about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Offshore Tax Havens are now like what casinos used to be in the not so distant past, only much more
comprehensive and powerful.
They are used to enable corruption so that officials can be bribed and kickbacks can be obtained
without any scrutiny. They are also used as mailboxes so that profits can be screened from
taxation. They are used to launder money and conceal the origins before the funds achieve their
ultimate destination, just like the Mafia used Restaurants to legitimize money derived from illegal
The leaked files provide facts and figures — cash transfers, incorporation dates, links between
companies and individuals — that illustrate how offshore financial secrecy has spread aggressively
around the globe, allowing the wealthy and the well-connected to dodge taxes and fueling corruption
and economic woes in rich and poor nations alike.
The records detail the offshore holdings of people and companies in more than 170 countries and
The hoard of documents represents the biggest stockpile of inside information about the offshore
system ever obtained by a media organization. The total size of the files, measured in gigabytes, is
more than 160 times larger than the leak of U.S. State Department documents by Wikileaks in 2010.
Got that. Most. Documents. EVER !!!
The extent of the scandal is incredible. So watch for the news media to be on the move to create
scandal to take the scent off the real one. I sense Justin Bieber exposees coming. Or Steroid use
in MLB or
maybe a few small-time local politicians getting busted in a FED sting. Or maybe its an epidemic of
that has affected the President's children. Something else will become the "official"
distraction (remember Terry Shiavo). Exposing the massive and systematic international connections
of global politicians being bribed by the global elite is not going to get the light of day. I hope
A slideshow from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation makes the documentation easy to access.Click here.
Hmmm. Where's the NYTimes or the Washington Post on this story?
I'm sure the headline will be something like "Documents Reveal that Wealthy Avoid Taxes in offshore
bank accounts" if they have to bother with the story. If necessary, scapegoats will be found, and
this will turn into individualistic morality stories with some chosen bad actors ( like Oliver
North, Bernie Madoff, or Martha Stewart). They will avoid making the obvious larger connections to
international finance, corporations, world politicians and government officials. The system
produces it's own victims. The rhetorical virgins must be slaughtered by the high priests. The
marionette strings are never revealed
However, be not confused or distracted. This is not about Tax cheats. It's about corruption larger
than the scale of BCCI Banking Scandal and the Iran-Contra shenanigans during the Reagan years.
Look those up.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 11h 34m 20s
Who would have ever thought this discussion would ever have an actual basis? This is Blade Runner
The Story below from Brad Plumer at the Washington Post, gives a good view of whether driverless
cars would decrease or increase energy usage.
[SOURCE:Brad Plumer | Washington
Post | 30 March 2013]
Wednesday, 3 April 2013 at 11h 23m 58s
Nothing wrong with borrowing
From Matthew Iglesias at Slate.com
just consider that there is some level of government spending that you consider appropriate. Imagine
that level of spending is achieved. Zero money is being spent on wasteful or useless programs, and
no good spending is being forgone. We're doing everything we ought to be doing. Now we need to
finance that spending with some mixture of taxes and borrowing. The Cooper viewpoint is that it's
always the case that the optimal mix is 100 percent taxes and 0 percent borrowing. But why would
that be? If the future is going to be richer than the present, there's a strong prima facie case for
borrowing. You don't pay 100 percent cash for your house or your college tuition, and there's no
reason you should pay 100 percent cash for your national defense or vital infrastructure either. How
much should you borrow? It has a lot to do with the interest rates. Not only is borrowing at a high
interest rate expensive, but government borrowing at a high interest rates crowds out private
capital investment. But if interest rates are low, then you don't need to worry much about crowding
out, and the economic burden of repaying the interest is likely lower than the economic burden of
So you borrow some money. Ronald Reagan did it. George W. Bush did it.
[SOURCE:Matthew Iglesias | Slate.com | 3
In other words, sometimes that which is called "government debt" is really just a decision to
include borrowing as a component of getting the necessary government revenue to pay for the things
that we decide government should do, or the things that government should invest. Framing the
argument as one of getting government to spend exactly what is raised from revenue without bothering
to "envision" what it is government should be spending or investing is as ridiculous a proposition
as tying a rope of unknown length around a tree of constantly changing width. The "serious"
discussions of cutting government mingles with cutting taxes when the actual decisions should be
agreement on what government should be spending and investing. Worry about how to pay for it once
that agreement is made.
Alas, as I say all the time, this rhetoric is not serious at all. The goalposts move all the time.
Cuts are made, but then "necessary" costs are added, and taxes are always cut (if only for the upper
few). The overall balance
of what government spends and invests is never made, but rather occurs in a myriad of byzantine
subsidies or tax credits in the name of "creating jobs" or maintaining "competitiveness". Military
costs and investments have almost no oversight. The budget is thus a compilation of various
different interests. There is no guiding oversight.
Sunday, 31 March 2013 at 11h 10m 57s
Paul Craig Roberts is not a kook
Dr. Roberts is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former editor and
columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.
