American Citizens News Network

July 14, 2008

The Facts

In a highly unusual move the Federal Reserve invited camera’s into their meeting today while they approved some new rules for mortgage lenders. Supposedly the new rules will prevent the kind of predatory lending that has taken place over the past several years which resulted in the financial meltdown we are currently in. However, the new rules do not take affect until October 2009, over a year from now.

My View

Dozens of things ran through my mind when I learned of this, and none of them are good. The first thing I asked was why must we wait over a year before the new rules are implemented? There is but one answer; “grab & run”. Every sensible person in the country knows those rules could be implemented immediately if the Federal Reserve wanted to. But politics and the old “buddy system” must take first priority. According to the report, the Feds had to “make some concessions to industry executives”, because they, the executives, “fear” too much oversight. Now does that surprise anyone? The reason we are in this mess now is because they didn’t have enough oversight as it was. And, of course, to put some icing on the cake, the Feds left some very nice loopholes in the new rules for future abuse. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will be stolen from the American taxpayer over the next year and through the loopholes? Another thing the Feds bowed down to was removing a proposal that would have prevented banks from paying brokers for “steering homeowners into higher priced loans”. Now your broker will make more money if he can cheat you, the buyer, out of more money. Finally, the Mortgage Bankers Association got the Feds to be “open” to more possible changes before the rules go into affect. Aaaaahhhhhh! Now we know why it’s going to be 15 months before the rules are changed. I suspect that by the time the new rules take affect, they will look nothing like they are now. Isn’t it great to have friends in high places!?

One other thing that came into my mind was the dozens of news organizations, and their “unbiased” guest, who were defending the lenders when the news first broke earlier this year. All you could hear out of these people was how it wasn’t the lenders fault; it was “those greedy, worthless borrowers who knew they couldn’t afford the loan”. Well, there’s a certain amount of truth in that, but as mortgage companies confidential emails, memo’s, and ex-employees come out and exposed the lenders conscious intent to make those bad loans, you don’t hear so much defending going on. But that doesn’t matter now; those trickle down economic advocates obtained their objective, which was to deflect the real cause of the disaster and garner up support from those who think they, the advocates, are gods. It’s the old adage of “if I can deflect the attention away from me, I’m free to continue my misdeeds”.

July 10, 2008

The Facts

That’s right; it’s TRILLION, with a capital “T”. If you have watched any news at all for the past three or four days you will know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored mortgage lenders, are in very serious financial trouble. It’s been quietly building for quite some time now with just an occasional mention by the media. Bloomberg published this article on the impending disaster today, July 10, 2008. Their woes are a direct result of the mortgage melt down that claimed Bear Stearns, and what will probably be many more before it is finished. The biggest problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they have about $12 trillion in outstanding home loans (debt), and they are responsible for about half of that, or $6 trillion.

My View

First, let’s point out that the current total US debt is well above $9 trillion. Even the best estimates is that it will take us about 75 years to pay that off, and that’s only if we start balancing our federal budget by 2010 (we all know that won’t happen) and raise our tax burden by a substantial margin; otherwise it’s anybody’s guess how long it will take. Now; if we have to add another $6 trillion to that to cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government will have little choice but to declare bankruptcy. In fact, there are many experts in the field that say we are already bankrupt, we just won’t admit it. If not bankruptcy, we will have to find some sucker country to loan us the money, in which case will eventually cost us as much as $20 trillion with interest, etc.

Second, let me debunk all those out there that are going to say the federal government and us taxpayers will not be held responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even Wikipedia implies the government is not responsible.  That’s a bunch of crock. Yes, I am aware that in 1968 they were converted into a private corporation with share holders. But the two are still government sponsored companies, which means the federal government basically stands behind them. And don’t think for one moment that the corporate management and share holders don’t know that. Otherwise, why would they ever fund $12 trillion of debt? No fat chance. You can find plenty of supporting documentation on line to confirm that we taxpayers will foot the bill, and “What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do” is one of them. Under “Do I have anything at stake in this issue”, you will find the following paragraph; “As a taxpayer, on the other hand, you have a cause for concern. The low borrowing costs of the GSEs is based on implicit Government backing for their $3+ trillion of debt and guarantees. If the GSEs ever have a financial disaster, the Government will have to bail them out and you and I will be on the hook for the cost”. GSE stands for “Government Sponsored Enterprises”. And I should point out that in 2003 (when this article was published) the two mortgage companies were only $3 trillion in debt. What private company would ever allow even that much debt to accumulate if they knew the government was not going to bail them out?

