300 nano food products available on the market worldwide. It estimates that the global nano food market was worth US$5.3 billion in 2005 and will rise to US$20.4 billion by 2010. It predicts that nanotechnology will be used in 40% of the food industries by 2015.

There are four key focus areas for nanotechnology food research:
• Nano-modification of seed and fertilisers/ pesticides
• Food ‘fortification’ and modification
• Interactive ‘smart’ food
• ‘Smart’ packaging and food tracking

Nano-modification of seed and fertilisers/ pesticides

Proponents say that nanotechnology will be used to further automate the modern agribusiness unit. All farm inputs – seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and labour – will become increasingly technologically modified. Nanotechnology will take the genetic engineering of agriculture to the next level down – atomic engineering. Atomic engineering could enable the DNA of seeds to be rearranged in order to obtain different plant properties including colour, growth season, yield etc. Highly potent atomically engineered fertilisers and pesticides will be used to maintain plant growth. Nano-sensors will enable plant growth, pH levels, the presence of nutrients, moisture, pests or disease to be monitored from far away, significantly reducing the need for on-farm labour inputs. The concerned organisation, The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) warns in its seminal report “Down on the Farm” (available at http://www.etcgroup.org), in a nanotechnology shaped future, “the farm will be a wide area biofactory that can be monitored and managed from a laptop and food will be crafted from designer substances delivering nutrients efficiently to the body”.

Food ‘fortification’ and modification

Nanotech companies are working to fortify processed food with nano-encapsulated nutrients, its appearance and taste boosted by nano-developed colours, its fat and sugar content removed or disabled by nano-modification, and ‘mouth feel’ improved. Food ‘fortification’ will be used to increase the nutritional claims that can be made about a given processed food – for example the inclusion of ‘medically beneficial’ nano-capsules will soon enable chocolate chip cookies or hot chips to be marketed as health promoting or artery cleansing. Nanotechnology will also enable junk foods like ice cream and chocolate to be modified to reduce the amount of fats and sugars that the body can absorb. This could happen either by replacing some of the fats and sugars with other substances, or by using nanoparticles to prevent the body from digesting or absorbing these components of the food. In this way, the nano industry could market vitamin and fibre-fortified, fat and sugar-blocked junk food as health promoting and weight reducing.

Interactive ‘smart’ food

Companies such as Kraft and Nestlé are designing ‘smart’ foods that will interact with consumers to ‘personalise’ food, changing colour, flavour or nutrients on demand. Kraft is developing a clear tasteless drink that contains hundreds of flavours in latent nanocapsules. A domestic microwave could be used to trigger release of the colour, flavour, concentration and texture of the individual’s choice. ‘Smart’ foods could also sense when an individual was allergic to a food’s ingredients, and block the offending ingredient. Or alternatively, ‘smart’ packaging could release a dose of additional nutrients to those which it identifies as having special dietary needs, for example calcium molecules to people suffering from osteoporosis.

‘Smart’ packaging and food tracking

Nanotechnology will dramatically extend food shelf life. Mars Inc. already has a patent on an invisible, edible, nano wrapper which will envelope foods, preventing gas and moisture exchange. ‘Smart’ packaging (containing nano-sensors and anti-microbial activators) is being developed that will be capable of detecting food spoilage and releasing nano-anti-microbes to extend food shelf life, enabling supermarkets to keep food for even greater periods before its sale. Nano-sensors, embedded into food products as tiny chips that were invisible to the human eye, would also act as electronic barcodes. They would emit a signal that would allow food, including fresh food, to be tracked from paddock to factory to supermarket and beyond.

What are the key concerns about nanotechnology in food and agriculture?

Concerns about the use of nanotechnology in agriculture and food production relate to the further automation and alienation of food production, serious new toxicity risks for humans and the environment, and the further loss of privacy as nano surveillance tracks each step in the food chain. The failure of governments to introduce laws to protect the public and the environment from nanotechnology’s risks is a most serious concern.

Nanotechnology in agriculture is based on the premise that we can improve efficiency and productivity by rearranging atoms in seeds, by developing even more potent chemical inputs, by using high technology surveillance to allow electronic, rather than person-based surveillance of on-farm conditions, and by further automating inputs to plant growth. Applications of nanotechnology to food processing assume that humans can ‘improve’ the taste, texture, appearance, nutritional content and longevity of food by manipulating it at the atomic level. It has even been argued that this will result in food that is ‘safer’.

These assumptions are based on a flawed belief that humans can remake the natural world from the atom up – and get a better result. It assumes that we can predict the consequences of our actions, even when we are dealing with highly unpredictable processes and forces – such as quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, history tells us that we are simply not very good at predicting the outcomes of complex systems – witness the disasters that resulted from the introduction of biological controls such as the Cane Toad, or the introduction of rabbits and foxes for sport. History is similarly littered with examples of huge health and environmental problems that resulted from the failure to respond to early warning signs about previous perceived “wonder” materials such as CFCs, DDT and asbestos. This suggests that we should take the early warning signs associated with the toxicity of nanoparticles very seriously.

