Tuesday was election day throughout the nation, and appears it was another occasion where "backing up" our election campaign finance laws is long overdue.
At both the state and federal levels.
"Citizens United" was by far one of THE MOST egregious unconstitutional decisions heretofore ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court in its over 200 year history, along of course with that "corporate person-hood" redefinition and blurring in the differences between the free speech rights of the people, and elected officials and those running for political office through various "commercial" special interest and PAC organizations funded with many times matching federal grant monies due to their "educational" focuses, or "non-profit" status.
Prior to that one, it was the Kelo decision, also giving corporate interests, in bed with the muncipal and state governments, more power, and has resulted in the American public's land and homes being "taken" more and more for tax revenue in then legalized "theft" by the "sovereign" on behalf on one of their "favored subjects" ala Great Britain.
All in the name of the political benefit and the added revenue "the state" can receive from such takings, and so contrary to the intention of those founders for protection of their land and homes which was also a fundamental gripe of those patriots in the land seizures in Britain at their expense, it is equally astounding in its magnitude.
That Citizens United cases has contributed to our election process becoming nothing more than political blindsiding, with a license to then libel, or spin and spin some more propaganda with the end result being the one who could dodge the bullets faster, or the mud, or has the largest campaign coffer to repeat those message ad infinitum in those prime time spots, wins.
And that was apparent this last "off" election year cycle.
There were so many ads run on the local and cable television networks by various PAC organizations and partisan political groups, it seems almost a constant barrage of election overload began from the onset and in midsummer at that.
With the Constitution itself used in many for their positions, with so many spins that my head was spinning after almost all of those one minute spots the "misrepresentations" were coming so furious and fast.
In one highly produced commercial aimed at one of the candidates from an opposing party by the PAC organization for the "Democrats," slams were taken at a candidate due to his opposition to the 17th Amendment and position that it should be somewhat "rewound" to its original Constitutional intent for state representation.
According to the "man on the street" type blurbs that accompanied the spins, the actors the actors stated he was way "too extreme" a candidate to be given any consideration.
Of course, the 17th Amendment as it is now written erased the election of senators by the various state legislatures, and put those elections also into the hands of the public unconstitutionally - thus eliminated the "representation" of the states by the state legislatures as their "representatives," with the House intended, of course, to be the balance and true voice of the people strictly living in their own legislative districts.
It was in effect done due to the difficulties at segregated times for the state legislatures to get together in order to elect a member when one of the senators either died in office, or was removed or could no longer perform the functions of office due to varying circumstances.
And also, along with the passage of the 16th and creation of the Federal Reserve, to centralize more and more power in Washington by the states, so very contrary to the intended Republican type of government those founders actually created of a "general" and "special" governments and the balance of power, and accountability to the people at primarily the more local level.
Now, local elections are primarily funded and also those ads produced by "out of district" commercial political organizations, many of which themselves owned by "foreign" corporate interests, with their "home" offices in other districts, and other states.
Thus, your local election can be "won" by a New York or Los Angeles "special interest" or media group and thus stimulating their local economies for commercial purposes using your election in Hometown, U.S.A.
And also due to those "matching sums" unconstitutionally also received by the two mainstream political parties "corporate" organizations, who have in essence completely hijacked our election process at the state level in most of the larger states and even the process itself, so much so that at this point we have an unrepresentative government on every level, and campaign election laws that continue to get more "PAC" and special "corporate" interest friendly, and less "legal" along the intent of those founders for a representative government of the states, and their respective district citizenry.
At this point, even "foreign" out of country PAC organizations are gaining more and more a foothold in our election process, through their "national" domiciled offices or those "bundlers" also accepting out of state donations to local election campaigns in order to influence or fix the outcomes.
Note to the voters: Casting your vote has never become more important, but less relevant in just how that election eventually turns out.
And more so by the year.
The next presidential election cycle should be starting anytime now.
I mean, Christmas decorations went up about two weeks ago throughout the country before Halloween, so look for April or May and get out the Dramamine before Super Tuesday high tide washes you away.
