|
|
|---|
Monday, February 8, 2010
U.S. President Barack Obama calls the $3.8-trillion US budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America’s economic health.
In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug — debt.
More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion. The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin by buying tanks.
Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion US this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, to which the U.S. already owes $1.5 trillion. Debt service will cost $250 billion.
To spend $1 trillion, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today.
Obama’s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military “contractors” (mercenaries and workers); and veterans’ costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada’s total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion — more than Germany’s total defence budget.
No wonder U.S. defence stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama’s “austerity” budget.
Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as unemployment heads over 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. America has become the Sick Man of the Western Hemisphere, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire.
The Pentagon now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America’s rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%.
China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of what the U.S. spends on defence.
There are 750 U.S. military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea.
Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. During the Bush administration, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — funded by borrowing — cost each American family more than $25,000.
Like Bush, Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations — putting them on the nation’s already maxed-out credit card. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.
This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.
America’s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud.
If U.S. taxpayers actually had to pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.
America needs a fair, honest war tax.
The U.S. clearly has reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt-servicing are cannibalizing the U.S. economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late U.S.S.R., the U.S. also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage the Second World War, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions.
It is increasingly clear the president is not in control of America’s runaway military juggernaut. Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war and world domination have joined Wall Street’s money lenders to put America into thrall.
Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. Most do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe — what neocons call “full spectrum dominance.”
If Obama really were serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars and break up the nation’s giant Frankenbanks.
Wars sending U.S. into ruin
Obama the peace president is fighting battles his country cannot afford
By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI Agency
In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug — debt.
More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion. The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin by buying tanks.
Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion US this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, to which the U.S. already owes $1.5 trillion. Debt service will cost $250 billion.
To spend $1 trillion, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today.
Obama’s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military “contractors” (mercenaries and workers); and veterans’ costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada’s total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion — more than Germany’s total defence budget.
No wonder U.S. defence stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama’s “austerity” budget.
Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as unemployment heads over 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. America has become the Sick Man of the Western Hemisphere, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire.
The Pentagon now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America’s rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%.
China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of what the U.S. spends on defence.
There are 750 U.S. military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea.
Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. During the Bush administration, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — funded by borrowing — cost each American family more than $25,000.
Like Bush, Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations — putting them on the nation’s already maxed-out credit card. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.
This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.
America’s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud.
If U.S. taxpayers actually had to pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.
America needs a fair, honest war tax.
The U.S. clearly has reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt-servicing are cannibalizing the U.S. economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late U.S.S.R., the U.S. also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage the Second World War, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions.
It is increasingly clear the president is not in control of America’s runaway military juggernaut. Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war and world domination have joined Wall Street’s money lenders to put America into thrall.
Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. Most do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe — what neocons call “full spectrum dominance.”
If Obama really were serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars and break up the nation’s giant Frankenbanks.
Wars sending U.S. into ruin
Obama the peace president is fighting battles his country cannot afford
By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI Agency
Also;
Tasks Ignored During the Bush Reign of Horror
Unfinished Business
The last eight years can best be described as the illegitimate rule of deviant forces bent on enriching the few at the expense of the many. Poverty is up, real income is flat for the majority of citizens while the elite have "super sized" their holdings with a callous disregard for the nation and economic realities.
The phantom "Yellow Brick Road" has come to an abrupt end through an expression of will by the people. President-elect Obama won by a wide margin in the popular vote and an even wider margin in the Electoral College. He is their choice.
What Obama promised matters. What the people expect matters more. What matters most is the crucial statement of the people. This election was a resounding no vote on executive lying, misdirection, deception, fabrication, and non stop failures. It was also a clear no vote on the unrestrained exercise of power used to attack individual rights promised in the Constitution and the willful neglect of the collective needs of citizens made manifest by their daily struggles.
This election was a clear statement by many who expressed their revulsion at the pervasive, mind numbing propaganda from the masters of deception (a problem that predates Bush by decades). Citizens knew that we'd never find Bin Laden in Iraq. But the propagandists managed to turn the majority opposition in both parties into an invasion with marginal support by using the "n" word - nuclear weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, opposition to the war returned to a solid majority and remained there.
The propagandists tried to tell us that the economy was doing just fine, growing by leaps and bounds. Citizens noticed that there were few new jobs created, except by federal expansion to meet "security" needs. They also noticed that the real levels of unemployment and inflation were crushing.
The propagandists told us that Wall Street provided a never ending stream of benefits that we'd all enjoy. Citizens were wary and then outraged when the financial system collapsed into a free fall of corporate ruin infecting the entire economy.
When these fatally flawed entities begged for a bailout, citizens spoke in numbers and with intensity rarely if ever seen by Congress. Prior to the first bailout bill, congressional offices received a torrent of calls and emails showing overwhelming opposition to corporate welfare.
On just this one occasion, Congress responded to the will of the people. The bailout was narrowly defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives. While it was passed a few days later, this statement left its mark. The people were finally fed up. They were willing to risk their own well being to see that the authors of the disaster were not rewarded.
There has been nothing but lies from start to finish during the eight year reign of horror with only a few brave politicians speaking truth to corrupt power. They were ridiculed and marginalized as a reward for their bravery.
Now it's over and there's unfinished business that requires our attention. This business includes the following and much more:
End the Iraq occupation. Assign responsibility and consequences. Put a stop the fantasies of empire and actions that will lead to more ruinous overseas adventures.
Care for the wounded. Admit the losses and provide for healing.
Admit that the planet is in peril. Acknowledge our role in causing the problem. Accept leadership in solving it and get to work.
Revive the economy based on real products and services and make sure everyone does well. End the looting by banks and other dubious enterprises and punish those responsible.
Rebuild the United States of America wherever needed.
Provide health care services to citizens and disregard the nonsense about not being able to afford it. It's only fair to ask those who say it can't be done to sacrifice their own health care until they find a solution.
A Solid Dose of Reality to Start: The Political "Numbers Racket"
The phantom "Yellow Brick Road" has come to an abrupt end through an expression of will by the people. President-elect Obama won by a wide margin in the popular vote and an even wider margin in the Electoral College. He is their choice.
What Obama promised matters. What the people expect matters more. What matters most is the crucial statement of the people. This election was a resounding no vote on executive lying, misdirection, deception, fabrication, and non stop failures. It was also a clear no vote on the unrestrained exercise of power used to attack individual rights promised in the Constitution and the willful neglect of the collective needs of citizens made manifest by their daily struggles.
This election was a clear statement by many who expressed their revulsion at the pervasive, mind numbing propaganda from the masters of deception (a problem that predates Bush by decades). Citizens knew that we'd never find Bin Laden in Iraq. But the propagandists managed to turn the majority opposition in both parties into an invasion with marginal support by using the "n" word - nuclear weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, opposition to the war returned to a solid majority and remained there.
The propagandists tried to tell us that the economy was doing just fine, growing by leaps and bounds. Citizens noticed that there were few new jobs created, except by federal expansion to meet "security" needs. They also noticed that the real levels of unemployment and inflation were crushing.
The propagandists told us that Wall Street provided a never ending stream of benefits that we'd all enjoy. Citizens were wary and then outraged when the financial system collapsed into a free fall of corporate ruin infecting the entire economy.
When these fatally flawed entities begged for a bailout, citizens spoke in numbers and with intensity rarely if ever seen by Congress. Prior to the first bailout bill, congressional offices received a torrent of calls and emails showing overwhelming opposition to corporate welfare.
On just this one occasion, Congress responded to the will of the people. The bailout was narrowly defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives. While it was passed a few days later, this statement left its mark. The people were finally fed up. They were willing to risk their own well being to see that the authors of the disaster were not rewarded.
There has been nothing but lies from start to finish during the eight year reign of horror with only a few brave politicians speaking truth to corrupt power. They were ridiculed and marginalized as a reward for their bravery.
Now it's over and there's unfinished business that requires our attention. This business includes the following and much more:
End the Iraq occupation. Assign responsibility and consequences. Put a stop the fantasies of empire and actions that will lead to more ruinous overseas adventures.
Care for the wounded. Admit the losses and provide for healing.
Admit that the planet is in peril. Acknowledge our role in causing the problem. Accept leadership in solving it and get to work.
Revive the economy based on real products and services and make sure everyone does well. End the looting by banks and other dubious enterprises and punish those responsible.
Rebuild the United States of America wherever needed.
Provide health care services to citizens and disregard the nonsense about not being able to afford it. It's only fair to ask those who say it can't be done to sacrifice their own health care until they find a solution.
A Solid Dose of Reality to Start: The Political "Numbers Racket"
We've seen the rapacious looting of the U. S. Treasury by banks and other corporations that have failed miserably. In a state of panic, their Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, took the money we paid in taxes and gave it to these corporate failures. There are few strings attached and little to no accountability for Paulson's actions, a former Wall Street executive who has rewarded his old company, Goldman Sachs, with billions.