There is a small but growing body of toxicological literature that suggests that nanoparticles are more reactive, more mobile, and more likely than larger particles to be toxic to humans and the environment. Preliminary scientific research has shown that many types of nanoparticles can result in increased oxidative stress which can result in the formation of free radicals that can lead to cancer, DNA mutation and even cell death. Fullerenes, carbon nanoparticles, have been found to cause brain damage in largemouth bass, a species accepted by regulatory agencies as a model for defining ecotoxicological effects.

In its 2004 report, the United Kingdom’s Royal Society recognised the serious risks of nanotoxicity and recommended that “ingredients in the form of nanoparticles should undergo a full safety assessment by the relevant scientific advisory body before they are permitted for use in products”. Despite this warning, two years after the Royal Society’s report, there are still no laws governing the use of nanomaterials in consumer products to ensure that they do not cause harm to the public using them, the workers producing them, or the environmental systems in which waste nanoproducts are released.

The use of nano-surveillance in food packaging will also introduce new privacy concerns. As the food industry’s use of nano-tracking increases, it will gain the capacity to track the movement of food from the paddock, to the factory, to the supermarket and to your dinner plate. This will raise serious new privacy issues for which we are poorly prepared.

Alarmingly, despite the release into supermarkets and into the environment of nano food and agriculture products, governments world wide have yet to introduce any regulation to manage nanotechnology’s risks.

The struggle for a healthy food future – what are the alternatives to nanotechnology?

What will our food and technological future look like? We are in an epic battle for control of our food supply. Corporate or community ownership, global or local, small versus massive, processed versus wholesome. These are the paradigms that we need to choose between. A key way to promote healthy, holistic agriculture is to support it with our purchasing choices. Certified organic foods offer you better health, a better environment and a way for you to support a nano-free food future. With personal care products, buy organic or from a company that states they do not use nanotechnology.

There are many ways to help create a healthy food future. Shop at a farmers market or buy from a box scheme direct from a farmer, buy from an organic store or from the organic section in a supermarket. Consider joining a community garden, or starting a garden of your own. Start an organic kitchen garden at your pre school or school. Read product labels, get involved and interested. Talk to your friends and family about the food issues that matter most to you. Let companies know through their 1800 feedback lines that you are concerned about the use of nanotechnology in their products. Tell your local member of parliament that you want to see products that contain engineered nano ingredients labelled to allow you to make an informed purchasing choice.

It is exciting to see food politics debated by our mainstream media and our research and education institutions. However while there are already unlabelled food products that contain engineered nano ingredients available in our supermarkets, nanotechnology is only just starting to gain some attention. There are no regulations in place to protect public and environmental health, and almost no corporate or public monies being spent looking at the long-term consequences of manipulating our food at the atomic level. The similarity to the introduction of genetic engineering with the added risk that there is no regulatory oversight is chilling.

We must all get politically active on nanotechnology just as we did with genetic engineering. It is essential that we get moratoria enacted on the use of nanotechnology until we have regulatory systems in place to protect human and environmental health, and until we have genuine public involvement in decision making regarding nanotechnology’s introduction. We must also ensure our Governments put our hard-earned taxpayer dollars into support for the organic sector.

Together, we can create a healthy food future that delivers to our community not corporate profits.

By Georgia Miller, Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Nanotechnology Project and Scott Kinnear, board member of Biological Farmers of Australia and owner of Organic Wholefoods.

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• America’s “Money Machine”

According to data from the World Food Program and the early warning and global information system of the Food and Agricultural Organization, street protests and rioting over high food prices have broken out in Guinea, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and West Africa in the past several months.

Prices of wheat and rice in particular have skyrocketed recently. Rice prices have increased 50 percent in the past year, while wheat prices went up 115 percent in the same time period. The high prices have been attributed to increased fuel and shipping costs, plus a worldwide grain shortage.

In response to the shortage, India has placed limited restrictions on rice exports to protect its domestic food supply, while Argentina, China and the Ukraine have all restricted exports of wheat and other grains. In an unprecedented move, the President of the Philippines recently made a personal appeal to Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, asking Nguyen to guarantee the Philippines a set quantity of rice imports.

The Philippines is heavily dependent upon rice imports to feed its population.

“This is a wake-up call,” said Robert Zeigler of the International Rice Research Institute. “We have a crisis brewing in rice supply.”

Rice is a primary food source for half of the world’s population.

The global grain shortage has been blamed on droughts and other unusual weather caused by global warming, as well as the increasing diversion of grain into animal feed to meet the growing demand for meat and dairy products, especially in Asian countries.

