Shared Top Border
sdcia_head3.jpg (14795 bytes)
SDCIA Message Board
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 50     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #121 



__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
Paul

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,028
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Facebook closed an account for posting this image. I posted on my Facebook page and so far nothing has happened.



There are reports of strange unilateral post removals by FaceBook over the last few days. Is your post still displayed?


Yes, it is still there.

And we never got the courtesy of a response from Greg about the missing thread. Nothing, we were just ignored. 
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #123 
Paul Kurgman regularly channels his alter-ego, Economist Paul Krugman. Here the "slightly" Left economist explains taxes to those who have never paid one and never intend to have income do so.



Economics Primer 13: Taxes

 Paul Kurgman  thepeoplescube.com
Taxes enable all life to exist; their positive values are almost too numerous to list.

      A) Taxes provide a stream of income to the government.
      B) Taxes are a social leveler that bring the rich down to size.
      C) They pay for essential services like housing, transportation, education, police, fire, sanitation, water, student loans, university grants, civil servant salaries, Medicaide, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, school lunches, the Department of Energy, The Department of Interior, The Department of Treasury, The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, The U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission, The Department of Agriculture, The Office of Thrift Supervision, The Vietnam Educational Foundation, The National Indian Gaming Commission, The Administration on Aging, The Appalachian Regional Commission, The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Interagency Council on Homelessness, The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, The Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, The National Agricultural Statistics Service, The Postal Rate Commission, The Veterans Day National Committee, The Rural Housing Service, The Disability Employment Policy Office, The Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, farm subsidies, payments to grow food, payments to not grow food, and so much much much much more. And that is not even including essential state and local services!
    D) Taxes are a moral imperative

Taxes are best when they are egalitarian; i.e., everyone ends up with an equal income regardless of what they are initially paid. This is economically crucial because history has shown that people are happiest when they feel no envy -- and the best tax is therefore one that leaves everyone with nothing. But obviously, this is not acceptable. For such a tax would leave no room for deductions; in order for people to pursue worthwhile activities, they must be able to deduct expenses from their taxes. Without such deductions, society would be left with nothing but greedy corporations and rich people thinking only of themselves -- no one would contribute a dime to charities, and no corporation would ever do anything beneficial.

Taxes also encourage hard work, and lots of it. For example, if 99% of your income is taxed, then you will work one-hundred times as hard to stay even with your pre-tax income. Theoretically, if 100% of your income is taxed, then you will need to put in an infinite amount of effort to stay even. But then, we run into the “deduction” issue again. Furthermore, this would be politically impractical, as conservative bigots would start screaming “slavery”.

A good government is one that controls everything, and taxes are the nourishment of the benevolent government. Taxes allow for public education, public hospitals, public transportation, public housing and all the other services that are “excellence certified” with the prefix “public”. (To say nothing of The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance!) But quality is not cheap, which is why high taxes are essential. For these services require land, materials, and mostly, an army of selflessly dedicated civil servants who do indeed tirelessly work in the service of the citizenry.

Wouldn’t it be ideal if all housing was like public housing?
Well, that requires taxes. Wouldn’t it be ideal if we were all served by a nationalized health-care system based on typical municipal hospitals? That’s what taxes can do. Wouldn’t you be happier if your local supermarket was operated on par with the Department of Motor Vehicles? Taxes!

And, in the process, taxes democratize society. Is it fair that someone working twice as hard as you makes twice as much as you? No, it isn’t – and taxes can address that. Is it right that your neighbor can send his children to private school? No, it isn’t. And if we tax him, we can then afford to build more public schools that his children will need to attend when he is no longer able to afford private schools. Do you have a private pension plan? No? Well, taxes give other people the opportunity to contribute to a Social Security system whether they want to or not. Perhaps they won’t even have enough money left over for their so-called “private” pension!

The fact is that businesses also benefit by paying taxes. Remember, they also use the roads, and hire people educated in public schools and who live in public housing. Think about it this way: Were it not for public housing, then those businesses would not be able to hire public-housing tenants. And in any event, there is a moral imperative to punish businesses anyway – which taxes also address.

And there is a moral imperative for you, dear pupil, to pay your taxes. In a world of suffering, only a monster would claim a right to his income. There is no right to be happy – especially when others aren’t. And if you are happy, then something is amiss. Fortunately, they IRS has trained people who will find that “something”.
 

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #124 
News Blast from 1967 --- It's true, he is.





__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #125 
World Renown Former Communist Newspaper Calls American Leadership "Communist".



Pravda, the former premier news magazine of late Communist Soviet Union, offers its' analysis of our Presidents' recent election campaign in the USSA.

Pravda is the most popular Russian newspaper in their country.  In a recent article, it stated:

“Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.”

“After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.”

“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”

“O’bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like ‘fast and furious’ and there is still no sign of ending it.  He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.  Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.”

“President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.”

“Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America?  Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!”

 

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #126 
The Fiscal Cliff That Wasn't

Congress and the President didn't "save the day" just before midnight Dec. 31st, as Mr. Obama did with the NDAA this time last year, but "saved the day" on Jan. 1st by passing a bill in both houses than neither had read. The phony last minute dramatics by John Boehner along with those of the preceding two weeks by Reid and Obama fooled no one and infuriated most.

Dan Ferris outlines the things that took effect for only a few hours yesterday Jan. 1st before being overridden by the pork in the bill that no one had time to read.

Another "fiscal cliff" will happen in two months when once again the debt ceiling will need raising and perhaps another not-so "Super Committee" will be needed.

 


Dan Ferris of Daily Wealth

Panic Over the "Fiscal Cliff"

You've probably heard the answer to these questions a few dozen times by now... whether you realized it or not.

Investors today are terrified of what will happen at midnight on December 31, 2012. They're terrified of the dreaded demon known popularly today as "the fiscal cliff."

The "fiscal cliff" is a shorthand term for the government spending cuts, tax increases, and a reduction to the U.S. federal budget deficit that – unless Congress does something to stop it – will automatically go into effect at midnight, December 31.

In a nutshell, the following tax consequences will occur if the fiscal cliff goes into effect unchanged:

1) The end of last year's temporary payroll tax cuts – meaning a 2% tax increase for workers.

2) The end of certain tax breaks for businesses.

3) Changes in the alternative minimum tax that would raise taxes for many people.

4) The end of the tax cuts from 2001 to 2003 (commonly known as the Bush Tax Cuts).

5) The beginning of the 3.8% Obamacare tax... a tax on income of $250,000-plus a year that will fund Obamacare.

