Thanks for supplying these to us free loaders.Sorry you have to read all the rude and ignorant comments from the CNBC web site.hlowe

Fair GameFuture Bailouts of AmericaBy GRETCHEN MORGENSONPublished: February 13, 2010AS Washington spins its wheels on financial reform, it’s becoming painfully clear that the problem of entities that are too interconnected or “too politically powerful to fail” is also too hard for our policy makers to tackle.This is more than unfortunate, given how large the too-influential-to-fail gang has grown in recent years. Once a small membership organization comprising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, and the occasional troubled auto company, the Future Bailouts of America Club now includes a long list largely populated by financial institutions.We can’t be sure who the specific members of this club are — regulators simply say they know ’em when they see ’em. But this much is certain: They’ve seen a lot of them lately.As taxpayers, we obviously can’t rely on lawmakers to address the risks we face from the ever-expanding corporate safety net thrown under teetering behemoths. But because we are footing the bills for these rescues — and will do so again if more crises occur — don’t you agree that we should know what these implied federal guarantees will cost us?If the government won’t reduce the size of the safety net, and it has shown no appetite for doing so, it should at least tell us the price tag.Marvin Phaup, a research scholar at George Washington University who examines federal budgeting, is one who is urging such an assessment. An expert on government guarantees, his wholly sensible view is that it is dangerous for possible bailout costs to remain unmeasured and, of course, unrecognized in the budget. “If we are extending the safety net, extending the implied guarantee to the debts of a lot of other financial institutions, and we know those guarantees are valuable and costly, then we ought to start budgeting for it,” Mr. Phaup said in an interview. “We can’t reduce the costs of these subsidies if we can’t recognize them.”Mr. Phaup has the bona fides to opine on this topic. He was the researcher at the Congressional Budget Office in 1996 who undertook the first efforts to assign a value to the implied federal guarantee backing Fannie and Freddie. When he prognosticated on the matter, the bailouts of those two hobbled entities were more than a decade away, but his C.B.O. report quantified the billions in benefits that the mortgage finance companies reaped each year from their implicit government backstop.In 1995, the report said, the value of the companies’ government subsidy totaled $6.5 billion; this amount largely reflected lower borrowing costs at the companies, a result of views held by investors that Fannie’s and Freddie’s obligations had Uncle Sam’s backing.THE C.B.O. report enraged Fannie and Freddie because it also showed how much of that financial benefit — fully one-third — the companies kept for themselves, their managers and their stockholders. Mr. Phaup’s analysis showed that, counter to the companies’ claims, Fannie and Freddie did not pass along all the benefits to homeowners in the form of lower mortgage rates.Moreover, who actually believed in 1996 that the government would ever have to bail out Fannie and Freddie? Perish the thought and shame on silly researchers like Mr. Phaup for even considering such possibilities.Fast-forward to today, and the government guarantees for Fannie and Freddie have become painfully explicit. While it’s unclear how much their rescues will cost taxpayers, last Christmas Eve the government removed the $400 billion cap on the amount of assistance it was willing to provide the companies in emergency aid through 2012.Today’s implied guarantees extend well beyond Fannie and Freddie. But owning up to future obligations associated with government backing is something that lawmakers are likely to fight vigorously. (Consider Social Security.)But ignoring such obligations doesn’t make them go away. And getting a handle on their possible cost is a worthy exercise, for several reasons.First, Mr. Phaup said, if we assign a value to the guarantees, the government would be better able to charge for it. “Even if we don’t do that, by recognizing the cost now we will save more because we will either tax more or preferably spend less” to pay for it down the road if need be, Mr. Phaup said. “In the end, that’s really the only way to prepare for a contingency like a meltdown of the financial system.”A second benefit is that recognizing the costs of guaranteeing too-influential-to-fail institutions might reduce the ultimate obligation and persuade regulators and lawmakers to force those institutions to cut back on risk-taking.It’s not as if the costs associated with these guarantees can’t be accurately estimated. Valuing so-called contingent claims, chits that have not been called in, has become a much more sophisticated process in recent decades, Mr. Phaup pointed out. “We know how to do it for private firms,” he said. “Fewer people in the government know how to do it, but those skills can be transferred.”Edward J. Kane, a professor of finance at Boston College, agrees that the costs associated with providing a safety net for complex and politically connected companies should be quantified. “People talk about systemic risk, but they have no metric of measuring it,” he said. “If we recognize that obligations are being put on the taxpayer down the line, then they can be controlled and managed.”Mr. Kane suggested that lawmakers create an independent entity to collect data from all the protected firms so a realistic price tag could be placed on possible bailout costs. “We would force the institutions to give preliminary estimates and then challenge them,” he said. The combined figure for all the institutions would represent the total responsibility being shifted onto the backs and wallets of taxpayers.