So when he speaks about a 9-11 Cover up, you need to respect his point of view, and try to
understand that governments and politicians form cliques and keep secrets. History is proof.
A haunting quote from the interview "If you lie to cover up incompetence, then you could also lie
Vietnam advisors began during the Eisenhower administration
Augustin Pinochet topples Salvadore Allende's Chilean government with US aid and planning
assistance on September 11th ... in 1973
The manhattan project during World War II
The invasion of DDay -- the Germans thought it would come in Calais, 100 - 150 miles further North
The USS Maine explosion in 1898 .. Admiral Dewey just so happened to have the US fleet off the
coast of Manila in the Phillipines
The Germans send (smuggle?) Lenin to Russia on a train, to precipitate Russian withdrawal from
World War One and the beginnings of the Russian Revolution occur as an ancillary result
Zachary Taylor had the American Army and Cavalry on the border of the Rio Grande, in what Mexico
considered Mexican Territory and refused to leave ... under orders from President Polk who wanted to
add Mexican Territory to the United States.
Hawaii was turned into an American "protectorate" on January 17, 1893, in which
anti-monarchial insurgents within the Kingdom of Hawaii, composed largely of American citizens,
engineered the overthrow of its native monarch ... because the safety of the monarchy was in
"danger" of being taken by the European "Imperialists"
Julius Caesar stabbed by every Senator, called to the Senate under a ruse of national emergency
-- "Et Tu Brutus" and the "Aides of March" are now legacies
Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 21h 17m 7s
5 predictions for the coming MLB season
The Boston Red Sox will have a better record than the Yankees
The Kansas City Royals win more than 90 games and have a top pitching staff
The Milwaukee Brewers will make it to the world series as Carlos Gomez has a 30-30 season and
the pitching staff surprises everyone with a top 3 ranking
Houston will win more than 60 games. Maybe 62.
Seattle will challenge Oakland for the Western Division as both Texas and Anaheim fall apart
Bonus prediction: the world series will be Detroit or Kansas City vs. Milwaukee
Thursday, 14 February 2013 at 18h 49m 33s
Why did A New York Times Reporter Lie
This blows me away. A NY Times reporter is asked by Tesla Motors to test drive it's newest model
electric car, and the reporter does everything possible to make the car malfunction and then writes
a negative article about the car.
Every Sunday, the self-appointed decision-makers and Washington conventional-wisdom acolytes all
gather around a video conference room and create what is called "Meet The Press." Really, it's just
a forum for politicians and elites to pursue their latest attempts at public relations.
Moonshine patriot put together this blog to satirically make this point. Each Monday or Sunday
evening, Moonshine "translates" the dialogue on the Sunday "News" show "Meet The Press".
Here's a small snippet from yesterday (3 February 2013)
Meet The Press – February 3, 2012
Host: Chuck Todd
Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense)
Gen. Martin Dempsey (Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Todd: omg the very liberal Republican
Chuck Hagel faced tough questioning
from the guy who lost to Barack Obama!
Todd: Leon does Chuck Hagel hate Israel?
Panetta: Israel? Dammit we're still fighting two wars!
Todd: Israel was mentioned 130 times
which proves what is really important
Dempsey: cripes I got boys dying
in Afghanistan right now
Todd: do you support Chuck Hagel?
Dempsey: he seems smarter
than Graham or McCain
Todd: that's not saying much
Dempsey: I know that
Todd: we can't vote for a new
Secretary of Defense until we have
another hearing on Benghazi
Panetta: I love how insane
these Republicans are
Todd: but Benghazi is the most
important event since Gettysburg
Panetta: Chucky I heard you
were a moron
Dempsey: we've learned a lot
Todd: what is that?
Dempsey: next time after an attack
invade Grenada and no one will notice
Ronald Reagan "invaded" a small island in the Carribean called Grenada not long after the bombing of
the Beirut embassy that killed 200 something marines. The event took the press off the criticism of
the United States gradual escalation of involvement in Lebanon and covert assistance with Israel.
The corporate media willingly followed the ball tossed to them.
Monday, 4 February 2013 at 20h 8m 20s
The student loan disaster
Students going to college nowadays are paying a whole lot of money for the promised ticket to a high
paying job or satisfactory career. Going to Law School and Medical School after a 4 year college
adds to the already large cost. And the percentages of interest per year is more than 7 percent,
which means .07 times total debt divided by 12 is the minimum payment just to not increase the debt
owed. After 4 years at undergraduate college, a typical student owes $30,000. Law and Medical
school can add another $200,000.
In the lower end case, .07 times 30,000 is 2100, which is $175 a month minimum to make the interest
payments. Paying 7 percent interest over 20 years results in an effective multiple of 128.982.
Divide this into the money owed (30,000) and you get the necessary monthly payment for 20 years :
$232.59. However, most student loans are set at 10 years. This is an effective multiple of 86.126
for 7 percent. Divide this into the money owed (30,000) and you get $348.33.
