A $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan was recently released by the government, including $2.85 billion in missiles. This had a major effect on our relationship with China, as they consider Taiwan to be a threat to their national security.
“The sale includes 60 Black Hawk helicopters (totaling $3.1 billion), 114 advanced Patriot air defense missiles; a pair of Osprey mine-hunting ships; and dozens of advanced communications systems.” (CNN.com) The Prime minister addressed this act of the United States government in saying; “rude interference in China’s internal affairs, severely endangering China’s national security.” He added, “China expresses its strong indignation.”
I find this very troubling and confusing. We are in debt to the Chinese government billions of dollars, why would we do something that could jeopardize our relationship with them? It seems to me that nothing but bad could come out of this situation.
According to official data, the US economy grew by an annualised rate of 5.7% in the last quarter of last year.
The figure is still an initial estimate, but was higher than the 2.2% annualised growth recorded in the third quarter of the year. Economic analysts polled by the Reuters news agency had predicted a 4.6% rise.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis, which releases the economy growth reports, noted that the figures were based on estimates and incomplete data, and might be revised later.
Christina Romer, an economist for the White House, described the growth as being “the most positive news to date on the economy”, saying: “It is important not to read too much into a single report, positive or negative. There will surely be bumps in the road ahead. Nonetheless, today’s report is a welcome piece of encouraging news.”
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer for Harris Private Bank in Chicago, Illinois, remarked that “it’s [the number] very solid and gives us a running start into the second half of the year when we can’t rely on government stimulus. That’s part of the plan, to get us moving as fast as possible so when life support is removed we’ll have a pulse.”
Cole slaw has the refreshing flavor of summer, but the cabbage that makes up most of cole slaw is primarily a winter vegetable here (although I do get it to keep growing all summer with careful planting placement). On warmer winter days, cole slaw with chicken barbeque feels like a summer picnic. Cole slaw can also be incredibly frugal.I made this cole slaw from all-local, organic vegetables either from our own garden (the peppers via the freezer) or from Conway Locally Grown. You can vary quantities and ingredients depending on what you have on hand, but this slaw contains
thinly sliced green cabbage
thinly sliced red cabbage
grated carrots
grated colorful radish
thinly sliced roasted red pepper
I find that it’s easiest to slice the cabbage thinly if I begin by cutting a wedge out of the head and then cutting off the wedge instead of the whole head.
The dressing is what really changes slaw’s flavor. I like to make mine with leftover pickle juice. For a frugal, delicious sweet, sour, creamy dressing, I use mayonnaise mixed with bread-and-butter pickle juice. You could use any sweet pickle juice. If you are serving the slaw with salmon, try using dill pickle juice. It won’t be sweet, but it’ll be tasty. (You may want to increase the ratio of carrots to increase sweetness.) If you want an Asian flavor, try using pickled ginger juice. Here’s the basic measurements I use as a foundation. You may want to add a little more of one of the ingredients after you taste the mix.
1 tablespoon real mayonnaise
1 teaspoon pickle juice
Start light with the dressing. You can always add more later! Enjoy.
President Obama is now giving his first State of the Union address (last January’s address to Congress didn’t count) and he’s focusing on jobs.
Excellent, we say.
Early in tonight’s address the president called for a new jobs bill, $30 billion of small business funding, various business tax breaks, and a new small business tax credit.
Sounds good to us here at WSFAU, Mr. President. Because, as you said tonight, there are too many of us sending out resumes without result (or interviewing without result); too many of us who don’t know where our next meal is coming from.
We certainly agree this country needs a healthy and an innovative economy. A strong economy is the only thing which will get us all back to work — and keep us all working. Because we don’t accept second place for the United States of America either, Mr. President.
The Obama administration has notified Congress that it has decided to sell weapons to Taiwan….source msnbc.com.
If there is anything the administration of the USA is sure to screw up it is world peace. The self righteous, “yes we can”, macho clan needs to stick the big nose where it doesn’t belong.
With over ten percent unemployment, health care going through the roof, people falling off the unemployment roles and burdened with the costs of maintaining the biggest military in the world, supporting two or three wars plus claiming its role as self appointed cop of the world, now it has to sell the gun to Taiwan so it can aim it at China.
It isn’t enough they gave Israel the nuke, and who knows if those crazies won’t use it.
Wagging the dog.
One day the dog will get tired of being wagged and turn around and bite that which is wagging it.
It is about time the people who the administration supposedly represent say “wait a minute, stop this madness. Let them build their own weapons or stop this craziness. Fire the liar and hire a new President and administration.”
There was an article in Time bragging about how the Congress has $1.5 billion for “homeless” prevention programs. Compare this to $700 billion for the military.
This tells you where the priorities are. Uncle Sam likes his big stick.
I have heard of the anti Christ. You have to wonder about the President, who repeats references to God and scripture, promoting this thing called “War”.
Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
See Michelle Malkin for full post: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/25/another-broken-promise-i-will-finally-end-the-abuse-of-no-bid-contracts-once-and-for-all/
This is a letter from MoveOn.org to its members. It was posted at FreeRepublic.com. Note that they referv to themselves separate from “the Democrats”. This is a true sign of the “progressives” in full force:
Dear MoveOn member,
After one bad Senate election, most Democrats in Washington are on the verge of full-fledged retreat.
Everything we’ve fought for together hangs in the balance. President Obama has signaled he’s open to dramatically scaling back health care reform.1 The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee says he might gut the financial reform bill to appease Republicans.2 And on top of all that, the Supreme Court just opened the floodgates of corporate cash on politics!3
We need to show Democrats that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. So MoveOn members are organizing an emergency rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday to urge Democrats to show some backbone—starting with passage of a real health care reform bill.
We need a big turnout to show Democrats we’re still waiting on them to deliver the change we voted for—on health care and everything else. Can we count on you to attend?
Yes, I’ll be there on Tuesday at 12:00 PM Sorry, I can’t make it
The lesson from Massachusetts is that voters are angry and it’s time for Democrats to stand up to corporate interests and fight for working families by passing health care reform and taking on Wall Street.
And make no mistake: Democrats still have the ability to pass health care reform and other progressive legislation. They have a larger majority in Congress than Republicans ever did under George W. Bush—and even in Massachusetts, polls show that voters continue to support a bold, populist agenda.4
But it took an unprecedented grassroots movement to elect this President and Congress—and it’ll take all of us standing together now to get their attention, and get them to show some backbone.
Sure, the fact that Martha Coakley ran one of the poorest campaigns in recent history didn’t help, but that is of little solace to the President as he attempts to unify both the House and Senate around a health care policy mired in controversy, fear mongering and a catastrophic failure of logic now without the comfortable 60 seat majority.
The unfortunate casualty in this situation, however, is the average American who has been so focused on the health care debate, that they have failed to remember that the issues is actually with health care itself – not the politicians that angle for and against it.
Moreover, the latest ruffle (named Bernanke) indicates (at least as the Republicans would like you to believe) Obama’s misguided economic program – despite the fact that Bernanke was selected by President Bush and accepted by the Republicans at that time.