“If government officials really wanted to do something, this is the kind of thing they would do,” Mr. Kane said.That is the rub, of course.Lawmakers interested in re-election have little incentive to be truthful about what implied guarantees of powerful companies will cost the taxpayer. Better to brush it under the rug or pretend the costs don’t exist. Then, when they must be paid, policy makers can argue that it’s an unforeseen emergency and an odious necessity.As the number of firms with implicit government backing has risen because of the crisis, so too have the expected costs of those commitments, Mr. Phaup said. And yet, under current budget policy, those costs will be ignored until the recipient of the guarantee collapses — the precise moment when the guarantee is likely to cost taxpayers the most.Three years into the crisis, we are no closer to reining in too-powerful-to-fail companies or eliminating the risks they pose to taxpayers. Both goals are achievable, yet our legislators refuse to do what is necessary to protect us from trillion-dollar bailouts down the road.It’s a disservice to a bewildered and beleaguered nation.comment: not bewildered. the system is functioning as designed.transfer value to the top of the social order, pyramid. the bottombares the weight or gets crushed. the problem has been understoodsince before the new millennium.certainly in 1830, jackson(kill the bank)..how much is the tax pauper(payer) on the hook for? whateveramount the financial industries can inflate to in their dreams,and legally, as it is up to them to come up with whateverlevel of debt they can imagine, dream. this is not hyperbole, it isthe mystical world of fractional, keyword (fraction as in verysmall or non existent fraction, perhaps nano scale or altuallynon existent was correct) lending. iow institutional privilege.not for the good of the people or the privilege of the poeplebut for the authority over them. super “person”..the mechanism is the fetishistic relationship inculcated intothe minds of the people, all the people, ubiquitous is the goal.the object or fetish is money and its derivatives. the fetishspeaks to its possessor, it has a voice. as in “dad-blame dime”.jack kerouac. “on the road”..this relationship, as in institutional religion, becomes bindingand cause for forced adherence and punishment. iow worship based in faith at the alter, with regular tithing, at the alter ofthe bankers, the high priests and masters of money, our onetrue connection to the voice of god..we owe them everything. it is obvious. they extend the credit, we incur the debt. if they extend more, we have more and prices go up in an inflationary field of extended credit. so we need more credit and go further into debt. they decide when enough energy and development has taken place and then foreclose and reposeswhat is rightly theirs. authority. the authority to allowpersons to live in service of their / “our” fetish. they own it, we just borrow it to survive, the living we leave up to them.and when the failures and leaks in the system manifest thetax pauper/payer will be presented with the un itemized bill.the “people” will then be evicted from their corporeal entanglement. “unfurled from this mortal coiled up world” t. waits.the truth that is violated is … the truth of the self asit manifests in the real world of existence. reality.reality is always the enemy of those politically driving / forcing the dissemination of their idol / fetish onto those who resist. iow our problem is our fetish and our ignorance in relation to it and ourselves. ongoing. stupidity is deadly ubiquitous..goldman and greece. interesting lottery casino connection. tithing, taxes, swaps and funny books. sovereign debt.so is fiat money the instrument by which man hears the voice of a god or… is it, or to become excrement? and is there any difference,given the state of our own capacity to hear and see, think andknow. or has the capacity to create problems exceeded the capacity to have any idea what the f..k we are doing? and…who cares?and would it matter as corporate persons have little use formost of the population of the planet as they are merely wastingor occupying resources that the “corporate person” has otherdesigns for. and the “corporate person” owns the fetish and canproduce, risk free, as much of it as need be. this makes lifeintolerable for 99% of actual natural persons but “so what”.. m.davis.you do realize that the notion that we are little fishborn into and swimming in an incalculably large sea of debtis both true and utterly false. it is true in our debt to thosewho have been slaughtered and tortured before our eyes, but we refused to see.false in the current context that we owe anything to those who have been behind, directing these blood baths and creating a wall ofdebt to enslave every man women and child on the planet, with few privileged exceptions..end the fed before it ends you.

