Let states declare bankruptcy ?

[Exotix]

Plans being drawn up to let states declare bankruptcy.

Pensioners and investors in state bonds could lose out


Today

NYT: Plans being drawn up to let states go bust - Business - The New York Times - msnbc.com



Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.


Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court.
Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.




But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care.

Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout.

Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe.



No draft bill yet

No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possibility in a hearing this month.

House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate.



It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.



Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975.

Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

“They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
“We’re taking this very seriously.”

Mr. Loveless said he was meeting with potential allies on Capitol Hill, making the point that certain states might indeed have financial problems, but public employees and their benefits were not the cause.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on Thursday warning against a tendency to confuse the states’ immediate budget gaps with their long-term structural deficits.

“States have adequate tools and means to meet their obligations,” the report stated.

No state is known to want to declare bankruptcy, and some question the wisdom of offering them the ability to do so now, given the jitters in the normally staid municipal bond market.

Slightly more than $25 billion has flowed out of mutual funds that invest in muni bonds in the last two months, according to the Investment Company Institute.




Many analysts say they consider a bond default by any state extremely unlikely, but they also say that when politicians take an interest in the bond market, surprises are apt to follow.

Mr. Maco said the mere introduction of a state bankruptcy bill could lead to “some kind of market penalty,” even if it never passed.

That “penalty” might be higher borrowing costs for a state and downward pressure on the value of its bonds. Individual bondholders would not realize any losses unless they sold.




Last-minute plea for cash ?

But institutional investors in municipal bonds, like insurance companies, are required to keep certain levels of capital.
And they might retreat from additional investments.
A deeply troubled state could eventually be priced out of the capital markets.

“The precipitating event at G.M. was they were out of cash and had no ability to raise the capital they needed,” said Harry J. Wilson, the lone Republican on President Obama’s special auto task force, which led G.M. and Chrysler through an unusual restructuring in bankruptcy, financed by the federal government.

Mr. Wilson, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for New York State comptroller last year, has said he believes that New York and some other states need some type of a financial restructuring.

He noted that G.M. was salvaged only through an administration-led effort that Congress initially resisted, with legislators voting against financial assistance to G.M. in late 2008.

“Now Congress is much more conservative,” he said.
“A state shows up and wants cash, Congress says no, and it will probably be at the last minute and it’s a real problem. That’s what I’m concerned about.”

Discussion of a new bankruptcy option for the states appears to have taken off in November, after Mr. Gingrich gave a speech about the country’s big challenges, including government debt and an uncompetitive labor market.

“We just have to be honest and clear about this, and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy,” he said.




A few weeks later, David A. Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, published an article, “Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt,” in The Weekly Standard.

It said thorny constitutional questions were “easily addressed” by making sure states could not be forced into bankruptcy or that federal judges could usurp states’ lawmaking powers.

“I have never had anything I’ve written get as much attention as that piece,” said Mr. Skeel, who said he had since been contacted by Republicans and Democrats whom he declined to name.




Fear of bankruptcy 'panic'

Mr. Skeel said it was possible to envision how bankruptcy for states might work by looking at the existing law for local governments.

Called Chapter 9, it gives distressed municipalities a period of debt-collection relief, which they can use to restructure their obligations with the help of a bankruptcy judge.

Unfunded pensions become unsecured debts in municipal bankruptcy and may be reduced.
And the law makes it easier for a bankrupt city to tear up its labor contracts than for a bankrupt company, said James E. Spiotto, head of the bankruptcy practice at Chapman & Cutler in Chicago.

The biggest surprise may await the holders of a state’s general obligation bonds.
Though widely considered the strongest credit of any government, they can be treated as unsecured credits, subject to reduction, under Chapter 9.

Mr. Spiotto said he thought bankruptcy court was not a good avenue for troubled states, and he has designed an alternative called the Public Pension Funding Authority.
It would have mandatory jurisdiction over states that failed to provide sufficient funding to their workers’ pensions or that were diverting money from essential public services.



“I’ve talked to some people from Congress, and I’m going to talk to some more,” he said.
“This effort to talk about Chapter 9, I’m worried about it.

I don’t want the states to have to pay higher borrowing costs because of a panic that they might go bankrupt.

I don’t think it’s the right thing at all.