One thing we can all bet on; a lot of people have become extremely wealthy with the raping and pillaging of these two companies. And you can also bet they will not pay their fair share of the tax dollars that will be used to bail out the two companies. That’s the way the “supply-sider” politicians have set it up. And we, the real taxpayers of this country, have greatly aided them by saying “I don’t care, they are my political party and anything they do is OK with me!” Congratulations supply-sider supporters; you have helped put the last nail in our coffin.

UPDATE: I had prepared this post for earlier publication, but updated it this morning, July 11, 2008. This brief report, and others, are saying The New York Times is reporting that the government is considering “taking over” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A senior Bush administration official has said Bush is considering a plan for the takeover. Anyone care to “debunk” me now that we middle class and lower class taxpayers will not be saddled with the bill created by the supply-siders?

July 9, 2008

The Facts

On CNBC this morning Nouriel Roubini of RGE Monitor said the financial markets credit looses will go beyond $300 billion and reach $1 trillion. (RGE Monitor is a global economic and financial analysis firm based in New York City with additional offices in Asia and Europe, and ranked as one of the world’s best economic web sites.) Roubini teaches economics at NYU, and has an excellent record in his economic forecasting (even Becky Quick of CNBC admitted that, which was surprising). He’s very pessimistic about the future of our economy, and expects the current recession to get worse and “be long & protracted”. Relative to the financial crisis, Roubini predicts it will be the worst one since the great depression of 1929, that hundreds of banks will go bankrupt, and a government bailout will be of little help. Roubini also pointed to the 62,000 jobs that were lost in June as further evidence of an impending bad recession when coupled with the fact that we now have had six straight months of job looses.

My View

Democratic Governor Joe Corzine of New Jersey was also a guest on CNBC this morning talking about the economy, and the differences of how Barak Obama and Joe McCain propose to handle the economic situation. Corzine was pointing out how the Republicans want to spend & spend and not come up with a way to pay for the spending (this use to be the Democrats). It seems the Republicans want to spend the money, but don’t want the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. They seem to figure if they just “charge it”, the middle class and lower class taxes can pay for it later; if it gets paid at all.

Joe Corzine is a very well experienced economic politician. He is low keyed and doesn’t get rattled by the aggressors. Becky Quick and Joe Kernen of CNBC tried a couple of times to trick him up, but it didn’t work. When Corzine mentioned that incomers of $250 thousand and more weren’t paying their fair share of taxes, Quick said “$250 thousand doesn’t go as far in New Jersey as it does in the mid-west”, implying most people in New Jersey shouldn’t have to pay their fair share of taxes because it cost more to live there than in other places. Corzine shot back immediately saying 90% of the people in New Jersey made $100 thousand or less. Speaking directly to Quick, he went on to say “I hate this trickle down stuff, and that’s what you are talking about, under McCain and the last 7 or 8 years of Bush”. Quick quickly shut up (no pun intended). To support the trickle down economics flaw, Corzine pointed out that in the 1990’s (under Clinton) we had a 22 million job increase, while under Bush we have had only a 6 million job increase. He finished off that portion of his comments by saying “maybe the people who watch your show are not being bothered with the economy, but the vast majority is getting crushed”. The entire interview with Joe Corzine was extremely enlightening. You should go here and watch it. It’s 10 1/2 minutes long, but worth it.

Right after Corzine, CNBC had Mitt Romney on. This seemed to make the host smile with pleasure and delight. Romney was introduced with great fanfare and music. Joe Kernen started the interview by saying “I tried to ask Corzine some questions, but he was so smooth I couldn’t lay a glove on him”, and said to Romney “maybe you could counteract what Corzine said”. And, of course, Romney did, but it was with very flawed facts and disinformation. But to be fair, Kernen did ask Mitt Romney some tough questions, to which Romney answered in typical political fashion, which was really no answer at all. However, he didn’t miss out on the opportunity to mention “reigning in spending”, which was immediately followed up with that dirty word “entitlements”, which means Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; all those things middle and lower class people eventually come to rely on. But he conveniently ignored the fact that tax breaks and other “goodies” given to the wealthy & corporations is also “spending”; which now is also considered an “entitlement” by those recipients. If you like, you can watch Romney’s interview.