Your analysis is a bit off the mark. Yes, an inordinate amount of the nation’s wealth is being sucked up by the criminal elite, but not so much from the bottom as you suggest, but from the middle. The bottom, which receives a disproportionate share of its income via transfer payments from various government entitites, are unwitting and somtimes witting accomplices in the fleecing of the tax-paying middle class.

Cheney wants to abandon rule of law, Constitution[as he has, and now feels somewhat isolated , but just somewhat.the dynamic is soil the field so as to not stand out as dirty.the race to the bottom is in play. - my comment ]11:01 am February 15, 2010, by Jay.http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/02/15/cheney-wants-to-abandon-rule-of-law-constitution/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog.“Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Sunday that the Christmas Day bomber should have been placed in military custody and perhaps even waterboarded.” [ why? personal enjoyment ].my comment: perhaps ? cheney should be waterboarded until he confessesall his crimes against humanity, the constitution, internationallaw, obstruction of justice, accessory to the crimes of 9/11,and all crimes in covering up those other crimes he has beencommitting as a “public servant” for the last 35 or so years..”In other words, tortured…. Waterboarding is torture under U.S. law and under international law and treaty. It was prosecuted as torture during war crimes trials after World War II, and was considered torture when perpetrated by the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia, among others.”.further comment: cheney wants this administration to commit further war crimes because his administration was so stupid,corrupt, illegitimate and criminal that he would now feel betterwith some company should he be arrested for committing war crimesand or crimes against humanity. also he could now be targetedoutside the country, not as a patriot, but as a terrorist and assassinated by ongoing executive order, which would be ironicif not fitting..http://ga3.org/campaign/btcpetition?qp_source=btc_aw.investigate and arrest the criminal bastards before theyfurther destroy the country from their dustbin pulpit.monied war mongers for profit. merchant of death with a bigbank account, and stock options on further misery. a pigletat the dry old tit of uncle sam, suckling in safety whilesomeone else suffers for his sour puss meal. criminal termite…….”Andrew Sullivan, who writes The Daily Dish blog on The Atlantic.com, wrote in an e-mail for this story: “Cheney’s unprecedentedly aggressive approach … reflects his own knowledge that he has committed war crimes of a very grave sort, war crimes that at some point could lead to prosecution and will undoubtedly lead to historical infamy.“If that becomes the prevailing narrative — because it is true — he will go down in history as a man who betrayed the very core principles of Western civilization out of panic and then covered it up,” Sullivan continued. “So he has to change the subject and launch this kind of PR campaign to throw everyone off the scent. … Cheney is cornered. He knows justice is coming, and he knows that one day the full truth will come out and there will be no hiding. Until then, he will fight and fight and break every taboo that respect for the Constitution and for civil discourse requires.”Sullivan has been one of the leading voices criticizing the news media — and POLITICO specifically — for giving Cheney a platform for his rhetorical blasts in interviews without challenging his premises and also forcing him to answer for his own alleged misdeeds in office.”….Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32929_Page3.html#ixzz0ZsBwHOM7.Tuesday, September 1, 2009Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11David Steele is a former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer.Steele has previously written that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”.This month, Steele went further, writing:Pakistan briefed Cheney [about the plans for the terrorist attacks ahead of time] …nations also got wind of this and warned the CIA. We also had two walk-ins to the FBI, one in Orlando, one in Newark, that were dismissed by the FBI because the names were all virgins and not in the FBI data base—the arrogance of stupid bureaucracy.Cheney saw an opportunity for what Bush called his trifecta, and gave it to him by giving the go-ahead to ISI and Al Qaeda, and ordering up a terrorism exercise that allowed him to send all relevant close-in air defense strip alert craft away from the target areas, and to disable the NORTHCOM normal response to flight path diversion.While the details might be open to debate, many other very high-level intelligence officers have said the “official” explanation for 9/11 makes no sense. And see this and this..and…..http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-is-dick-cheney.html.and “why isn’t cheney in jail?” now!.http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/07/cheney-ordered-cover-up-of-program.html.the american media just can’t live without the opinions ofsociopaths. neither can the executive branch, or the senateetc….we are blowing people into little fragments and causing starvationand all they want to refer to is water boarding..forgive them, they know what they do and don’t give a shit..as lobbyist for haliburton and the dubai headquarters..”Asked how his former boss, George W. Bush, feels about his high profile, Cheney said: “I’m the vice president now — ex-vice president. I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I want to say, what I believe. And I have not been discouraged from doing so.”.that freudian thing kills me. v.p. now! psycho.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930852370/ref=cm_rdp_product_img#reader_0930852370

http://911summary.com/intel.php

You miss the point. It is an unholy alliance of the bottom and the top, using the vast klepto-state apparatus tools of the tax code and security measures, united to keep the majority of the tax paying middle indentured to their service. Rome went this way in the 3rd & 4th centuries, and the outcome was nearly a millenia of feudalism and serfdom for the former middle classes who became bound to their land to support the governing classes, their bureaucracies, and their security forces. Think I am wrong, then think about all the stories of public servants who earn far more on average, moreso when benefits are taken into account, than the average taxpayer.We are past the tipping point … We are doomed.