Those last two items – the end of the Bush-era tax cuts and the instatement of the 3.8% Obamacare tax – are what people fear the most.

For example, income taxes would rise for almost all income brackets (in addition to the 3.8% Obamacare tax). So instead of paying the current special dividend tax rate of 15% on dividends, you'll pay regular income tax rates on dividends. For the highest earners, that would be 43.4% – a 39.6% income tax rate plus the 3.8% Obamacare tax. And instead of a 15% tax on long-term capital gains, you'd pay 23.8% on gains up to five years and 21.8% on gains five years and longer.

Spending cuts would affect over 1,000 government programs, according to a recent Barron's article... with "deep, automatic cuts" to programs including defense and Medicare. The federal budget deficit would drop by about half, about $560 billion.

So the "fiscal cliff" really means we'd have a slightly smaller government, higher taxes, and a much smaller federal government budget deficit.

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #127 
It is estimated that 500,000 crimes per year are thwarted by an armed citizen. The national press makes no mention of these lives saved. This includes the use of a personal firearm in any of the following ways: brandishing, aiming, firing then hitting or not hitting the assailant.

Here are just a few of the recent nationwide instances of such individual actions in the absence of police presence.



Zachary Rogers, 26, was working late one night at the 21st Amendment liquor store. It was just past midnight when an armed man wearing a ski mask entered the store and forced Rogers and another store employee, Alicia Grabarczyk, 25, down a hallway toward an office where the safe was kept. With a concealed handgun in his front pocket, Rogers chose his moment of opportunity carefully. In one quick motion, Rogers pushed Grabarczyk to the floor and fired at the armed robber. He then helped Grabarczyk into the office and out of the line of fire. Although the burglar had been struck, Rogers saw him raise his firearm. Rogers fired three more rounds at the gunman which proved fatal. Neither Rogers nor Grabarczyk were harmed. (Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 10/11/12)

While at home with his wife and daughter, a homeowner prepared to go outside to investigate a sudden power outage. His wife asked him to carry his firearm with him as a precaution. As he opened the front door to step outside, three men charged him in an attempt to gain entry. The homeowner pushed his wife aside as he fell backward and fired at the intruders. His daughter, a student in her early 20s, hid in another room and called police. One of the three home invaders suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was listed in serious condition. The remaining two suspects managed to escape. The homeowner and his family were not seriously injured. (Sun Sentinel, Miramar, FL, 10/2/12)

Kendra St. Clair, a 12-year-old at home alone one day during her fall break, called her mother at work to say there was a man repeatedly ringing the doorbell and banging on the door. When no one answered the door, she said he disappeared. St. Clair’s mother instructed her daughter to get her .40-cal. Glock pistol and go into a bathroom closet. St. Clair heard him break in through the back door. As the man made his way through her home, 911 dispatchers kept St. Clair on the phone. He was inside the home for approximately six minutes before he made his way to the bathroom where St. Clair was hiding. When she saw the door knob begin to turn, she fired the gun. The 32-year-old intruder was taken into custody after being treated for a gunshot to the chest. (The Oklahoman, Durant, OK, 10/20/12)

George Polanin, 66, went to bed early one evening only to be awakened by noises coming from inside his home. He was upstairs and followed the sound of footsteps to the basement. When he reached the stairs, Polanin said he could see only the intruder’s feet. “ … I got my weapon and basically told him I had a weapon, it was loaded and I will use it,” Polanin said. He then ordered the intruder to come out as he dialed 911. Polanin held the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived. (Kenosha News, Kenosha, WI, 10/17/12)

Cindy Schachter, an employee at Furnari Jewelers, was working when two men entered the store around 4 p.m. Schachter’s boss, Anthony Furnari, was sitting at his desk facing the showroom. Something about the men made Schachter uneasy, so she gave her boss a quiet warning right before they pulled clothing over their faces and jumped over the counter. Furnari quickly pulled his .38-cal. handgun from his desk and fired several rounds at one of the suspects as he came toward him. Furnari was severely beaten as both men tried to gain control of his firearm. When Furnari fought back, the men grabbed a display of gold chains and fled. One suspect was later taken into custody after seeking treatment for several bullet wounds. It was last reported that the second suspect was still at large. Furnari suffered a broken nose, a concussion, multiple stitches to the face and hand, and a fractured rib. Schachter was reportedly unharmed. (The Republican, Chicopee, MA, 10/17/12)


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #128 
The Trillion Dollar Coin



The Left wing websites are all a-twitter about the $Trillion Platinum coin, even to the point of quoting the Constitution ---- you know that long outdated Document that has guided the US for 225 years to economic and military superpower ranking.

The Left is universally convinced the new coin is needed to end Republican intransigence. The debt-ceiling requirement is not meant to be a tool of "obstructionism", probably it should be eliminated all together. That way Congress could continue surreptitiously spending to the moons' limit and none of those pesky voters would be any the wiser. So goes the extra-terrestrial reasoning on the Liberal side of the blogoshpere.

The Debt Ceiling was instituted just for such times as ours. It forces Congress to publicly face its' financial irresponsibility and make life difficult for the feckless and corrupt free-spending politicians. Understandably the political class is very upset about this constriction of its' vote buying and campaign funding resources. The recent "fiscal cliff" bill was stuffed with vote buying pork for every corner of the country and totally unrelated to the alleged "fiscal cliff".

(I was off by a power of 10 in the original post, I should have used a calculator instead of doing it in my head while typing)
Platinum is at $1,559 per ounce today. A $Trillion coin would require 1 x 10(12)/1.559 x 10(3) = 6.414 x 10(9) ounces this should be 6.414 x 10(8). At 16 ounces to the pound that would be 64.14 x 10(7)/16 = 4 x 10(7) pounds or in human terms 40,000,000 = 40 Million Pounds or 20,000 Tons --- that's a BIG coin even for the upside-down Liberal reality. 20,000 Tons is in line with calculations in other reports.

The Liberal reality has overlooked another "inconvenient truth" as Al Gore was fond of saying. Where would the Treasury get the money to purchase a $Trillion (400 Million pounds) in platinum from the open market? No where is this addressed by the Liberal financial geniuses. They just assume the Mint has it laying around. The law says the Treasury can authorize the US Mint to strike a platinum coin therefor it shall be done!! hahaha, actually a few Libs had suggestions along the lines of spraying a film of platinum on a lead coin --- hahaha, Libs are just natural cons and crooks.

The Libs bumped into another "inconvenient truth", it is likely that the 200,000 tons of platinum required for THE coin would exceed the 25ft x 25ft x 25ft cube encompassing all the worlds' platinum ever mined. Facts just make a Liberals' life suck, which no doubt explains why they are so unfamiliar with them.