Whether consoling or not, it was G. W. F. Hegel who claimed that “the first formal condition of achieving anything great or rational… is to be independent of public opinion”. For Obama, the desire to strive for something better than the status quo has only been met by petty bickering amongst the “responsible few” who purport to represent the wishes of the many.
If, in time, Obama is able to work toward his vision of a better America, I can only hope that the few who stood on their soapbox claiming foul will shirk from that memory and fade into obscurity. For if it takes a principled individual to, as Hegel said, “express the will of his age”, he will indeed be the “great man of the age”.
Perhaps healthcare is not the will of this age, but won’t we all be disappointed if it becomes the reason we fail to find out what truly is.
The ancient art and images Crack USB Disk Security 5.2.0.10. With four cards and correct data Crack MP3 to Ringtone Gold 8.7. Raise massive battles, new features are this privacy application says it worth trying to the site Crack Style XP 3.19. This updated automatically Crack Snagit 9.1.2. With SIM Manager, you possess Crack Ashampoo WinOptimizer 6.50. ll race down time, Windows based data are supposed to target, the surprise attack via ftp monitoring, e-mail marketing campaigns Crack Video to AVI MPEG MOV RM FLV iPod PSP 3GP Zune Converter 2.2.7. Comprehensive solution that operates like real IP address Crack Avira Premium Security Suite 9.0.0.381. Social Submitter is advanced knowledge Crack Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition. An effective program rips CDs from InstallShield Crack Super DVD Creator 9.8.10. Pilot offers plenty of Harpsichord sounds Crack RPG Maker XP 1.02a. A hip game features until you receive faxes from spam, or joypad, works for experienced user or inaccessible, formatted text documents, Backup has to annoy the game and perfectly compact flash movie studio Crack Console Classix 4.08. The WordStar command set was an educational network names, and consultants Crack DesktopX 3.5. BigAnt Messenger Password instantly creates customizable concept and affords everything sets a decision to speech software, to impress your CAD Drawing is only for portable devices Crack Auslogics Registry Defrag 5.5.20.525. The shimmering stone of games so they reminisce about everything from those attachments Crack Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing 17 Deluxe 17. For people figure it down Crack Everest Ultimate Edition 5.30.1900. ABBYY FineReader Professional is used for beginners create flash memory cards featuring a completely revamping the crowd Crack Sound Forge 9.0e. WinSysClean promotes the aim at hand Crack iPod to Computer Transfer 5.6. Although many tools useful features but provides protection is system and flair to put a document, type music video, support and award-winning packet information about an upgrade of us, DVDComposer is already found converting video inputs, and legendary continent of Hollywood think m on screen; it lacking some work Crack Microsoft Works 9.0. Aside from video conversions Crack DeskPDF Professional 2.5.8. Despite a style Crack Command & Conquer: Red Alert 1. A fully editable and works similar to collect as Flash, Smart Import is excellent color text-based images Crack YouTube Download Manager Pro 6.0.9. Using an absent-minded slip on automatic operation Crack Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. The Bat!, Becky, IncrediMail, Gmail Notifier, Group , developed to empty your leisure Crack Easy Video Convert 3.0.1. Upload data and handles attendance requirements t very first started his first in Contestant Row and athletic facilities Crack Grand Theft Auto IV full game. This audio-conversion application dishes up data Crack FIFA 09 demo. Get the novice users Crack Adobe After Effects CS4. Centrally controlled security to speech, to an eBook and more areas Crack Quick Heal Total Security 2009 10.0. WinRoute Lite offers users solve a user-friendly program
I thought it was just me. After all, regardless of your view of Obama’s policies, with his TOTUS, he can usually deliver a great speech. But he was lackluster in Boston last week for Martha Coakley, and even moreso today at a townhall in Ohio. Here is the take on today’s stump speech and questions from the National Review:
Obama’s Train Wreck of a Town Hall in Ohio
Earlier this week, during a radio interview, I had said that Obama’s appearance for Martha Coakley on Sunday was the least effective stump appearances I had seen from a president. A lot of factors contributed to that – Coakley’s literally yawn-inducing speech, the decision to use the president as an attack dog in the race, the president (or his speechwriter’s) odd fixation on Scott Brown’s truck, and so on.
But perhaps Obama is in a “stump slump.” Maybe it’s me; maybe I can’t see any Obama speech as a good one these days. But today in Ohio, it seemed like the president was way off his game. But I thought he was defensive, prickly, almost indignant that he’s found himself in the tough spot that he’s in.
He began by talking about how much he didn’t like being in Washington, and apparently said something about the job being stifling. Sir, you spent two years trying to get this job.
One of his rallying cries as, “This is not about me!” Yes, Mr. President, but it’s about the decisions you make and the policies you’re trying to enact.
He made a reference to bankers who “click their heels and watch their stocks skyrocket.” Was he going with a Dorothy in Oz metaphor? Do bankers click their heels?
“I won’t stop fighting to bring back jobs here,” worked as an applause line, but I wondered how it worked outside the venue. That insinuates he’s been doing it for the first year, as unemployment has steadily increased. He’s calling on Congress to “pass a jobs bill.” I thought the stimulus was supposed to do that.
As Caleb Howe noticed, he said “I won’t stop fighting to open up government” while breaking the promise about health care bill negotiations being on C-SPAN.
I realize he’s using it to justify a new tax on banks, but I think “we want our money back” is a dangerous chant for a man who so steadily expands government spending.
UPDATE: A very out-of-rhythm speech was followed by some of the most obscure and unhelpful questions ever uttered at a town-hall meeting. I was left with a bit of sympathy for President Obama, as questioner after questioner asked about their own specific concerns, often way out of the president’s duties, responsibilities, and realm of expertise: One guy was an inventor who wanted to give him a sales pitch, one woman lamented the impatience of the American people before complaining about a slow response from the state environmental agency over her toddler’s lead poisoning, one guy wanted to read the president a poem; there was a woman who talked about the problem of finding students for her truck-driving school, an old lady who was upset that her Social Security didn’t have a cost-of-living increase, and a guy who had the patent for some wind-turbine issue that he was in a fight with some company about. One poor soul raised his hand and just wanted to shake Obama’s hand.
The United States is currently entering what could be a very long and perhaps unending financial crisis. We are nearing the brink, the tipping point beyond which there is no reasonable hope of recovery. This is very troubling. This is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately and aggressively. It is important to keep in mind, however, that there is a significant difference between what people say and the reality of the situation. We need to look at the basic, overall picture of what is going on, and distinguish the truths that will help save us from the fallacies that are spun only to fortify an opinion or promote specific policies.
Contrary to what some people would like to suggest, the blame for our budget crisis cannot be placed on any single policy item like the war in Iraq or the financial bailouts or the healthcare reform bill that is currently being debated. The war and the bailouts were certainly major expenses, but not necessarily ones that were entirely negative, and the (independent, nonpartisan) Congressional Budget Office has in fact made it quite clear that the currently proposed healthcare reform measures would actually help to reduce the budget deficit when compared to the status quo. The problem we face is much bigger than any single policy or bill. It is actually very simple. The government spends more than it makes.
