Apparently Earth has joined Chris Matthews in that President Obama sends chills up its legs too. President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, is proposing an option of “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.” This would be funny if it was not true.
The story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_OBAMA_SCIENCE_ADVISER?SITE=WTMJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Video:
The solution to man-made global warming (or is it now climate change?) is to introduce man-made global cooling by adding pollutants?
Does Mr. Holdren know how many particles it would take to reflect that amount of the sun’s rays to affect the temperature? The earth’s surface area is over 500 million square kilometers, not to mention the increase in the surface area at the upper atmospheric level.
What is the global temperature supposed to be? Mark Belling touched on this during his afternoon broadcast on April 8, but when this story first came out in the morning on April 8, it made this observer contemplate the same question.
Are the actions of one nation (the United States) going to cause the earth to cool?
Grapes grew on Greenland at one point, but then glaciers formed the beautiful topography in the Kettle Moraine area of Wisconsin. The climate changes over time.
First it was “global warming.” Then “climate change” when the earth ceased warming. Holdren likes the term “global climate disruption,” whatever that means.
This is yet another illustration that the administration has too many rookies that are over their heads.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The AIG Hypocrisy
AIG has now become a pejorative. AIG has now become the example of how “big business” has ruined the American economy. AIG received bailout money and then awarded bonuses to some of its executives in its financial products division. This division, especially in its departments of equities and commodities, had proven to be very sound financially. Jake DeSantis, the now noteworthy former executive VP in AIG’s financial products division, cited his own frustration over the misrepresentation of his and many of his colleagues’ work. He and many others working for AIG expressed concerns about the increase in sub-prime mortgages which had been given the green light by Congress’s Financial Services Committee (the chairman being none other than Rep. Barney Frank).
Undeniably, AIG made a large timing blunder in awarding the bonuses. However, the outrage was especially due to the fact that public money had been given to AIG while bailout-mania swept through American economic policy. Now that AIG had received public money, they had to know that they may not be able to make their own decisions since the federal government would now be looking over their shoulders.
When AIG awarded the bonuses according to the contracts the executives within the company had signed, President Obama himself expressed his own disgust for the bonuses along with Chris Dodd, one of the Senators who had changed language within the stimulus bill that ensured the bonuses would be awarded. The stimulus bill had the language? Chris Dodd got caught in a lie. He then blames Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for pressuring him to put this condition into the bill.
That means that if Dodd is right, Geithner obviously knew about the bonuses and that, in turn, the Obama Administration knew about the bonuses in this amendment of the stimulus bill. Does this mean that their outrage was about something they knew perfectly well was going to happen?
This debacle has since led other banks and lending institutions to reconsider taking government money since they are aware of the strings attached to it. AIG’s new CEO, Edward Liddy, was pilloried for these bonuses that he did not create and AIG’s reputation has been severely tainted.
This just tells of the hypocrisy and completely phony outrage of the current administration and Congress. The punitive tax that was being discussed did not pass, but that would have taxed the bonuses at a rate of 95%. Just because Congress does not like how much money someone has, they now have the power to tax whoever they want? Some may think that is a disturbing proposition.
AIG may have timed these bonuses at a bad time. They are learning the hard lesson that goes along with accepting the government’s money.
Where is the outrage over a government that is looking to run a federal deficit that is 13% of its gross national product? Again, this would be like spending $113 per day when only making $100 per day. If this is done for a year, the person making $100 per day makes $36,500 per year, but then spends $41,245 per year. This makes a deficit of $4,745 per year. This is a small scale model of the Obama Administration’s budget.
Does this not sound dangerous? Yet they are lecturing AIG for wasting taxpayer money. A tax cheat (the Secretary of the Treasury) and the Congress presiding over a massive deficit lectures someone for mismanaging money. If it was not true, this would be funny.
Undeniably, AIG made a large timing blunder in awarding the bonuses. However, the outrage was especially due to the fact that public money had been given to AIG while bailout-mania swept through American economic policy. Now that AIG had received public money, they had to know that they may not be able to make their own decisions since the federal government would now be looking over their shoulders.
When AIG awarded the bonuses according to the contracts the executives within the company had signed, President Obama himself expressed his own disgust for the bonuses along with Chris Dodd, one of the Senators who had changed language within the stimulus bill that ensured the bonuses would be awarded. The stimulus bill had the language? Chris Dodd got caught in a lie. He then blames Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for pressuring him to put this condition into the bill.
That means that if Dodd is right, Geithner obviously knew about the bonuses and that, in turn, the Obama Administration knew about the bonuses in this amendment of the stimulus bill. Does this mean that their outrage was about something they knew perfectly well was going to happen?
This debacle has since led other banks and lending institutions to reconsider taking government money since they are aware of the strings attached to it. AIG’s new CEO, Edward Liddy, was pilloried for these bonuses that he did not create and AIG’s reputation has been severely tainted.
This just tells of the hypocrisy and completely phony outrage of the current administration and Congress. The punitive tax that was being discussed did not pass, but that would have taxed the bonuses at a rate of 95%. Just because Congress does not like how much money someone has, they now have the power to tax whoever they want? Some may think that is a disturbing proposition.