To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Gridlock is Good" when it prevents bad legislation and corrupt over-spenders.

Historically the legal procedure is for Congress increase the Debt limit which allows the Treasury to create Gov't Bonds in the required amount. Those bonds are then purchased by the Federal Reserve (or open bond market) for "cash" and electronic dollars at the Treasurys' bank account(s) at the Federal Reserve. At this point the Treasury can then write checks on its' pumped-up Federal Reserve bank accounts to pay the bills of the Federal Government. If this sounds like circular reasoning then you understand it ---perfectly.

Whose image should be on The Coin? Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, Jon Corzine, Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Ben Bernanke ...

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here:

A trillion-dollar-coin idea takes off, and a former head of the U.S. Mint doesn't see why it shouldn't

The trillion-dollar coin? Tom McGeveran

 
 

Rep. Jerry Nadler proposed issuing a trillion-dollar coin to circumvent an impending fight over the federal debt ceiling, and the idea has taken off.

The idea, which Nadler assured me was "absolutely serious," was endorsed by Josh Barro of Bloomberg View and a Twitter campaign by Joseph Weisenthal of Business Insider using the hashtag #mintthecoin, and it's now one of those White House petitions.

The idea, which Nadler didn't make explicit, is that the coin is a bargaining chip, meant to counter the equally ill-founded idea that Congress' discretion over the debt ceiling was intended to be used regularly as a negotiating tool. (Congressional Republicans are explicitly promising, once again, to use the threat of national default to compel the president to cut spending in the next round of budgetary negotiations.)

At one point this morning, #mintthecoin was fifth on Yahoo's front page of top searches, and shortly thereafter, Weisenthal was on Bloomberg TV, which had already begun asking other guests about the prospects for the instant, trillion-dollar solution.

"It does address another bad law, and that's why it's worth promoting," said Weisenthal.

Matt Yglesias gave the idea a straigtforward look on Slate; the Daily News wrote a humorless editorial about how funny it is; and Kevin Drum of Mother Jones said he didn't think courts would allow it, though he was admittedly unsure.

Certainly, it's not a realistic policy path for Barack Obama, who wasn't willing to invoke the far less ridiculous-looking workaround of invoking the 14th Amendment guarantee of the validity of national debt as a way of invalidating Congress' debt-ceiling threat.

But for what it's worth, the guy who was in charge of the U.S. Mint when the original law providing for the minting of such a coin was passed told me he thinks Nadler's proposal is perfectly legal.

"My understanding of how this all works suggests that this is a viable alternative," said Philip Diehl, a former chief of staff to the late Texas congressman Lloyd Bentsen, who was head of the U.S. Mint from 1994-2000.

Diehl tried to make the Mint function more like a business, and saw an opportunity in the worldwide market for platinum bullion coins. (The gold bullion coins fashioned by the Mint are not produced at the preferred purity for the worldwide gold trade, Diehl said, making them a tough sell on the international market.)

Diehl planned to conduct extensive market research, focusing in particular on the hot market for platinum in Japan, and wanted legislation that would allow him to react quickly to those results. The Treasury Department, wary of its bureaus making their own friends on the Hill, was "decidedly unenthusiastic" about the legislation, Diehl said, but he worked closely with Republican Rep. Mike Castle, who was chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee at the time, and eventually got the bill through the Republican-controlled House with what Diehl called a "blank check."

"One of the ironies in this story is that a G.O.P. Congress passed the legislation over the objections of a Democratic Treasury, and now, today, Treasury may well be in a position to use the law as leverage to neutralize the G.O.P.'s threat to hold the debt limit hostage," he said.

The legislation served its purpose; the Mint rushed out a platinum bullion eagle coin—in denominations up to $100—and overtook the market.

"We brought that coin to market faster than any coin the U.S. Mint had ever brought to market, and within about six months of launching it, we owned about 80 percent of the worldwide market for platinum bullion coins," he said. "The Canadians had dominated the Japanese and U.S. market up to that time, and we basically took them out of his both markets."

"Of course, no one ever imagined that a scenario like this would develop," said Diehl, who is now C.E.O. of a gold seller in Austin, Texas.

Diehl said he thought it could be used "as a backstop," and that it appeared to be on more firm legal ground than the 14th Amendment.

"From everything I know about this, it is possible," he said. "Now, is it likely? I think it's highly unlikely to happen. It just looks so ridiculous for the major economic power in the world to produce a trillion-dollar coin in order to balance its books. But is that any more ridiculous than the country being held hostage over default? I think not."

"This coin thing could be done quickly—over and done with it, and I just don't think there's any legal basis for a challenge for it," he added.

At one point yesterday, with a prod from Buzzfeed's Zeke Miller, Twitter users began suggesting names of people who might be pictured on the trillion-dollar coin.

Diehl said that would in fact be up to the Secretary of the Treasury—"In every previous case I know of it was written into the law"—but he suggested Teddy Roosevelt.

Through a spokesman, in an email, Nadler offered a couple of other ideas.

"Albert Gallatin -- for his role in setting up the modern treasury system

John Boehner -- for his role in screwing it up"


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #129 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash


Platinum is at $1,559 per ounce today. A $Trillion coin would require 1 x 10(12)/1.559 x 10(3) = 6.414 x 10(9) ounces. At 16 ounces to the pound that would be 64.14 x 10(8)/16 = 4 x 10(8) pounds or in human terms 400,000,000 = 400 Million Pounds or 200,000 Tons --- that's a BIG coin even for the upside-down Liberal reality. 

The Liberal reality has overlooked another "inconvenient truth" as Al Gore was fond of saying. Where would the Treasury get the money to purchase a $Trillion (400 Million pounds) in platinum from the open market? No where is this addressed by the Liberal financial geniuses. They just assume the Mint has it laying around. The law says the Treasury can authorize the US Mint to strike a platinum coin therefor it shall be done!! hahaha, actually a few Libs had suggestions along the lines of spraying a film of platinum on a lead coin --- hahaha, Libs are just natural cons and crooks.

The Libs bumped into another "inconvenient truth", it is likely that the 200,000 tons of platinum required for THE coin would exceed the 25ft x 25ft x 25ft cube encompassing all the worlds' platinum ever mined. Facts just make a Liberals' life suck, which no doubt explains why they are so unfamiliar with them.



I don't think the author gets it.  Money is often made out of material which differs in value from the face value.  Example...how much do you think the paper/ink costs to produce a $100.00 bill.  It is fiat money.  The trillion dollar coin would be the same thing.  What they are talking about is a quick monitization of $1 trillion.  