Since the bailout bill passed, he's already given away $350 billion without any oversight and the bag man, the Federal Reserve, refuses to tell Congress any details about where the money went.
This is nothing new. They've just "kicked it up" to a much higher level of theft. It's the latest in a series of betrayals by the "masters of the universe" who clam to produce the wonders of our economic system. It's been largely smoke and mirrors. Citizens are right when they complain about exported jobs, free trade that punishes U.S. workers and businesses, and the difficulties of simply getting by in a rough economy. At the same time, we are confounded and confused by the propagandists and their Matrix version of the economy which claims "it's all good." It isn't. In fact, the economy is much worse than we've been told for decades.
Political adjustments to measures of unemployment began in the 1960's followed by distortions of inflation shortly thereafter. When a downturn occurred, the numbers were adjusted and distorted further as an obvious "opiate for the masses." It worked to keep interest rates low, spur housing booms, and even wilder schemes, while denying Social Security beneficiaries' real adjustments in their payments.
This "numbers racket" also clouded common sense judgments by the public. How bad can it be? Look at those unemployment figures! Maybe it's just me?
If the numbers don't fit, just adjust the assumptions, change the rules of the game, and create a parallel reality. The first targets in the unreal representation of the economy were unemployment and inflation rates. The blue line represents the rate of inflation by the pre 1980's standards. No wonder times are tough.
When Alan Greenspan, an architect of this change, said that we had conquered inflation, he was about as accurate and truthful as he was when he said that home equity lines and adjustable rate mortgages were a great way to take equity out of your home so you could put it in the stock market.
Since the bailout bill passed, he's already given away $350 billion without any oversight and the bag man, the Federal Reserve, refuses to tell Congress any details about where the money went.
This is nothing new. They've just "kicked it up" to a much higher level of theft. It's the latest in a series of betrayals by the "masters of the universe" who clam to produce the wonders of our economic system. It's been largely smoke and mirrors. Citizens are right when they complain about exported jobs, free trade that punishes U.S. workers and businesses, and the difficulties of simply getting by in a rough economy. At the same time, we are confounded and confused by the propagandists and their Matrix version of the economy which claims "it's all good." It isn't. In fact, the economy is much worse than we've been told for decades.
Political adjustments to measures of unemployment began in the 1960's followed by distortions of inflation shortly thereafter. When a downturn occurred, the numbers were adjusted and distorted further as an obvious "opiate for the masses." It worked to keep interest rates low, spur housing booms, and even wilder schemes, while denying Social Security beneficiaries' real adjustments in their payments.
This "numbers racket" also clouded common sense judgments by the public. How bad can it be? Look at those unemployment figures! Maybe it's just me?
If the numbers don't fit, just adjust the assumptions, change the rules of the game, and create a parallel reality. The first targets in the unreal representation of the economy were unemployment and inflation rates. The blue line represents the rate of inflation by the pre 1980's standards. No wonder times are tough.
When Alan Greenspan, an architect of this change, said that we had conquered inflation, he was about as accurate and truthful as he was when he said that home equity lines and adjustable rate mortgages were a great way to take equity out of your home so you could put it in the stock market.
Unemployment statistics were conveniently adjusted since the 1960's when those seeking a job for more than a year were simply removed from the jobless figures. There were still unemployed but their inconvenience to the propagandists was eliminated by "disappearing" them into the background of a shadow economy.
Kevin Phillips summed it up succinctly when he said:
"If Washington's harping on weapons of mass destruction was essential to buoy public support for the invasion of Iraq, the use of deceptive statistics has played its own vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it actually is." Numbers Racket: Why the economy is worse than we know. Harpers, May 2008.
How can we make rational judgments without a real picture of the world around us?
How can we judge leaders if they don't have to answer for the reality that they create?
It's time to take care of unfinished business. As that process goes forward, whatever your priorities might be, it is important to see the pervasiveness and absolute necessity of the "official" lies for the liars and those they serve.
We need to seize the opportunity that we have as citizens to push through these fictions and create our own reality as we address the business left unfinished by those who promised us so much and delivered nothing but degradation and hardship.
Kevin Phillips summed it up succinctly when he said:
"If Washington's harping on weapons of mass destruction was essential to buoy public support for the invasion of Iraq, the use of deceptive statistics has played its own vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it actually is." Numbers Racket: Why the economy is worse than we know. Harpers, May 2008.
How can we make rational judgments without a real picture of the world around us?
How can we judge leaders if they don't have to answer for the reality that they create?
It's time to take care of unfinished business. As that process goes forward, whatever your priorities might be, it is important to see the pervasiveness and absolute necessity of the "official" lies for the liars and those they serve.
We need to seize the opportunity that we have as citizens to push through these fictions and create our own reality as we address the business left unfinished by those who promised us so much and delivered nothing but degradation and hardship.
TODAY WE STAND AT THE PRECIPICE OF A UNPRECEDENTED MOMENT OF NATIONAL CRISIS. THE PENTAGON HAS BEEN GIVEN A BLANK CHECK FOR PROCUREMENT AND DEPLOYMENT. THE REPUBLICAN FRIENDLY "HAWKS" IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY SAVOR AND RELISH THE SWEETHEART DEFENSE CONTRACTS THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE REPUBLICAN PATRONAGE MACHINE.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE OPERATES UNAUDITED IN THE SHADOWS OF CONGRESS AS THEY PRINT HYPERINFLATIONARY DOLLARS AND PAY HOMAGE TO THE ANCIENT EUROPEAN BANKING HOUSES WHO FINANCE OUR WARS AND PROFLIGATE LIFESTYLE THROUGH MASSIVE DEBT IN WHICH THEY COLLECT HEFTY FEES AND BILLIONS IN INTEREST.
OUR CONGRESS IS SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, WE HAVE IN FACT, "THE BEST GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY"! THESE TURNCOATS CARE MORE ABOUT HELPING WALL STREET, THE BANKING AND INSURANCE GIANTS, THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND THE STUDENT LOAN BANKERS THAN THEY DO THE CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC THEY PURPORTEDLY REPRESENT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE CORPORATE INTERESTS THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SO THAT THEY CAN OUTSPEND THEIR OPPONENTS AND ENSURE THEIR RE-ELECTION.
WE ELECT PRESIDENTS WHO BREAK THEIR CAMPAIGN PROMISES, LIE TO US WHILE LOOKING US DIRECTLY IN THE EYE AND PARADE AROUND AT FANCY PARTIES AND HOBNOB WITH THE FINANCIAL ELITE - YOU KNOW, THE 2% OF THE CITIZENS WHO CONTROL 95% OF THE WEALTH HERE IN AMERICA.
WE ELECT PRESIDENTS WHO BREAK THEIR CAMPAIGN PROMISES, LIE TO US WHILE LOOKING US DIRECTLY IN THE EYE AND PARADE AROUND AT FANCY PARTIES AND HOBNOB WITH THE FINANCIAL ELITE - YOU KNOW, THE 2% OF THE CITIZENS WHO CONTROL 95% OF THE WEALTH HERE IN AMERICA.
THESE SAME INFLUENCES CONTROL OUR MEDIA. THE DAY OF THE NEWSPAPER IS OVER AS IS THE POLITICAL CONTROL THE PUBLISHERS HELD SWAY OVER THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS IN ORDER TO ENRICH THEMSELVES.
THE RUPERT MURDOCH OWNED FOX NETWORK SPEWS ANYTHING TITTILATING AND TANTALIZING ENOUGH TO KEEP PUSHING THEIR RATINS HIGHER, PUSHING THE ENVELOPE AS TO WHAT PEOPLE FEEL AND BELIEVE.
ALL OF THE MAJOR TV AND RADIO NETWORKS HAVE NEWS BUREAUS IN ISRAEL AND THE POLITICIANS MUST HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE ISRAELI LOBBY, AIPAC, TO ENSURE THEIR ELECTION AS WELL AS THE SUPPORT OF THE HASIDIC RABBI'S OF CHABAD. OUR FORIEGN POLICY IS ISRAELCENTRIC WITH THE SURVIVAL OF ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS. HERE WE HAVE A FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON A BUNCH OF RELIGIOUS NUTS
SOMEWHERE IN THE DESERT NEAR THE MEDDITERRANEAN SEA!
IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS WE WILL SEE THE TURNCOATS AND TRAITORS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, SHILLS AND CONMEN FOR
THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THE BANKERS AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AS WELL AS BIG PHARMA, RELIGIOUS NUTS IN ISRAEL, BIG OIL AND THE PENTAGON. WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN RECLAIM OUR GREATNESS IS A MATTER OF QUESTION.