But it’s the beginning of a dialog.”






Republicans Offer Balanced Budget Amendment for Conference Vote


November 12, 2010

Republicans Offer Balanced Budget Amendment for Conference Vote | S E N A T U S



We are writing to notify you that we intend to propose the following Resolution at the Republican Conference meeting on November 16:

“It is Resolved by the United States Senate Republican Conference:

(1) That a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal discipline to our Republic;

(2) That a Balanced Budget Amendment should require the President to submit to Congress a proposed budget prior to each fiscal year in which total federal spending does not exceed total federal revenue;

(3) That a Balanced Budget Amendment should include a requirement that a supermajority of both houses of Congress be necessary to increase taxes;

(4) That a Balanced Budget Amendment should include a limitation on total federal spending.”





Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, has asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, about the possibility of drawing up a bill allowing states to go bankrupt.

[Exotix]

Comments in Link ...


~ So, let me see if I have the straight... I work all my life for the State because I was always taught there is safety and a guarantee when working for the local govt.
I forwent all the money I could have been making in the private sector because I believed in my working for retirement.
Now I am being informed that I am being furloughed 4 days a month without pay and my pension is non existent?

Have I got it right or is this just a very bad dream?


~ Members of Congress are eligible for pension after serving only 5+years.
And can start receiving this pay when they are 50+years old, if they served 20+years prior.
Their Health Care for LIFE starts after only serving 5+years...

These are the people that are going to be deciding on how much to cut from the benifits of those that worked all their life and will not receive anything until they are at least 62 and health care when they are 65.
Or the ones that placed their life in jeopardy for 20 or more years(Military, Police, & Firemen).

Do you see anything WRONG with this ???

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Comments in Link ...


~ So, let me see if I have the straight... I work all my life for the State because I was always taught there is safety and a guarantee when working for the local govt.
I forwent all the money I could have been making in the private sector because I believed in my working for retirement.
Now I am being informed that I am being furloughed 4 days a month without pay and my pension is non existent?

Have I got it right or is this just a very bad dream?


~ Members of Congress are eligible for pension after serving only 5+years.
And can start receiving this pay when they are 50+years old, if they served 20+years prior.
Their Health Care for LIFE starts after only serving 5+years...

These are the people that are going to be deciding on how much to cut from the benifits of those that worked all their life and will not receive anything until they are at least 62 and health care when they are 65.
Or the ones that placed their life in jeopardy for 20 or more years(Military, Police, & Firemen).

Do you see anything WRONG with this ???

First-allow states to go bankrupt? Yes, damn straight. If my state goes down the tubes, why is it other states' responsibility to bail us out? They did nothing wrong, why should they pay for my state's mistake?

Second-the issue of Congressional perks. I agree with you, those are some damn fine perks for a job you may only work a few years, and doesn't seem right or fair. I'd love to see that changed, and I'd love to see retired Congressmen take the first hit when Uncle Sam finally runs out of borrowed money.

Third, is it fair to government pensioneers to get cut because their state blew it and can't pay? Maybe not, but then, life isn't fair. What part of broke don't we understand?

I'm a partner in a business. We did work for a trucking company years ago, when they declared bankruptcy and our invoices didn't get paid. Is that fair to us? No, but, what happened? We had to suck up the loss. Nobody cares about us, and our need to get paid for work we did, how are state pensioneers any different? If their state goes bankrupt, and they end up getting sharply reduced benefits in the bankruptcy proceedings, that's sad, but robbing people in other states to make up the difference would be even worse.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

First-allow states to go bankrupt? Yes, damn straight. If my state goes down the tubes, why is it other states' responsibility to bail us out? They did nothing wrong, why should they pay for my state's mistake?

Second-the issue of Congressional perks. I agree with you, those are some damn fine perks for a job you may only work a few years, and doesn't seem right or fair. I'd love to see that changed, and I'd love to see retired Congressmen take the first hit when Uncle Sam finally runs out of borrowed money.

Third, is it fair to government pensioneers to get cut because their state blew it and can't pay? Maybe not, but then, life isn't fair. What part of broke don't we understand?