Both politicians, Corzine and Romney, were basically promoting their respective Presidential candidates and throwing rocks at their opponents. But when it comes to the proposed tax plan each candidate has officially filed, the facts speak for themselves. I wrote a post on this last month, and once you read that and all the supporting documentation, you to will know the facts, whether you want to accept them or not.

As for CNBC host, with the rare exception of one or two, they certainly come across as supporting the political right. (And to think Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, started his business channel because he thinks “CNBC is too anti-business”.) Any guest who speaks too negatively about the economy, growth, or the market while under a Republican President, they (the host) try to get them to reword their comments or change what they are saying. If they can’t, they just wait until the interview is over and then try to debunk them when the guest is no longer around to defend. And you certainly can’t take the word of the many investment managers CNBC has as guest. They are never going to give the market or the economy a bad report card. If investors stop investing, those managers are loosing big money. Even while the “Bullish” market is at 27.4%, the lowest it has been since 1994, the investment managers are saying the Bear market is over. Most say all will be well in “XX” months, so “now is the time to invest”. Naturally, since no one has a crystal ball to refute them, they have nothing to loose; and if they are wrong, no one will remember what they said.

CNBC often cites the result of their on-line and television polls on these issues. Sure, their polls are going to be positive about the economy and the markets; as I said before, the vast majority of the people who watch CNBC are in that upper 5%, and not only will that 5% not be bothered by the bad economy, they have much to loose if they support the idea the economy is severely damaged. So I put little credence in CNBC polls.

My bottom line on this post is that we are in a recession by its basic definition, regardless of the arguments, and it is going to get much worse. We can thank the Bush administration and the changes in laws he has insisted on for the markets and big businesses. However, if you are part of that 5% who has become wealthy, or wealthier, by those changes, you are happy and not bothered by the recession.

July 1, 2008

The Facts

Crude oil prices have more than doubled in the past 15 months. As consumers, we are given any number of reasons for this, depending on who we are listening to. The most quoted reason is supply & demand. However, many of us can not accept that “supply” can decrease so rapidly relative to “demand”, or “demand” can increase so rapidly relative to “supply”, during a one-year period of time that it justifies a 100 plus percent increase in price. Ironically, most who say oil prices are justified or unjustified seem to be divided along political party lines. Those who say price increases are justified seem to be of the Republican persuasion while those who say they are unjustified seem to be of the Democratic persuasion, with very rare exceptions on both sides.

My View

In 1870 John D. Rockefeller started Standard Oil Company of Ohio with three other partners, but later bought them out. Then he became a monopoly through shear ruthlessness. By 1890 his monopoly could fix its own prices and terms of business because it had no competitors (quoted). By 1896 Rockefeller was worth $200 million ($5 billion indexed to 2007). But being a country of laws, one which forbids monopolies, the Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil in 1911. But that didn’t stop Rockerfellow and future business men in our country from aggressively pursuing ways to monopolize their product. About the only thing the action against Rockefeller did was tell these thieves they needed to find “legal” means of monopolizing, and if there were no legal means, bribe the countries lawmakers to pass laws that would circumvent the monopoly laws. And that has been done very successfully.

Not one single person today could make a viable argument that oil companies are competitive. There just simply isn’t any competition between them other than negotiating for sites where they want to drill for oil. Even at the retail market of gasoline, there is no real competition. And where there is no competition, prices are controlled; hence, a monopoly. (Occasionally, the retail owner will vary the price of gasoline a penny or two out of his own profits as a competitive edge, but the price to the retailer is set daily to include all of them.)

Take a look at all the places in the US where oil is produced; Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, the mountain ranges, west coast, etc.; even from abroad. Once the oil comes out of the ground and volumes recorded, it all goes into the same “barrel”. (“Barrel” is described as pipeline, tanker trucks, tanker ships, storage tanks, etc.) One market pays the same for all crude oil produced (by grade), no matter where it comes from. It doesn’t matter what oil company you are talking about, they all get the same price for their oil at any given time. Hence, a monopoly. No incentive to produce oil more economically for the purposes of competition. Now compare that to, say, the auto makers. For every compact car that rolls off any assembly line let’s charge the same sale price; for every full size car that rolls off any assembly line lets charge the same sale price; etc. etc. etc. You get the point. The results? No competition; charge any price you want or what the market will pay. How about appliance manufactures? Refrigerators, for example. All 19 foot refrigerators, same price; all 21 foot refrigerators, same price. How about all 4 ounce chocolate candy bars; lets charge the same price regardless of the manufacturer. (There’s a name for this kind of market, but we Americans don’t use it because it doesn’t coincide with a Democracy or a Republic.)