Its a terrible idea and its sad that this is actually being discussed.  It show how limited an understanding of money and economics our leaders have .


__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #130 
Legal Prescription Drugs Killed Sandy Hook Children ----- Not Guns.

The common thread, which is largely unreported in the MSM, to our recent handgun murders is prescription drugs. The kind prescribed by K-12 grade schools for boys to prevent them from acting like --- boys. Ban behavior modifying drugs for boys, not guns for adults.

Adam Lanza used two semi-automatic handguns in the Sandy Hook murders. He did not use a rifle. Yet Sen. Feinsteins' gun bill primarily pertains to assault rifles --- not handguns.

Even for the MSM this confusion on the Sandy Hook evidence is extraordinary.

If the problem fails to be correctly identified then it will never be solved. Prescription drugs given by schools to boys are the problem, not guns.


The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting

Exclusive: David Kupelian says 1 piece of crucial information has yet to be disclosed

Published: 3 hours ago

Since last month’s horrifying and heartbreaking school massacre in Newtown, Conn., politicians and the press have, as everyone knows, been totally obsessed with firearms.

Indeed, President Obama has vowed to impose strong new gun-control measures on the nation – very soon, with or without Congress.

Other possible factors – from violent video games to the “failure of our mental-health system” to the unintended consequences of making schools “gun-free zones” – have taken a back seat to guns. Within hours of the gruesome mega-crime, the media had provided extensive, round-the-clock coverage of precisely which firearms, manufacturers and calibers the perpetrator had used, how he had obtained them from his mother, where they were originally purchased, and so on.

But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”

It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what “medication” may he have used? (One brief mini-hoax emerged when the New York Daily News published a story claiming the shooter, according to his uncle, had been on the controversial antipsychotic drug Fanapt. That story was quickly withdrawn after the “uncle” turned out to be a fraudster with no relation to the murderer.)

So, what is the truth? Where is the journalist curiosity? Where is the follow-up? Where is the police report, the medical examiner’s report, the interviews with his doctor and others?

But let me back up. Perhaps you’re wondering why this issue of psychiatric medications should be so important.

As I documented in “How Evil Works,” it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications:

  • Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves.Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
  • Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
  • Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
  • In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
  • In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
  • In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
  • In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
  • Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
  • John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
  • Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug.

    Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.

  • One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them.”I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#FPEQa3gbVFwFo7ou.99

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #131 
The $1 Trillion Coin cont.


How much does a 25 foot cube of Platinum weigh? (allegedly all the Platinum mined in history)

Platinum SG = 21.45 g/cc (weight of 1 cc, g/cc)

Troy Oz/ Cubic Inch = 11.301 Toz/ci. (Pure Platinum in 1 cubic inch)

 
So, weight per cubic foot = 12in x 12in x 12in = 12cubed = 1,728 cu in.

1,728 x 11.301 = 19,528.128 Troy ounces per cubic foot.

 
25 foot cube contains 25 x 25 x 25 = 25 cubed = 15,625 cubic feet

15,625 x 19,528.128 Toz/cu.ft = 305,127,000 Troy ounces in a 25 ft. cube

 
1 pound = 14.5833 Troy ounces

305,127,000/14.5833 = 20,923,042 pounds in a 25 ft. cube

 
2,000 pounds per ton

20,923,042 pounds/ 2,000 = 10,461 tons of Platinum in a 25ft cube

This is considerably less than the 18,000 tons quoted in other stories.


However the Super $1 Trillion Coin (or coins) would consume far more Platinum than either number of tons, 10,461 or 18,000, above.


Sooooo ...... what would the price of Platinum have to be for all of it to equal $1 Trillion?
$1,000,000,000,000/305,127,000 Troy ounces in a 25 ft. cube = $3,277/Troy Oz.

I don't think this coin deal will make Platinum rise to $3,277 because the USG hasn't got the cash to buy it on the world market and if all reports about Fort Knox are true there isn't any Gold in that vault to help, ditto FR vault in NY City. Federal Law requires the Congress to authorize the $1 Trillion in cash for the purchase by raising the debt limit so the Treasury can create new Bonds so the Fed can print the new "cash" using the Bonds as collateral. This is the way it works and has worked since 1913, despite what Jerry Nadler and other Libs are currently smoking, ingesting or injecting.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #132 
JC, the idea of 1 trillion dollar coin is to produce a coin with 1 trillion dollars in face value (read fiat), not metal content.  The loophole is that they can make a coin of any denomination so they could use that to quickly create a trillion dollars to pay for the debt so the republicans cannot hold up the debt ceiling.  Where are people getting the idea that they would have to source a trillion dollars with of platinum...that would defeat the entire purpose of what they are trying to do.

Look at a $100 bill...it dose not take $100 worth of paper and ink to create a $100 bill.  The same way...a small coin could be minted with a face value of 1 trillion dollars, where the value of the platinum is only a few hundred dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

The term fiat money has been defined variously as:

  • any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[7]
  • state-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[8]
  • money without intrinsic value.[9][10]

While gold- or silver-backed representative money entails the legal requirement that the bank of issue redeem it in fixed weights of gold or silver, fiat money's value is unrelated to the value of any physical quantity. Even a coin containing valuable metal may be considered fiat currency if itsface value is higher than its market value as metal.




__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #133 
Everyone understands the fiat argument Kaihacker, even me. Here's the point you may have overlooked.

Federal law already defines the legal method for creating more fiat money --- Congress must increase the debt limit, then the Treasury must decide to sell more US Bonds, then the Fed buys the new Bonds with newly printed "cash" by using the new Treasury Bonds as collateral.

The method suggested by Jerry Nadler does not follow the above legal requirements  --- it violates the Federal laws, used since 1913, for creating more fiat money   ----- that is the point.

Nadler and his band of Merry Morons want to create a special coin of the type the Mint can issue like Silver Dollars and Gold Eagles. These kinds of coins all have a specific and significant precious metal content. Silver Eagles all have a Troy ounce of Silver (.999 fine). All the US mints' gold coins have specific .999 pure Gold content, 1 troy ounce in the Gold Double Eagle.

The US Mint must buy, from the open market, the Silver and Gold for its' coins from its' budget. Its' budget comes from the Federal Budget, the Federal Budget can only be increased if the Debt Ceiling is increased. So again we are faced with the Federal Law that only allows Congress to increase the fiat money supply necessary to provide the US Mint with the cash to buy the Gold and Silver bars. By law these Gold and Silver US coins MUST contain a specified and significant amount of precious metals. This applies to the $Trillion coin(s) too.