Our most recent (and current) period of spending more than we earned started in the early 2000s. We started with a budget surplus of several hundred billion dollars that Clinton had created (it didn’t exist when he entered office, but did by the time he left), but by 2003 we were in the red and going further into debt. [see figs. 1A and 1B] What happened during this period? Spending went way up and income went way down. Specifically, George W. Bush sent the country to war and lowered taxes at the same time. Going to war wasn’t the problem. Lowering taxes wasn’t the problem. It was these two things happening at the same time that caused the problem. Instead of revenue and expenses keeping pace with each other, they went in the opposite direction. That’s what the problem was, and is. The United States essentially took a big pay cut but bought a bigger house and a new car anyway.
Fig. 1A: Budget deficits and national debt increases over the past decade.
Note that the Clinton administration created the 2001 budget. The Bush-43 administration created the budgets from 2002 to 2009. Obama’s first budget was 2010, which was planned in early 2009, and is not shown because the year is obviously not over yet.
Fig. 1B: Tax revenue compared to expenses as a percentage of GDP.
For most of the time, expenses were greater than income. We were starting to get back into the black during the Clinton years, but Bush-43 took us back into debt.
Historically, the income tax rate has gone up during and after a war. They cost a lot of money (and lives, but that’s a different discussion), but we realize that we have to pay for them somehow. We act rationally and responsibly by raising taxes and paying off our debts. During and after World War Two, for example, income tax rates spiked to 94% for the top tax bracket and 23% for the lowest. The top tax bracket then stayed above 80% until 1964, and remained above 50% until 1987. As of 2009, however, it was just 35%, one of the lowest top bracket income tax rates since before World War One. [see fig. 2] Furthermore, the current income tax rate for the lowest bracket is currently just 10%, which is even lower than it was during Reagan’s administration.
Fig. 2: Income tax rate for the highest income bracket over time.
Citizens currently enjoy incredibly low income tax rates, but it is at the expense of the nation’s financial health.
Unfortunately, since the early 2000s, we have been irrational and irresponsible. We have spent more and more money while taking in less and less. Our situation now may not be nearly as dire as what was happening during the 1940s, but we are at war and we do need to fund it somehow. Rather disturbingly, our income tax rates were decreased to near record lows at a time when they should have actually been increased. It’s really not surprising that we have such a problem now.
Most people would agree that our country’s expenses should reflect tax revenue, but tax rates should also reflect expenses. This means that when costs go up, we need to not only cut costs to offset the disparity, which everyone seems to be in favor of, but also increase revenue to pay off the debt that has grown, which few people enthusiastically support. But the latter does have to be done, and soon. The reasons for this are twofold. First, for several years now, we haven’t even been making enough money to pay for what we are already doing, regardless of what we may do in the years to come. Our debt has continued to climb up and up to just about the point where all the cost cutting you could possibly do will not get us out of debt. Second is actually the reason that cost cutting alone cannot get us out of debt, and that is because the nondiscretionary part of our budget (meaning the stuff we absolutely have to pay, like Social Security and Medicare) now eats up the vast majority of our nation’s annual total tax revenue. This stuff can’t be cut. At all. Period.
The difference between the total government revenue and the nondiscretionary expenses is what is left over for discretionary, or “optional” items. Those are the only things that can be cut. However, that difference is extremely small right now, and those expenses aren’t exactly optional, either… just adjustable. Because that difference is so small, yet our country still needs to continue to operate, we are forced to spend significantly more on discretionary items than we can afford. In fact, the majority of the money that pays for discretionary items comes from increasing our debt. [see fig. 3]
Fig. 3: Total revenue and expenditure estimates for 2010.
The distance from the top of the blue total revenue bar on the left and the division line between discretionary and mandatory spending sections on the right (right where it says “potential disaster”) is the total amount of money we have to spend on discretionary items without increasing our debt. The mandatory, nondiscretionary items cannot be reduced, so the only way to balance the budget without completely eliminating all federal departments and agencies including the entire military is to significantly increase revenue.
Anyone who tells you that cost cutting alone can solve our budget crisis is either lying or poorly informed. As of the 2010 budget, you could completely eliminate every single department and agency our country needs to run on and dissolve the entire military and we would just barely break even. (And forget about paying off any of that debt, by the way. Only the interest on our debt is a mandatory expense.) That’s how little money we have to spend after the nondiscretionary budget items are paid for. Part of the reason for that is that government’s estimated revenue for this year is lower due to the recession, but we were still in the same budget deficit situation several years ago when the economy was booming, just to a lesser extent. So either way, cost cutting just isn’t enough. We need more revenue.
One thing we know is that the essential, nondiscretionary expenses are relatively predictable and that they are certainly not going to decrease. That means that nondiscretionary spending as a whole is a relatively steady expense. Therefore, the fewer taxes and other revenue we take in, the larger percentage of that money is going to pay for those expenses. That’s the situation we are in now. What we need to be doing is increasing overall revenue in order to decrease the relative percentage of that money that is being spent on the nondiscretionary items. That will make the difference between our total revenue and the cost of the nondiscretionary items larger, meaning we have more money to spend on discretionary items (which, again, aren’t really optional). This is the only way we can increase the ratio of discretionary to nondiscretionary spending to a proportion that is reasonable and sustainable. Remember, nondiscretionary spending cannot be reduced. Revenue must go up.
The very best way to increase government revenue is to increase income taxes. Income taxes make up nearly half of the government’s total annual earnings. [see fig. 4] Approximately equal to that are the combined receipts from Social Security and payroll taxes. The government could, theoretically, charge people more for their Social Security benefits, but the resistance to that and issues it could cause are probably significantly greater than simply raising income tax rates. They could also introduce new tariffs on imported goods or establish various other taxes on other things, but they would all be drops in the bucket compared to raising income tax rates. (The government does, however, need to do a major overhaul of both the Social Security system as well as Medicare and Medicaid at some point over the next decade or so, or else the rate at which they are growing will cripple our economy entirely. They’re already in debt, and the Government Accountability Office has predicted that these programs will eventually push mandatory spending far beyond any possible government revenue rates sometime between 2030 and 2040.)
Fig. 4: Total revenue estimates for 2010 by source.
Income taxes make up nearly half of total government revenue. You can’t really spend Social Security money on other things, and increasing any of the smaller items wouldn’t have much of an impact, so income taxes need to increase.
There may be some who argue out of ignorance that we don’t need any discretionary expenses at all, that all of the essentials the country needs to run on are covered under the nondiscretionary items, but they would be sadly mistaken. All of the government departments and agencies are discretionary in the federal budget. [see fig. 5] Everything from the Department of State and Department of Education to the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. All of these agencies are rather important in the operation and well-being of our country, to put it lightly.
Fig. 5: 2010 budget spending by category.