THE PARTISANSHIP OF REPUBLICANS IS WITHOUT QUESTION THE MOST DAMAGING THING POLITICALLY THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY. WE SUPPOSEDLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND STATESMEN YET THE REPUBLICAN PARTISANS OFFER NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS OF HEALTH CARE, ADDRESSING THE NATIONAL DEBT,
ENDING THE WARS. THEY REFUSE TO COME TO TERMS WITH ANY LEGISLATION THE DEMOCRATS PUT FORTH BECAUSE THEIR ONLY
PLATFORM IS MADE UP OF TWO ISSUES-1] THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND 2] TAXCUTS. THEY ARE VAPID WHEN IT COMES TO IDEAS OF GOVERNANCE. REPUBLICANS OWE THEIR VERY EXISTENCE
TO THE MOST CONSERVATIVE AND EXTREME ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY.
TO THE MOST CONSERVATIVE AND EXTREME ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY.
ONLY TIME WILL TELL IF THEY WILL ABANDON THEIR CORPORATE AND MILITARY MASTERS AND RETURN TO SANITY AS THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES THEY PURPORTED TO BE, A CLAIM DISPROVED BY THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE. THESE BASTARDS CARED NOTHING OTHER THAN TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AND THEIR CRONIES! THEIR MESSAGE TO AMERICA IS "FUCK YOU, I WANT IT ALL!"
FOR TODAY
Orator
Etymology
It is recorded in English since c.1374, meaning "one who pleads or argues for a cause", from Anglo-French oratour, Old French orateur (14th century), Latin orator ("speaker"), from orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula").
The modern meaning of the word, "public speaker", is attested from c.1430.
It is recorded in English since c.1374, meaning "one who pleads or argues for a cause", from Anglo-French oratour, Old French orateur (14th century), Latin orator ("speaker"), from orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula").
The modern meaning of the word, "public speaker", is attested from c.1430.
History
In ancient Rome, the art of speaking in public (Ars Oratoria) was a professional competence especially cultivated by politicians and lawyers. As the Greeks were still seen as the masters in this field, as in philosophy and most sciences, the leading Roman families often either sent their sons to study these things under a famous master in Greece (as was the case with the young Julius Caesar), or engaged a Greek teacher (under pay or as a slave).[citation needed]
In the young revolutionary French republic, Orateur (French for "orator", but compare the Anglo-Saxon parliamentary speaker) was the formal title for the delegated members of the Tribunat to the Corps législatif, to motivate their ruling on a presented bill.
In the 19th century, orators and lecturers, such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Col. Robert G. Ingersoll were major providers of popular entertainment.
The term pulpit orator denotes Christian authors, often clergymen, renowned for their ability to write and/or deliver (from the pulpit in church, hence the word) rhetorically skilled religious sermons.
In some universities, the title 'Orator' is given to the official whose task it is to give speeches on ceremonial occasions, such as the presentation of honorary degrees.
In ancient Rome, the art of speaking in public (Ars Oratoria) was a professional competence especially cultivated by politicians and lawyers. As the Greeks were still seen as the masters in this field, as in philosophy and most sciences, the leading Roman families often either sent their sons to study these things under a famous master in Greece (as was the case with the young Julius Caesar), or engaged a Greek teacher (under pay or as a slave).[citation needed]
In the young revolutionary French republic, Orateur (French for "orator", but compare the Anglo-Saxon parliamentary speaker) was the formal title for the delegated members of the Tribunat to the Corps législatif, to motivate their ruling on a presented bill.
In the 19th century, orators and lecturers, such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Col. Robert G. Ingersoll were major providers of popular entertainment.
The term pulpit orator denotes Christian authors, often clergymen, renowned for their ability to write and/or deliver (from the pulpit in church, hence the word) rhetorically skilled religious sermons.
In some universities, the title 'Orator' is given to the official whose task it is to give speeches on ceremonial occasions, such as the presentation of honorary degrees.
Modern orators
Though most politicians (by nature of their office) may perform many speeches, as do those who support or oppose a political issue, to include them all would be prohibitive. The following are those who have been noted as famous specifically for their oratory abilities, and/or for a particularly famous speech or speeches.
Allied and Axis leaders of World War II noted for their speeches:
Winston Churchill (UK PM)
Charles de Gaulle (Free French general; President of France)
Joseph Goebbels
Adolf Hitler (Führer of Nazi Germany)
Douglas MacArthur - Farewell Speech to Congress
Benito Mussolini
Franklin D. Roosevelt (US President)
The Great Triumvirate:
Henry Clay
John C. Calhoun
Daniel Webster
Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Former Prime Minister of India)
C.N. Annadurai (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, India)
M. Karunanidhi (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, India)
Periyar (Modern Indian Philosopher)
William Jennings Bryan - Cross of Gold speech
Frederick Douglass - Self-Made Men
Patrick Henry - Give me Liberty, or give me Death!
John F. Kennedy (US President) - inaugural address
Martin Luther King, Jr. - "I Have A Dream"
Abraham Lincoln (US President) - Gettysburg address
Richard M. Nixon (US Vice-President) - Checkers speech
Barack Obama (US President) - The Audacity of Hope, A More Perfect Union
Ronald Reagan (US President) - First Inaugural Address, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Sojourner Truth[1]
Malcolm X - "The Ballot or the Bullet"
Koffi Annan
Though most politicians (by nature of their office) may perform many speeches, as do those who support or oppose a political issue, to include them all would be prohibitive. The following are those who have been noted as famous specifically for their oratory abilities, and/or for a particularly famous speech or speeches.
Allied and Axis leaders of World War II noted for their speeches:
Winston Churchill (UK PM)
Charles de Gaulle (Free French general; President of France)
Joseph Goebbels
Adolf Hitler (Führer of Nazi Germany)
Douglas MacArthur - Farewell Speech to Congress
Benito Mussolini
Franklin D. Roosevelt (US President)
The Great Triumvirate:
Henry Clay
John C. Calhoun
Daniel Webster
Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Former Prime Minister of India)
C.N. Annadurai (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, India)
M. Karunanidhi (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, India)
Periyar (Modern Indian Philosopher)
William Jennings Bryan - Cross of Gold speech
Frederick Douglass - Self-Made Men
Patrick Henry - Give me Liberty, or give me Death!
John F. Kennedy (US President) - inaugural address
Martin Luther King, Jr. - "I Have A Dream"
Abraham Lincoln (US President) - Gettysburg address
Richard M. Nixon (US Vice-President) - Checkers speech
Barack Obama (US President) - The Audacity of Hope, A More Perfect Union
Ronald Reagan (US President) - First Inaugural Address, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Sojourner Truth[1]
Malcolm X - "The Ballot or the Bullet"
Koffi Annan
SEE THIS LINK FOR ACTUAL SPEECHES!
Oratory
Oratory refers to the ancient art of (public) speaking. In ancient Greece and Rome, oratory was studied as a component of rhetoric (that is, composition and delivery of speeches), and was an important skill in public and private life. Aristotle and Quintilian discussed oratory, and the subject, with definitive rules and models, was emphasised as a part of a liberal arts education during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Etymology
Look up orator in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Latin orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula").
The derived word oration, originally used for prayer since c.1375, now means (recorded since 1502) any formal speech, as on a ceremonial occasion or delivered in a similarly high-flown or pompous manner. Its etymological doublet orison is recorded since c.1175, from Anglo-French oreison, Old French oraison ("oration", 12th century), Latin oratio ("speech, oration"), notably in Church Latin ("prayer, appeal to God") from orare (as above), but retained its devotional specialisation.
The modern meaning of the word, "public speaking", is attested from c.1430.
One meaning of the word oratory is abstract: the art of public speaking. There is also the equivalent Greek word rhētōr, hence the abstract noun rhetoric.
Look up orator in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Latin orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula").
The derived word oration, originally used for prayer since c.1375, now means (recorded since 1502) any formal speech, as on a ceremonial occasion or delivered in a similarly high-flown or pompous manner. Its etymological doublet orison is recorded since c.1175, from Anglo-French oreison, Old French oraison ("oration", 12th century), Latin oratio ("speech, oration"), notably in Church Latin ("prayer, appeal to God") from orare (as above), but retained its devotional specialisation.
The modern meaning of the word, "public speaking", is attested from c.1430.
One meaning of the word oratory is abstract: the art of public speaking. There is also the equivalent Greek word rhētōr, hence the abstract noun rhetoric.