So either way we look at the question Nadler is violating the Federal Laws on fiat money creation. This is why Nadlers' idea is at best ridiculous and at worst illegal. One thing is sure, Nadler doesn't understand fiat money.

There is only ONE legal way in the United States to create fiat money, it is a well established procedure in use for almost a century. As fiat money systems go it is a pretty good one because it prevents complete idiots like Nadler and his retarded followers from issuing even more of the stuff without bounds as was popular in Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe and numerous South American and Communist-Socialist countries.

The Debt-Ceiling debates are a good and necessary public step required by Federal Law to control the growth of our money supply and expose Congress to the heat of public scrutiny every time it puts its' hand in the cookie jar (that's your wallet and mine).

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #134 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash


The method suggested by Jerry Nadler does not follow the above legal requirements  --- it violates the Federal laws, used since 1913, for creating more fiat money   ----- that is the point.

Nadler and his band of Merry Morons want to create a special coin of the type the Mint can issue like Silver Dollars and Gold Eagles. These kinds of coins all have a specific and significant precious metal content. Silver Eagles all have a Troy ounce of Silver (.999 fine). All the US mints' gold coins have specific .999 pure Gold content, 1 troy ounce in the Gold Double Eagle.

The US Mint must buy, from the open market, the Silver and Gold for its' coins from its' budget. Its' budget comes from the Federal Budget, the Federal Budget can only be increased if the Debt Ceiling is increased. So again we are faced with the Federal Law that only allows Congress to increase the fiat money supply necessary to provide the US Mint with the cash to buy the Gold and Silver bars. By law these Gold and Silver US coins MUST contain a specified and significant amount of precious metals. This applies to the $Trillion coin(s) too.


I agree with you that its a bad idea.  But our Keynesian leaders tend make a lot of choices that I do not agree with.  

From what I am reading the whole idea is based on a loophole which gives them the ability to mint coins of any denomination. 

Here is some background...

This scenario is possible because, while US law limits Treasury's ability to print currency and mint coins, the law is silent about coins minted from platinum. So, while the law prescribes the manner by which Treasury can mint coins made out of gold, silver and, it doesn't contain any provisions for coins made from platinum. 

This wasn't, mind you, because the drafters of the law felt the government needed some explicit exemption to coin platinum, but rather because almost no one has ever used platinum to make coins. The only country that ever issued platinum coins as part of its currency was Imperial Russia, in the mid-19th Century. That effort was short-lived, however, because the metal is hard to work with and closely resembles less expensive metals. 

The law doesn't explicitly mention platinum only because no one actually thought someone would seriously think about minting the metal as actual currency. The law is equally silent about glass or tree bark being used to make coins, so, presumably the Treasury could also issue a $1 Trillion tree bark coin. 





__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #135 

31 U.S.C. 5112(k) as originally enacted by Public Law 104-208 in 1996:

The Secretary may mint and issue bullion and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

In 2000, the word "bullion" was replaced with "platinum bullion coins."


__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #136 
Well Kaihacker let's get very specific. The Constitution states that only Gold and Silver may be used in coinage. So Platinum cannot be used for money. Though it could be used for non-monetary commemoratives. We use other non-monetary metals in sandwiched coins today.

What Nadler and Pelosi want is new, illegal way to create fiat money. By fiat Nadler and Pelosi want to create Fiat money based in a non-monetary metal according to the Constitution.

Whether the specie method is accepted or not, the legal method of Federal Debt increase is the one I described in the previous answer. Two or three members of Congress going to the Mint to pick up a $Trillion in lead, tin or wooden coins then Depositing them with the Treasury to be used for new fiat currency creation is a clear violation of the existing Federal laws of fiat money creation which mandate that only an act of Congress can authorize.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #137 
Maybe you are right, but they think its a valid loophole in the law.  I am not a currency specialist, nor do I have much interest in knowing more.  Either way their suggestion (legal or not) is to create a fiat coin worth a 1 trillion dollars.  They are not talking about sourcing a trillion dollars of platinum and mint a giant coin as the posts above address.

Either way, the idea is not being taken seriously...so hopefully this is all just a non-issue.  I did see that Krugman jumped on bandwagon...not surprising.  

 

__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #138 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/

I always cringe at what Krugman writes so I am not surprised he jumped on this topic.  He has been outspoken of taking on more debt to stimulate the economy. 


__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #139 
Kaihacker --- I knew from the begining that the Platinum coin was a ruse. However since they tried to pass it off as a realistic possibility I analyzed it on that basis because it was so ridiculous.  However I am certain that a majority of Americans believed the Platinum coin(s) were a viable way to create fiat money.

The simplest answer is that Federal Law requires an Act of Congress to increase the Federal Debt. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Jerry Nadler do not constitute an Act of Congress though in their Alzheimers' demented minds they probably believe they are.

Stupidity, ignorance and political corruption are destroying our nation right before our eyes.

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #140 
The Unconscious Liberal Mind

The Conscience Of A Liberal
By Paul Krugman erstwhile Economist 1/7/2013
Comments in Blue Italics are mine

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default?

This is a common misconception of the Unconscious Liberal Mind. Default occurs when the borrower fails to make a payment on time. The US Gov't has plenty of money to meet its payments for months into the future. Military spending, debt servicing and Social Security payments continue even if the Debt Limit debate takes awhile. If necessary in the interim money can even be taken from other Federal agencies to meet these obligations.

Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

Krugman forgets the Federal Law requiring an Act of Congress to raise the Debt Limit. The Law does not permit an Act of the President nor an Act of the Unconscious Liberal Mind, nor an Act of the Alzheimers' Mind Trio (Reid, Pelosi, Nadler) to raise the Debt ceiling.

For those new to this, here’s the story. First of all, we have the weird and destructive institution of the debt ceiling; this lets Congress approve tax and spending bills that imply a large budget deficit — tax and spending bills the president is legally required to implement — and then lets Congress refuse to grant the president authority to borrow, preventing him from carrying out his legal duties and provoking a possibly catastrophic default.

Krugmans' Unconscious Liberal Mind is at war with the Constitutionally devised Separation of Powers. The wise men who wrote the Constitution knew there would be a President in our future who would garner all power in the Presidency and change it to a Dictatorship. So the power to increase the debt of the US falls on Congress. The Unconscious Liberal Mind prefers Dictatorship.

And Republicans are openly threatening to use that potential for catastrophe to blackmail the president into implementing policies they can’t pass through normal constitutional processes.

Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all.

So why not?