AIG may have timed these bonuses at a bad time. They are learning the hard lesson that goes along with accepting the government’s money.
Where is the outrage over a government that is looking to run a federal deficit that is 13% of its gross national product? Again, this would be like spending $113 per day when only making $100 per day. If this is done for a year, the person making $100 per day makes $36,500 per year, but then spends $41,245 per year. This makes a deficit of $4,745 per year. This is a small scale model of the Obama Administration’s budget.
Does this not sound dangerous? Yet they are lecturing AIG for wasting taxpayer money. A tax cheat (the Secretary of the Treasury) and the Congress presiding over a massive deficit lectures someone for mismanaging money. If it was not true, this would be funny.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Bernie Madoff and the Federal Government
By now, people all across America has heard of the curious, perplexing, and devastating story about the Bernie Madoff scheme that lost money for many investors that had been giving Mr. Madoff their trust with their funds. They were intrigued by Mr. Madoff’s advertisement that he could provide ten percent returns on their investments. Many high-profile people sought to invest in these terms only to find that Mr. Madoff was merely putting on a front.
Mr. Madoff did not have the money behind the investments to give back to his clients. If they had all cashed out at once even a year ago, he would not have had enough money. Sure, he was sending them statements on their earnings, but it was simply a piece of paper. When the bottom of the housing market dropped out this past fall, Mr. Madoff’s clients wanted to cash out and take back their money. There was one little problem: he did not have it and he had been lying to his clients for years that he did have it. Now Mr. Madoff is awaiting trial.
The federal government is now taking quite an investment from the taxpayers and from foreign nations buying American bonds. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, after calculating the interest that goes along with the spending in the bill itself, will cost approximately $1.3 trillion. Under the Bush Administration, the federal budget transitioned from running a surplus to running a deficit where the government was spending between three and four percent of its GDP in red figures. In other words, if one were to make $10 a day, it would be comparable to spending $10.30 to $10.40 per day. It does not sound like a big deal in that context, but take it to what the 2008 figures were: $2.9 trillion in spending versus $2.5 trillion in revenue. That is about $400 billion in deficit for just that one year.
Under President Obama’s new proposed budget and after the new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been signed into law, federal deficit spending will increase to about 13 percent of the American GDP. This does not include the new idea of federal assistance in refinancing sub prime mortgages to protect homeowners from foreclosure. Going back to the $10 per day example: that would be like spending $11.30 per day and running $1.30 in the red every single day.
So the federal government is somehow going to convince Americans to continue to give Uncle Sam more money and convince other nations such as China to buy American bonds to help bankroll these new programs with the guarantee that Americans and foreign investors will see a return in their investments.
Does this not sound a little too similar to the Bernie Madoff story? Is this not like a poker player trying to bluff a pair of sixes to appear as four of a kind? The current administration and Congress will try to sell this as a temporary deficit that promises to yield returns that will increase the GDP and cure the federal deficit.
Will the federal government have a sealed indictment if they have to turn to its clients and say they do not have the money to return the investment?
Mr. Madoff did not have the money behind the investments to give back to his clients. If they had all cashed out at once even a year ago, he would not have had enough money. Sure, he was sending them statements on their earnings, but it was simply a piece of paper. When the bottom of the housing market dropped out this past fall, Mr. Madoff’s clients wanted to cash out and take back their money. There was one little problem: he did not have it and he had been lying to his clients for years that he did have it. Now Mr. Madoff is awaiting trial.
The federal government is now taking quite an investment from the taxpayers and from foreign nations buying American bonds. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, after calculating the interest that goes along with the spending in the bill itself, will cost approximately $1.3 trillion. Under the Bush Administration, the federal budget transitioned from running a surplus to running a deficit where the government was spending between three and four percent of its GDP in red figures. In other words, if one were to make $10 a day, it would be comparable to spending $10.30 to $10.40 per day. It does not sound like a big deal in that context, but take it to what the 2008 figures were: $2.9 trillion in spending versus $2.5 trillion in revenue. That is about $400 billion in deficit for just that one year.
Under President Obama’s new proposed budget and after the new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been signed into law, federal deficit spending will increase to about 13 percent of the American GDP. This does not include the new idea of federal assistance in refinancing sub prime mortgages to protect homeowners from foreclosure. Going back to the $10 per day example: that would be like spending $11.30 per day and running $1.30 in the red every single day.
So the federal government is somehow going to convince Americans to continue to give Uncle Sam more money and convince other nations such as China to buy American bonds to help bankroll these new programs with the guarantee that Americans and foreign investors will see a return in their investments.
Does this not sound a little too similar to the Bernie Madoff story? Is this not like a poker player trying to bluff a pair of sixes to appear as four of a kind? The current administration and Congress will try to sell this as a temporary deficit that promises to yield returns that will increase the GDP and cure the federal deficit.
Will the federal government have a sealed indictment if they have to turn to its clients and say they do not have the money to return the investment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)