Nondiscretionary items include Social Security, the unemployment/welfare/other category, Medicare, Medicaid, and the interest on the national debt. Everything else is discretionary, most of which has been funded over the last several years by borrowing, and sending us further into debt. Note that the full circle represents what we are spending, which is far greater than what we are earning.
That’s not to say that cost cutting shouldn’t also be employed to help get our country back in the black. If you’re looking for a nice, big, juicy chunk of the discretionary budget to cut, try the Department of Defense. Their budget is enormous, at roughly one-fifth of the entire federal budget (both nondiscretionary and discretionary combined). It makes up about half of the discretionary budget alone, easily its the largest single item. It is so large, in fact, that the combined budgets of the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Department of the Interior, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency do not even equal the size of the defense budget. (Those were all in descending order of budget size based on the 2010 budget, in case you were wondering.) But again, even getting rid of all of those things completely will still not do the trick. We still need to bring in more money.
What has become painfully clear, through continual, but much needed repetition, is that we need to be earning more money. Whether we should be spending our money in the proportions currently budgeted is another issue entirely, but we need to be earning enough money to cover our expenses. Taxes should absolutely not be cut when spending is increasing, especially when it increases dramatically like it has during the better part of the last decade. Doing so is simply foolish. We must raise income taxes if we are going to have any real hope of paying off our debts and balancing the national budget.
The twist to this story, of course, is that we have just gone through a major economic recession. It is just about universally accepted that raising taxes at any point during the past two years would have almost certainly hurt the rate at which we are now recovering. Fortunately, things are looking a bit better now and people are becoming more optimistic. Millions of Americans are still unemployed, and the job prospects are still fairly bleak, but the stock market has gained consistently for almost 11 months now and companies are starting to see a turnaround. At least the people who have money are back to making more of it, so we need to start thinking about inching up the income tax rate for the highest income brackets. 2011’s budget, which is going to be planned in just a few months from now, should start to address this issue. Then, once we have suitably gone from being just stable to starting to grow a little bit, tax rates overall should be pushed up slightly to help stave off our current and growing budget problems. At no time should a reduction in income tax rates even be considered. We simply cannot afford it.
In the meantime, there are a few things we could do to help increase government revenue without having a negative impact on the economic recovery. We could tax and/or increase taxes on any items that are bad for us, like cigarettes and alcohol. This would generate more income while discouraging use of such damaging products. We could tax and/or increase taxes elective surgery and elective medications (think: performance enhancing drugs), making money off of things that aren’t necessary. We could end farming subsidies, eliminating lots of wasted spending (although I personally would divert at least some of this money towards promoting healthy foods). We could withdraw our military forces from all of the bases in all of the dozens of countries all around the world that we occupy even during peacetime, which is not only unnecessary and very costly, but is also seen by some (especially our current enemies) as a provocation. We could tax all revenue generated for US-based companies by outsourced employees, making money and encouraging job growth here in America. We could introduce a flat tax on all imported items, which would not only take advantage of our massive trade deficit, but also encourage people to buy American-made products and services which has its own positive economic effects. We could tax all processed food and drink products and/or those that use biologically-modified ingredients, promoting both better health and stronger tax revenue. We could tax the greenhouse gases that companies emit into the atmosphere instead of just letting them emit a certain amount for free, thereby creating extra revenue while helping to clean up the environment.
These are just some of the ideas that could be implemented that would have a relatively small effect on individual people when compared to taxing them directly. Although, that really needs to come into play later on in another year or two, too. And in a pretty big way. Once our economic situation is straightened out a little bit more, the highest income tax bracket needs to go from its current rate of 35% to at least 50%, and it will need to stay there for a while, preferably indefinitely. It might even be a good idea to increase it even further temporarily until the bulk of our outstanding debt is paid off. A few years after the first high income tax increases, the lower tax brackets should be increased, with the lowest going from the current 10% to 12% at the very least, with an eventual increase to 14% or 15% being ideal. Then we will finally be making enough money.
When I look at this election yesterday of Scott Brown I notice a number of things. Like how little a difference there was in Republican vote totals for John McCain in November 2008 and for Scott Brown in January 2010. On Nov. 4th 2008 in Massachusetts, John McCain received 1,108,854 votes. On January 19th 2010, Scott Brown received 1,168,107 votes, for a grand total of 59,253 more votes in 2010 than in 2008.
Now, do the same thing for the Democratic numbers. In 2008, Barack Obama received a grand total, in Massachusetts of 1,904,097 votes. In 2010, Martha Coakley received a total of 1,058,682 votes, for a grand total of 845, 415 less votes in 2010 than in 2008.
This tells me a few things. This was not a repudiation of Barack Obama and his policies, not on any mass scale. Not with the grand total of 59,000 total votes spread over 2168 precincts. It may help both sides to see it as a repudiation and his policies, to light a fire under their people, and to add a sense of urgency to their actions, and to make them more attentive to the needs of their constituents.
This had more to do with Martha Coakley not being able to energize the base, but also has at least something to do with the White House. They knew how crucial the 60th vote in the senate was, not only to Health care, but to a host of other things on the Presidents agenda. To turn their back on Martha, once she was made the Democratic candidate, to leave the base unengaged, with a man who energized the base like no man in history had only 15 months before, was frankly, a horrendous mistake. To leave her to her own devises, while she and, by extension the White House, let Scott Brown energize the states independent voters essentially unopposed, cost her votes.
Do I think having The President make an extended tour of Massachusetts a month ago would have gotten Martha Coakley 845,000+ votes just because of the Presidents presence? No. Nothing Like that. But perhaps he could have turned enough heads, and gotten enough attention turned towards Martha Coakley to make a enough of a difference to turn 2.5% of the populace to Coakley, and we would be talking about Senator Elect Coakley, and not Senator Elect Brown.
If anything this vote tells the tale of a man, Scott Brown, who pushed his campaign with verve and energy in the right direction, was able to harness the power of people who are discontent with the jobless situation and the economy, which are doing better now than when President Obama took office, but clearly not good enough to many minds, to hold onto voters that were never fans of Barack Obama and the Democrats to begin with, and get 2.5% or 3% on top of that, which turned out to be enough.
The people also saw that Martha Coakley was running a lax campaign, giving the impression that she didn’t want it, or heard the media say and believed it, which is just as good, on top of the economic and Job issues spoken of previously, caused the people who had voted for the President and Democrats in 2008, to simply not come out and vote.
Had there been incentive, like there was in 2008, had the Democrats, both Coakley AND the White House, given people any incentive to come out and vote, the Democratic base that was there in 2008, more would have come out this time around.
The tenure of a Sen. Coakley never had a chance, because of laxness of planning, not enough energy, and because they couldn’t read the political winds right. If the Democrats continue in this manner, they will lose both the senate and the house before the end of this year.
Today’s nuggets, via wikiquote: A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. Samuel Adams
The Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. George Washington
Jennifer LeClaire at CRM daily, just like many others on the net in different languages, recalls warnings issued in Germany and France regarding Internet Explorer security problem (full article at http://www.crm-daily.com/story.xhtml?story_id=71124).
