PaterPaisios schrieb:"Sag mir mal, was bringt OBAMA der Krieg gegen Pakistan und Afghanistan. Sucht er etwa noch Bin Laden. Ganz bestimmt nicht. Wir wissen doch alles über den 11. Sept. und was Wahrheit ist."
Was ist denn das für eine Frage?
Es ist egal was Obama der Krieg gegen Afgahnitan und Pakistan bringt,
Krieg verspricht in allererster Linie Profit für den millitärisch Industriellen Komplex und nachdem von Obama unterstützen Bailout wird Krieg so ziemlich der einzigste Wirtschaftszweig sein der noch florieren wird.
“We’re confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,”
“It’s time to heed the call … for more troops.
That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,”
“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,”
"...attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government,”
Diese Rhetorik kommt nir noch recht bekannt vor.
Also keine Änderung in der Aussenpolitik in Sicht.
Im bereich der Innenpolitik sieht es mindestens genauso düster aus.
Wir alle wissen wie es um die konstitutionellen Rechte der Amerikaner mittlerweile beschert ist und Obama wird diese Situation keinesfalls verbessern.
Wir können uns auf einige PR Aktionen ohne größere Auswirkungen gefasst machen, gleichzeitig jedoch kündigt Obama eine eine millionen mann tarke zivile "national security Force" an.
Argh schrieb am 31.07.2008:"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s (Video: Obama Civilian Security)Wer das nicht schokierend genug findet, der sollte sich darüber im klaren sein, dass (wohlgemerkt nicht nur) die USA in den nächsten 4 Jahren auf eine absolut Katastrophale Wirtschaftslage zusteuern werden.
Der aktuelle Bailout ist nicht nur absolut undemokratisch durchgesetzt worden, Abgeordneten wurde zB. mit der Ausrufung des "Martial Law" gedroht, sondern wird das amerikanische Volk gleich zeimal belasten, einmal durch zusätzliche Steueransprüche und auf der anderen Seite durch die nun logische Hyperinflation des $ und so die totale Enwertung der angespaarten Sicherheiten der Amerikaner und eine unglaubliche Preissteigerung für Lebensmittel usw.
Wie wir berichtet hatten, hielt der demokratische Kongressabgeordnete Brad Sherman am 2. Oktober eine bemerkenswerte Rede im Repräsentantenhaus während der er sich über die Drohungen äußerte:
"Vielen von uns wurde in privaten Konversationen gesagt dass falls wir am Montag gegen diesen Gesetzesvorschlag stimmen, der Himmel herabfallen würde, der Markt zwei- oder dreitausend Punkte am ersten Tag fallen würde, ein paar tausend mehr am zweiten Tag, und ein paar Mitgliedern wurde sogar gesagt dass es das Kriegsrecht in Amerika geben würde falls wir mit nein stimmen."
Ein paar Tage zuvor sagte Abgeordneter Michael Burgess zum Repräsentantenhaus:
"Herr Sprecher, nach meinem Verständnis befinden wir uns unter dem Kriegsrecht das gestern Abend vom Sprecher angekündigt wurde."
Er bezog sich auf eine temporäre Aussetzung der Regeln und Beratungen, die von den führenden Abgeordneten vorgenommen wurde damit der Gesetzesvorschlag schnell verabschiedet werden kann.
Die Quelle der schwerwiegendsten Drohungen über die Verhängung des physischen Kriegsrechts in Amerika, auf die sich Sherman wohl bezog, wurde nun enthüllt: Senator James Inhofe war zu Gast bei Tulsa Oklahoma’s 1170 KFAQ und wurde nach dem Urheber der Androhungen über das Kriegsrecht und die Bürgeraufstände gefragt. Er nannte Finanzminister Henry Paulson als die Quelle.
"Jemand in D.C. hat euch vor dem Rettungspaket eine Sache vermittelt, dass falls wir das nicht tun, wir etwas in der Größenordnung der Depression sehen würden, Leute sprachen über die Verhängung des Kriegsrechts, Unruhen in der Bevölkerung....wer hat euch das erzählt?"
"Das war Henry Paulson. Wir hatten frühzeitig eine Telefonkonferenz, es war an einem Freitag gleube ich - eineinhalb Wochen vor der Abstimmung am 1. Oktober. Es wäre also die Mitte gewesen...was war es noch gleich...der 19. September; wir hatten eine Telefonkonferenz. In dieser Telefonkonferenz - und ich schätze es gibt keinen Grund für mich nicht zu wiederholen was er gesagt hat - sagte er .... er malte das Bild das sie gerade beschrieben haben. Er sagte: 'Das ist ernst. Das ist die ernsteste Sache der wir gegenüberstehen.'"
Diese Entwicklung wird noch verschärft duch den Fakt das das Geld des Bailouts keinesfalls dazu benutzt wird die Wirtschaft anzukurbeln,
sondern dazu missbraucht wird noch wertvolle Anlagen sowie kleinere Geschäftsbanken usw. aufzukaufen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/business/17bank.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=sloginFed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose (Update2)
By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald
Enlarge Image/Details
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''
Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.
The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''
Treasury, Fed, Obama
Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.
President-elect Barack Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, also didn't respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment from Obama. In a Sept. 22 campaign speech, Obama promised to ``make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.''
The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.
Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.
Sept. 14 Decision
Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.
The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.
The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.
At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.
`We Need Transparency'
``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''
At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.
Frank Backs Fed
``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''
The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.
In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.
``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.
`Unclog the Market'
Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.
Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.
``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''
TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.
AIG Lending
The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''
The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. AIG today said it received an expanded government rescue package valued at more than $150 billion.
The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.
``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Ratings Cuts
Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.
Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.
The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=home (Archiv-Version vom 09.11.2020)Ganz abgesehen davon, dass sich das momentane Problem unseres Finanzsystems auf die Struktur und Dynamik unseres Finanzsystems zurückführen lässt und die Probleme logische Konsequenzen des monetären Stauungsdrucks, Zinseszins und unserer Schuldenbasierten internationalen Geldordnung sind und die Bailouts somit keinesfalls eine Lösung dieses Problems darstellen.
Der hochangesehene Analyst liegt also höchstwahrscheinlich wieder richtig wenn er ankündigt das die USA in den nächsten 4 Jahren zu einer "unentwickelten Nation" entwickeln werden.
"The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions - all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012."
Fox Business: Gerald Celente Predicts Revolution
Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.
geilosaurus schrieb am 21.11.2008:Ich werfe mal diese Zahlentheorie in die Runde...