Because it is prevented by Federal Law which only permits the Congress to raise the Debt Ceiling. The Unconscious Liberal Mind is unconstrained by illegalities.

The Unconscious Liberal Mind is unaware that all the Platinum mined in the world would be insufficient to provide the $1 Trillion. The Unconscious Liberal Mind forgets that the Constitution authorizes only Gold and Silver for monetary coinage.

It’s easy to make sententious remarks to the effect that we shouldn’t look for gimmicks,

The Unconscious Liberal Mind is opening the door to a gimmick.

we should sit down like serious people and deal with our problems realistically. That may sound reasonable — if you’ve been living in a cave for the past four years.

What if you've been in an Unconscious Liberal State of Mind for the last 45 years?

Given the realities of our political situation, and in particular the mixture of ruthlessness and craziness that now characterizes House Republicans, it’s just ridiculous — far more ridiculous than the notion of the coin.

What's ridiculous to the Unconscious Liberal Mind? --- following the Federal Laws on Debt Ceiling increases and Fiat money creation that have been in place for a century or more?

So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin.

The Unconscious Liberal Mind reveals itself as willing to declare, by fiat, that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional but hesitates because it "isn't workable" -- Not that it's Un-Constitutional or Dictatorial (which is what it would be) just that it is not "workable".

This still leaves the question of whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary.

Clearly it is the Unconscious Liberal Mind that should be stamped on the Coin. The Coin needn't be made of platinum but of tin coated lead. Only one palm sized coin should be struck at the Mint. Then the coin should be struck again --- in the first available orifice of the Unconscious Liberal Mind.



__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #141 
Who Am I? Listen and see if your guess is correct.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #142 
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/422658/january-07-2013/the-platinum-debt-ceiling-solution


Link

__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #143 


Colbert bumps into the all illegality arguments I've presented here to your questions. Rather than address them he steps around them. The issuance of a Platinum coin(s) to allow fiat money creation is not technically legal, despite Colberts' statement to the contrary.

Colbert reasons by feel that the Platinum coin idea is ridiculous but neither he or his staff are informed enough to argue by facts and law. This is typical Liberal logic when caught in an embarrassing situation but still hoping for the ridiculous Liberal desire to become a reality.

Colbert is firmly on both sides of the issue. This is considered "balance" in the Liberal media when confronting a well defended Conservative conclusion. It's clear he thinks the Platinum coin is a ridiculous idea but he also squeezes in the false "technically legal" supposition to allow later justification for the coin.

To be clear, it is true that the Mint can legally produce a Platinum Commemorative coin. It is NOT legal for that coin to be used by the Treasury to give to the Fed for the creation of new fiat money (for all the reasons explained in the previous posts above). Neither Colbert nor his staff of "experts" addressed or even noticed this significant point of law. Neither did the Demento Trio of Reid, Pelosi and Nadler. (add Krugman to the Trio too)

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #144 
The Federal Small Business Administration Estimates annual costs for America to comply with Federal Regulations at $1.75 Trillion!

In the last 90 days the Federal Government has added 5,934 new regulations. The total increases every day, as the list below shows. No regulations are removed, our Federal Regulations grow without bound.

When the Debt-Ceiling Debate begins in Congress all of this Regulation creation could come to a screeching halt. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of rule writing regulators could be thrown out of work!


The New American
January 8, 2013

Regulators-R-Us

We remind the reader once more, the regulatory avalanche we have touched on thus far has dealt merely with environmental matters, and only a couple of agencies at that. What about the dozens of other agencies of what is known as “the administrative state”?

Take a look at http://www.regulations.gov, the federal government’s regulatory website. The home page informs us (on December 21, 2012) that in the last 90 days, the administration has posted 5,934 new regulations.

Yes, our federal bureaucrats have been very diligent. The website informs us of their daily productivity of regulations over the past 90 days:

Today (121)

Last 3 Days (274)

Last 7 Days (371)

Last 15 Days (826)

Last 30 Days (1,915)

Last 90 Days (5,934)

How will these regulations affect you, your family, and your job, business, ranch, or farm? You may not have federal SWAT teams descend upon you, as has happened to dairy farmers and natural food store operators who dared to sell raw milk products not approved by the federal Food & Drug Administration (see the article on page 21) or the hundreds of other Americans subjected to Gestapo-style treatment for running afoul of the volumes of murky and convoluted regulations that fill the 169,301 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations published in the Federal Register. And, as if such a regulatory load is not sufficiently mind numbing, please be informed that these edicts are amplified, explained, and interpreted by millions more pages of "guidance." Consider merely one federal agency, the EPA. Professors David Schoenbrod, Richard B. Stewart, and Katrina M. Wyman report

The federal environmental statutes that Congress has addressed to EPA run to more than 2,700 pages ?in the two large, maroon United States code volumes. The legally binding regulations issued by EPA to implement these statutes fill the 31 ochre volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations. The guidance and other documents issued by EPA to explain or interpret its regulations fill around one million pages and are represented by the 1,250 grey loose-leaf volumes. 

A million pages for just one agency! And woe betide the property owner or business owner who misses the latest guidance memo from a faceless bureaucrat changing the standards, protocols or record-keeping and reporting procedures.

Even if your home, farm, or business is not personally “visited” by agents of the FDA, EPA, OSHA, SEC, or any of the myriad other federal agencies, you will pay a huge price nonetheless, both in economic costs and in loss of freedoms. A cost analysis by the Small Business Administration in 2008 found that the cost to our national economy of compliance with federal regulations was an astronomical $1.75 trillion — annually!


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #145 
US Military Power to Arrest and Detain Americans on US Soil Without Habeas Corpus Renewed

President Obama Renews NDAA power to apprehend and detain Americans indefinitely on no more authority than his own suspicion of their complicity with enemies in the “War on Terror.”



The New American
Saturday, 05 January 2013 12:30

Obama Signs 2013 NDAA: May Still Arrest, Detain Citizens Without Charge

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
 
 

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, President Barack Obama did what constitutionalists and civil libertarians knew he would do: He signed into law the renewal of his power to apprehend and detain Americans indefinitely on no more authority than his own suspicion of their complicity with enemies in the “War on Terror.”

With more of a whimper than a bang, the president signed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As he did on New Year’s Eve 2011 when he signed last year’s version of the NDAA, President Obama appended a signing statement to the act. This time, however, there were no promises of protecting Americans from deprivations of due process. This time, the signing statement (I would agree with Benjamin Wittes of the Lawfare blog who suggests it is more of a “whining” statement) recounts all the reasons the president had for vetoing the bill. Somehow, however, he managed to hold his nose and sign this unconstitutional, no longer unprecedented, giant leap toward statism, absolutism, and outright unapologetic tyranny.