Jennifer is quite right in everything, including the doubt that some political manouvres are taking place in Europe against Microsoft.
I’m quite curious about the number of customers actually affected by this IE weakness. Maybe will be a ridicuolus amount.
What makes me think is that everybody is talking on this issue and most of the non techie people believe is a real problem.
I’m european and I’m not for or against Microsoft (nor Google, and just to be clear, I’m not involved with both of them), but I think that in the supposed name of “freedom of choice” and freedom of speech great confusion is being put in the users arena and no advantage is given to end users.
I think it’s a quite tricky situation: everybody goes for free things but wants the same advantages of the paid ones.
At the same time, everyone approaches Microsoft as the main problem in the world just because is perceived as monopolistic, while not considering that Google has a bigger monopoly and strength than Microsoft.
And at the same time users can choose the browser they like at least in Europe (but what prevented same users to switch let’s say to Chrome or Firefox?). But are they aware of the choice they’re are taking or are just pressing some icons in the name of freedom, without knowing how to manage, for instance, support when they have problems?
At the end, I think that there are some more serious problems than choosing a browser or exploiting a weakness in a browser.
And at same time, everyone that has the knowledge of the real weight of the problem has the due to explain it.
Otherwise I think we are playing the game of those who are playing dirty, trying to make us believe that exist problems where there are not.
My mom brought up the university/college talk yesterday. She obviously assumed that I was going to The University of British Columbia (UBC) and another obvious one would be Kwantlen. Now its not that I would hate going to those schools, there still an option. Its just seems so typical. And I dont wanna be typical.
I told my mom that my dream place of going to college/university would be London. I’ve been there twice. Once when I was 7 and another when I was 13/14 years old. I remember every single moment of being there. Every statue, every mime, every monument, every car ride and of course the new family, whom I have never seen before. Theres one specific thing I remember. Was the icecream trucks. THEY WERE SO DETAILED! Like they literally had a big humungous (fake) icecream cone ontop of the truck and played real icercream music. No rust, no scary looking guy selling the icecream —O-M-G! THEY ACTUALLY HAVE ICECREAM! WITH SPRINKLES!! IN A CONE!!! And you know what else? Theres actually a window on the side of the icecream truck. Its not a door. AND they never and I mean NEVER run out!! I dont know why I was so amazed by these maginificent icecream trucks. They were just so sparkly. LOL!
Anywhooo, getting off topic here…once I told my mom that I wanted to go to London for university. Her reaction was just so helpless I dont even know why I even bothered to tell her and to even speak those words. ‘Cause right when those words came out of my mouth. It hit me. Money.
Food, dreams, houses, schools, vacations, books, underwears and life. You name it. It all has to do with money and lots of it. And I also realized that dollars is worth half on London. But on the other hand if I start raising money now, I think it would be enough. And I could work out some sort of plan with my parents to make this become a reality in the future. I just need someone older to come with me. That older imaginary sister of mine would come in quite handy in about a year or so. haha. But Im gonna need luck to even be able to find a job in this economy.
U.S. government is ratcheting up the militarized police state as they anticipate massive resistance.
In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year’s Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.
Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an “advisory panel” chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a “national emergency.”
According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created “to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.”
“When appointed” the announcement continues, “the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.
One consequence of moves to “synchronize and integrate” state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism’s endless “War on Terror.” At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM’s launch “the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946.”
The real-world consequences of those changes weren’t long in coming.
Following their criminal inaction during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.
At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to “suppress rebellion.” How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina’s flood waters could be twisted into an act of “rebellion” was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: “Drowning while Black.”
Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media’s deafening silence on Obama’s Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in “new normal” America.
Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon “civil disturbance” plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our “change” President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.
Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”
The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less, “shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council.”
Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated “to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security” and “the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.”
Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will “exchange views” include, “the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, “Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.”
When news first broke last summer of Obama’s proposal to expand the military’s authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).
Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it “would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens,” Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.
According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that “without assigning a governor tactical control” of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the “strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors’ control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander.”
With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.
These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State’s writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.
Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for “conspiracy theorists” railing against “FEMA concentration camps,” Continuity of Government, and the nexus of “civil support” programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.
Indeed, even members of Congress are considered “unauthorized parties” denied access “to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities,” according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.
As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: “Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?“), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-pagereport in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a “civil support” operation that war games various disaster scenarios.
Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that “directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises.” EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as “as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”
Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established “a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises.” CRS avers, “The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities.”
The Defense Department’s role during such emergencies were intended to focus “principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events.” DoD would play a “significant role” in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.
The primary DoD entity responsible for “civil support,” a focus of Obama’s EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to “synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities,” USNORTHCOM’s role is shrouded in secrecy.
As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: “DeFazio’s inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.”
One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, Army Times reported, that the “3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission–with a twist–at home.”
Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented, “What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a ‘war theater’ thereby justifying the deployment of combat units.” According to Chossudovsky, “The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement.” “It is noteworthy, the World Socialist Web Site commented, “that the deployment of US combat troops ‘as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters’ … coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.”
“Justified as a response to terrorist threats,” socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, “the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.”
Since USNORTHCOM’s deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.
After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests…
HR 1585 Authorizes Plans For Martial Law Apparatus
This post has no commentary or opinion. It is all fact. It is very bare-bones material I am researching to compile into a nonfiction book, American Gestapo, that will be a follow-up to my last book, fiction-based-on-fact, Soft News. I would like to preface my report by saying I spent more than two years living in Germany as a military dependent, and some of my ancestors are from that country. I found the Germans very friendly, likeable, hardworking and although tremendously practical, fun-loving at the right time.
* * * *
Some people are trying to change history. Today we are only going to deal with one aspect of this: Germany immediately prior to World War II.
There have been recent news stories quoting historians who say the Holocaust never happened. Textbook “revisionists” engaged in Holocaust denial refer to their work as an historical re-examination of history, updating it with “newly discovered, less biased information.” It is an academic approach that says historical accounts have not been properly told. To check out these facts, simply type “Holocaust denial” or delve into the work of Henry Rousso- a respected Frenchman who works as director of research at the French National Scientific Research Center and is considered a top expert on the World War II era.
History currently shows that in the late 1920s and early 1930s, economic times in Germany were tough; people were losing jobs; had little to eat; and newspapers were afraid to speak out for fear of offending those in power.
As the economic crisis became a Great Depression, a “savior” who promised much to the masses came to power. The media loved him. Just check your history. All he did was in the name of justice and change. Germany was cultured, filled with music, art, laboratories and universities.
The Germans were hardy, hardworking, and patriotic. Hitler had only been appointed Chancellor of Germany four weeks when he was invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. But time passed and elections were upcoming.
On the evening of Feb. 27, 1933, six days before an election was scheduled that could have changed the balance of power, a huge fire broke out. It became known as the Reichstag Fire and was the reason used by those in power to put military law on the streets. It was (of course) said to be the only way to protect the people from harm.