I'm a partner in a business. We did work for a trucking company years ago, when they declared bankruptcy and our invoices didn't get paid. Is that fair to us? No, but, what happened? We had to suck up the loss. Nobody cares about us, and our need to get paid for work we did, how are state pensioneers any different? If their state goes bankrupt, and they end up getting sharply reduced benefits in the bankruptcy proceedings, that's sad, but robbing people in other states to make up the difference would be even worse.

You do realize the full impact of TARP and the Re-investment ACT needed to realized and not watered down by the (R)'s to keep states from collapsing ?

(See Arnie's statements about California)

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

You do realize the full impact of TARP and the Re-investment ACT needed to realized and not watered down by the (R)'s to keep states from collapsing ?

(See Arnie's statements about California)

I was against TARP, Cash for Clunkers, and everything else having to do with the Bush/Obama bailouts. Saving the banks made the bankers and Wall Street whole, first, just like bailing out the auto industry made the auto workers and execs whole first, at the expense of the rest of us.

Selfishly, though, I was counting on that FDIC reserve fund to cover my banking losses if one (or several) of my banks went south.

Of course, if that didn't pan out, I'm still prepared to live life, albeit living it poorer.

I've always said that as long as I can scrape together the property tax, I'll always have a roof over my head, even if I can't pay the utilities.

[Scissors]

Bankruptcy shouldn't exist for anyone in the first place (at least in a manner which lets you off the hook for your debts).

Can't pay your debts? Tough s**t. Pay them off over a longer timeframe, then.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Bankruptcy shouldn't exist for anyone in the first place (at least in a manner which lets you off the hook for your debts).

Can't pay your debts? Tough s**t. Pay them off over a longer timeframe, then.

Bankruptcy Chapters Explained


Bankruptcy Chapters Explained


Chapters 7 .. 11 .. 12 .. 13 ..

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Bankruptcy shouldn't exist for anyone in the first place (at least in a manner which lets you off the hook for your debts).

Can't pay your debts? Tough s**t. Pay them off over a longer timeframe, then.

Actually, that part I agree with. The uncollected debt should be determined at the time of bankruptcy, and then future earnings should be garnished at a reasonable amount and paid to those owed money.

I bet most of the time, the actual debt would never be repaid, but it's the thought that counts. At least those that got the shaft might have some income stream, no matter how small, from future earnings of the bankrupt person or company (or state).

[mrvette]

Going BK is a crooked lawyers scam operation from day one, I been there due to shitty business deals here in Florida, on both sides, and I was SO broke I had NO money or income to pay a BK lawyer, and because of that the judges basically screwed me over.....and too bad I have the written papers to prove what I said....one of my old 'partners' lied dead to rights on his BK application, and so they let it slide, directly against the law....
judge got paid, that damn simple....

nah, I saw how the settlements went, lawyers got about 2/3 of the money, and the creditors got the rest....got the papers.....

the first primary partner died while suing ME for libel/slander in court here, as I forced his hand very publicly by passing out flyers on cruise nights...any older Jax cruise in/car council members here from a decade ago maybe remember those flyers.....well Steve died of throat cancer for all the lies HE told.....And so I filed for discovery in response to his suit, got all the banking information.....the other guy Kevin Hester still lives here in Clay county, to be dealt with later.....

Another guy was Douglas K. Johnson...of Corvette Museum effort rescuing the joint from BK some dozen+ years ago, if anyone remembers or cares now....so he and another friend of his ducked out, William F. Tschanen ducked in BK court where I was a creditor, he is the one who paid out to Judges Jerry Funk, and George L. Proctor.....Doug died of brain cancer about a decade ago, and Billy boy is still on the loose AFAIK....I"ll find him too someday.....

Yup, I can tell you all about BK from both sides of the coin.....

the lawyers get rich, and well get sexed for no money.....

[Joecooool]

You all have to remember socialism (bailouts) are only available for the wealthy. Peons can expect to be peed on.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You all have to remember socialism (bailouts) are only available for the wealthy. Peons can expect to be peed on.

Phil, I USED to think the .gov outside the DC region was fairly decently run....

I was RONG!!!


edjemakshun is esspensive......

[Exotix]

*The Company Men* I believe opens today ..

... will premiere at the Sundance Film Festival this month, and to promote the movie, a teaser trailer has been released. The new movie stars Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Costner, Craig T Nelson and Maria Bello.