Although President Obama warned months ago that he would veto the $636-billion defense spending bill if it contained any restrictions on his ability to shutter the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (a 2008 campaign promise), he apparently decided that compared to the power to kidnap and lock up Americans according to his own whim was sufficient exchange for being “forced” to keep Gitmo going.

Leaders of human rights organizations — many of whom were counted among the winning Obama coalition in 2008 — admitted disappointment at the failure of the president to deliver the hope and change he promised.

"It's not encouraging that the President continues to be willing to tie his own hands when it comes to closing Guantanamo," said Dixon Osburn of Human Rights First. "The injustice of Guantanamo continues to serve as a stain on American global leadership on human rights."

Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA said that "solutions for ending human rights violations, not excuses, must be found."

"This law makes it harder for the President to fulfill his promise to close the Guantanamo detention facility, perpetuating a grave injustice against the detainees held without charge or fair trial," Jannuzi added.

Fair trials are likely to soon be placed on the federally-protected endangered species list.

There were a few lawmakers, however, who tried to amend the NDAA in a way that protected that fundamental right for Americans or permanent legal residents detained under provisions of the NDAA.

On December 18, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees completed their conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. This was the version of the bill signed by President Obama on January 2.

At a press conference held December 20, four of the leaders of those committees announced the completion of the compromise version of the bill and pointed out some highlights of the revised bicameral measure.

“The conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which was adopted today by the conference committee, provides well-deserved support for the men and women of the armed forces and their families and provides them with the means to accomplish their missions,” announced Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

One controversial portion of the NDAA bill passed by the Senate on December 4 didn’t make the cut, however, after the conference committee’s negotiations.

The Feinstein-Lee Amendment, which protects Americans from indefinite detention (passed by the Senate 67-29), was stripped from the conference report, not surprising given that inveterate warmonger Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) led the group drafting the compromise version of the bill that would be presented to both houses for their approval.

The relationship between McCain’s influence and the exclusion of the Feinstein-Lee Amendment from the conference report was not lost on Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a chief co-sponsor of the Feinstein-Lee Amendment.

In a statement released on December 19, Senator Paul did what few lawmakers ever do: named names. He declared:

The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional.

I voted against NDAA in 2011 because it did not contain the proper constitutional protections. When my Senate colleagues voted to include those protections in the 2012 NDAA through the Feinstein-Lee Amendment last month, I supported this act.

But removing those protections now takes us back to square one and does as much violence to the Constitution as last year's NDAA. When the government can arrest suspects without a warrant, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.

Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus — the right to be presented before a judge — is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.

Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators' convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.

Members of the House of Representatives were right there with their congressional colleagues in faithlessness to their oaths of office.

In a shameful display of disregard for the Constitution and for liberty, on May 18, 2012, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to perpetuate the president’s power to indefinitely detain American citizens.

By a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected an amendment offered by Representatives Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA retains the indefinite detention provisions, as well as the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian jurisdiction to the custody of the military.

"The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial," Representative Amash said during House debate.

In his impassioned speech supporting his amendment, Representative Smith reminded his colleagues that the NDAA granted to the president “extraordinary” powers and divested the American people of key civil liberties, as well as divesting civilian courts of their constitutional jurisdiction.

Smith pointed out that there was no need to transfer suspects into military custody, as “hundreds” of terrorists have been tried in federal courts since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Congressmen — Republicans and Democrats — were not persuaded and they voted against Smith-Amash.

Another amendment offered by Representatives Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jeff Landry (R-La.), and Scott Rigell (R-Va.) passed by a vote of 243-173. The Gohmert Amendment (House Amendment 1126) states that the NDAA will not “deny the writ of habeas corpus or deny any Constitutional rights for persons detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.”

Again, this amendment is yet another indefensible use of vague language that would make it vulnerable to challenge in any court in any state in the Union, but somehow adds to its appeal among the Republicans in Congress.

Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA purports to protect the rights of citizens, relying again on lazy language that would fail a legal challenge if it were a city ordinance and not a congressional act.

That section declares:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

Finally, this brief paragraph fails to address the most invasive aspect of the mortal malady that is the NDAA — the placement of the American military at the disposal of the president for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). Giving the president that power is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

It is this last bit of Stalinist-style authoritarianism that is the NDAA’s true threat to liberty. While Section 1029 purports to buttress the right to a trial for citizens and permanent residents, it does nothing to prevent their apprehension. Denial of habeas corpus (or a trial) comes later; it is the delirium, not the fever, in a manner of speaking.

Put simply, Americans would not need to worry about being held without charge if the president was not authorized in the same act to deploy the armed forces to round up the “suspects” and detain them indefinitely. Being apprised of the laws one is accused of having violated is important, but it’s the detention and the manner of it that must be of more immediate concern to those who are alarmed about the new world order being defined by the NDAA.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #146 
Look What Could Have Happened in 2012



__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
kaihacker

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,861
Reply with quote  #147 

from marketwatch

White House won’t fully rule out $1 trillion coin idea

January 9, 2013, 3:27 PM

White House press secretary Jay Carney laughed on Wednesday when he was asked about the idea to mint a $1 trillion coin as a way of getting around the U.S. debt ceiling. But he didn’t entirely take it off the table.

“The only option,” Carney told reporters, is for Congress to “do its job” and raise the debt limit.

Carney fielded several questions about raising the debt limit, including about the coin and the push by some Democratic lawmakers for President Barack Obama to consider using the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to bypass Congress. He endorsed neither and said “There is no Plan B.”

“Nothing needs to come to these kinds of speculative notions” like the $1 trillion coin, he said. He repeated that Obama won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling.

But the fact that the Mint the Coin movement is being discussed at White House press briefings is a sure sign that negotiations are really just getting started.


__________________
Gene Hacker

Passive and active real estate investment opportunities.
http://RiverLakeRE.com riverlakere@gmail.com

Home Inspections in Bakersfield and all of kern county:
http://bakersfieldinspections.com
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #148 
Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was clear in his 1952 ruling against President Harry Truman when it was determined that the Presidency has no legal or Constitutional power to legislate  by Executive Order or any other manner. Justice Black was unambiguous in stating that all Legislative Power rests in the Congress, not the Presidency. The President is limited to executing laws that are written and passed by the Congress.

If the President issues an Executive Order with the implied force of law, but not authorized by an existing law passed by Congress, then the Congress is empowered and indeed obligated to immediately place him under impeachment based on the Constitutions' Separation of Powers and the 1952 Supreme Court ruling below:

Does the 1952 Supreme Court Ruling Nullify A Presidents' Executive Orders Against the Second Amendment?