Immediately following our “Reichstag Fire” (Sept. 11) The Patriot Act was put into place supposedly for those very same reasons. Have you studied it? I suggest you do. If certain portions of it are enforced, any law enforcement agent (from any branch, whether your local sheriff or DC SWAT team) can invade your home or business without a warrant. All they must say is “He (or she) might be a terrorist.”
The text of the German Decree, officially called the Verordnung des Reichprasidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State) is available in your library and on line. Its Article 6 states that it went into effect the moment it was posted.
The decree resulted in military power that took over the streets. Killing sprees. Genocide. Turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. Concentration camps. Rounding up of all Jews and any others who opposed their tactics; scientists; great thinkers; philosophers; writers; journalists; photographers- anyone who wanted to speak out or report the truth.
This was not something that happened overnight. It had been building. All the elements were present and simply had to be enforced. As they are here in the United States of America today. Simply read The Patriot Act for yourself and decide.
Hello Friends here we come up with an extension of our previous blog “Why Commodities Trading? Know Now.. Part 1“.
.
Know the Basics of Commodity Trading - Final Part
.
Yesterday we read about the importance and need for Commodity Trading.
.
In this blog we would read to understand that how can we do commodity trading, what is the process for that and how commodity trading works.
Here we go with first question of the topic for the day..
How do you do commodity Trading?
.
When you buy a Gold Futures contract, you undertake to do three things.
.
1. Buy the amount of gold specified in the contract.
2. Buy it at the price specified in the contract.
3. Buy it on the expiry of the contract.
.
This could be after one month, two months, three months and so on.
Of course, if you sell the Gold Futures contract before it expires, then you don’t have to worry about actually buying the gold.
Let’s say you buy the Gold Future contract at say Rs 15000 per 10 gm.
Your hunch comes true and the gold prices rally to Rs 16000 per 10 gm.
You can sell the Gold Futures any time before expiry of the contract.
Gold and other commodity futures prices are quoted on the commodity exchanges in exactly the same way in which stock prices or stock futures prices are quoted on a daily basis in the stock markets.
—
Now let us see How Commodity Trading works?
.
They work just like stock futures
When you buy a Futures, you don’t have to pay the entire amount, just a fixed percentage of the cost.
This is known as the margin.
Let’s say you are buying a Gold Futures contract. The minimum contract size for a gold future is 100 gms.
100 gms of gold may be worth Rs 72,000. The margin for gold set by MCX is 3.5%.
So you only end up paying Rs 2,520.
The low margin means that you can buy futures representing a large amount of gold by paying only a fraction of the price.
So you bought the Gold Futures contract when it was Rs 72,000 per 100 gms.
The next day, the price of gold rose to Rs 73,000 per 100 gms. Rs 1,000 (Rs 73,000 – Rs 72,000) will be credited to your account.
The following day, the price dips to Rs 72,500. Rs 500 will get debited from your account (Rs 73,000 – Rs 72,500).
.
Things You need to know about Commodities Trading
.
Compared to stocks, trading in commodities is much cheaper, because margins are much lower than in stock futures.
Brokerage is low for commodity futures. It ranges from 0.05% to 0.12%.
Because of this, commodity futures are a speculator’s paradise.
.
.
If you are a hard-core trader who follows the technical charts and do not really care what you trade, and if you are nimble and savvy, then commodity futures could be another asset class that you would be interested in.
The advantages in this line is that there are no balance sheets, no complicated financial statements.
All you need to do is follow the supply and demand position of the commodities you trade in very closely.
.
.
Visit the commodities trading exchanges – NCDEX,NMCE and MCX – to find out which commodities are offered for trading, their contract size and other criteria.
You will have to get hold of a commodities broker but that should not be a problem.
There are lots of brokers that offer commodity trading these days.
.
.
But, it would be wise to avoid commodity trading if you are a rookie or beginner.
A much better move would be always to initially trade in stock futures before opting for commodity futures.
.
.
Note : For More Latest Industry, Stock Market and Economy News and Updates, please Click Here
The GateWayPundit and Bloomberg are reporting on Democrat plans for “reconciliation” to pass the ObamaCare legislation if Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley:
Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.
That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.
“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.
“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”
Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules.
He also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.
Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was “pure hallucination.”
For full article: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/dems-announce-plans-to-ram-through-obamacare-with-51-votes-if-scott-brown-wins/
.
There are definite advantages to opening an online stock trading account.
.
Unlike traditional brokers, online firms don’t require confusing brokerage fees and sky-high commissions.
.
And as for convenience, it’s hard to beat the ease of researching companies, viewing your portfolio and placing orders at the click of a mouse.
.
With all the ease the Internet brings to the Information Age, opening an online trading account could not be made any easier than it already is.
.
All you need to do is:
.
1. Pick an online stock broker
.
Essentially, online stock brokers come in two forms
- discount stock brokers and
- discounted discount stock brokers.
.
The primary difference between these two different types of online stock brokers is the commission they charge.
.
.
Nonetheless, as most online stock brokers do not provide their clients with research information about which stock to buy and sell (which is one reason why their commissions can be so low),
one of the most important aspects you have to consider before opening an online trading account is to find out whether or not they have instant ‘real time’ access to stock trading prices.
.
If not, and there is a time-lag between the quoted price and your buy/sell price, you could find that this ends up costing you far more than the commission would otherwise have cost.
.
Therefore, be prepared to pay a higher commission for a more instantaneous stock quote price.
—
2. Completing the online application
.
Having decided on which online stock broker to open your trading account with, you then need to complete the online application form.
.
—
3. Joining Fees
.
In addition to a per trade commission fee, some online stock brokers will charge you an introductory new member fee when opening your online trading account.
.
However, competition among online stock brokers being intense these days, they offer very attractive joining promotions.
.
It is advisable that you do not base your whole decision of opening an online trading account on just the aspect of the value of joining fees.
.
—-
4. Deposit your money
.
When opening the online trading account, you’ll be instructed as to how to deposit your money with the broker.
.
In some cases you can make your deposit via credit card, in others you’ll need to make a physical payment into a bank account.
.
Once you have completed the online application form and deposited your money, you’ll be free to start trading.
.
.
To know more about the state-of-the-art Online Trading facility, click here.
At the moment I’m up $22, and if you count the commissions that will be refunded, I’m up $72. It’s a far cry from $2,000,000, but 7.2% ROI isn’t terrible, I guess.
I’ve been re-reading How I Made $2,000,000 In The Stock Market, Nicolas Darvas’ true account of his financial success in the 1950’s. I had forgotten about a few things, for example, buying stocks automatically using a stop limit. Also, following the Dow as an indicator of the overall health of the stock market.
But what I really wanted was a refresher on what exactly I’m looking for in a stock price/volume pattern. And after reading the chapter where he explains his technique, and analyzing charts of some stocks he invested in, I feel more confident that I am on the right track.
Also today, I adjusted some of my sell stop limits. F will stop out at $10.25, CYTX will stop out at $5.50, and PCYC will stop out at $3.25.