Greek Oratory
The art of public speaking was first developed by the ancient Greeks. Greek oration is known from the works of classical antiquity. Greek orators spoke as on their own behalf rather as representatives of either a client or a constituency, and so any citizen who wished to succeed in court, in politics, or in social life had to learn techniques of public speaking. These skills were taught first by a group of self-styled "sophists" who were known to charge fees, to "make the weaker argument the stronger," and to make their students "better" through instruction in excellence. Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates all developed theories of public speaking in opposition to the Sophists, and their ideas took on institutional form through the development of permanent schools where public speaking was taught. Though Greece eventually lost political sovereignty, the Greek culture of training in public speaking was adopted virtually wholesale by the Romans.
The art of public speaking was first developed by the ancient Greeks. Greek oration is known from the works of classical antiquity. Greek orators spoke as on their own behalf rather as representatives of either a client or a constituency, and so any citizen who wished to succeed in court, in politics, or in social life had to learn techniques of public speaking. These skills were taught first by a group of self-styled "sophists" who were known to charge fees, to "make the weaker argument the stronger," and to make their students "better" through instruction in excellence. Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates all developed theories of public speaking in opposition to the Sophists, and their ideas took on institutional form through the development of permanent schools where public speaking was taught. Though Greece eventually lost political sovereignty, the Greek culture of training in public speaking was adopted virtually wholesale by the Romans.
Latin Oratory
After the ascension of Rome, Greek techniques of public speaking were copied and modified by the Romans. Under Roman influence, instruction in rhetoric developed into a full curriculum including instruction in grammar (study of the poets), preliminary exercises (progymnasmata), and preparation of public speeches (declamation) in both forensic and deliberative genres. The Latin style was heavily influenced by Cicero, and involved a strong emphasis on a broad education in all areas of humanistic study (in the liberal arts, including philosophy), as well as on the use of wit and humor, on appeal to the listener's emotions, and on digressions, often used to explore general themes related to the specific topic of the speech. Oratory in the Roman empire, though less central to political life, remained important in law, and became (under the second Sophistic) an important form of entertainment, with famous orators or declaimers gaining great wealth and prestige for their skills.
This Latin style was the primary form of oration in the world until the beginning of the 20th century. After World War II there began a gradual deprecation of the Latin style of oration.
With the rise of the scientific method and the emphasis on a "plain" style of speaking and writing, even formal oratory has become less polished and ornate than in the Classical period, though politicians in democracies today can still make or break their careers on the basis of a successful (or unsuccessful) speech. Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have all advanced their careers in large part due to their skills in oratory.
After the ascension of Rome, Greek techniques of public speaking were copied and modified by the Romans. Under Roman influence, instruction in rhetoric developed into a full curriculum including instruction in grammar (study of the poets), preliminary exercises (progymnasmata), and preparation of public speeches (declamation) in both forensic and deliberative genres. The Latin style was heavily influenced by Cicero, and involved a strong emphasis on a broad education in all areas of humanistic study (in the liberal arts, including philosophy), as well as on the use of wit and humor, on appeal to the listener's emotions, and on digressions, often used to explore general themes related to the specific topic of the speech. Oratory in the Roman empire, though less central to political life, remained important in law, and became (under the second Sophistic) an important form of entertainment, with famous orators or declaimers gaining great wealth and prestige for their skills.
This Latin style was the primary form of oration in the world until the beginning of the 20th century. After World War II there began a gradual deprecation of the Latin style of oration.
With the rise of the scientific method and the emphasis on a "plain" style of speaking and writing, even formal oratory has become less polished and ornate than in the Classical period, though politicians in democracies today can still make or break their careers on the basis of a successful (or unsuccessful) speech. Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have all advanced their careers in large part due to their skills in oratory.
Aristotle
Plato's student Aristotle (384-322 BC) famously set forth an extended treatise on rhetoric that still repays careful study today.
In the first sentence of The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle says that "rhetoric is the counterpart [literally, the antistrophe] of dialectic." As the "antistrophe" of a Greek ode responds to and is patterned after the structure of the "strophe" (they form two sections of the whole and are sung by two parts of the chorus), so the art of rhetoric follows and is structurally patterned after the art of dialectic because both are arts of discourse production. Thus, while dialectical methods are necessary to find truth in theoretical matters, rhetorical methods are required in practical matters such as adjudicating somebody's guilt or innocence when charged in a court of law, or adjudicating a prudent course of action to be taken in a deliberative assembly. For Plato and Aristotle, dialectic involves persuasion, so when Aristotle says that rhetoric is the antistrophe of dialectic, he means that rhetoric as he uses the term has a domain or scope of application that is parallel to but different from the domain or scope of application of dialectic. In Nietzsche Humanist (1998: 129), Claude Pavur explains that "[t]he Greek prefix 'anti' does not merely designate opposition, but it can also mean 'in place of.'" When Aristotle characterizes rhetoric as the antistrophe of dialectic, he no doubt means that rhetoric is used in place of dialectic when we are discussing civic issues in a court of law or in a legislative assembly. The domain of rhetoric is civic affairs and practical decision making in civic affairs, not theoretical considerations of operational definitions of terms and clarification of thought – these, for him, are in the domain of dialectic.
Aristotle's treatise on rhetoric is an attempt to systematically describe civic rhetoric as a human art or skill (techne). His definition of rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion," essentially a mode of discovery, seems to limit the art to the inventional process, and Aristotle heavily emphasizes the logical aspect of this process. But the treatise in fact also discusses not only elements of style and (briefly) delivery, but also emotional appeals (pathos) and characterological appeals (ethos). He thus identifies three steps or "offices" of rhetoric—invention, arrangement, and style—and three different types of rhetorical proof:
ethos: how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.
Today, this is still an effective means of persuading an audience; however, shrewd, critical listeners will note whether the "expert's" actual arguments are as impressive and satisfying as his or her title, to avoid the informal logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority.[17]
This could be any position in which the speaker—from being a college professor of the subject, to being an acquaintance of person who experienced the matter in question—knows about the topic.
For instance, when a magazine claims that An MIT professor predicts that the robotic era is coming in 2050, the use of big-name "MIT" (a world-renowned American university for the advanced research in math, science, and technology) establishes the "strong" credibility.
pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.
This can be done through metaphor, amplification, storytelling, or presenting the topic in a way that evokes strong emotions in the audience.
logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument.
Logos appeals include appeals to statistics, math, logic, and objectivity. For instance, when advertisements claim that their product is 37% more effective than the competition, they are making a logical appeal.
Inductive reasoning uses examples (historical, mythical, or hypothetical) to draw conclusions.
Deductive reasoning, or "enthymematic" reasoning, uses generally accepted propositions to derive specific conclusions. The term logic evolved from logos. Aristotle emphasized enthymematic reasoning as central to the process of rhetorical invention, though later rhetorical theorists placed much less emphasis on it.
Aristotle also identifies three different types or genres of civic rhetoric: forensic (also known as judicial, was concerned with determining truth or falsity of events that took place in the past, issues of guilt), deliberative (also known as political, was concerned with determining whether or not particular actions should or should not be taken in the future), and epideictic (also known as ceremonial, was concerned with praise and blame, values, right and wrong, demonstrating beauty and skill in the present).
One of the most famous of Aristotelian doctrines was the idea of topics (also referred to as common topics or commonplaces). Though the term had a wide range of application (as a memory technique or compositional exercise, for example) it most often referred to the "seats of argument"—the list of categories of thought or modes of reasoning—that a speaker could use in order to generate arguments or proofs. The topics were thus a heuristic or inventional tool designed to help speakers categorize and thus better retain and apply frequently used types of argument. For example, since we often see effects as "like" their causes, one way to invent an argument (about a future effect) is by discussing the cause (which it will be "like"). This and other rhetorical topics derive from Aristotle's belief that there are certain predictable ways in which humans (particularly non-specialists) draw conclusions from premises. Based upon and adapted from his dialectical Topics, the rhetorical topics became a central feature of later rhetorical theorizing, most famously in Cicero's work of that name.
See Eugene Garver, Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character (University of Chicago Press,1994).
Plato's student Aristotle (384-322 BC) famously set forth an extended treatise on rhetoric that still repays careful study today.
In the first sentence of The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle says that "rhetoric is the counterpart [literally, the antistrophe] of dialectic." As the "antistrophe" of a Greek ode responds to and is patterned after the structure of the "strophe" (they form two sections of the whole and are sung by two parts of the chorus), so the art of rhetoric follows and is structurally patterned after the art of dialectic because both are arts of discourse production. Thus, while dialectical methods are necessary to find truth in theoretical matters, rhetorical methods are required in practical matters such as adjudicating somebody's guilt or innocence when charged in a court of law, or adjudicating a prudent course of action to be taken in a deliberative assembly. For Plato and Aristotle, dialectic involves persuasion, so when Aristotle says that rhetoric is the antistrophe of dialectic, he means that rhetoric as he uses the term has a domain or scope of application that is parallel to but different from the domain or scope of application of dialectic. In Nietzsche Humanist (1998: 129), Claude Pavur explains that "[t]he Greek prefix 'anti' does not merely designate opposition, but it can also mean 'in place of.'" When Aristotle characterizes rhetoric as the antistrophe of dialectic, he no doubt means that rhetoric is used in place of dialectic when we are discussing civic issues in a court of law or in a legislative assembly. The domain of rhetoric is civic affairs and practical decision making in civic affairs, not theoretical considerations of operational definitions of terms and clarification of thought – these, for him, are in the domain of dialectic.