Ben Affleck's The Company Men Trailer | WorstPreviews.com


Plot: One of the first casualties of a corporate downsize is Bobby Walker, a hot-shot sales executive who is living the idyllic life — complete with two kids and a mortgaged picket fence.

His boss, and founder of the company, doesn't take Bobby's severance well, and he storms into the boardroom to demand a reprieve of the severe measures.

He learns quickly that some choices are out of his hands, and this is only the beginning. We embark on a journey that is all too familiar in today's recessionary economy: one that will test friendships, loyalties, and family bonds.

YouTube - The Company Man Trailer [HD]

[mrvette]

SO Hollywoodie does a take off on some hot button issue....

and of course, I bet it's a commie slant about how bad business is for that 7% margin.....

[Z06PDQ]

more cut and paste...

Report on CAFR Research by: Walter J. Burien, Jr.


Introduction


Walter Burien Jr. worked as a Wall Street Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) for fifteen years, but now resides in Arizona. According to Mr. Burien, every state, county and major metropolitan city is keeping two sets of books. One set (the 'Budget') is commonly available and tracks each governmental entity's casts and tax revenue. The Budget is the financial record that's seen by the public and used by politicians to justify new governmental services and higher taxes.

However, there is a second set of books (called the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or CAFR) which is virtually unknown to the public but contains the real record of total governmental income. According to Mr. Burien, although the Budget gives an accurate account of government costs, only the CAFR gives an accurate account of government's income.


For example, while a particular state budget might report receiving $20 billion in taxes (just barely enough to sustain its $20 billion in costs) - the CAFR might reveal the state's real income is in the neighborhood of $60 billion - three times as much as reported on the budget. If these allegations are accurate, the particular state could stop charging all the taxes we are familiar with and, not only survive but, either double the amount of reported government services or give every citizen a huge tax rebate.


The implications are mind-boggling. The CAFR's reveal that the world is so different from what we are led to believe, so much more corrupt than suspected, that we are left with three choices, either; 1) government agrees to end the deception and stop overtaxing us, or 2) the American people agree to accept their status as slaves, or 3) both sides refuse to agree and precipitate a shooting revolution. The issue is that big.


Are Mr. Burien's allegations correct? How could any governmental entity dare to routinely overcharge its citizens by 200%, underreport its income by 2/3rds, and knowingly press for higher taxes based on an inaccurate budget? Worse, how could such a fraudulent system become widespread among all states, counties, cities and the Federal Government?

Those who have made efforts to verify Burien's research indicate that the conclusions drawn by Burien are probably correct. For instance: The State of Alaska and the city of Anchorage both use Budget/CAFR accounting systems that conceal a 'breathtaking' difference in reported revenue. Another researcher in Wyoming claims that a comparison of his state's budget and CAFR also support Mr. Burien's arguments. In every case, there are two sets of books and the income reported on the budget is millions or billions of dollars less than is reported on the CAFR.


These verifications of Burien's research and findings lend credence to his allegations.


What follows is an amalgam of statements or implications raised by Mr. Burien in various interviews.

Mr. Burien reports first discovering the CAFR report in New Jersey in 1989, when he helped start and incorporated a New Jersey tax protest group called "Hands Across New Jersey." While involved with that group, Mr. Burien read in the state's Annual Budget that the total cost of all public services was $17 billion and the "net available" (the money on hand to pay all bills) was $24.6 billion. But then he asked the first question the IRS asks in any audit: "What are the gross receipts?" He added the figures from various state government sources and came up with about $44 billion and began to wonder how the state could have $17 billion in costs, $24.6 billion in cash on hand, and $44 billion annual income? The numbers didn't add up, so he began to dig deeper.


Because his father had been Personnel Manager for the State Treasury for four years, Mr. Burien understood how to get around in the various government departments. The state Director of the Budget was on vacation, so Mr. Burien called one of his lowest level assistants and said, "I'm working on a report for Richard [the vacationing Budget Director] and I need all the figures on the autonomous agency accounts, interest accounts, investment accounts." The assistant said, "Ohh, you want the CAFR." This was the first time Burien had heard of the CAFR but he said, "Yes" and the assistant mailed it to him.