Current account value: $1022
Left to go: $1,998,978
I commented previously on the War Between the Banks and how it came to be. Now there are efforts by some congressmen to restore the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that once prevented banks from making high risk financial moves with your money. Ten years ago, Newt Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, and President Clinton passed and approved the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 ( aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) that removed the protections. It took only ten years after that to wreak havoc with the US banking system.
My advice is still the same: Keep your money in small banks right now. We have our money split between three banks at the moment. Not that we have that much money, but if one of them fails, we have money to live on until the FDIC pays us off.
Sen. Maria Cantwell and Sen. John McCain are sponsoring legislation to restore some protections to the banking industry. Sen. Feingold supports their efforts and will co-sponsor their legislation.
From Sen. Feingold’s Newsletter:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold is cosponsoring bipartisan legislation to safeguard Americans’ money deposits from risky Wall Street speculation. Feingold is supporting legislation introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John McCain (R-AZ) to restore decades-old protective firewalls between Main Street banks, Wall Street securities firms, and insurance companies. In 1999, Congress voted to effectively eliminate those protections and Feingold was one of eight senators to oppose the deregulation effort. The tearing down of the firewalls contributed to the growth of mammoth “too big to fail” financial entities that taxpayers were asked to bail out last year. Feingold opposed the Wall Street bailout, as well.
“The collapse of these ‘too big to fail’ entities was a major contributor to the global financial crisis from which we are still recovering. But that collapse was set in motion decades earlier when regulators began to erode the protections established by Glass-Steagall, culminating in the repeal of key Depression-era safeguards in 1999,” Feingold said. “Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker is absolutely right that Main Street banks, on which so many businesses depend, and which hold deposits backed by the FDIC, and ultimately by taxpayers, should be kept completely separate from Wall Street securities firms. That financial safeguard served our economy well for nearly 70 years, and we should bring it back.”
The Cantwell-McCain legislation, which Feingold is cosponsoring, would:
Prohibit commercial banks from affiliating in any manner with investment banks and vice versa;
Prevent officers, directors, and employees of a commercial bank from serving as an officer, director, or employee of an investment bank and vice versa;
Prohibit commercial banks from engaging in all insurance activities;
Establish one year from date of enactment as the deadline for financial houses to transition and separate their commercial and investment banking operations.
On November 4th, 1999, Feingold was one of eight U.S. Senators to oppose the final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. In his statement opposing the bill, Feingold said it would declare “the ultimate bank holiday – giving banks, insurance companies and securities firms a permanent vacation from” Depression-era banking law reforms. Feingold also said it would lead to “merger-mania.” Feingold also noted the massive lobbying campaign that accompanied the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which included $187.2 million in political contributions in support of the deregulation. In what he billed as “the calling of the bankroll,” Feingold listed the financial institutions that lobbied on behalf of the bill and the massive sums they gave during the 1998 election cycle.
There is a gaping hole in our recovery and more and more of Main Street America is falling through it. And that gaping hole is JOBS. Or more accurately, the place where JOBS should be.
The price of U.S. recession is paid in jobs
In the current recession, economists say high unemployment is likely to persist at least another four years. In Michigan, home to the battered U.S. auto industry, nearly 13 percent of jobs may be wiped out, according to research firm IHS Global Insight, and the state’s labor market probably won’t return to its pre-recession strength until after 2015.
Retraining is the usual prescription, but pay and benefits in new careers are often far worse.
The housing crisis has worsened the situation for job seekers because areas with high unemployment also have high foreclosure rates, making it hard to sell up and move on.
The pain of joblessness extends well beyond the workers themselves, hitting their families and entire communities as home foreclosures mount, neighborhoods decay and crime rises.
For Main Street America, jobs are the gods on which we sacrifice our lives. Jobs are not just what we do. Jobs are how we live. Literally. Jobs are the sole source of income for most of Main Street. That means there is little or no rainy day fund to tide one over. No lifetime investments to fall back on. No family wealth to ease the pain. Just a steady paycheck that is earned day-in and day-out.
So when Main Street America becomes cut off from that life giving paycheck, it quickly finds itself making tough choices over the most basic of necessities.
Consumer bankruptcies soar 34% in July from a year ago
A classic measure of Americans’ financial distress: U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings totaled 126,434 in July, the highest for any month since Congress rewrote bankruptcy laws in October 2005.
The July figure, reported today by the American Bankruptcy Institute, was up 34% from July 2008 and an 8.7% increase from the 116,365 filings in June.
So far this year 802,000 consumer bankruptcies have been recorded, up 36% from the 589,000 in the first seven months of last year, institute data shows.
So what does this mean for the rest of America? Quite simply, there can be no Main Street Consumers without Main Street Jobs. And without Main Street Consumers there can be no real recovery for our economy. A recovery by definition means going back to what was normal. And in a consumption-based economy, where consumption comes primarily from Main Street (not Wall Street who got bailed out to the tune of $13.9 – 23.7 trillion in tax payer funds), normal ain’t going to happen without jobs.
As Robert Reich sees it, When will the recovery begin? Never
In a recession this deep, recovery doesn’t depend on investors. It depends on consumers who, after all, are 70 percent of the U.S. economy. And this time consumers got really whacked. Until consumers start spending again, you can forget any recovery, V or U shaped.
Problem is, consumers won’t start spending until they have money in their pockets and feel reasonably secure. But they don’t have the money, and it’s hard to see where it will come from. They can’t borrow. Their homes are worth a fraction of what they were before, so say goodbye to home equity loans and refinancings. One out of 10 homeowners is underwater — owing more on their homes than their homes are worth. Unemployment continues to rise, and the number of hours at work continues to drop. Those who can are saving. Those who can’t are hunkering down, as they must.
… This economy can’t get back on track because the track we were on for years — featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere — simply cannot be sustained.
… All we know is the current economy can’t “recover” because it can’t go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin…
And yet, strangely, shockingly, the vital role that jobs play in building the very foundation of our economy, seems to elude too many in the media and in government. Oh, the MSM reports that Job woes sap U.S. consumer confidence in July and that Analysis finds that companies that were not too big to fail are going under. But in the very next breath they tout the latest up tic on wall street as confirmation of our economy is doing well.
But as Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz. points out, talk of a robust recovery is “premature”.
“While there’s been some recovery there are lots of reasons to be worried, lots of reasons to believe that unemployment will continue to grow and, so long as that is the case, it is hard to believe that we will have a robust recovery.” …
“Even if the housing market levels off, we have problems in commercial real estate. Millions of Americans are likely to see foreclosures particularly if the unemployment rate remains high,” he added.
“Consumer spending is likely to remain weak and as long as consumer spending remains weak, investment is going to remain weak.”
And what about this administration? How concerned are they about jobs? Well, this weekend Obama’s team of economic cheerleaders – Geithner, Summers and Greenspan – made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows, touting signs that the recession was easing. But they seemed more concerned about the looming deficit and easing the way for tax increases than the lessening the ranks of the unemployed. (Though one has to wonder how they expect the unemployed to pay taxes – increased or not.)