Aristotle's treatise on rhetoric is an attempt to systematically describe civic rhetoric as a human art or skill (techne). His definition of rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion," essentially a mode of discovery, seems to limit the art to the inventional process, and Aristotle heavily emphasizes the logical aspect of this process. But the treatise in fact also discusses not only elements of style and (briefly) delivery, but also emotional appeals (pathos) and characterological appeals (ethos). He thus identifies three steps or "offices" of rhetoric—invention, arrangement, and style—and three different types of rhetorical proof:
ethos: how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.
Today, this is still an effective means of persuading an audience; however, shrewd, critical listeners will note whether the "expert's" actual arguments are as impressive and satisfying as his or her title, to avoid the informal logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority.[17]
This could be any position in which the speaker—from being a college professor of the subject, to being an acquaintance of person who experienced the matter in question—knows about the topic.
For instance, when a magazine claims that An MIT professor predicts that the robotic era is coming in 2050, the use of big-name "MIT" (a world-renowned American university for the advanced research in math, science, and technology) establishes the "strong" credibility.
pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.
This can be done through metaphor, amplification, storytelling, or presenting the topic in a way that evokes strong emotions in the audience.
logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument.
Logos appeals include appeals to statistics, math, logic, and objectivity. For instance, when advertisements claim that their product is 37% more effective than the competition, they are making a logical appeal.
Inductive reasoning uses examples (historical, mythical, or hypothetical) to draw conclusions.
Deductive reasoning, or "enthymematic" reasoning, uses generally accepted propositions to derive specific conclusions. The term logic evolved from logos. Aristotle emphasized enthymematic reasoning as central to the process of rhetorical invention, though later rhetorical theorists placed much less emphasis on it.
Aristotle also identifies three different types or genres of civic rhetoric: forensic (also known as judicial, was concerned with determining truth or falsity of events that took place in the past, issues of guilt), deliberative (also known as political, was concerned with determining whether or not particular actions should or should not be taken in the future), and epideictic (also known as ceremonial, was concerned with praise and blame, values, right and wrong, demonstrating beauty and skill in the present).
One of the most famous of Aristotelian doctrines was the idea of topics (also referred to as common topics or commonplaces). Though the term had a wide range of application (as a memory technique or compositional exercise, for example) it most often referred to the "seats of argument"—the list of categories of thought or modes of reasoning—that a speaker could use in order to generate arguments or proofs. The topics were thus a heuristic or inventional tool designed to help speakers categorize and thus better retain and apply frequently used types of argument. For example, since we often see effects as "like" their causes, one way to invent an argument (about a future effect) is by discussing the cause (which it will be "like"). This and other rhetorical topics derive from Aristotle's belief that there are certain predictable ways in which humans (particularly non-specialists) draw conclusions from premises. Based upon and adapted from his dialectical Topics, the rhetorical topics became a central feature of later rhetorical theorizing, most famously in Cicero's work of that name.
See Eugene Garver, Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character (University of Chicago Press,1994).
Sources;
Sunday, February 7, 2010
What The Saints Need To Do To Win: Super Bowl betting oddsThe Saints are going to need to run the ball, be efficient with it and score as much as possible. While their offense led the league this year in yards and points, they still had some serious hiccups against Dallas, Tampa Bay, Carolina and even the Minnesota Vikings, who held them to 31 points even with five turnovers.
The Saints receiving corps of Marques Colston, Robert Meachem, Devery Henderson and Jeremy Shockey have to be difference makers. They were quiet in the NFC Championship Game but these guys have to be a big factor for the Saints to win.
On defense, they’ll bring the house and if they can get to Peyton Manning regularly, they’ll have a great chance to win.
What The Colts Need To Do To Win: Super Bowl betting oddsThe Colts just need to play their game. So far this year, no team has beated them when they have played their starters and really, they have seen it all. They have been in shootouts with teams like the New England Patriots, NFL betting fans know they have topped the tough defensive squads like the New York Jets, they’ve topped teams that try to blitz Peyton Manning and they’ve beaten teams that try to sit back. There is nothing new that the Saints defense will throw at them that they haven’t seen so they just have to play their game and play smart.
On defense, the Colts are who they have always been. They aren’t smothering, they aren’t dominant, but they slow you down. With Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis off the edges, the Colts have the edge if this game becomes a passer’s shootout. Chances are, Freeney and Mathis will find Drew Brees eventually and drop him.
Experience: Super Bowl betting oddsThe experience factor is a big key and this is where the Colts have a big edge. We saw in the NFC Championship Game that experience is a huge factor as the Vikings and Saints were both very sloppy with the football in one of the most important games of the year.
The Super Bowl is another stage and if the Saints act like they have never been there, they are going to get blown out.
For the Colts, they have been here before. They won the Super Bowl just three years ago but for the Saints, this is the first time they have been here in franchise history. That could be a big difference.
Special Teams: Super Bowl betting oddsUndoubtedly, the special teams edge goes to the Colts. While Garrett Hartley hit the game-winning field goal to send the Saints to the Super Bowl, there is no question that he makes Saints fans nervous every time he lines up. Matt Stover has far more experience and Hartley could be a real factor in this game if nerves come to play.
Coaching: Super Bowl betting oddsOn the surface, coaching is a relatively even matchup as Jim Caldwell and Sean Payton are relatively new head coaches but Caldwell and his staff have been here before whereas the Saints have not. That again isn’t a huge factor, but it’s slight enough that the Colts gain another minor edge.
The Winner Of Super Bowl XLIV is…The Colts. They have been there before and they have the better team. All around, unless they lose the turnover battle significantly, they are going to win their second Super Bowl in four years.
Source;http://www.betonline.com/sports-betting/football/nfl/Super-Bowl-Betting-Odds-Colts-Favored-To-Win-Super-Bowl
The Saints receiving corps of Marques Colston, Robert Meachem, Devery Henderson and Jeremy Shockey have to be difference makers. They were quiet in the NFC Championship Game but these guys have to be a big factor for the Saints to win.
On defense, they’ll bring the house and if they can get to Peyton Manning regularly, they’ll have a great chance to win.
What The Colts Need To Do To Win: Super Bowl betting oddsThe Colts just need to play their game. So far this year, no team has beated them when they have played their starters and really, they have seen it all. They have been in shootouts with teams like the New England Patriots, NFL betting fans know they have topped the tough defensive squads like the New York Jets, they’ve topped teams that try to blitz Peyton Manning and they’ve beaten teams that try to sit back. There is nothing new that the Saints defense will throw at them that they haven’t seen so they just have to play their game and play smart.
On defense, the Colts are who they have always been. They aren’t smothering, they aren’t dominant, but they slow you down. With Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis off the edges, the Colts have the edge if this game becomes a passer’s shootout. Chances are, Freeney and Mathis will find Drew Brees eventually and drop him.
Experience: Super Bowl betting oddsThe experience factor is a big key and this is where the Colts have a big edge. We saw in the NFC Championship Game that experience is a huge factor as the Vikings and Saints were both very sloppy with the football in one of the most important games of the year.
The Super Bowl is another stage and if the Saints act like they have never been there, they are going to get blown out.
For the Colts, they have been here before. They won the Super Bowl just three years ago but for the Saints, this is the first time they have been here in franchise history. That could be a big difference.
Special Teams: Super Bowl betting oddsUndoubtedly, the special teams edge goes to the Colts. While Garrett Hartley hit the game-winning field goal to send the Saints to the Super Bowl, there is no question that he makes Saints fans nervous every time he lines up. Matt Stover has far more experience and Hartley could be a real factor in this game if nerves come to play.
Coaching: Super Bowl betting oddsOn the surface, coaching is a relatively even matchup as Jim Caldwell and Sean Payton are relatively new head coaches but Caldwell and his staff have been here before whereas the Saints have not. That again isn’t a huge factor, but it’s slight enough that the Colts gain another minor edge.
The Winner Of Super Bowl XLIV is…The Colts. They have been there before and they have the better team. All around, unless they lose the turnover battle significantly, they are going to win their second Super Bowl in four years.
Source;http://www.betonline.com/sports-betting/football/nfl/Super-Bowl-Betting-Odds-Colts-Favored-To-Win-Super-Bowl
What does the New Orleans Saints logo mean?