The 1989 CAFR showed that New Jersey had liquid investment funds (cash) of $188 billion of which; common stocks worth $70 billion, $10 billion in loans made by the state due from public and private corporations, and $14 billion in insurance company equity participation. The little state of New Jersey, which admitted to less than $25 billion in annual income on its budget, reported $188 billion in cash, stocks, loans and equity participation on its CAFR. According to Mr. Burien, "On that day, I learned the definition of syndicated organized crime." Keep in mind that most of the revenue and investments from the 21 counties, hundreds of cities, municipalities, school districts, state financial authorities, pension funds, and 69 enterprise authorities, all of which put out their own CAFR or Combined Financial Statement are not inclusive with the state's revenue and investments. Totals here when looking at composite New Jersey government figures is well in excess of 1.8 Trillion dollars. Yep you heard that right 1.8 trillion. Divide that figure by the population of New Jersey to see the per capita share of the wealth.


So why are the taxes in New Jersey some of the highest in the country? The answerer is; Power corrupts, absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Mr. Burien keeps emphasizing to the public that they, the public, left the VAULT door open, and those sharp little crackers said thank you very much. The problem is that most (95%) of the public responds with, "Vault, what vault". With this well entrenched attitude of naivety by the public in place, those sharp little crackers now have even stopped saying thank you very much as they plunder the wealth in their unabated efforts towards the building of their own empires within the corporate structure of Composite Government.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

more cut and paste...

Report on CAFR Research by: Walter J. Burien, Jr.


Introduction


Walter Burien Jr. worked as a Wall Street Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) for fifteen years, but now resides in Arizona. According to Mr. Burien, every state, county and major metropolitan city is keeping two sets of books. One set (the 'Budget') is commonly available and tracks each governmental entity's casts and tax revenue. The Budget is the financial record that's seen by the public and used by politicians to justify new governmental services and higher taxes.

However, there is a second set of books (called the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or CAFR) which is virtually unknown to the public but contains the real record of total governmental income. According to Mr. Burien, although the Budget gives an accurate account of government costs, only the CAFR gives an accurate account of government's income.


For example, while a particular state budget might report receiving $20 billion in taxes (just barely enough to sustain its $20 billion in costs) - the CAFR might reveal the state's real income is in the neighborhood of $60 billion - three times as much as reported on the budget. If these allegations are accurate, the particular state could stop charging all the taxes we are familiar with and, not only survive but, either double the amount of reported government services or give every citizen a huge tax rebate.


The implications are mind-boggling. The CAFR's reveal that the world is so different from what we are led to believe, so much more corrupt than suspected, that we are left with three choices, either; 1) government agrees to end the deception and stop overtaxing us, or 2) the American people agree to accept their status as slaves, or 3) both sides refuse to agree and precipitate a shooting revolution. The issue is that big.


Are Mr. Burien's allegations correct? How could any governmental entity dare to routinely overcharge its citizens by 200%, underreport its income by 2/3rds, and knowingly press for higher taxes based on an inaccurate budget? Worse, how could such a fraudulent system become widespread among all states, counties, cities and the Federal Government?

Those who have made efforts to verify Burien's research indicate that the conclusions drawn by Burien are probably correct. For instance: The State of Alaska and the city of Anchorage both use Budget/CAFR accounting systems that conceal a 'breathtaking' difference in reported revenue. Another researcher in Wyoming claims that a comparison of his state's budget and CAFR also support Mr. Burien's arguments. In every case, there are two sets of books and the income reported on the budget is millions or billions of dollars less than is reported on the CAFR.


These verifications of Burien's research and findings lend credence to his allegations.


What follows is an amalgam of statements or implications raised by Mr. Burien in various interviews.

Mr. Burien reports first discovering the CAFR report in New Jersey in 1989, when he helped start and incorporated a New Jersey tax protest group called "Hands Across New Jersey." While involved with that group, Mr. Burien read in the state's Annual Budget that the total cost of all public services was $17 billion and the "net available" (the money on hand to pay all bills) was $24.6 billion. But then he asked the first question the IRS asks in any audit: "What are the gross receipts?" He added the figures from various state government sources and came up with about $44 billion and began to wonder how the state could have $17 billion in costs, $24.6 billion in cash on hand, and $44 billion annual income? The numbers didn't add up, so he began to dig deeper.


