Posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
Census Takers Can Enter Your Apt. in Your Absence
If no one is home when they gain entry to your apartment in your absence, how will they count the number of people living there? What kind of other "statistics" would they be gathering while you're gone? Is the census really just about counting the number of people in the country?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Bailout Proposed for Union Pensions
Fox Business is reporting that Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds. This after Obama told us there would be no more bailouts. Obviously, the measure hasn't been voted on yet and it's unclear how much support it has.
According to Business Insider, "The bill in question will essentially let multi-employer union pension plans, like the Teamster's plan that is currently causing UPS so much trouble, segregate out the workers of defunct companies and get the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp to pony up for their benefits."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-the-government-bailing-out-union-pension-funds-to-the-tune-of-165-billion-2010-5#ixzz0p3ouuiOw
The PBGC provides insurance, but these mulit-employer plans have not paid any premiums for the benefits Sen. Casey wants to give them.
It's also unclear exactly what the bailout would cost (several billion, to be sure), but what is sure is that it would place $165 billion of additional liabilities on the US taxpayer. Further evidence of your money involuntarily being used to advance a specific agenda. So, what shall we take over (*ahem)... I mean, bail out next?
According to Business Insider, "The bill in question will essentially let multi-employer union pension plans, like the Teamster's plan that is currently causing UPS so much trouble, segregate out the workers of defunct companies and get the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp to pony up for their benefits."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-the-government-bailing-out-union-pension-funds-to-the-tune-of-165-billion-2010-5#ixzz0p3ouuiOw
The PBGC provides insurance, but these mulit-employer plans have not paid any premiums for the benefits Sen. Casey wants to give them.
It's also unclear exactly what the bailout would cost (several billion, to be sure), but what is sure is that it would place $165 billion of additional liabilities on the US taxpayer. Further evidence of your money involuntarily being used to advance a specific agenda. So, what shall we take over (*ahem)... I mean, bail out next?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Lenders Agree to Prop Up Ailing ShoreBank - FOXBusiness.com
Lenders Agree to Prop Up Ailing ShoreBank - FOXBusiness.com
Posted using ShareThis
So, some major Wall Street firms, such as GE, Citigroup, and even Goldman Sachs are bailing out Chicago-based ShoreBank, which has well documented and strong ties to the Obama Administration. The White House has also pledged "tens of millions" in additional taxpayer funds. So why is this bank so important? And why would Wall Street, and in particular, Goldman Sachs, which the Administration is 'aggressively' pursuing for alleged criminal investment fraud, be hunky-dory with shelling out $140 million for this bank. What interest do Fortune 500 companies have in rescuing a small, politically connected community bank with taxpayer money?
Obama himself has apparently singled out the bank for praise for lending to low-income communities, despite the fact the bank has made some bad investments to put itself into this situation. And these major Wall Street firms have all been the recipients of huge sums of government financial assistance during the financial crisis. It would therefore be reasonable to deduce that the government has strong influence over these firms. According to this same report, "[...] some of the Wall Street firmst that have given money have said they've received political pressure to contribute to the bailout of a business that under normal circumstances would have been left to fail."
So the banks were pressured into lending the money. It would also be reasonable to assume that at least some of that money was received from the government (i.e. your tax dollars), not to mention the unspecified "tens of millions" coming directly from the government for the bank. So rather than demonizing and railing on Chicago-based ShoreBank for its bad investments like the rest of Wall Street, the President praises this particular bank to which his administration just happens to have strong ties, for lending practices that he happens to politically agree with when convenient.
Is it too much to conclude that the government is once again cherry-picking which institutions are deserving of assistance? From ShoreBank's own website, "[...] our mission is to help build thriving communities with opportunities for good jobs, quality education, affordable housing, and a healthy environment." Sounds all rosy and wonderful, but it's euphemistic language for social justice, which is itself a euphemism for redistribution of wealth. ShoreBank is no longer just a small community bank with a few political connections. It has evolved into a bank with very important political connections to both the Obama and Clinton Administrations (it only takes a few Google searches to find out more), which is highly interested in domestic and foreign microfinancing, "green jobs," minority owned business, and all kinds of other politically motivated investment practices.
It gets even better. As recently as February, ShoreBank reported $50 million in losses, according to the Chicago Tribune. ShoreBank could be eligible to receive TARP money if it were recognized as a "Community Development Financial Institution," but in order to receive the TARP funds (and not be seized by the FDIC), it would have to secure matching funds from private sources. Looks like ShoreBank magically got Wall Street to come to the rescue, while ten other Illinois banks have closed this year alone.
So let's connect the dots, shall we? A "community" bank is selected to get hundreds of millions of dollars from big, politically pressured Wall Street banks which received taxpayer money, plus tens of millions more in direct taxpayer money, to make it eligible for even more taxpayer money in the form of TARP and keep it from being seized by the regulatory arm of the government, all because of the bank's political agendas and far-reaching connections. What does that mean? The government determines winners and losers, who gets money or who is left to fail. More importantly, the government just gave your money to a politicized investment firm, which in turn will invest it in foreign and domestic "social justice" initiatives.