The shape of the Saints logo is a fascinating piece of history. It consists of three small extensions on bottom extending down and out, then a small dividing belt, then three much larger extensions extending up and out. The space underneath the two large outward protruding arms, including the belt and the three smaller lower arms, are a result of the space on top of the Ark of the Covenant. The cherubims wings, and the space in between their wings and the mercy seat ( the lid of the Ark), create the shape of the lower part of the insignia, with the upper portion ( the large three arms) symbolizing the radiant quality of the Ark.
More input:It's extremely hard to draw. Since it is predominately a French Catholic symbol, the name 'Saints' was fitting. The symbol is a fleur de lis, which means lilly flower. It is found everywhere in France, usually as a sign of royalty. See the Related Link below for more information.
I'm Taking The Saints With the Points - 5.5!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. "The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday. "If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added. Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world. The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches. Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.
Ahmadinejad, Moral Arbiter!!!
The company once known for its “don’t be evil” motto is now in bed with the spy agency known for the mass surveillance of American citizens.
The National Security Agency is widely understood to have the government’s biggest and smartest collection of geeks — the guys that are more skilled at network warfare than just about anyone on the planet. So, in a sense, it’s only natural that Google would turn to the NSA after the company was hit by an ultrasophisticated hack attack. After all, the military has basically done the same thing, putting the NSA in charge of its new “Cyber Command.” The Department of Homeland Security is leaning heavily on the NSA to secure .gov networks.
But there’s a problem. The NSA and its predecessors also have a long history of spying on huge numbers of people, both at home and abroad. During the Cold War, the agency worked with companies like Western Union to intercept and read millions of telegrams. During the war on terror years, the NSA teamed up with the telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on customers’ phone calls and internet traffic right from the telcos’ switching stations. And even after the agency pledged to clean up its act — and was given wide new latitude to spy on whom they liked – the NSA was still caught “overcollecting” on U.S. citizens. According to The New York Times, the agency even “tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant.”
All of which makes the NSA a particularly untrustworthy partner for a company that is almost wholly reliant on its customers’ trust and goodwill. We all know that Google automatically reads our Gmail and scans our Google Calendars and dives into our Google searches, all in an attempt to put the most relevant ads in front of us. But we’ve tolerated the automated intrusions, because Google’s products are so good, and we believed that the company was sincere in its “don’t be evil” mantra.
That’s a lot harder to swallow, when Google starts working cheek-to-jowl with the overcollectors. The company pinkie-swears that its agreement with the NSA won’t violate the company’s privacy policies or compromise user data. Those promises are a little hard to believe, given the NSA’s track record of getting private enterprises to cooperate, and Google’s willingness to take this first step.
Google may need help in fighting off these hacks. But turning to Ft. Meade could wind up permanently damaging the company’s image — and the foundation of its incredible success. Already, the Russian press are talking about Google’s decision to spy with NSA, for instance. Hackers might be able to compromise some of Google’s services, for a little while. The association with the NSA could permanently cripple the company. The telegram companies and the old-school telcos were virtually monopolies; customers had nowhere to turn, if they wanted private communications. Bing and Yahoo Mail are just a click away.
SNITCH INC. Better Known as GOOGLE.U.S./Google Spy Network Exposed By China.
The National Security Agency is widely understood to have the government’s biggest and smartest collection of geeks — the guys that are more skilled at network warfare than just about anyone on the planet. So, in a sense, it’s only natural that Google would turn to the NSA after the company was hit by an ultrasophisticated hack attack. After all, the military has basically done the same thing, putting the NSA in charge of its new “Cyber Command.” The Department of Homeland Security is leaning heavily on the NSA to secure .gov networks.
But there’s a problem. The NSA and its predecessors also have a long history of spying on huge numbers of people, both at home and abroad. During the Cold War, the agency worked with companies like Western Union to intercept and read millions of telegrams. During the war on terror years, the NSA teamed up with the telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on customers’ phone calls and internet traffic right from the telcos’ switching stations. And even after the agency pledged to clean up its act — and was given wide new latitude to spy on whom they liked – the NSA was still caught “overcollecting” on U.S. citizens. According to The New York Times, the agency even “tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant.”
All of which makes the NSA a particularly untrustworthy partner for a company that is almost wholly reliant on its customers’ trust and goodwill. We all know that Google automatically reads our Gmail and scans our Google Calendars and dives into our Google searches, all in an attempt to put the most relevant ads in front of us. But we’ve tolerated the automated intrusions, because Google’s products are so good, and we believed that the company was sincere in its “don’t be evil” mantra.
That’s a lot harder to swallow, when Google starts working cheek-to-jowl with the overcollectors. The company pinkie-swears that its agreement with the NSA won’t violate the company’s privacy policies or compromise user data. Those promises are a little hard to believe, given the NSA’s track record of getting private enterprises to cooperate, and Google’s willingness to take this first step.
Google may need help in fighting off these hacks. But turning to Ft. Meade could wind up permanently damaging the company’s image — and the foundation of its incredible success. Already, the Russian press are talking about Google’s decision to spy with NSA, for instance. Hackers might be able to compromise some of Google’s services, for a little while. The association with the NSA could permanently cripple the company. The telegram companies and the old-school telcos were virtually monopolies; customers had nowhere to turn, if they wanted private communications. Bing and Yahoo Mail are just a click away.
SNITCH INC. Better Known as GOOGLE.U.S./Google Spy Network Exposed By China.
“Google Spies on Every Aspect of Americans’ Lives. What’s the Big Deal?”—Sergey Brin.
"If You're Not Doing Nothin' Wrong and We Don't Make a Mistake or Trump Something Up, You'll Be Fucking Fine."
Google Aids FBI/CIA In Spying on U.S. Human Rights Groups.
By STUFFI MUFTI
By STUFFI MUFTI
Assassinated Press Staff Writer
January 14, 2010
BEIJING -- Google's threat to shut down its Chinese Web site and offices over Google’s cyber surveillance attacks on behalf of U.S. intelligence puts the government of China in the awkward position of having to choose to protect its citizens from the U.S.’s number one source of net spying and snitching or face anger from China's small but growing child pornography community.
“Child pornography is huge in the U.S. but not so much in China,” said John Moosekill, director of the FBIs child pornography division. “Here in the U.S. if you approach a government agency and say you’ll trade child pornography for state secrets, you’ll always get a deal. And with Google we can track the deviants and bring the fucks down if they fuck with us. But China just won’t bite on the child pornography. And they bristle when we use Google to fuck with them.”
Google’s HOT Line to CIA = 1-800-I-SNITCH
Few political and Internet analysts appear to doubt that China will stick to its tough stance and reject Google's proposal to prevent Google from spying on them on behalf of U.S. intelligence. But Google's audience of Chinese "netizens," a few of whom placed flowers outside the company's Beijing offices Wednesday, is large enough to make such a reaction risky because unlike Americans they don’t know what it’s like to live under a totalitarian information state that displays your house address and multiple pictures so that any nut case can easily find you home and set it ablaze.
“Sure, we can bring exceptional heat on dissenters hear in the U.S., “said Google founder Larry Page. “You get out of line and the entire Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck loony tunes crowd is free to harass your kids on their way to school or hurl a burning possum down your chimney. ‘Open access of information’ is the way we control dissent. I mean fuck when’s the last time we opened our software or the CIA opened its files without redacting anyfuckingthing with any meat or meaning. ‘Open access’ is something we just tell the chumps. Now, the chumps are the Chinese, hopefully.”
Google = Snitch Inc.
"This would adversely affect a lot of people, not just the technorati elite that is Western-oriented anyway," said Kaiser Kuo, an independent technology consultant. "The government could face a serious backlash this time. But if we allow Snitch Inc., the name given to Google’s Security division, we could all end up slaves to U.S. imperialism.”
On Wednesday, the Google story was the top trending topic on a Twitter-like microblog on the Chinese site Sina.com, with about 60,000 people weighing in before the conversation was taken down. Most commenters expressed dismay at the prospect of losing Google's China-based service; some lashed out at the government, while others begged Google to stay but not spy. A substantial minority wished the company good riddance. "This will make the extent of Chinese censorship a lot clearer, even to ordinary Chinese people who are not aware of it," said Jeremy Goldkorn, a China Internet specialist who posts on Sina's blog site and runs a Web site called Danwei, which has been blocked since July. “It will also make the extent of Google spying and domestic disruption by U.S. intelligence a fucking lot clearer too.”
At Google , Well Turn Your Ass In.
"Many people think Google should negotiate with the Chinese government," said Zhou Shuguang, a blogger who has done investigative reporting across the country. He added, though, that its withdrawal would lead more Chinese to discover that China protects freedom on the Internet since Google is U.S. intelligences number one snitch. "There is less downside to people at all if Google continues to make concessions with Chinese authorities," he said. “Look at the U.S. They monitor everything. Arrest people on the least suspicion. Secretly ruin lives.”