Because his father had been Personnel Manager for the State Treasury for four years, Mr. Burien understood how to get around in the various government departments. The state Director of the Budget was on vacation, so Mr. Burien called one of his lowest level assistants and said, "I'm working on a report for Richard [the vacationing Budget Director] and I need all the figures on the autonomous agency accounts, interest accounts, investment accounts." The assistant said, "Ohh, you want the CAFR." This was the first time Burien had heard of the CAFR but he said, "Yes" and the assistant mailed it to him.


The 1989 CAFR showed that New Jersey had liquid investment funds (cash) of $188 billion of which; common stocks worth $70 billion, $10 billion in loans made by the state due from public and private corporations, and $14 billion in insurance company equity participation. The little state of New Jersey, which admitted to less than $25 billion in annual income on its budget, reported $188 billion in cash, stocks, loans and equity participation on its CAFR. According to Mr. Burien, "On that day, I learned the definition of syndicated organized crime." Keep in mind that most of the revenue and investments from the 21 counties, hundreds of cities, municipalities, school districts, state financial authorities, pension funds, and 69 enterprise authorities, all of which put out their own CAFR or Combined Financial Statement are not inclusive with the state's revenue and investments. Totals here when looking at composite New Jersey government figures is well in excess of 1.8 Trillion dollars. Yep you heard that right 1.8 trillion. Divide that figure by the population of New Jersey to see the per capita share of the wealth.


So why are the taxes in New Jersey some of the highest in the country? The answerer is; Power corrupts, absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Mr. Burien keeps emphasizing to the public that they, the public, left the VAULT door open, and those sharp little crackers said thank you very much. The problem is that most (95%) of the public responds with, "Vault, what vault". With this well entrenched attitude of naivety by the public in place, those sharp little crackers now have even stopped saying thank you very much as they plunder the wealth in their unabated efforts towards the building of their own empires within the corporate structure of Composite Government.

SO MANY people have to know of this, how in the hell is it a secret over so many hundreds of thousands of .gov administrators???

VERY hard to believe that's true....and IF it's true here, makes me wonder about Greece/etc in Europe....

somehow expected to believe such a VAST conspiracy exists??

really?? a conspiracy of maybe 4-6 folks fine, possible....get to a dozen and some drunk in a bar blows it.....

I think it IS horse shit.....but well....willing to listen....

one of the best kept secrets of the DC region is that revolving door between interest groups/lobbyists and LAWYERS.....K st and the hill....used to be called take the Rolodex with them, today, it's take the cphone....

[Peter Pan]

The way the country is boworring $$ America may be facing the same down the road if China and others decide to not buy our debt, no the federal reserve will just buy more of the debt all will be ok. Let the states go BR I do not want to pay for what some other state's financial mess, if I did I would more there. Hard decisions are coming not just for the states, if our congress keeps on the spending projected and this is both parties American's are going to realize a decreased standard of living as we will have to send in more $$ to service the debt or the handouts everyone thinks they are entitled to

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You all have to remember socialism (bailouts) are only available for the wealthy. Peons can expect to be peed on.

Bailouts for anyone are wrong. And most of the true Conservative were against them.


Public policy for decades has been to much in favor of Entitlements for the poor as well as the rich and powerful in an attempt to change the course of the free market to be more aniline with social policies and self interest. Whenever a government has tried this they have failed. As will we.

Bailouts only prolong the correction. I am against them and feel we need to let the house of cards fail and rebuild.

[ChasC5]

Man I like my General Moters 99 Corvette, 05 Tahoe and 70 Buick Grand Sport.

Gota love a good bailout.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Man I like my General Moters 99 Corvette, 05 Tahoe and 70 Buick Grand Sport.

Gota love a good bailout.

Surprise?? a liberal likes GM?? figgered a libby to buy Lexus and BMW.....Merc....


remember when Merc stood for MERCURY?? not that German crap??

been a while....

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Surprise?? a liberal likes GM?? figgered a libby to buy Lexus and BMW.....Merc....


remember when Merc stood for MERCURY?? not that German crap??

been a while....

My wife drives the Infinity M56, sweet ride.

I'd like to add a Mustang Boss 302 to my wish list.

Diversity is the spice of life.