Posted using ShareThis
So, some major Wall Street firms, such as GE, Citigroup, and even Goldman Sachs are bailing out Chicago-based ShoreBank, which has well documented and strong ties to the Obama Administration. The White House has also pledged "tens of millions" in additional taxpayer funds. So why is this bank so important? And why would Wall Street, and in particular, Goldman Sachs, which the Administration is 'aggressively' pursuing for alleged criminal investment fraud, be hunky-dory with shelling out $140 million for this bank. What interest do Fortune 500 companies have in rescuing a small, politically connected community bank with taxpayer money?
Obama himself has apparently singled out the bank for praise for lending to low-income communities, despite the fact the bank has made some bad investments to put itself into this situation. And these major Wall Street firms have all been the recipients of huge sums of government financial assistance during the financial crisis. It would therefore be reasonable to deduce that the government has strong influence over these firms. According to this same report, "[...] some of the Wall Street firmst that have given money have said they've received political pressure to contribute to the bailout of a business that under normal circumstances would have been left to fail."
So the banks were pressured into lending the money. It would also be reasonable to assume that at least some of that money was received from the government (i.e. your tax dollars), not to mention the unspecified "tens of millions" coming directly from the government for the bank. So rather than demonizing and railing on Chicago-based ShoreBank for its bad investments like the rest of Wall Street, the President praises this particular bank to which his administration just happens to have strong ties, for lending practices that he happens to politically agree with when convenient.
Is it too much to conclude that the government is once again cherry-picking which institutions are deserving of assistance? From ShoreBank's own website, "[...] our mission is to help build thriving communities with opportunities for good jobs, quality education, affordable housing, and a healthy environment." Sounds all rosy and wonderful, but it's euphemistic language for social justice, which is itself a euphemism for redistribution of wealth. ShoreBank is no longer just a small community bank with a few political connections. It has evolved into a bank with very important political connections to both the Obama and Clinton Administrations (it only takes a few Google searches to find out more), which is highly interested in domestic and foreign microfinancing, "green jobs," minority owned business, and all kinds of other politically motivated investment practices.
It gets even better. As recently as February, ShoreBank reported $50 million in losses, according to the Chicago Tribune. ShoreBank could be eligible to receive TARP money if it were recognized as a "Community Development Financial Institution," but in order to receive the TARP funds (and not be seized by the FDIC), it would have to secure matching funds from private sources. Looks like ShoreBank magically got Wall Street to come to the rescue, while ten other Illinois banks have closed this year alone.
So let's connect the dots, shall we? A "community" bank is selected to get hundreds of millions of dollars from big, politically pressured Wall Street banks which received taxpayer money, plus tens of millions more in direct taxpayer money, to make it eligible for even more taxpayer money in the form of TARP and keep it from being seized by the regulatory arm of the government, all because of the bank's political agendas and far-reaching connections. What does that mean? The government determines winners and losers, who gets money or who is left to fail. More importantly, the government just gave your money to a politicized investment firm, which in turn will invest it in foreign and domestic "social justice" initiatives.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
First Post
So, it's time for the requisite first post. First, a little information about this blog and myself. I'm new to blogging, so to any of you who follow, please bear with me.
This blog is a result of my intent to express my opinions and thoughts on current political topics. I graduated with a degree in political science, but I'm not currently working anywhere near my field of research. That, combined with concern about the direction of our country, led me to seek blogging as an outlet.
The title, as may be guessed, comes from George Orwell's 1984. In the book, Newspeak is basically English with a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. Its intent was to control and suppress freedom of expression, creativity, and free-thinking in general, by eliminating words, phrases, or constructs which could describe the ideas of freedom or rebellion. It thus served as a form of mind control for the totalitarian regime in the book. So why did I choose it? Well, because it sounds cool, but more importantly, because this blog (and blogging in general) is the antithesis of Newspeak. I aim to point out where our own or foreign governments, media, or other outlets are suppressing freedom, liberty, and yes, even trying to control how we think and shape our worldview.
In case you're wondering, I'm conservative and liberal (in the classic sense). I try to see our country in terms of how our Founders envisioned it, which I suppose puts me closer to a libertarian than anything else. But even modern libertarians have their own problems. I tend to be long-winded and occasionally go on rants, but I also try to give credit where it's due. I encourage comments, suggestions, and opinions, but please be polite and respectful.
So, on we go!
This blog is a result of my intent to express my opinions and thoughts on current political topics. I graduated with a degree in political science, but I'm not currently working anywhere near my field of research. That, combined with concern about the direction of our country, led me to seek blogging as an outlet.
The title, as may be guessed, comes from George Orwell's 1984. In the book, Newspeak is basically English with a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. Its intent was to control and suppress freedom of expression, creativity, and free-thinking in general, by eliminating words, phrases, or constructs which could describe the ideas of freedom or rebellion. It thus served as a form of mind control for the totalitarian regime in the book. So why did I choose it? Well, because it sounds cool, but more importantly, because this blog (and blogging in general) is the antithesis of Newspeak. I aim to point out where our own or foreign governments, media, or other outlets are suppressing freedom, liberty, and yes, even trying to control how we think and shape our worldview.
In case you're wondering, I'm conservative and liberal (in the classic sense). I try to see our country in terms of how our Founders envisioned it, which I suppose puts me closer to a libertarian than anything else. But even modern libertarians have their own problems. I tend to be long-winded and occasionally go on rants, but I also try to give credit where it's due. I encourage comments, suggestions, and opinions, but please be polite and respectful.
So, on we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)