The prices of foods made with grains, such as bread and beer, are also on the rise. In addition, the increased costs of animal feed are being felt in higher prices for meat, dairy and eggs.

Related Posts:

• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• “I had a dream.” It was 2008 and Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.
• Monsanto and Its Philanthropy
• State Secession and the Coming Civil War

Rep Gary Miller (R-Ca), in a rare lapse of guarded “poli-speak” said that this bill would help the “Small People.” Meaning, you and I. Fundamentally, that’s what we are to the Congressional-Wall Street Cabal—the “Small People.”

But, watching the proceedings, I am underwhelmed how these people are all of a sudden worried about we “Small People.”

Congress, under the failed leadership of Nancy Pelosi, has passed laws to undermine our 4th Amendment rights to be safe and secure in our personal correspondence, phone calls and emails. Nancy Pelosi’s Congress has given George Bush over 500,000,000,000.00 dollars to age his insane wars in Iraq and now they are going to give his Secretary of the Treasure, Henry Paulson, (Former CEO of Goldman-Sachs), 850,000,000,000. 00. That’s a lot of zeros!

Congressperson after Congressperson have risen to say that we must hand over billions of “Small People” tax dollars so “Small People” will not “lose their jobs” or “lose their homes.” We “Small People” have been losing our jobs and our homes at record paces only rivaled in the 1930’s, and not one Bill was passed to help the “Small People” keep our jobs and homes. Tent cities are arising all over the country and Congress is going to bailout an industry that caused these cities and not only that, but use our money to help keep the CEO’s in the style to which they have become accustomed.

Congressperson after Congressperson have also risen to say that their constituents, we “Small People” are overwhelmingly against the bailout of corporate piracy and pillaging, but he/she will vote for the Bill anyway, because he/she knows better what is good for us “Small People.” We will eat our spinach and like it, because our REPRESENTATIVES have become mini-dictators in the shadow of the Fuhrers who are exercising fascistic control over every aspect of our lives.

I would like to remind everyone that at the beginning of the year, Congress passed another “emergency” bill that gave we “Small People” a few hundred dollars that did nothing to stimulate the economy. The solution to the crisis may cost billions of dollars, but not to hand to Wall Street. The bill failed on Monday, but Wall Street did not crash.

The solution is to put our economy to work for we “Small People.” Federal Jobs programs that pay living wages to repair our crumbling infrastructure and rebuild the Gulf States so “Small People” can return to their homes.

Put a moratorium on foreclosures until the housing bubble can adjust to reasonable levels and restructure loans with fixed interest rates so “Small People” can pay their mortgages and the economy will “Gurgle Up” to the Congressional-Wall Street Cabal. We need to extend food stamp and unemployment benefits to pump money directly into the “Small People” economy.

Taxes need to be raised on the top one percent of wealthy people in this country that own more wealth than the bottom ninety percent combined. Taxes need to be reduced dramatically for the bottom 99%. A .25 transaction fee for the people who gamble on Wall Street must also be levied and put into the “Small People” economy for such programs as education and energy.

Regardless, if HR1424 passes or fails, every Congressperson, Democratic or Republican, who voted to sell out the “Small” Person needs to be retired and not sent back to Congress in January.

Reject fear-based politics. We “Small People” need courageous REPRESENTATIVES that will work on real solutions for us, because, as a matter of fact, we are not the “Small People,” we are the sovereigns in this Republic and we need to reassert our sovereignty and show our employees in DC that we mean business.

Help me replace Nancy Pelosi in January, she has been the biggest Bush enabler of them all. She sent a very obsequious letter to George Bush this week promising him that Congress would pass a Bill for him. Not only did she not hold him accountable for the crimes he has committed while in office, she is giving him one last victory (at the expense of we “Small People”) before he shamefully rides into the sunset while our Republic is burning and Nancy Pelosi plays her fiddle, obediently. George Bush is going to leave quite a mess, and this Congress has proven that they not only do not know how to clean up his messes, but they have collaborated in the orgy that made the mess.

Update: HR 1424 just passed and Congress applauded the marauding of our Republic. We “Small People” have been given a significant defeat.

237-153
Democrats: 154 yeas; 58 nays
Republicans: 86 yeas; 103 nays
31 Reps not voting

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – After two weeks of anguishing debate, Congress has passed and President Bush signed a massive plan to save the financial industry and the economy at large from an unthinkable free fall. Now, the world holds its breath, seeing if it will work.

Passage of the $700 billion financial rescue package came after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at a meeting last month shocked congressional leaders into action by warning of pending economic collapse without immediate congressional intervention.

Paulson said after the climactic House vote Friday that he already had staff working out details and was lining up advisers from outside the government to get the money flowing.