The government has backed down once in the face of outcries on the Internet. Last year, it attempted to require the makers of personal computers sold here to install Green Dam. But it reversed itself after widespread online protests that the software slowed down and damaged computers.
“We’re Not Americans. We Are Not Willing to Live the in the Information Extortion Age.”
Still, businesspeople in Beijing were pessimistic Wednesday about the prospect of a crack in what is known as the Great Firewall of China. "China can't lose face over this, and it's not going to let anybody run an open snitch engine," said an industry source close to Google.
The government has shut down or blocked thousands of Web sites used to spy on its industry and citizens. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are all blocked simply because of their infantile content. Just this week, the General Administration of Press and Publication boasted of taking down 136,000 non-registered Web sites and more than 1.5 million pieces of "bad information." It also said it had shut down 15,000 pornographic Web sites. For now, the government has said only that it will seek more information from Google about its spying activities. Virtually the only official comment came in the form of a signed opinion article on the People's Daily Web site, lacking the weight of an officially vetted unsigned editorial. The article likened Google to a "spoiled child" and said that even if it stormed out of China, it would be back because of the importance of the Chinese market and the spying it could still carry on.
Other pro-government online comments said that Google, which lags far behind the Chinese-based search engine Baidu, was simply dressing up a business decision in moral clothing. Baidu has about two-thirds of the market. Some independent analysts have estimated a 30 percent market share for Google, but well-placed industry sources put the number closer to 20 percent.
Dan Brody, who set up Google's China office and now runs the Koolanoo Group, a Beijing-based Internet media investment firm, estimates that Google has annual revenue of $300 million to $400 million in China -- an amount that he said pales next to the revenue it earns elsewhere.
Moreover, he said, if Google loses even a small percentage of its users in Europe or the United States because it is seen as spying too much on China, it could lose more than it earns in the country. "From a business and moral perspective, user mistrust in the West is so important to them," he said. “In the West, users know we work with intelligence and can fuck them up if they get out of line. But they’re addicted to us. First, thing a guy sentenced to six life terms in solitary in some underground, privately run prison in Wyoming on some trumped up charges wants is an internet connection and Google. The dumb fucks are addicted. They fucking never know what hit them.”
The company has clashed with the Chinese government since it set up google.cn in 2005 and worked with the CIA virtually since its inception. Google agreed to stop stealing information that China's leadership might find too sensitive but differed with officials over what should fall into that category.
Google Cyberattacks
Last summer, state-run media denounced the firm for providing access to "pornography." Another industry source close to Google said that in addition to well-publicized incidents, Chinese officials were demanding weekly that items be removed. When cyberattacks were discovered, he said, "it was the last straw." The Chinese government clamped down.The industry sources spoke on the condition of anonymity.
If Google closes down its Chinese site, or if the Chinese government closes it down, Chinese users could still try to use the U.S.-based site. But the U.S. site works more slowly, and access to many pages is blocked. Where would that leave the Chinese market?
The closing of Google's China site would boost Baidu and Sina and hurt Google, industry analysts said. “Google shareholders are pressing Google to back off its cozy relationship with U.S. intelligence,” Jesse Gray, of Gray Associates said. “There saying, lets’ go online to ruin the lives of Americans that get out of line. They seem to hardly notice.”
Despite expensive campaigns in universities and schools, Google has had trouble catching up to its domestic competitors. Analysts say Chinese Internet users prefer the crowded, busy sites of Baidu and Sina to the no-nonsense sparseness of Google's home page. Unlike Google, Baidu and Sina also feature bulletin boards and music-downloading services. And surveys have shown that most Chinese people have trouble spelling Google or don't know its Chinese name, Guge, which means "valley song" a euphemism for ‘singing to the police’ or ‘snitching.’
“Google wants to be snitch to the world’s intelligence agents,” said Page. “But right now we think it’s cool to be hanging out with cops, thugs, deviants and spies at the FBI and CIA. Fuck it’s the dream of every dweeb net engineer like me to hang with the murderous tough guys. Beats being a billionaire and still not getting laid.”
BEIJING -- Google's threat to shut down its Chinese Web site and offices over Google’s cyber surveillance attacks on behalf of U.S. intelligence puts the government of China in the awkward position of having to choose to protect its citizens from the U.S.’s number one source of net spying and snitching or face anger from China's small but growing child pornography community.
“Child pornography is huge in the U.S. but not so much in China,” said John Moosekill, director of the FBIs child pornography division. “Here in the U.S. if you approach a government agency and say you’ll trade child pornography for state secrets, you’ll always get a deal. And with Google we can track the deviants and bring the fucks down if they fuck with us. But China just won’t bite on the child pornography. And they bristle when we use Google to fuck with them.”
Google’s HOT Line to CIA = 1-800-I-SNITCH
Few political and Internet analysts appear to doubt that China will stick to its tough stance and reject Google's proposal to prevent Google from spying on them on behalf of U.S. intelligence. But Google's audience of Chinese "netizens," a few of whom placed flowers outside the company's Beijing offices Wednesday, is large enough to make such a reaction risky because unlike Americans they don’t know what it’s like to live under a totalitarian information state that displays your house address and multiple pictures so that any nut case can easily find you home and set it ablaze.
“Sure, we can bring exceptional heat on dissenters hear in the U.S., “said Google founder Larry Page. “You get out of line and the entire Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck loony tunes crowd is free to harass your kids on their way to school or hurl a burning possum down your chimney. ‘Open access of information’ is the way we control dissent. I mean fuck when’s the last time we opened our software or the CIA opened its files without redacting anyfuckingthing with any meat or meaning. ‘Open access’ is something we just tell the chumps. Now, the chumps are the Chinese, hopefully.”
Google = Snitch Inc.
"This would adversely affect a lot of people, not just the technorati elite that is Western-oriented anyway," said Kaiser Kuo, an independent technology consultant. "The government could face a serious backlash this time. But if we allow Snitch Inc., the name given to Google’s Security division, we could all end up slaves to U.S. imperialism.”
On Wednesday, the Google story was the top trending topic on a Twitter-like microblog on the Chinese site Sina.com, with about 60,000 people weighing in before the conversation was taken down. Most commenters expressed dismay at the prospect of losing Google's China-based service; some lashed out at the government, while others begged Google to stay but not spy. A substantial minority wished the company good riddance. "This will make the extent of Chinese censorship a lot clearer, even to ordinary Chinese people who are not aware of it," said Jeremy Goldkorn, a China Internet specialist who posts on Sina's blog site and runs a Web site called Danwei, which has been blocked since July. “It will also make the extent of Google spying and domestic disruption by U.S. intelligence a fucking lot clearer too.”
At Google , Well Turn Your Ass In.
"Many people think Google should negotiate with the Chinese government," said Zhou Shuguang, a blogger who has done investigative reporting across the country. He added, though, that its withdrawal would lead more Chinese to discover that China protects freedom on the Internet since Google is U.S. intelligences number one snitch. "There is less downside to people at all if Google continues to make concessions with Chinese authorities," he said. “Look at the U.S. They monitor everything. Arrest people on the least suspicion. Secretly ruin lives.”
The government has backed down once in the face of outcries on the Internet. Last year, it attempted to require the makers of personal computers sold here to install Green Dam. But it reversed itself after widespread online protests that the software slowed down and damaged computers.
“We’re Not Americans. We Are Not Willing to Live the in the Information Extortion Age.”
Still, businesspeople in Beijing were pessimistic Wednesday about the prospect of a crack in what is known as the Great Firewall of China. "China can't lose face over this, and it's not going to let anybody run an open snitch engine," said an industry source close to Google.
The government has shut down or blocked thousands of Web sites used to spy on its industry and citizens. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are all blocked simply because of their infantile content. Just this week, the General Administration of Press and Publication boasted of taking down 136,000 non-registered Web sites and more than 1.5 million pieces of "bad information." It also said it had shut down 15,000 pornographic Web sites. For now, the government has said only that it will seek more information from Google about its spying activities. Virtually the only official comment came in the form of a signed opinion article on the People's Daily Web site, lacking the weight of an officially vetted unsigned editorial. The article likened Google to a "spoiled child" and said that even if it stormed out of China, it would be back because of the importance of the Chinese market and the spying it could still carry on.
Other pro-government online comments said that Google, which lags far behind the Chinese-based search engine Baidu, was simply dressing up a business decision in moral clothing. Baidu has about two-thirds of the market. Some independent analysts have estimated a 30 percent market share for Google, but well-placed industry sources put the number closer to 20 percent.