We must remember one thing; when our constitution and laws were set up, there were a lot of arguments about who should run (control) the country. Was it to be made up from all the citizens, or only the wealthy (people of “means”). Remember, our forefathers had just fought a war to free themselves of an “upper class” tyrannical government. So the majority of our forefathers won out; the country was to be ruled by citizens from all walks of life, not just by the wealthy. However, we have now, over time, silently elected a government that has successfully changed that. The wealthy and businesses control our government, albeit a government “elected” by the rank & file citizens. I demean the word “elected”, because the wealthy & big businesses have been very successful in convincing the rank & file citizens to vote the way they want them to vote through massive disinformation programs, propaganda, and just plain outright lies designed to tell people what they want to believe based on disinformation and propaganda.

Today you hear a lot about letting companies operate in a “free market”, especially in reference to oil companies. Confined to the basic definition of that two-word phrase, I completely support that theory. However, we have migrated to a point where the marketers want selected enforcement of that phrase.

Ever wonder why “a girl’s best friend”, the diamond, is so expensive. Not because of supply & demand based on how many diamonds mother earth produces. It’s because DeBeers controls over 90% of the worlds diamonds, and they put very strict limits on how many diamonds are released to the market over a given period of time. I’m not saying that there is a limitless supply of oil like there are diamonds, but when there is control without competition, you can charge any price you want.

The end results is that if we want to get back to paying a fair market price for crude oil and the products derived from crude oil, we must force the oil producers to move back into a competitive market. Without competition, oil companies are nothing more than a DeBeers, charging any price they want regardless of supply & demand or cost of production. However, we can’t depend on the Supreme Court to do that for us this time, as they are owned by the same people who own our elected officials.

Rockefeller, you won.

June 11, 2008

The Facts

CNN American Morning aired a report today on the plight of the small, independent American dairy farmer. The farmer they interviewed in Maryland says that his cost had gone up over $9 thousand just in the first quarter of this year. But he can not recoup that added cost by increasing his sell price due to a law that was passed several years ago in an attempt to keep the price of milk down for the consumer. However, wholesalers and retailers (and maybe others) are not bound by that law. As their cost goes up, they can increase their prices to compensate.

My View

I really don’t know which political party came up with this “selective free market” law, but just by spending a life time of seeing, & admitting to, both the good and bad in the two major political parties, it’s not hard for me to guess which one did this. But I could be wrong. Still, I’d just love to hear the propagandist explanation today of the idiot(s) that put this one together and getting it passed through Congress. But you can bet that today’s net result of this law wasn’t passed in one bill. On that point, I would guess that the initial bill did not limit the law to any specific group that handles the milk on its way to the consumer. I suspect that, in time, after this law was passed, powerful lobbyist for the wholesalers, retailers (and maybe others) did what they do best, and that was to pay off certain Congressional members to get amendments to the law to exempt them. However, the small dairy farmer doesn’t have that kind of money or power, so he’s stuck.

One of my many quotes is “be careful of the law (or rule) you make; you may wind up having to live by that law”. So here’s my law on this; if we are going to prevent the small dairy farmer, who is a producer, from increasing his price on his products as his cost go up, let’s prevent the oil companies (and others), who are producers, from increasing the price on their product as their cost go up in order to keep the cost down to the consumer. How about that; think that’s fair? Of course you would if you are on one side of the political party line, and, of course you wouldn’t if you are on the other side of the political party line. So let me guess; you will decide if you think it’s fair or not just as soon as you learn whether it was your political party that did this, or that “other” political party, right? Isn’t “Free Market” great?

June 10, 2008

The Facts

Keith Hennessey, Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, was the morning guest on CNBC’s Squawk Box today. He was pumping up George Bush’s accomplishments relative to the economy, and the latter’s desire to make the tax cuts permanent. But each time he did so, he was very quick to say that it would take 6-9 months before we will see the results. And he was just as quick to say that raising taxes on businesses would not fix our economics problem.