It has become abundantly clear to many, our personal "legal" and relevant vote is nothing more than a test of patience, and our election contribution just another donation primarily to the state and federal revenue coffers once again in those gasoline taxes for the fuel it takes to get to those polling places.
And in this "high tech" voting age, I'm wondering really how many of those early mail in written ballots will be counted, or simply tossed in File 13.
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Buffett Befriends Bankers At Berkshire Soiree
In a published article from the Omaha World Herald, it appears that the major focus of the Berkshire Hathaway stockholders soiree concluded yesterday was a 30 minute keynote speech made by Warren Buffet speaking in defense of Wall Street bankers, Goldman Sachs.
Although Berkshire reportedly has several billion dollars invested in Goldman, Mr. Buffett was there to reassure his flock that he isn't "wasting away in Margaritaville" as that other Buffett over the Congressional hearings conducted this week in which several election vulnerable senators publicly chastized the Wall Street giant for its investment practices.
At issue, of course, was the nondisclosure of the parties to some of the contracts with investors which were based on "junk," to put it mildly, insofar as the degree of risk - and in which the issuing major client had also "hedged" their bets by investing in derivatives banking on the failure of the original investments.
Which, apparently, Mr. Buffett sees no ethical or conflict of interest complications in Goldman then "contracting" with other noninterested investor-clients without disclosure of the true degree of risk, and which essentially has so fundamentally affected this country's citizens trust in the banks, Wall Street, and even home "ownership," since it has been the American public holding the bag for Goldman's free and easy investment style and losses, using American's homes as the collateral.
I'm no gambler, but it does seem that in betting that these investments would "crap out," Goldman had knowledge that the issuing investor for those investments was using loaded dice.
Since apparently most of those which were directly affected and scammed were European banks which "should have known better," according to Mr. Buffett, Berkshire doesn't plan to make any changes in its close partnership with Goldman.
Which may be true for those investors, but there were others indirectly affected, many of them now homeless.
One top executive even seemed to take to task the outraged American public, indicating that there was a misconception that Goldman's actions cheated ordinary Americans, but in his opinion, they hadn't cheated anyone.
Left unsaid, however, were the number of American homeowners who were indirectly affected, and which is continuing especially in the West and Southwest, while most of those U.S. banks which were selling those "bad loans" seem to be more concerned also with their bottom lines and under pressure from Washington to satisfy those foreign investors by either renegotiating short term adjusted terms, or foreclosing - whichever is more beneficial to everyone but those homeowners.
In fact, Obama's focus has been since this mess began in pushing Americans to refinance their homes, into some of these creative loans which have not changed, it appears, since the same individuals which sold those loans have been given Washington's blessing to sort out the mess and "counsel" some of those scammed homeowners.
And left out in all of this is the fact that a great many of those loans were also underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - many of which also were not even based on the U.S. currency, but British LIBOR rate - a currency almost one and a half that of the U.S. when most of those loans were pushed.
I mean, how CAN U.S. banks be pushing and selling loans that are not even based on the U.S. currency, I ask?
So connecting the dots in the true fallout seems not to factor into Berkshire itself's bottom lines, so thus inconsequential.
Mr. Buffett is known in this country by the investment community as the "Oracle of Omaha," however, it seems to me this partnership with Goldman Sachs really is a no brainer insofar as profit for Berkshire, and profit for Goldman Sachs.
It's a win-win partnership no matter which way the dice roll, since Goldman has now been designated as one of those investment houses that was determined by Washington to be "too big to fail."
Although, according to reports also, Goldman actually is a major shareholder in our own Federal Reserve - in other words, how could Goldman fail when it is a major shareholder in the entity that prints and regulates the U.S. currency and interest rates for loans extended by their branch banks?
And Berkshire is, after all, heavily invested also in the insurance industry, and not purely Goldman Sachs preferred partner.
Although, if one of your investments is with a company that issues the money for an entire nation, with the U.S. government itself merely minor shareholders without any true "voting" authority over day to day operations, just how can you lose?