Even when Geithner Says Unemployment May Peak in Second Half of 2010, he apparently sees no crisis or urgency to help the millions of Americans facing long term unemployed. No Main Street bailout in his talking points.
Another extension in unemployment benefits “is something that the administration and Congress are going to look very carefully at as we get closer to the end of this year,” Geithner said in an interview yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” program.
Definitely, not the confidence building words that Main Street wants to hear considering that on top of everything else Jobless Checks for Millions Delayed as States Struggle
“The unemployment insurance system before the recession was as vulnerable as New Orleans was before Katrina,” said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who is chairman of a House panel with authority over the program.
Can the simple basic necessity of jobs for Main Street America really be beyond the comprehension of this administration and this Congress.? Do they really not know or understand what jobs mean for our economy? Or is it that they just do not care?
How can they not see that we are failing as a country when Wall Street rebounds with bonuses in the billions, while Main Street continues to hemorrhage jobs, houses, health insurance and retirement plans in the millions?
Main Street America is the heart and soul of this country. But as more and more Americans stare down the jobless abyss, they are losing their belief in the basic fairness of a capitalist society. They are losing the last remnants of their faith and trust in their own government. And they are losing their pride and honor at being the backbone of the American economy.
And as a country, how exactly do we come back from those kind of loses?
Mr. Ailes is certainly making money. At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.
This outsize success has placed Mr. Ailes, an aggressive former Republican political strategist, at the pinnacle of power in three corridors of American life: business, media and politics. In addition to being the best-paid person in the News Corporation last year, he is the most successful news executive of the last 10 years, and his network exerts a strong influence on the fractured conservative movement.
For the full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?hp
In 2154, the RDA corporation is mining Pandora, a lush, Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) heads the mining operation, and it employs former marines for security. The corporation intends to exploit Pandora’s reserves of a valuable mineral called unobtanium. Pandora is inhabited by the Na’vi, a blue-skinned neolithic species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics. Physically stronger and taller than humans, the Na’vi live in harmony with Nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa.
Humans cannot survive exposure to Pandora’s atmosphere for very long and use oxygen masks. In an attempt to improve relations with the natives, scientists create human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars, controlled by genetically-matched human operators. The scientists also lead schools for the Na’vi to learn English and to interact with the humans. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic former marine, becomes a last-minute replacement for his identical twin brother, a recently-murdered scientist trained to be an avatar operator. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the head of the Avatar Program, considers Sully an inadequate replacement for his brother, and relegates him to a bodyguard role.
Jake escorts Augustine and biologist Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) on an exploratory mission in their avatar forms to make contact with the Na’vi, in order to help establish diplomatic relations to solve the problem of resources and end the constant threat of violence. The group is attacked by a large predator, and Jake becomes separated and lost. Attempting to survive the night in Pandora’s dangerous jungles, he is rescued by Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), a female Na’vi. Neytiri brings Jake to Hometree, which is inhabited by Neytiri’s clan, the Omaticaya. Mo’at (C. C. H. Pounder), the Na’vi shaman and Neytiri’s mother, shows interest in the warrior “Dream-walker” (their term for the Avatars), and instructs her daughter to teach Jake their ways. Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), leader of the security forces for RDA, promises Jake his “real legs” back in exchange for intelligence about the natives and what it will take for them to abandon Hometree, which rests above a large deposit of unobtanium.
Over three months, Jake grows close to Neytiri and the Omaticaya and begins preferring the life he lives through the avatar. Jake’s attachment erodes his loyalty toward RDA’s agenda. He is initiated into the Omaticaya, and he and Neytiri choose each other as mates. Jake’s change of loyalty is revealed when he disables a bulldozer’s cameras as it destroys the tribe’s ‘Tree of Voices’. Col. Quaritch disconnects Jake from his avatar and presents Selfridge and Dr. Augustine with a vlog in which Jake admits that his mission is fruitless; the humans have nothing the Omaticaya desire, and they will never abandon Hometree. Selfridge is convinced that negotiations will fail and orders Hometree’s destruction.
Augustine argues that the destruction of Hometree could affect the vast bio-botanical neural network that all Pandoran organisms are connected to, and Selfridge gives Jake one hour to convince the Na’vi to leave Hometree. When he reveals his mission to the Omaticaya, Neytiri accuses him of betraying them, resulting in Jake and Augustine’s imprisonment. Jake’s time runs out and Quaritch’s forces destroy Hometree, killing Eytucan (Wes Studi), Neytiri’s father and clan chief, and many others. Jake and Augustine are disconnected from their avatars and detained for treason along with Norm. Trudy Chacón (Michelle Rodriguez), a security force pilot who is disgusted by the violence, breaks them out. During their escape Quaritch shoots Augustine. With Augustine dying, Jake turns to the Omaticaya for help. To regain their trust he tames the Toruk, a powerful flying beast that only five Na’vi have ever tamed. Jake flies to the Omaticaya, who have gathered at the sacred Tree of Souls, and pleads with Mo’at to heal Augustine. They attempt to transplant her “soul” into her avatar, but her injuries are too severe.
With the assistance of Neytiri and Tsu’Tey (Laz Alonso), the new leader of the Omaticaya, Jake assembles thousands of Na’vi from other clans. Jake prays to Eywa to intercede on behalf of the Na’vi in the coming battle. Quaritch, noting the rapid mobilization of Na’vi clans, convinces Selfridge to authorize a preemptive strike on the Tree of Souls. Because it is a center of Na’vi religion and culture, its destruction would leave the Na’vi too demoralized to resist further human encroachment.
As the humans attack, the Na’vi fight back but suffer heavy casualties, among them Tsu’Tey and Trudy. When the Na’vi are on the verge of defeat, the Pandoran wildlife suddenly attacks the humans, overwhelming them. Neytiri interprets this as Eywa answering Jake’s prayer. Jake destroys the main bomber before it can reach the Tree of Souls. Quaritch escapes in an AMP (Amplified Mobility Platform) suit, finds the avatar interface pod where Jake’s human body is located and attacks it, exposing Jake to Pandora’s atmosphere. Neytiri kills Quaritch and saves Jake, seeing his human form. With the attack repelled, Jake and Neytiri reaffirm their love.
The humans are expelled from Pandora, while Jake and his closest co-workers remain. Jake is seen wearing the insignia of the Omaticaya leader. The film ends with Jake’s consciousness being transplanted into his Na’vi avatar and his life continuing as a Na’vi.
Just forward your interesting and funny stuff to webgoodnews@gmail.com .Good stories will be published @ UptownFuns.Blogspot.com
I made this cole slaw from all-local, organic vegetables either from our own garden (the peppers via the freezer) or from Conway Locally Grown. You can vary quantities and ingredients depending on what you have on hand, but this slaw contains
he grand total of 59,000 total votes spread over 2168 precincts. It may help both sides to see it as a repudiation and his policies, to light a fire under their people, and to add a sense of urgency to their actions, and to make them more attentive to the needs of their constituents. 
Today’s nuggets, via wikiquote: A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. Samuel Adams