My View

First off, you’ve got to admire Hennessey for leaving the door open for his buddy Bush; “6-9 months before we see the results” of making the tax cuts permanent. That’ll give the old sheriff time to get out of town before everyone knows its all bunk. That little trick has been working for those 3-5 year CEO’s of large companies for 20 plus years now, so why not our President.

Now on to what matters. Let’s understand the difference of “raising taxes on businesses” versus “discontinuing tax breaks”. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! The first is asking businesses to pay more than their fair share of taxes, which they clearly are not doing when you throw in all those tax loop holes they have. The second is telling businesses that they are no longer going to be on an entitlement program.

I hear so much about how we have to do something about entitlements we are handing out to undeserving people, and no one would agree with that more than I. However, the main difference with me and so many others out there is that I also do not think businesses should be getting entitlements, no matter what kind of “justification” one wants to put on it. Get this through your thick skull; trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK! How many more times have we got to prove that? That’s been tried by every Republican administration since the 1950’s, and some before, and the only thing it accomplishes is making the rich companies richer with near to nothing filtering back into the work place.

That doesn’t make you happy? Ok, let’s do this. Let’s take away all my tax loop holes (which I can’t take advantage of because my income doesn’t qualify me for those) and take away the tax loop holes for big businesses (and the wealthy). Let’s take away all these big business tax cuts that seem to be so important to so many and have one tax law for every individual and every company. Then at the end of every year let’s pass out the same tax forms to everyone, individuals and companies. Now, let’s all do our taxes, but; let’s add an extra box just above the bottom line for big business; and that box will say “deduct 5%”. Now they will be paying 5% less taxes than me. Guess what? I’ll be happy with that. But guess what else? Before the ink is dry on the tax forms, big businesses will be screaming, “no, no, no; let’s go back to the old way and I’ll gladly give up those all-so-important tax breaks”.

Here’s the bottom line; big businesses, Bush, and all those others will not be satisfied until only individuals earning less than $125 thousand a year and small businesses with less than 25 employees are paying taxes in this country. But really, they won’t be satisfied then; after that, they will not want to pay any state taxes, city taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, cost for any environmental damages they cause, etc., etc., etc. I said this many, many years ago; business will not be happy until 100% of gross revenues are coming into the board rooms and 0% is going out. And I have no doubt that, even then, they would be looking for some way to improve on that. But, hey! Don’t misunderstand me here; if you think I am saying that the Democrats are better, you are as wrong as you can be. The only difference between the two is that the Republicans want me to support the wealthy and big businesses and the Democrats want me to support all the worthless people, lazy people, & illegal immigrants in this country, and whole host of other unworthy causes. All I want is a job and for all of us to be treated equally. And trickle down economics, supply side economics, or pro-economy economics, what every phrase you chose to use, has not given anyone below the executive level a job yet.

June 8, 2008

The Facts

On February 7, 2008 a dust explosion in a sugar refinery in Georgia killed 13 people. Since then 52 more dust explosions have occurred here in the United States. There were 281 of these explosions between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 people and injured 718 more. Democrats introduced “The Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act - H.R. 5522” that would require OSHA to enforce existing laws, which they clearly are not, and add laws that would accelerate compliance. However, OSHA has advised President Bush to veto the bill when it comes across his desk, and it appears that Bush will do just that.

My View

Two questions; why does OSHA not police these sites and enforce the existing laws, and why would Bush want to veto the new bill? I’m sure a lot of people would have many different answers to the first question, but it’s no secret why Bush will veto the new bill. Anything that’s going to cost big businesses money Bush is going to stop it if he can, no matter what the cost is to the general public, the workers, and the taxpayers. He has demonstrated that policy for seven years now. But I’m sure he will have his propaganda and disinformation experts come up with plenty of “justification” for his actions. And guess what; he will win and the stupid Democrats will back off. They are just as bought off as the Republicans, and all the Democrats are doing is posturing for position for the next election. Wonderful political world we live in, isn’t it?

June 5, 2008

The Facts

Between 2001 and 2003 President Bush managed to get huge tax cuts enacted for big businesses and wealthy individuals. He was able to accomplish this through the Republicans controlled Congress at that time. These tax cuts were made temporary and are due to expire in 2010. Bush and his supporters are trying very hard to sell the American public on the idea that making these tax cuts permanent is a good thing for America and the bottom 90% of working Americans. Presidential candidate John McCain is also in favor of making the tax cuts permanent.

My View

There are literally thousands of web sites that address our tax laws and how taxes are determined. The vast majority of them report on these laws from very biased view points. Few attempt to show both sides. But there is one web site that I consider the very best at pointing out the truth in the pros and cons department. And the articles almost always address the tax laws and facts as they apply to current events. The site is entitled “a taxing matter” 

The owner of the blog is Linda Beale, and after reading her for many months now there is no doubt that she is well versed on tax laws and very aware of what tax laws are good and what tax laws are bad. And she doesn’t just guess at what she writes; she backs up everything with supporting documentation. Linda is a law professor at Wayne State University Law School. Her credentials are unquestionable. If you read all of her posts you will find that she is just as quick to point out the misleading statements by both political parties on tax matters. Her web site is the only one that I have listed on my blog as one of my favorites. So if you are interested in the truth about taxes instead of political propaganda, I suggest you bookmark her site and read it often. I think it is so important, I am putting this second link to her site in this post.

May 22, 2008

The Facts

Crude oil hit $135 per barrel overnight and that’s the major topic on most news outlets this morning. Oil prices have now doubled over the past year. A gallon of regular gasoline is expected to hit $5 within the next 2-3 weeks, and diesel fuel will reach $6 a gallon before then.

My View

P.T. Barnum of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus is credited by many for the following famous quote; “there’s a sucker born every minute”. I have come to realize that that quote has never been more accurate than it is today. Not only is there a sucker born every minute, but those who were born without that disease most definitely have it now, and it is incurable. Although not fatal, it’s been successful in turning us all into complete idiots.

Without exception, when the experts are pressed, they acknowledge that the price for a barrel of oil should be between $55 and $70 based on today’s supply and demand. This is not some big, earth-shattering, revelation. They have been telling us this fact since oil reached $100. Even Shell Oil’s president of US operations made a direct reference to that on a CNBC program. But we don’t listen. Why? Because we’ve been brainwashed. And why are we letting ourselves be brainwashed? Because we are too busy arguing over whose political party is evil and whose party is our savior.

When the price of oil is discussed by those who support the current prices, they always point to our need to become independent on foreign oil. That’s always followed up by a declaration that we must drill for more oil in our own country and build more refineries. Then that is immediately followed up by pointing out that it’s the “tree huggers” who are preventing us from drilling and building. That results in the general public quoting those “experts”. Objection accomplished; BRAINWASHED!

So if it’s not supply & demand that’s causing the high price of oil, why should we believe that once drilling limits are lifted the price of oil will come into line? Because we are brainwashed. When all areas are opened up for drilling and the price of oil is still rising, or at best, not coming back in line with supply & demand, more excuses will be made and the brainwashed public will once again blindly accept the “justification” for high prices.

This supply and demand disinformation is being splattered all over the news this morning. And not one single news outlet is challenging these “non-tree huggers” when they point to supply & demand as the cause of high oil prices. Yet these same news people have the supply and demand experts on their programs telling them it’s not supply & demand. There was a time when the news media could be relied on to keep these disinformation machines in check. However, the news media has been assimilated and is now part of that machine.

Not long after the 1972 oil embargo, Playboy magazine published an article which addressed the sudden increase of crude oil prices. In that article Playboy said that beginning in 1918 the oil industry had, on four occasions, manipulated the oil market in order to increase the price of oil. While finding that hard to believe back then, it is very believable today.

Let’s face the facts; the oil companies want no limits placed on where they drill for oil and they are going to get their wish, regardless of the cost to the public or the economy. In the meantime, they are enjoying huge increased profits from this fleecing. Unlike earlier years, the oil industry and their “bought & paid-off” lackeys are not even trying to seriously defend themselves because they know there is nothing that can be done about it. So why bother. I liken it to a bank robber; if you know there is nothing anyone can do about it, rob a bank everyday.

May 16, 2008

The Facts

In February of this year Turkish troops stormed across the Iraqi border for a three-day battle with guerrilla forces. The price of crude oil rose over $2 from that skirmish. Three weeks ago on April 25th a cargo ship working for the United States fired warning shots at approaching Iranian boats in the Gulf. This resulted in a $3 increase in the price of crude oil. Earlier this week a devastating earthquake hit China. Oil has now increased about $5 because of that tragedy. The official explanation for this latest price increase is that there will be a big increase in demand for oil because of the earthquake.

My View

What’s my point? Simple; no excuse is so trivial that it can not be used to raise the price of oil. So don’t be surprised to hear of a huge oil price increase on news that President Bush got laryngitis (or something) and can no longer “negotiate” with OPEC to bring the price down. What this all amounts to is the price of oil is not where the oil companies and the traders want it to be, so they will resort to more of these trivial and insulting excuses. But they don’t have to worry about explaining it to the American public and those who are being destroyed by these prices; The news media is more than happy to justify it for them. Ali Velshi & others of CNN, CNBC, and Fox News is all they need to “explain” things.

In case you didn’t hear about it, the school that was destroyed in the earthquake in China was a very new building. Already the Chinese government is saying that the builders used sub-standard building materials and the builders may be executed. That is exactly why corporations and business have to be regulated. Without being regulated with force, there is no limit on how low businesses will stoop for money. And don’t think for one second that just because we are “Americans” our business leaders wouldn’t do the same thing as those Chinese school builders did just for a bigger profit.

May 13, 2008

The Facts

With monstrous support by Republicans, Congress has halted adding oil to our reserves. Several congressional members have been advocating doing this ever since speculators have run up the price of crude oil. The savings will amount to only 70,000 barrels per day, but many think this could send a signal that high oil prices will have a price of its own to pay. As of today, our reserves are 97% full at 701 million barrels. President Bush has been very adamant about not doing this in spite of the fact that oil is about $55 above what supply and demand calls for.

My View

Ok, so many will say that saving less than one-third of one percent of our daily usage is nothing. However, I see two positives here even if the price of crude oil does not go down. The first is obvious; Bush has had his way with spending us into an additional fifty plus years of debt, and Congress has finally said enough is enough, albeit a small amount. But is it? Curtailing the added deposits until the end of the year as Congress proposes will save US taxpayers $2,030,000,000 at today’s prices and will not hurt us on reserves. Of course, I’m sure they will find something else to spend the money on, being what they are. Had the Republican Congress for the first six years of Bush’s presidency and the Democratic Congress for the past year and a half been this firm with Bush, we wouldn’t be in the shape we are in today. As Republican strategist Ed Rollins said, Bush is the most irrelevant President in the past 50 years. However, considering how far Bush has pushed us into debt, I hardly think history will record him as being irrelevant.

May 12, 2008

The Facts

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco wants to pass a law banning the sale of cigarettes in Pharmacies. His reasoning is that a place that sells products for healing and health care should not be selling items that are unhealthy.

My View

Before I start my ranting, let me say that this is not about defending cigarettes and the manufacturing of them. This is about reasonable minds. And if anyone misses that, then the following will be of no use to you.

So let me start out by asking what is the next step for Newsom and his supporters for drug stores? Banning the sale of candy, alcohol, etc.? Using Newsom’s logic, a lot of retailers are going to be in trouble. Grocery stores would only be allowed to sale food items. Hardware stores would not be allowed to sale popcorn as Ace Hardware does. Liquor stores would not be allowed to sale food items. Video rental stores would not be allowed to sale microwave popcorn. And the list could go on forever. Sounds ridiculous? Take a moment to think about it.

Over the past couple of decades we have heard so much about organizations standing tough against those who would want to put restrictions on them, such as the NRA does on certain guns. I for one do not want assault weapons made available to the general public, but I understand why the NRA is standing tough on this issue. Once they cave in to just one demand, they, like many of us, know that the demands would just keep right on coming. And that is exactly what I am talking about in this post. When cigarettes met with its first defeat back in the 1990’s, it didn’t stop there. As a result cigarettes have been the target of any politician, lawyer, and group that wanted to become famous and leave their mark on the world.

Until the general public demands that the relative few stop forcing their personal desires on the majority, this sort of thing will continue. Unfortunately, too many of us have the attitude of “it doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care”. Just remember this; if you make a rule for others, you just may have to live by that same rule yourself.