The immediate response to the 263-171 vote was not promising. Wall Street, which plunged a record 778 points after the House initially rejected the bill last Monday, fell 157 points on Friday as more economic bad news, such as a jump in job losses, outweighed news that Congress was finally coming to the rescue.

Still, Bush and Congress made clear that the legislation was urgent and vital. “We have acted boldly to help prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country,” Bush said after the House vote. He acknowledged that “our economy continues to face serious challenges.”

“We know that if we do nothing this crisis is likely to worsen and put us in a slump the likes of which most of us have never seen,” said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who worked with House and Senate Republican and Democratic leaders in a rare bipartisan response to what both parties saw as a dire threat to the nation’s economic well-being.

“We are addressing the real pain felt by Mr. and Mrs. Jones on Main Street,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “They are why we must pass this legislation today.”

The legislation gives the government broad authority to buy up toxic mortgage-related investments and other distressed assets from shaky financial institutions. The hope is that it will restore confidence in markets and thaw a near-freeze in credit availability that has begun to affect the ability of community banks to loan, businesses to obtain money for payrolls and investments and individuals from getting credit to buy a home or a car.

The measure, in another effort to help smaller banks with serious liquidity problems, also raised the ceiling on federally insured deposits from $100,000 to $250,000. It increases federal oversight over Wall Street transactions and assures that CEOs whose companies benefit from the bailout don’t leave with huge golden parachute payoffs.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman and a key negotiator over the past weeks, said the measure was just the beginning of a much larger task Congress will tackle next year: overhauling housing policy and financial regulation in a legislative effort comparable to the New Deal.

The political story preceding the House vote Friday was nearly as dramatic as the financial and economic upheavals going on outside Washington.

Last Monday, despite urgent pleas from Bush and his senior financial advisers and the support of congressional leaders, the House voted 228-205 to reject the rescue plan. Stock markets around the world plunged, then recovered to some extent, as economists warned that not since the Great Depression had the United States faced such a crisis.

But the 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans who voted against the bill were responding to a deluge of calls and messages from their constituents demanding that they defeat what many saw as a $700 billion giveaway to Wall Street when average Americans were getting no help.

On Wednesday, the Senate, shortly before it recessed for the election, stepped in, voting 74-25 for a package that linked the rescue bill to a giant bill extending popular tax breaks such as the research-and-development tax credit, providing incentives for renewable energy resources and giving tax relief to disaster victims. That bill, costing an additional $110 billion, included a measure to give benefits parity to people with mental health problems. The Senate also added the boost in the ceiling for bank deposits.

Those additions were enough to sway some House members who voted “no” the first time around. Others were swamped by calls from business and political leaders warning of the possible consequences of inaction.

“I’ve never talked to as many bank presidents in my life,” said Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who said he had also been lobbied by General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner and other auto executives.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent out a letter warning that, absent a clear resolution to the financial crisis, California and other states “may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal Treasury for short-term financing.”

The two presidential candidates also weighed in. Democrat Barack Obama spoke to many in the Congressional Black Caucus and helped persuade 13 to switch their votes. Nine freshmen Democrats also switched to “yes” votes after a conference call with Obama in which he promised an economic stimulus bill would be a top priority if he is elected.

Republican John McCain also lobbied for the measure, according to aides who declined to release a list of lawmakers he called.

“It’s disgusting that we would ever be brought to this floor to cast this vote,” said Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a Republican who changed to a “yes” vote. But “Congress has to act. We are out of options. Hold your hand over your heart and vote ‘yes.’”

Not all were convinced. “The Treasury plan throws an ungodly amount at Wall Street,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. “This is just an end run around, right before an election. Pray for our republic.”

In the end, 33 Democrats and 25 Republicans switched from opposition to support. In all, 91 Republicans joined 172 Democrats to support the measure while 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted ‘no.”

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• Looting Social Security

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) lectures Ben “Bilderberg” Bernanke on the flaws of the bailout plan and the hazard of the attempt to fix prices versus letting them correct naturally in the free market at the Congressional Hearing today.

Paul told Bernanke, “The lack of understanding the depression is one of our problems … in the depression we fixed prices which is exactly what we are doing now. In the great depression we plowed under crops to keep prices up while people were starving.” Paul goes on to say, “The Austrian school of economics predicted the [great] depression and the fall of socialism, their key point is don’t mess around with prices because if you do you become a socialist.”

Mr. Paul also questions Bernanke’s authority and constitutionality of using the printing press to generate all this extra money needed for the bailout and the total lack of any oversight or accountability that will be granted the Fed.

Paul says to Bernanke, “I do not know where you get the authority to create credit, The Constitution certainly doesn’t grant you that authority.”

Video: Fox Business interviews Ron Paul about the coming Great Depression 2.0.

If you like it, share it

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Bailout for the People
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• America’s “Money Machine”
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders