Saturday, May 3, 2014

Goldwater page 102

One sunny day in January, 2013, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Paul."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Paul is not President and does not reside here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.

The following day the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Paul."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Paul is not President and  does not reside here."

The man thanked him and again just walked away.

The third day the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Paul."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Paul. I've told you already that Mr. Paul is not  the President and does not reside here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir.
Permalink Reply by lisa kit on December 9, 2011 at 10:56am
Delete
He had better do it as much as he can before the 20th, b/c that is when he will be sworn in!!
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 7, 2011 at 9:33am
Delete

Separating Fact From Fiction on the Fed's Loans

  • By DAVID WESSEL

  • LIKE THIS COLUMNIST
Columnist's name
MORE IN ECONOMY »
It sounds like a great story: The Federal Reserve lent the banks $7.7 trillion during the financial crisis. And Congress wasn't told.
But it isn't true. Even if Jon Stewart says otherwise.
The Fed and the taxpayers did bail out the banks, including some that occasionally pretend otherwise today. The Fed lent enormous sums: $1.6 trillion in emergency loans and individual bailouts at the December 2008 peak. The Fed has been too secretive in the past. The Fed deserves some blame for not preventing the crisis. The Fed executed some aggressive plays during the crisis that demand post-game scrutiny.
But lending against collateral to solvent, but cash-short, banks during a panic isn't among the Fed's more controversial moves. That's what central banks have done since 19th-century England. And the Fed didn't lend anywhere near $7.7 trillion. Nor did it keep the size of its lending secret, though it did unsuccessfully try to keep the borrowers' identities secret.
[CAPITAL]El Paso Times/Associated Press
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, speaking in Texas last month.
How did this get started? Blame the law of large numbers (large ones crowd out smaller, more meaningful ones) and the delight we all take in revealing and learning secrets (even if they aren't really so secret). Why does it matter? Because widespread misunderstanding of what the Fed does and actually did can cripple it in taking steps to protect the economy in a future crisis. That's why Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke protested Tuesday what he described as "egregious errors" in some reports, and released a staff memo with details. (Full disclosure: My 2009 book, "In Fed We Trust," recounted the Fed's handling of the crisis favorably.)
Since the onset of the financial crisis, reporters have been trying to add the components of the bailout—loans, guarantees, stock purchases—to come up with a grand total. In December 2008, when the crisis was still unfolding, this newspaper wrote: "Using the most expansive counting possible, the U.S. has pledged to spend, invest or loan as much as $10 trillion....Yet the final tab is likely to be much, much smaller."
Bloomberg did a similar exercise in March 2009, tallying what it said the government had "spent, lent or committed." By that metric, the government total was pushed to $12.8 trillion and the Fed's share to $7.7 trillion.
In fact, the Fed never came close to "committing" to lend that much. The total reflects not what the Fed had actually laid out nor the sum of its promises. Rather, it adds the ceilings set on a number of emergency programs, some of which were more hype than reality. It counted, for instance, $900 billion for something called TALF (for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility), based on Treasury statements that the program might someday reach that size. In fact, the Fed board authorized up to $200 billion in loans, and actually lent $71 billion.
At first, the $7.7 trillion got only a bit of attention. Then the Fed, its hand forced by Congress and the courts, revealed what it had wanted to keep secret: Which banks borrowed how much and when.
In July 2011, the General Accountability Office took the Fed data and listed the biggest borrowers: Bank of America and Citigroup were at the top. A month later, Bloomberg published the fruits of its own number crunching, an extensive bank-by-bank tally of what it labeled "secret loans." Last month—long after the Fed had shut its emergency lending window—Bloomberg recycled that work in a story that included this sentence: "Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year."
This time the figure got attention. Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show": "We ultimately sent the banks $7.7 trillion...That's TARP, the worst program in U.S. history times 11." CNN: "For the first time we have details now on how much money the U.S. Federal Reserve doled out to U.S. banks. And the number? $7.7 trillion." The New York Times: "Among all the rescue programs set up by the Fed, $7.77 trillion in commitments were outstanding as of March 2009, Bloomberg said."
Actually, at the end of March 2009, the Fed had $1.3 trillion in loans outstanding, both emergency-liquidity loans and those made in the rescues of Bear Stearns, American International Group and others. And that was no secret: It was posted on the Fed website.
After Mr. Bernanke's letter was released Tuesday, Bloomberg spokesman Ty Trippet said, "We have met with the Fed numerous times on this issue and not once has the Fed ever told us our reporting on this issue is inaccurate." The amount, $7.77 trillion, was never characterized by Bloomberg as money lent by the Fed, Bloomberg said. However, other news outlets have mistakenly done so.
Fault the Fed for failing to head off the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Ask if the Fed should have let Bear Stearns go under or could have saved Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy six months later. Ask why it paid AIG's counterparties on derivatives contracts 100 cents on the dollar. Ask if the Fed failed to push Congress hard enough to prevent banks from growing "too big to fail." Ask if the Fed is doing too little now to sustain the economy or so much that it is sowing the seeds of inflation.
There's plenty to argue about, without turning to inflated numbers. The actual facts are stark enough.
Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 7, 2011 at 10:25am
Delete
"[W]henever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty."-- John Locke(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Locke.Quote.2314
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 8, 2011 at 7:43pm
Delete
I heard Neil Boortz read this post on air:

Downward Wisconsin

We used to make things here in Wisconsin. 

We made machine tools in Milwaukee, cars in Kenosha and ships in Sheboygan.  We mined iron in the north and lead in the south.  We made cheese, we made brats, we made beer, and we even made napkins to clean up what we spilled.  And we made money.

The original war on poverty was a private, mercenary affair.  Men like Harnishfeger, Allis, Chalmers, Kohler, Kearney, Trecker, Modine, Case, Mead, Falk, Allen, Bradley, Cutler, Hammer, Bucyrus, Harley, Davidson, Pabst, and Miller lifted millions up from subsistence living to middle class comfort.  They did it - not “Fighting Bob” La Follette or any of the politicians who came along later to take the credit and rake a piece of the action through the steepest progressive scheme in the nation.    

Those old geezers with the beards cured poverty by putting people to work. Generations of Wisconsinites learned trades and mastered them in the factories, breweries, mills, foundries, and shipyards those capitalists built with their hands.  Thousands of small businesses supplied these industrial giants, and tens of thousands of proprietors and professionals provided all of the services that all those other families needed to live well.  The wealth got spread around plenty.     

The profits generated by our great industrialists funded charities, the arts, education, libraries, museums, parks, and community development associations.  Taxes on their profits, property, and payrolls built our schools, roads, bridges, and the safety net that Wisconsin’s progressives are still taking credit for, as if the money came from their council meetings.  The offering plates in churches of every denomination were filled with money left over from company paychecks that were made possible because a few bold young men risked it all and got rich.  Don’t thank God for them; thank them that you learned about God.

Their wealth pales in comparison to the wealth they created for millions and millions of other Wisconsin families.  Those with an appreciation for the immeasurable contributions of Wisconsin’s industrial icons of 1910 will find the list of Wisconsin’s top ten employers of 2010 appalling:   

Walmart, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Milwaukee Public Schools, U.S. Postal Service, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Menards, Marshfield Clinic, Aurora Health Care, City of Milwaukee, and Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs.  

This is what a century of progressivism will get you.  Wisconsin is the birthplace of the progressive movement, the home of the Socialist Party, the first state to allow public sector unions, the cradle of environmental activism, a liberal fortress walled off against common sense for decades.  Their motto, Forward Wisconsin, should be changed to Downward Wisconsin if truth in advertising applies to slogans. 

There is no shortage of activists, advocates, and agitators in this State.  If government were the answer to our problems, we would have no problems.  The very same people – or people just like them – who picketed, struck, sued, taxed, and regulated our great companies out of this state are now complaining about the unemployment and poverty that they have brought upon themselves.  They got rid of those old rich white guys and replaced them with…nothing.

Wisconsin ranks 47th in the rate of new business formation.  We are one of the worst states for native college graduate exodus; our brightest and most ambitions graduates leave to seek their fortunes elsewhere.  Why shouldn’t they?  Our tax rates are among the worst in the nation and our business climate, perpetually in the bottom of the rankings, has only recently moved up thanks to a Governor who now faces a recall for his trouble.  

In 1970, the new environmental movement joined unions and socialists in a coordinated effort to demonize industry.  When I was in college, the ranting against “polluting profiteers” was like white noise – always there.  They won, and here is the price of their victory: in 1970, manufacturers paid 18.2% of Wisconsin’s property taxes – the major source of school funding - and in 2010 those who remained paid 3.7%.  

So who is it that caused the funding crisis in our schools and the skyrocketing tax rates on our homes?  It is the same ignoramuses who are sitting on bridges, pooping on things, and passing around recall petitions.  The unemployed 26-year old in the hemp hat looking for sympathy might look instead for some inspiration from Jerome I. Case, who started his agricultural equipment business at the age of 21, miraculously without an iPhone 4s.  

Mr. Case got rich by asking people what they want and making it for them.  He did not get rich by telling people what he wanted and waiting for them to do something about it.  If you want to declare war on your own poverty, memorize that.      

In the last decade alone we have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this state – over 25%.  And it’s not just jobs that have been lost; the companies that provided them are gone.  Those jobs are not coming back, no matter how long we extend unemployment benefits pretending they are.  The 450,000 people who still work in manufacturing in Wisconsin are damn good it at, but we are now outnumbered by people who work for government.  A significant number of the latter are tasked with taxing, regulating, and generally harassing the former.  While it is true that many manufacturers chased low-wage opportunities on their own, many more were driven out of the state by the increasing cost of doing business here. 

It is a myth that unions improve wages.  If you consider only the 1,000 jobs in a closed shop, you might think an average union wage is, say, $30/hr.  But if you add in the zero wages of the 10,000 jobs lost in companies chased out by union harassment, the average of all 11,000 union workers is reduced to $2.72/hr.  Do you know the average wage of union iron miners in this state?  Zero.  And the left is fighting hard to keep it that way in Northern Wisconsin - looking out for the working man, they call it.     

It is also a myth that free trade causes job losses.  Over the past three years, U.S. manufacturers sold $70 billion more goods to our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners than we bought from them.  Conversely, we suffered a $1.3 trillion trade deficit with countries where no FTA’s exist.  I doubt that kids are going to learn that in our government-union monopoly schools – it doesn’t fit the narrative.

No one wants to see another person suffer in poverty, and liberty is the best economic policy there is.  The great industrialists of Wisconsin took less than a generation to lift millions up to a life of dignity, pride, prosperity and good will.  When enterprise was free and government was limited, we all prospered.  

Those great men of industry were not anointed at birth to be rich; they rose from nothing to great wealth through their own hard work and the value they added to their employees and their customers through choice, competition, and voluntary exchange.  That is the only sure path to real prosperity; the debt economy is a temporary illusion.  

Look again at the list of our famous industrialists and the list of our current employers.  Who would you wish your child or grandchild to grow up to be?  Who do you think will do more good on this earth – Jerome I Case and his tractors, or the Coordinator of Supplier Diversity at MPS.  

If you chose MPS, then apply now – that job is open, and it pays up to $72,000 plus benefits and early retirement.  Go in peace and save the world.  Me, I'm going with the tractor guy.    


Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.comto find your moment.    
Permalink Reply by lisa kit on December 13, 2011 at 7:42am
Delete
Permalink Reply by lisa kit on December 18, 2011 at 9:44am
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 27, 2011 at 3:41pm
Delete
(360 B.C.) The Republic - Plato

(46 B.C.) Cicero's Brutus - Cicero

(1517) Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli

(1690) Two Treatises of Government - Locke

Sidney's Discourses and Locke's Second Treatise were recommended by Jefferson and Madison as containing the "general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and society"

(1748) The Spirit of Laws  - Montesquieu


(1758) The Law of Nations - Vattel



             The Writings of John Adams V3-4
             The Writings of John Adams V5-7
             The Writings of John Adams V8-10



(1774) Novanglus - Principle Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies

(1776) Common Sense - Thomas Paine
One Incident which gave a stimulus to the pamphlet Common Sense was, that it happened to appear on the very day that the King of England's speech reached the United States, in which the Americans were denounced as rebels and traitors, and in which speech it was asserted to be the right of the legislature of England to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever.



(1787) The Anti-Federalist (audio)

(1787) The Federalist (text) The Federalist (audio)




A treatise on what form of Federalism was constituted by the Framers

(1835) Democracy in America - Volume I - de Tocqueville

(1837) Introduction to American law - Designed as a First Book for Students

(1840) Democracy in America - Volume II - de Tocqueville

(1859) The Government Class Book - Designed for the Instruction of Youth

A critical review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Judge Upshur argues that Story's consolidated government views are without merit in logic or historical fact.

The Old South Lectures for Young People were instituted in the summer of 1883, as a means of promoting a more serious and intelligent attention to historical studies, especially studies in American history, among the young people of Boston.



Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 6, 2012 at 10:45am
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 10, 2012 at 5:04pm
Delete
I have held more serious debates on facts and issues than most on the TPP Here are some examples: read them and then read what I posted here that is serious and factual - no one has proved anything wrong as I have seen zero responses to the actual materials that control the ear mark and pork issues.
Published opinion of excuses is not factual nor supported in law or federal statutes or the Constitution. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says or we are no longer a Republic but as we are currently operating a elected monarchy with noblemen and women ignoring the RULE - BY - LAW basis of the Constitution.
There are more but these should show that we at TPP have had many constructive an informative discussions - the election brought the poison to the site and the TPM. I just hope when the election is over we have not fouled the well.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 11, 2012 at 2:19pm
Delete
 Mangus Colorado on September 29, 2011 at 5:32pm
Delete

Section 256. Generally. Section 256. Generally.


http://thepressurecooker.com/files/DeFacto.pdf

Link to the law regarding usurpation and the law being null and void as if it never existed. A possible base for Nullification

This is very interesting and thought provoking - It say we do not need to follow unconstitutional laws -
    Mangus ColoradoPermalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 29, 2011 at 5:34pm
    Delete
    GREAT SITES FOR STUDYING THE FOUNDERS WORKS AND THE CONSTITUTION - HOPE YOU ENJOY THEM :





    I will continue to post links and article that will help "WE THE PEOPLE TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC AND FREEDOMS.
      Mangus ColoradoPermalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on September 29, 2011 at 5:36pm
      Delete
      These papers might be of interest to those that desire to really learn about our Constitution. After reading these and exploring some of the links you will have a much better understanding of the complex nuances that the scholars apply to the Constitution. IMO after much reading the following books and links will contain the salvation of the Republic.



      "THE AMERICAN YARD STICK" [Hamilton Abert Long - 1963 available on amazon] It was written as a study guide of the Constitution and the Founders works.



      "THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION" What it Actually Said and Meant [Robert G. Natelson - 2010]



      http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/3492.html



      http://www.directessays.com/essay_search/Constitutional_Convention....



      http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm



      http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
        Mangus ColoradoPermalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 15, 2011 at 4:16pm
        Delete
        This will be in play during the upcoming SC hearings on Obamacare? Get refreshed as it will be in play -
        Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 11, 2012 at 2:19pm
        Delete
         Mangus Colorado on December 22, 2011 at 4:20pm
        Delete
        "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislaturesto erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."-- Alexander Hamilton(1757-1804)Source: The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 85
        Mangus ColoradoPermalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on December 22, 2011 at 4:29pm
        Delete
        "If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their character by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them."-- Alexis de Tocqueville[Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clerel, le Comte de Tocqueville] (1805-1859) French historian
        Cindy Sue CauseyPermalink Reply by Cindy Sue Causey 15 hours ago
        "General welfare" to these Fingertips implies.... overall national *structural*  health and stability, not social welfare programs.
        Jon BrunkePermalink Reply by Jon Brunke 14 hours ago
        Cindy,

        Right you are.  The case for what was meant by "general welfare" is so incredibly clear it just drives me nuts that we have to spend so much time restating it.
        Posted by at

        No comments:

        Post a Comment

        Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)