April 29, 2008

The Facts

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he has heard senator’s concerns “loud & clear” about spending US taxpayer dollars on Iraqi reconstruction while Iraq banks their billions of oil dollars. Gates has got the Pentagon to agree to cut $171 million from their budget for building new police stations in Iraq.

My View

Ok, here it is; $47 billion has been approved for rebuilding Iraq. That makes the $171 million less than .4% of that amount. That’s “point 4%”; less than one-half of one percent. The Iraqis have banked over $60 billion from oil. So they have to spend less then .3% (point 3%) of that amount to build the police stations. I don’t know about you, but I feel much better now knowing our government is not spending so much money on rebuilding Iraq. Hell, we’ll even be able to pay off the cost of the Iraqi war in just 49 years and 51 weeks now instead of the 50 years it was going to take. Can you imagine how little the amount would have been had Gates not heard the senator’s “loud & clear”?

April 27, 2008

The Facts

Federal prosecutors are investigating Wachovia Corporation for possible involvement in laundering drug money for Mexico and Columbia. Wachovia is refusing to make any comment.

My View

Over the past few months Wachovia has made the news for scamming the elderly, for which they paid a fine of $144 million. There have been dozens of blogs talking about how bad Wachovia is. There have been many questions over the past two years about the way they treat their customers on credit cards and many other things. I even wrote about a personal experience I had with them that said Wachovia wants to charge $1.20 just to put a phone caller on hold until someone was available to take the call. And there have been many more reports on how Wachovia conducts their business.

Folks, here’s the bottom line; as long as our elected government officials from both political parties and our government agencies are being “financed” by big business, this sort of thing is going to continue. Those involved in these illegal and unethical actions know they will not have to pay any consequences when exposed. They know that eventually some news organization will expose them, but in the meantime they will make millions of dollars knowing they will not be held accountable.

Every week there are reports about this sort of thing. Therefore, it can not be defended by saying this is not the norm and we can not blame all financial institutes for the crimes of a few. It has become the norm. The abnormal is the few who do abide by the laws, both legal and ethical. I just hope that our country can be saved before history includes America as another powerful nation that failed because of greed and corruption by our leaders.

April 18, 2008

The Facts

With all the current news concerning the credit card companies’ exorbitant fee policies, all the news media is talking about it. A Congressional hearing is set today to look into possible criminal wrongdoing by the companies. The following is an excerpt from CNN’s web site. “Ever paid your card balance and still gotten a fee? Been paying on time and you’re still seeing a $29 late charge added to your balance? You are not alone. There’s a hearing on Capitol Hill today on credit card fraud - and how we’re all paying for it. Some of the major problems they’re looking at: Charging interest on debt that’s paid on time, hiking interest rates on people who have paid their bills on time, hiking interest retroactively, imposing over the limit fees repeatedly, interest being charged on late fees, charging fees for making a payment over the phone.”

On CNN this morning, one lawmaker was quoted as saying if we try to push back too hard on the credit card companies, they may quit issuing credit cards.

My View

Most everyone is or has been talking about how credit card companies are ripping off their customers. I have already written several posts on the subject myself. One of those posts tells of how 50% of one California company’s annual revenues came from fees. But none of that is the point of this post. Here I am talking about the lawmakers quote above; “if we try to push back too hard on credit card companies, they may quit issuing credit cards”? You’ve got to be kidding me; first, that one of our elected officials would even say that and second to suggest that a credit card company would quit issuing credit cards because our lawmakers were pushing back. Listen, credit card companies were making a fortune on credit cards before they started ripping off their customers. They just got greedy, as all companies have. They are not going to stop issuing credit cards and the guilty lawmaker knows that. Therefore, that leaves only one conclusion; the lawmaker is in the pockets of the credit card companies and he is trying to protect them through blackmail.

Now for all you folks out there that are defending the credit card companies and trying to place the blame on the card holders for charging stuff they can’t afford, pay attention to exactly what the credit card companies are doing. Here is my personal story. I typically pay off my balance each month on the one credit card I have. About a week ago we made an electronic payment, which is our usual method of paying. But we had made a large purchase of less than a thousand dollars that showed up on the card after the last payment was made. When we tried to pay that amount off in full (electronically), it was rejected. The reason? “We had already made a payment this month.” I guess I should have known better than to buy something I couldn’t afford, huh?