The time is now 4:37 am
You last visited
June 7, 2026, 2:27 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Kudos for Governor Perry, hope more follow his lead.
___________
"Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
"AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.
"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.
Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.
'Not the solution’
"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."
Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."
Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."
Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."
"I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."
The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."
High stakes in Texas
Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.
Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.
Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.
"There are good solutions" to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn’t it."
Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."
"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt," he said.
Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican," he said.
Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas."
DAVE MONTGOMERY, 512-476-4294"
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html
Sent by a friend, hope you enjoy!!
_______
8:30 easy listen video that explains volumes.
_______
"Ratigan, Spitzer And Toure Clarify The Fed’s Obsession With Secrecy
July 24th, 2009 by Tyler Durden
"MSNBC's explanatory take on how the Federal Reserve "bailed" the system out and why the Fed is so keen on perpetuating the secrecy.
Eliot Spitzer: "The Fed is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job, it is outrageous, it is time for congress to say enough of this"
http://www.tradercurrencies.com/currency-trading/10954/ratigan-spitzer-and-toure-clarify-the-feds-obsession-with-secrecy/
Found this link via Zero Hedge.
_____
"SEC responds to GATA's complaint against Goldman Sachs
Submitted by cpowell on Fri, 2009-07-24 01:22.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
July 20, 2009
Chris Powell, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
7 Villa Louisa Road
Manchester, Connecticut 06043-7541
Dear Mr. Powell:
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 2009, to Chairman Mary Schapiro of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Your letter has been referred to the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy for a response.
We are taking your complaint regarding Goldman Sachs and its proprietary software that may be used to manipulate the markets very seriously, and have referred it to the appropriate people within the SEC.
Please understand that the SEC conducts its investigations on a confidential basis and neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation unless we bring charges against someone involved. We do this to protect the integrity and effectiveness of our investigative process and to preserve the privacy of the individuals and entities involved. As a result, we will not be able to provide you with any future updates on the status of your complaint or of any pending SEC investigation.
I've attached a flyer that describes our policy as it will apply to your complaint. If you have any question, please contact Bonnie Dailey, an attorney on my staff, at 202-551-6364.
Sincerely,
Gloria Smith-Hill
Branch Chief
Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
http://www.gata.org/node/7616
Great satire, hope you get a good laugh!!
___
Very timely message, thank you for listening.
________
Retail industry braces for shopping center collapse
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jul/21/thought-housing-collapse-was-bad-brace-shopping-ce/
Commentary by Jonathan Weil
"July 23 (Bloomberg) -- Turns out America’s accounting poobahs have some fight in them after all.
Call them crazy, or maybe just brave. The Financial Accounting Standards Board is girding for another brawl with the banking industry over mark-to-market accounting. And this time, it’s the FASB that has come out swinging.
It was only last April that the FASB caved to congressional pressure by passing emergency rule changes so that banks and insurance companies could keep long-term losses from crummy debt securities off their income statements.
Now the FASB says it may expand the use of fair-market values on corporate income statements and balance sheets in ways it never has before. Even loans would have to be carried on the balance sheet at fair value, under a preliminary decision reached July 15. The board might decide whether to issue a formal proposal on the matter as soon as next month.
“They know they screwed up, and they took action to correct for it,” says Adam Hurwich, a partner at New York investment manager Jupiter Advisors LLC and a member of the FASB’s Investors Technical Advisory Committee. “The more pushback there’s going to be, the more their credibility is going to be established.”
Broad Consequences
The scope of the FASB’s initiative, which has received almost no attention in the press, is massive. All financial assets would have to be recorded at fair value on the balance sheet each quarter, under the board’s tentative plan.
This would mean an end to asset classifications such as held for investment, held to maturity and held for sale, along with their differing balance-sheet treatments. Most loans, for example, probably would be presented on the balance sheet at cost, with a line item below showing accumulated change in fair value, and then a net fair-value figure below that. For lenders, rule changes could mean faster recognition of loan losses, resulting in lower earnings and book values.
The board said financial instruments on the liabilities side of the balance sheet also would have to be recorded at fair-market values, though there could be exceptions for a company’s own debt or a bank’s customer deposits.
The FASB’s approach is tougher on banks than the path taken by the London-based International Accounting Standards Board, which last week issued a proposal that would let companies continue carrying many financial assets at historical cost, including loans and debt securities. The two boards are scheduled to meet tomorrow in London to discuss their contrasting plans.
Differing Treatment
While balance sheets might be simplified, income statements would acquire new complexities. Some gains and losses would count in net income. These would include changes in the values of all equity securities and almost all derivatives. Interest payments, dividends and credit losses would go in net, too, as would realized gains and losses. So would fluctuations in all debt instruments with derivatives embedded in their structures.