A student with a law school or medical school debt might have 200,000 in debt or more. Divide this
by the 10 year effective multiple, and you get $2322 per month.
Yikes. Now consider this
About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education. Eleven percent of employed college
graduates are in occupations requiring more than a high-school diploma but less than a bachelor’s,
and 37 percent are in occupations requiring no more than a high-school diploma
That means you get a first job that pays maybe 30,000 BEFORE TAXES -- and there are plenty of
waitresses, bartenders, and cafe baristas that don't get that first job. Make the right career
moves, go to nursing school, become an electrician or mechanic,
be in the right place at the right time -- or have the right connections -- and you might move up above
50,000 and higher.
The overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $24,062 ($32,140 for
those age 25 or above) in the year 2005, and more than half of the population goes to college. 48%
of college graduates are these jobs. You try paying $2322 a month on a salary less than 2 thousand
dollars AFTER TAXES. Even $350 a month is tough on a $1200 a month budget.
Now I paid off all my student loans, but this is a national shame. And I would have owed FIVE times
the $21,000 dollars in debt I had when I became matriculated at Tulane University after a 5 year
education. The entire cost of my 5 years now doesn't even pay for a full year, but the median wage
hasn't changed in 40 years.
We should have a national student loan commission that centralizes all student loans
and sets the interest at 2 percent. Instead we have all sorts of private financing groups and big
banks getting the interest on the loans at 6, 7, 8, 9 percent with the government guaranteeing the
Why have private middlemen get an easy profit when they perform no valuable social service deserving
of the high interest fees. What are these banks and financial syndicates doing with the interest
they get on these loans other than making money to fuel further aspects of their business (or pay
their upper level executives bigger bonuses.) The government already provides the principle. Why
investments in our youth by providing a central location for low-interest loans. Not only would it
be less expensive, but also easier to manage and run efficiently.
That same effective multiple for a 10 year loan would at 2 percent be 108.679, much better than
86.126, a 21% reduction in what the student pays overall. The government could also lengthen the
payment options, and defer payments without applying the interest for a period of time due to
hardship. Right now students that defer loan payments are still accruing interest.
[SOURCE:Paul Campos | Salon.com | 4
[SOURCE: | Center
For College Affordability | January/February 2013]
Bureau | Wikipedia | November 2006]
Here Josh Barro takes aim at the conservative Thinker Ramesh Ponnuru. Josh politely slowly takes
apart each part
of the ideas Mr. Ponnuru has about Health insurance and Child Tax credits for Families. Mr. Ponnuru
touts these ideas as new and fresh applications of vibrant conservative ideas.
Nope. They are the same failed ideas in new clothing. Josh does an incredible job making this obvious
to all but the most willful. You have to read the piece.
[SOURCE:Josh Barro | Bloomberg News | 29
These ideas are merely smokescreens for the agenda of the large corporatists and elite financial
kingpins who run Washington and rule the entire Republican party. But wary, they always take with
one hand more than they offer with the other. They depend upon funds to work, but (like the
leave-no-child-behind act and the Welfare reform) they always delay and defund and the promised
money never happens. They expect people to have long-term priorities, when history painfully
reminds us that people actually short-term considerations often to their own demise, and yet justify
the mantra of self-regulation that never works out except by increasing monopolization. They preach
"competition" but the actual creation
of their "ideas" into the words of legislation furthers instead oligopoly and limited consumer
protections. They like tax cuts and tax credits but they don't want to raise
taxes to pay for them because they want to get rid of government in the long run, and in the short
term distribute the functions of government to toddy and stooges who get hired for million dollar
salaries when they leave government.
They want to take out the trash and have clean streets but they don't want to pay for the workers to
do the job. They then get mad when the place stinks after a year because some citizens will have
short-term priorities because of either low income or lethargy. Then they have to pay three times
the cost of getting rid of the garbage then it would have cost if they had just taxed themselves and
spread the burden over more people. The job would be guaranteed to be done and there wouldn't be
any problems with trash accumulation. Good jobs would also be created. It's a win, win, win, win.
This ideology is bunk. It has been proven bunk time and time again. The ideology was always the
banner underneath which ulterior motives resided, and that is why the ideology persists. Bad ideas will
have their followers, especially when there are such individuals and institutions that benefit.
It's easier to
cling to bad ideas when their is no alternative but the subterfuge of the bad ideas is still very
strong. They persist being stupid because the money is very very real. They get paid to distract
the people with psuedo-battles over false principles because they don't want to people to realize
the hollowness of their paradigm.
Not that Democrats are free of this corruption. The only difference is that most Democrats also
believe in a government that works and want to actually do the work of good government more than
they want to (or have to) participate in the handiwork of
their paymasters and overlords. Almost all Republicans are obstructionist hypocrites. The very few
who are different are suffering pains of conscience right now.