 

Does the President have the legal authority to legislate by executive FIAT to get his way when Congress will not? 

No he does not.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions passed back in 1798 stated and declared:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

The state legislatures have a duty and moral obligation to resist Obama’s illegal executive orders to protect the sovereignty of their respective states and the safety of its people from tyranny. This is not the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. We might see a power grab by one man trying to centralize all powers not enumerated to him to attack the right to keep and bear arms. The states do have many legal remedies if anyone in government has a backbone to stand up. In 1952, the US Supreme Court struck down a power grab by President Truman.

In 1952, The US Supreme Court rule against President Harry S. Trumans' executive order in the case of Youngstown Co vs. Sawyer. The President signed an executive order to seize the steel mills because a worker strike under the pretense of a steel worker strike is a threat to national security.

Justice Hugo Black in the Majority opinion said:

The mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President.

Further Saying:

Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provisions. The District Court was asked to declare the orders of the President and the Secretary invalid and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining their enforcement.

The Governments excuse that did not hold water was:

injunction, the United States asserted that a strike disrupting steel production for even a brief period would so endanger the well-being and safety of the Nation that the President had “inherent power” to do what he had done – power “supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions.”

Is President Obama making the same excuse under a similar pretext to the response to the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary saying guns in the hands of the law abiding Americans endangers the well being of the children. So in the Presidents mind if congress will not go along he will use his “inherent powers” to confiscate the guns using the “necessary and proper” clause

Justice Black continually says restricting the President’s Power writing:

The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied.

 

Harry Truman used the color of law without no legal authority. The President only has the power to enforce the laws of Congress. He has no implied powers. His authority is very limited.

This can be Obama’s Waterloo like Napoleon when he overreached and over extended beyond pushing the limits past his legal constraints. The Chief Justice emphasizes constantly in the majority opinion:

It is clear that IF the President had authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President . . .”; that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

Here are further quotes from Justice Hugo Black that are worth noting that the President is not a law onto himself:

Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . .” After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though “theater of war” be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation’s lawmakers, not for its military authorities.

The President has no statutory or constitutional authority to sign an executive order to disarm the law abiding American people.



__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #149 
Paul "Bugs" Krugman, grinning like a daft man beholding a Messianic vision, delivered his epiphany to the New Left Society of the Increasingly Unhinged. While wrestling with the weighty US deficit his ecstatic mind flashed on the solution that has escaped all earth bound economists, "just increase the GDP!!". That's it, it was so clear to him in an instant, once the GDP increases the ratio of the Deficit to GDP will fall and "Nirvana will be in sight" he predicted as 3 beefy, white-jacketed young men escorted the frothing, lovable goof-ball back to his room.

How the GDP would increase as the US re-enters its' worst recession since the Depression was left unanswered as the wacko Cassandra was grabbed off stage before harming himself with an unregistered and unlicensed 10 cartridge white-board marker.

The zany economist was on a rebound from his last prescription for the US deficit, the $Trillion Platinum coin(s) from nowhere, containing no Platinum, that would cost almost nothing and pay-off the $Trillion deficit. The novel idea reportedly left Ben Bernanke muttering to himself "damn --- why didn't I think of that!"

"Bugs" fans can hardly wait for his next off-planet remedy for the deficit.

We are witnessing the loosening of the last tether of economic reality from the balloon that has become the New Lefts' New Economics. Perhaps it is a harbinger of more collisions between reality and other bizarre Leftist political ideas.

PAUL KRUGMAN: The Deficit Is Basically Solved

BusinessInsider.com Jan. 10, 2013

Many people think that fixing the deficit is a painful process that involves deep cuts to crucial programs. Some think the process is too hard, and it's not worth trying yet. 

That's not correct, according to a chart from from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Richard Kogan showing just how far the United States has come in the past two years. 

We've talked before about how the painless and most effective solution to the deficit is additional growth in GDP.  As the recovery progresses and GDP rises, the government will get more revenue from increased productivity. We've also pointed out that — fundamentally — it's not only a spending problem.

CBPP

Paul Krugman made the point that the chart shows how far we've come on the deficit and how easy it will be to solve moving forward. 

Richard Kogan points out that the debt to GDP is very important indicator, and can't rise forever. "If it did," he says, "that would shrink the amount of national saving available for private investment, ultimately impairing productivity growth and, in turn, living standards."

In short, seeing what we're seeing is a good thing. 

The chart shows the stabilization of the debt to GDP ratio of the United States.

As late as 2011, the U.S. was bound for an unmitigated increase in debt to GDP ratio. Thanks to two bills, the deficit is close to coming under control:

  • The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which came from the debt ceiling negotiations and mandates $1.2 trillion in cuts.
  • The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), which was signed two weeks ago to avert the fiscal cliff and raised taxes on high earners. 

The red line on the bottom — which would stabilize the debt to GDP ratio — is what would come of an additional $1.4 trillion in government savings. Such savings could come in the form of either cuts or revenue raises, or a combination of both.

That's all it would take to permanently stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. Yes, the debt will continue to rise, but as long as it's rising at a slower, stable rate compared to GDP, the U.S. will be in an exceptional position moving forward. 

Krugman and Kogan's points are the same: The U.S. has come a very, very long way recently. In the past two years, the federal government has successfully cut the deficit, and is all things considered very close to stabilizing the debt. 


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #150 
The White House confirmed today that it has no intention of creating the $Trillion Coin.


White House Nixes Idea for Trillion-Dollar Coin

 

Saturday, 12 Jan 2013 05:58 PM

By Newsmax Wires

 
 
  •  
  • 0
    Share
 
The White House has ruled out minting a coin worth $1 trillion to pay the government's bills and avoid a nasty battle with Congress over the debt ceiling.

Some of President Barack Obama's liberal allies have been promoting the coin strategy.

But White House spokesman Jay Carney nixed that option Saturday. Carney says there are just two options: Congress either can pay the tab for spending it has racked up or it can send the nation into default, which would have serious economic consequences.

The government already has reached its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit. By late February or early March, the Treasury Department will run out of ways to cover debts and could begin defaulting on government loans.

Treasury Department spokesman Anthony Coley added Saturday that neither his department nor the Federal Reserve believes the law can or should be used to produce such a coin to avoid a coming battle with Congress over government borrowing.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Nixes-trillion-dollar-coin/2013/01/12/id/471126#ixzz2HppGW3jU

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Policy