ALWAY$ FOLLOW THE MONEY

Is there any doubt, that the hierarchy of Bear Sterns will still receive huge bailout payments? Why is it that JP Morgan is will retain the rights to purchase the building even if their purchase FAILS within the 60 day time frame? Who else but our present administration could would and did concoct such a sweetheart deal to "rescue" their friends in time of need?

From the day, Mr. Greenspan walked into his office at the Fed, his assault on the banking system, as we knew it began. His primary goal was the abolition of the Sarbanes-Oxley Law which had kept the banks regulated from the types investing they could peruse with their institutions monies.

Everything else that our government/congress has deregulated in their infinite wisdom has had calamitous effects on our infrastructure. Like an octopus with its many legs stretching out to its fullest length, then quickly dragging back everything within its reach to its mouth.

Therefore, has it been with communications companies, where there once many few independent owner/operators now only mega corporate exist very willing to aid the administration in their illegal wire tapping programs.

Newspapers, magazines, radios and television stations now live under the same umbrella able to monopolize, as they so desire. Restrictions once protected shattered into the winds in pieces never again recoverable. Yet again the corporate monster grows in this feeding frenzy grows, although with this change major alterations with information sharing are now discerned. “Main stream media” [MSM] rather than the News as it once was known is thrown by the wayside as “corporate” leaders are now concerned with entertainment opposed to factual news. Our “news” has now become “censored” by and with what the “spin” doctors belonging/controlling the administration demand they say. How else to explain while when fighting a war three days are spent discussing the death of a blonde bombshell whose claim to fame was marrying an old codger and an appearance at the Supreme Court. Alternatively, day upon day of addle-minded “celebrity” publicity seeking stunts is she wearing panties or not?

Energy/oil companies alike once numbered in the hundreds are now gone. Oil wells once peppered the countryside now lay fallow and abandoned thanks to monstrous large corporations that have sucked our very own recourses dry. Electrical companies so huge they now cover numerous states not merely cities as they once did, powered not out of concern for their customers as once was the case, now it is only profit based. How else to explain massive blackouts which have occurred in the not to recent past? They care for their profits but not in the maintenance or replacement of long outdated equipment along the very power grids, they utilize. Rather they wait for the next performance Mother Nature lashes out then cry as they make the minimums of repairs necessary to keep he lines running. Hoping as they know will certainly be the case, an event of calamitous proportion aka Katrina, only larger, that wipes out an entire sector or massive grid or supply sector, only then will the Federal Government will be forced to take action. Only then will it be “discovered” with shock and dismay by these very owners, how out of date, and lack of functional ability their systems have been. “It shall take trillions upon billions” of taxpayers’ dollars to install such a fix and bring back the system, only better to 21st Century Standards this time. Just as been accomplished with the levees in New Orleans. The only trick question in this pop quiz is who repays the taxpayer for their initial outlay for repairing the downed electrical grid? If an answer is required, you shall remain in class for the rest of your life.

Mr. Greenspan would now like us all to believe he is or has been the “victim” in/with the unfolding disasters that are unfolding around the financial world today. Suffering as he is now the doddering old man from “poor me” syndrome, allows him continuous access thru above-mentioned newspapers, published books and paid speaking tours. This paragon of virtue on a recent trip to our oil producing friends encouraged them to switch their currency to the now richer than our own Euro. With friends like this…….as the saying goes.

Forget not that every time this man during his years of dis-service, at every hearing before committees he harped on one topic in his dry boring financial language that very few understood. His topic was simple his message always the same, to ensure continued growth of our economy, to ensure our way of life as we then saw it, we/they the congress-people MUST repeal that terribly restrictive Sarbanes-Oxley law that had been so rudely put on the books so many decades ago.

As you will now see, I will let others cover the ground necessary for me allowing me to end this.

U.S. News & World Report reported that, "Few can confuse Wall Street as thoroughly as Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan can."[17] Greenspan was In the wake of the subprime mortgage and credit crisis in 2007, Greenspan admitted that there was a bubble in the US housing market, warning in 2007 of "large double digit declines" in home values "larger than most people expect."[21] However, Greenspan also noted, “I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.”[22]

"Besides sustaining the demand for new construction, mortgage markets have also been a powerful stabilizing force over the past two years of economic distress by facilitating the extraction of some of the equity that homeowners have built up over the years

However, Greenspan's policies of adjusting interest rates to historic lows contributed to a housing bubble in the US. The Federal Reserve acknowledges the connection between lower interest rates, higher home values, and the increased liquidity the higher home values bring to the overall economy.

"Like other asset prices, house prices are influenced by interest rates, and in some countries, the housing market is a key channel of monetary policy transmission."
—Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 2005

In a speech in February 2004, Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market [7]. Greenspan based his recommendation on a fed study, which had shown that homeowners with ARMs had saved thousands of dollars during the last decade (a period during which interest rates had greatly decreased). Greenspan has come under fire for his recommendation, since it came at a time when interest rates were historically low. The fed own funds rate was at an all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rate, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later [8]. Hence, Greenspan's recommendation came at a time when interest rates bottomed out making it a particularly bad time to take out an ARM. A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage.

Furthermore, in a speech on February 23, 2004, Greenspan suggested that lenders should offer to home purchasers a greater variety of "mortgage product alternatives" other than traditional fixed-rate mortgages.[29] Greenspan also praised the rise of the subprime mortgage industry and the tools with which it uses to assess credit-worthiness in an April 2005 speech:

"Innovation has brought about a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans and niche credit programs for immigrants. Such developments are representative of the market responses that have driven the financial services industry throughout the history of our country … With these advances in technology, lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers. … Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending; indeed, today subprime mortgages account for roughly 10 percent of the number of all mortgages outstanding, up from just 1 or 2 percent in the early 1990s."[30]

Greenspan describes himself as a "lifelong Libertarian Republican [34]". On March 3, 2005, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid attacked Greenspan as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington"[35] and criticized him for supporting Bush's 2001 tax cut plan.[36] Greenspan has also received criticism from Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and others for his support of Bush's plan to phase out Social Security in favor of private accounts.[37][38][39] Greenspan had said Bush's model has "the seeds of developing full funding by its very nature. As I've said before, I've always supported moves to full funding in the context of a private account."[40]

Economist Paul Krugman, a frequent Greenspan critic, wrote in the New York Times that Greenspan was a "three-card maestro" with a "lack of sincerity" who, "by repeatedly shilling for whatever the Bush administration wants, has betrayed the trust placed in the Fed chairman."[41]

Charges that Greenspan was veering beyond the Fed's purview of monetary policy into fiscal and political matters traditionally left to lawmakers became more prevalent, coming for example from sources such as Republican Senator Jim Bunning who voted against reconfirming him.[42] Then-Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated that in 2005 there were serious questions about the Fed's independence because of Greenspan's public statements.

On February 26, 2007, Greenspan forecast a possible recession in the U.S. before or in early 2008.[48] Stabilizing corporate profits are said to have influenced his comments. The following day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 12,216.24 dropping by 416 points and losing 3.3% of its value, the worst one day loss since September 17, 2001, when the Dow Jones lost 684 points (7.1%) after reopening in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This drop is not thought to be entirely due to Greenspan's recent comment, whose opinion is nonetheless substantially influential.

In middle January 2008, hedge fund Paulson & Co employed Alan Greenspan as an adviser on economic issues and monetary policy.[9] This is the third private role given to Alan Greenspan, the first two being given by Deutsche Bank and bond Investment Company known as Pimco. As an adviser, Greenspan will advise Paulson & Co on economic issues surrounding United States and world financial markets.[10]

He will also counsel on monetary policy and falling housing prices and about a possible recession in the United States. Paulson & Co is famously known for its record profit making during 2007 by conducting bets against mortgage derivatives, which earned the firm billions of dollars last year, the only company known to make such a profit during the bursting of US housing bubble. The financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed and Greenspan must not, under the agreement, advise any other hedge fund manager while working for Paulson. [11]
In February 2008, he spoke at the Jeddah Economic Forum [12].

So here we are, I did not know that this little cretin was back on the government dole advising them on yet another one of his disastrous creations but I would be willing to bet the farm it was his brilliant idea to bailout Bear Stearns in the way it was done over this past weekend. Especially when you stop and consider the statement made by Paulson yesterday when confronted by a reporter yesterday who questioned saving banks over homeowners and Paulson’s reply was “what about the poor Investors?” What about them? Well, they were just that, investors that took a chance with disposable monies they had to play with and lost. Unlike John And Jane Schmuck who were legitimate homeowners minding their own business until a predatory lender convinced them to refinance their homes at a much better rate. Not bothering to explain what would happen to that rate later. Moreover, who was the one that created this fiasco, why Mr. Greenspan of course.

Follow the money: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation>made up of other regional Federal Reserve’s which are also privately owned> the largest of these if the Federal Reserve Of New York> located of course in the heart of Wall Street>this is the fed that negotiated and carried out the sale of Bear Stern to JP Morgan. Who are the members of the cooperation or who owns the Federal Reserve? You might inquire the major corporate members who are in control of all the entities mentioned above as well as influential members of foreign governments and the new influx of foreign capital bailing out some of the institutions own it.

Myself, me and I believe the following is what is actually going down with our financial mess: This has, will and continue to be a deliberate concentrated full out assault on our economy that has been put into play since January 20, 2001. Beginning with Cheney’s energy “secret” meeting to plan and plot our unnecessary war to secure Iraq’s oil to this current dollar devaluation we are currently facing.

What could possibly the gained by the devaluation of the dollar? Wrecking the economy would not help them raise the price of oil would it? How could de-valuing the entire housing market be of any value to the administration? What happens if there is massive unemployment, who wins then? What about the election won’t that change things when he and company are booted out?

All very valid questions that deserve valid answers that I unfortunately am unqualified to give, I can however give my best assumptions to some of the above. I believe the inflated price of oil is based purely on speculation. Since this reign has taken office the major companies have all boasted “record profits” we have heard, but profits on what? They have done neither new exploration nor any substantial increases in the sizes of their reserves; however, what they have done is an incredible expansion of “BUYBACK” in their own company’s shares of stocks. In a twisted bizarre corporate sense of logic, this can make sense if you think about it. If you started buying, back your company’s stock back in 2001 when oil was roughly $35 a barrel, and continued until it reached say $ 75-$100 then stopped and sat on it waiting for it to go higher you would have already made a tidy profit. Take it one step further and say you also owned yet another corporation that had an arm involved with hedge funds that could sell LONG on oil futures ensuring the price of oil would keep on rising, would that not help your profit margin go up? Think of all those annoying shareholders you would no longer have to pay those annoying dividends to, would that not be the best of all corporate world thinking?

As to all of the other questions, they direct us to the police state which we stand on the precipice of, if the Senate passes SR 1959 that nonsense bill authorizing the thought police initiated by Harmon in the house we are all in big trouble. The Violent Radicalization of Homegrown Terrorism I believe is its name, yet more insanity following the Patriot Act and all acts that followed including but not forgotten the Military Commissions Act.

It was this administration that lead us hook line and sinker down the path of the WTO, removed us from long signed treaties, conventions, and honors we once held around the world. NAFTA, CAFTA more names and initials I can name all in the best interest of other countries yet having the same results here at home. We no longer manufacture anything of substance; we have allowed our country to become one of “importers” only running up a staggering trade imbalance in the process. Our spineless congress allowed to be taken into not one but two unnecessary wars by a president who rather than raising taxes to pay for his folly asked the people of his country to “go shopping”.

Go shopping indeed made no sense at the time, for none of us realized that the items we were shopping for [all made in China] in fact should be called “double dipping.” Not only were we shopping for all these “cheap” things we have grown accustomed to buying; no matter if they fell apart after two times, it was cheap, throw it away, but our country did not have the necessary funding to fight the very wars we had launched, so we went to the very country we were building the largest trade deficit ever recorded with and started borrowing yet more BILLONS of dollars that we did not have, adding yet more to the daily interest we have to pay. Did our president bother telling us any of this? I do not remember hearing about it from him, do you?

Back to the dollar and the bang for the buck what this all boils down to be that I am going to leave you as I started, with a question:

Is it possible that this has been the plan all along, to ditch the dollar, make it worthless as the Peso once was, then drag us kicking and screaming into something none of us want, the expansion of NAFTA with its superhighways and the introduction of the AMERO and the North American Union?