It appears that the scene in Omaha was a rather festive one, given the crumbling housing market, and over 10% unemployment in most areas of the country.
I wonder if Mr. Buffett has been to Phoenix, L.A. or Las Vegas lately?
I mean, outside the casinos.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100501/MONEY/305019931#buffett-reassures-the-faithful
Although Berkshire reportedly has several billion dollars invested in Goldman, Mr. Buffett was there to reassure his flock that he isn't "wasting away in Margaritaville" as that other Buffett over the Congressional hearings conducted this week in which several election vulnerable senators publicly chastized the Wall Street giant for its investment practices.
At issue, of course, was the nondisclosure of the parties to some of the contracts with investors which were based on "junk," to put it mildly, insofar as the degree of risk - and in which the issuing major client had also "hedged" their bets by investing in derivatives banking on the failure of the original investments.
Which, apparently, Mr. Buffett sees no ethical or conflict of interest complications in Goldman then "contracting" with other noninterested investor-clients without disclosure of the true degree of risk, and which essentially has so fundamentally affected this country's citizens trust in the banks, Wall Street, and even home "ownership," since it has been the American public holding the bag for Goldman's free and easy investment style and losses, using American's homes as the collateral.
I'm no gambler, but it does seem that in betting that these investments would "crap out," Goldman had knowledge that the issuing investor for those investments was using loaded dice.
Since apparently most of those which were directly affected and scammed were European banks which "should have known better," according to Mr. Buffett, Berkshire doesn't plan to make any changes in its close partnership with Goldman.
Which may be true for those investors, but there were others indirectly affected, many of them now homeless.
One top executive even seemed to take to task the outraged American public, indicating that there was a misconception that Goldman's actions cheated ordinary Americans, but in his opinion, they hadn't cheated anyone.
Left unsaid, however, were the number of American homeowners who were indirectly affected, and which is continuing especially in the West and Southwest, while most of those U.S. banks which were selling those "bad loans" seem to be more concerned also with their bottom lines and under pressure from Washington to satisfy those foreign investors by either renegotiating short term adjusted terms, or foreclosing - whichever is more beneficial to everyone but those homeowners.
In fact, Obama's focus has been since this mess began in pushing Americans to refinance their homes, into some of these creative loans which have not changed, it appears, since the same individuals which sold those loans have been given Washington's blessing to sort out the mess and "counsel" some of those scammed homeowners.
And left out in all of this is the fact that a great many of those loans were also underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - many of which also were not even based on the U.S. currency, but British LIBOR rate - a currency almost one and a half that of the U.S. when most of those loans were pushed.
I mean, how CAN U.S. banks be pushing and selling loans that are not even based on the U.S. currency, I ask?
So connecting the dots in the true fallout seems not to factor into Berkshire itself's bottom lines, so thus inconsequential.
Mr. Buffett is known in this country by the investment community as the "Oracle of Omaha," however, it seems to me this partnership with Goldman Sachs really is a no brainer insofar as profit for Berkshire, and profit for Goldman Sachs.
It's a win-win partnership no matter which way the dice roll, since Goldman has now been designated as one of those investment houses that was determined by Washington to be "too big to fail."
Although, according to reports also, Goldman actually is a major shareholder in our own Federal Reserve - in other words, how could Goldman fail when it is a major shareholder in the entity that prints and regulates the U.S. currency and interest rates for loans extended by their branch banks?
And Berkshire is, after all, heavily invested also in the insurance industry, and not purely Goldman Sachs preferred partner.
Although, if one of your investments is with a company that issues the money for an entire nation, with the U.S. government itself merely minor shareholders without any true "voting" authority over day to day operations, just how can you lose?
It appears that the scene in Omaha was a rather festive one, given the crumbling housing market, and over 10% unemployment in most areas of the country.
I wonder if Mr. Buffett has been to Phoenix, L.A. or Las Vegas lately?
I mean, outside the casinos.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100501/MONEY/305019931#buffett-reassures-the-faithful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