Other items, including fair-value fluctuations on certain loans and debt securities, would get steered to a section called comprehensive income, which would appear for the first time on the face of the income statement, below net income. Comprehensive income now appears on a company’s equity statement.
Another quirk is that the FASB doesn’t intend to require per-share figures for comprehensive income. Only net income would appear on a per-share basis. My guess is that means Wall Street securities analysts would be less likely to publish quarterly earnings estimates using comprehensive income.
Imagining the Impact
Think how the saga at CIT Group Inc. might have unfolded if loans already were being marked at market values. The difference was greater than CIT’s reported shareholder equity. TThe commercial lender, which is struggling to stay out of bankruptcy, said in a footnote to its last annual report that its loans as of Dec. 31 were worth $8.3 billion less than its balance sheet showed. hat tells you the company probably was insolvent months ago, only its book value didn’t show it.
The debate over mark-to-market accounting is an ancient one. Many banks and insurers say market-value estimates often aren’t reliable and create misleading volatility in their numbers. Investors who prefer fair values for financial instruments say they are more useful, especially at providing early warnings of trouble in a company’s business.
‘Religious War’
“It’s been a religious war,” FASB member Marc Siegel said at last week’s board meeting. “And it’s been very, very clear to me that neither side is going to give, in any way.”
So, the board devised a way to let readers of a company’s balance sheet see alternative values for loans and various other financial instruments -- at cost, or fair value -- without having to search through footnotes. At last week’s meeting, FASB member Tom Linsmeier called this a “very useful approach that addresses both sets of those constituents’ concerns.”
This will not satisfy the banking lobby, which doesn’t want any significant expansion of fair-value accounting. “I guess the nicest thing I can say is it’s difficult to find the good in this,” Donna Fisher, the American Bankers Association’s tax and accounting director in Washington, told me.
If the bankers don’t like it, that’s probably a good sign the FASB is doing something right."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a5BsXz90CMso
"Global Exposure in Financial Derivatives Surpasses One Quadrillion Dollars (Update)
"When I posted the lowest responsibly sourced figure for global exposure in financial derivatives, $592 trillion, published May 19, 2009 by the Bank of International Settlements, all sorts of hoodoo apologists for Obama, Geithner, Summers, and Goldman Sachs crawled out the woodwork to claim that this figure is ridiculously exaggerated, there's really nothing to worry about, it's just a few bucks, and so on.
All the same hoodoos unfailingly claimed that it's stupid to consider worst-case scenarios when you calculate risk, because...
They have learned absolutely nothing from the ongoing financial meltdown which annihilated some of the oldest and largest investment banks in the world, and plunged the global economy into an almost vertical downturn.
So, since even the lowest reasonable figure for global exposure in financial derivatives attracts so much obfuscation and denial, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and offer up a much larger and probably more accurate estimate, which also includes the huge market in off-the-books derivatives, instead of only considering the OTC market upon which the previous calculation by the Bank of International Settlements was based, and that estimate is...
That's more than one million piles of money, with a billion dollars in each pile.
In previous posts I also considered the total exposure of the federal government from various programs designed to bail out the banking establishment, $23.7 trillion, which was calculated by Special Treasury Department Inspector General Neil Barofsky, one of the very few watchdogs charged with overseeing Geithner/Paulson/Summer's infinite generosity to the banks, and why should we believe a mere inspector general, when we can rely on unsourced estimates from right-wing hoodoos?
So in the interests of complete fairness, balance, impartiality, and pandering to ignorant hoodoos who insist on nothing but sunshine in the news, I am also offering up a much smaller figure for the total bailout exposure of the federal government, extracted from the most reputable of the many sunshine blogs selling all-is-well scenarios all over the internet, and that low-ball estimate for federal exposure is... $13.9 trillion.
Added to those figures are $4.4 trillion in other possible Treasury programs, and $2.3 trillion in F.D.I.C. guarantees of deposits. The final $7.2 trillion comes mostly from various mortgage-related programs.
"Possible Treasury programs!"
"Various mortgage-related programs!"
And that's really just about all anybody knows about them, except for Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Goldman Sachs, because the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve don't have to tell you anything, and they don't even have to disclose much to inspectors-general like Neil Barofsky, who says...
Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Treasury should report the values of its investments in banks!
What a silly idea!
Special Treasury Department Inspector General Neil Barofsky is obviously insane, and I'm only posting this article to give a bunch of right-wing hoodoos yet another chance to correct his absurd misinformation."
Washington can sing Kum Ba Yah all they want .... but this is one bubble that's about to pop, tanking more banks as it goes. More bailouts .........
________
Understand under normal funeral application those are placed in a grave first then the casket is lowered down into them, lid secured on top for the purpose of further preserving remains.
_____________
"Bernanke says Fed can take on supercop role
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99J1GTO1&show_article=1