Dan Brody, who set up Google's China office and now runs the Koolanoo Group, a Beijing-based Internet media investment firm, estimates that Google has annual revenue of $300 million to $400 million in China -- an amount that he said pales next to the revenue it earns elsewhere.
Moreover, he said, if Google loses even a small percentage of its users in Europe or the United States because it is seen as spying too much on China, it could lose more than it earns in the country. "From a business and moral perspective, user mistrust in the West is so important to them," he said. “In the West, users know we work with intelligence and can fuck them up if they get out of line. But they’re addicted to us. First, thing a guy sentenced to six life terms in solitary in some underground, privately run prison in Wyoming on some trumped up charges wants is an internet connection and Google. The dumb fucks are addicted. They fucking never know what hit them.”
The company has clashed with the Chinese government since it set up google.cn in 2005 and worked with the CIA virtually since its inception. Google agreed to stop stealing information that China's leadership might find too sensitive but differed with officials over what should fall into that category.
Google Cyberattacks
Last summer, state-run media denounced the firm for providing access to "pornography." Another industry source close to Google said that in addition to well-publicized incidents, Chinese officials were demanding weekly that items be removed. When cyberattacks were discovered, he said, "it was the last straw." The Chinese government clamped down.The industry sources spoke on the condition of anonymity.
If Google closes down its Chinese site, or if the Chinese government closes it down, Chinese users could still try to use the U.S.-based site. But the U.S. site works more slowly, and access to many pages is blocked. Where would that leave the Chinese market?
The closing of Google's China site would boost Baidu and Sina and hurt Google, industry analysts said. “Google shareholders are pressing Google to back off its cozy relationship with U.S. intelligence,” Jesse Gray, of Gray Associates said. “There saying, lets’ go online to ruin the lives of Americans that get out of line. They seem to hardly notice.”
Despite expensive campaigns in universities and schools, Google has had trouble catching up to its domestic competitors. Analysts say Chinese Internet users prefer the crowded, busy sites of Baidu and Sina to the no-nonsense sparseness of Google's home page. Unlike Google, Baidu and Sina also feature bulletin boards and music-downloading services. And surveys have shown that most Chinese people have trouble spelling Google or don't know its Chinese name, Guge, which means "valley song" a euphemism for ‘singing to the police’ or ‘snitching.’
“Google wants to be snitch to the world’s intelligence agents,” said Page. “But right now we think it’s cool to be hanging out with cops, thugs, deviants and spies at the FBI and CIA. Fuck it’s the dream of every dweeb net engineer like me to hang with the murderous tough guys. Beats being a billionaire and still not getting laid.”
See Also;
Republicans Scream Mantra Of Tax Cuts All While Uncle Sam Is Going Belly Up! F*** YOU!
0 comments at 5:35 PM
"The Bankruptcy of the United States is Now Certain"
by-Porter Stansberry
It's one of those numbers that's so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while... Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that's not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion. Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That's an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we're the world's biggest economy. Where will the money come from?
How did we end up with so much short-term debt? Like most entities that have far too much debt - whether subprime borrowers, GM, Fannie, or GE - the U.S. Treasury has tried to minimize its interest burden by borrowing for short durations and then "rolling over" the loans when they come due. As they say on Wall Street, "a rolling debt collects no moss." What they mean is, as long as you can extend the debt, you have no problem. Unfortunately, that leads folks to take on ever greater amounts of debt... at ever shorter durations... at ever lower interest rates. Sooner or later, the creditors wake up and ask themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that's when the trouble starts. Interest rates go up dramatically. Funding costs soar. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next.
When governments go bankrupt it's called "a default." Currency speculators figured out how to accurately predict when a country would default. Two well-known economists - Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti - published the secret formula in a 1999 academic paper. That's why the formula is called the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world's largest money management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: "The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support.
"The principle behind the rule is simple. If you can't pay off all of your foreign debts in the next 12 months, you're a terrible credit risk. Speculators are going to target your bonds and your currency, making it impossible to refinance your debts. A default is assured.
So how does America rank on the Greenspan-Guidotti scale? It's a guaranteed default. The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currency in reserve. The U.S. has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (it is the world's largest holder). That's 16,267,000 pounds. At current dollar values, it's worth around $300 billion. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels. At current dollar prices, that's roughly $58 billion worth of oil. And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves. Our short-term foreign debts are far bigger.
According to the U.S. Treasury, $2 trillion worth of debt will mature in the next 12 months. So looking only at short-term debt, we know the Treasury will have to finance at least $2 trillion worth of maturing debt in the next 12 months. That might not cause a crisis if we were still funding our national debt internally. But since 1985, we've been a net debtor to the world. Today, foreigners own 44% of all our debts, which means we owe foreign creditors at least $880 billion in the next 12 months - an amount far larger than our reserves.
Keep in mind, this only covers our existing debts. The Office of Management and Budget is predicting a $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next year. That puts our total funding requirements on the order of $3.5 trillion over the next 12 months.
So... where will the money come from? Total domestic savings in the U.S. are only around $600 billion annually. Even if we all put every penny of our savings into U.S. Treasury debt, we're still going to come up nearly $3 trillion short. That's an annual funding requirement equal to roughly 40% of GDP. Where is the money going to come from? From our foreign creditors? Not according to Greenspan-Guidotti. And not according to the Indian or the Russian central bank, which have stopped buying Treasury bills and begun to buy enormous amounts of gold. The Indians bought 200 metric tonnes this month. Sources in Russia say the central bank there will double its gold reserves.
So where will the money come from? The printing press. The Federal Reserve has already monetized nearly $2 trillion worth of Treasury debt and mortgage debt. This weakens the value of the dollar and devalues our existing Treasury bonds. Sooner or later, our creditors will face a stark choice: Hold our bonds and continue to see the value diminish slowly, or try to escape to gold and see the value of their U.S. bonds plummet.
One thing they're not going to do is buy more of our debt. Which central banks will abandon the dollar next? Brazil, Korea, and Chile. These are the three largest central banks that own the least amount of gold. None own even 1% of their total reserves in gold.
I examined these issues in much greater detail in the most recent issue of my newsletter, Porter Stansberry's Investment Advisory, which we published last Friday. Coincidentally, the New York Times repeated our warnings - nearly word for word - in its paper today. (They didn't mention Greenspan-Guidotti, however... It's a real secret of international speculators.)
It Is Now Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt
A lot of people are very upset about the rapidly increasing U.S. national debt these days and they are demanding a solution. What they don't realize is that there simply is not a solution under the current U.S. financial system. It is now mathematically impossible for the U.S. government to pay off the U.S. national debt. You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist. If the U.S. government went out today and took every single penny from every single American bank, business and taxpayer, they still would not be able to pay off the national debt. And if they did that, obviously American society would stop functioning because nobody would have any money to buy or sell anything.
And the U.S. government would still be massively in debt.
So why doesn't the U.S. government just fire up the printing presses and print a bunch of money to pay off the debt?
Well, for one very simple reason.
That is not the way our system works.
You see, for more dollars to enter the system, the U.S. government has to go into more debt.
The U.S. government does not issue U.S. currency - the Federal Reserve does.
The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers.
If you will pull a dollar bill out and take a look at it, you will notice that it says "Federal Reserve Note" at the top.
It belongs to the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. government cannot simply go out and create new money whenever it wants under our current system.
Instead, it must get it from the Federal Reserve.
So, when the U.S. government needs to borrow more money (which happens a lot these days) it goes over to the Federal Reserve and asks them for some more green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes.
The Federal Reserve swaps these green pieces of paper for pink pieces of paper called U.S. Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve either sells these U.S. Treasury bonds or they keep the bonds for themselves (which happens a lot these days).
So that is how the U.S. government gets more green pieces of paper called "U.S. dollars" to put into circulation. But by doing so, they get themselves into even more debt which they will owe even more interest on.
So every time the U.S. government does this, the national debt gets even bigger and the interest on that debt gets even bigger.
Are you starting to get the picture?
As you read this, the U.S. national debt is approximately 12 trillion dollars, although it is going up so rapidly that it is really hard to pin down an exact figure.
So how much money actually exists in the United States today?
Well, there are several ways to measure this.
The "M0" money supply is the total of all physical bills and currency, plus the money on hand in bank vaults and all of the deposits those banks have at reserve banks. As of mid-2009, the Federal Reserve said that this amount was about 908 billion dollars.
The "M1" money supply includes all of the currency in the "M0" money supply, along with all of the money held in checking accounts and other checkable accounts at banks, as well as all money contained in travelers' checks. According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 1.7 trillion dollars in December 2009, but not all of this money actually "exists" as we will see in a moment.
The "M2" money supply includes everything in the "M1" money supply plus most other savings accounts, money market accounts, retail money market mutual funds, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000). According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 8.5 trillion dollars in December 2009, but once again, not all of this money actually "exists" as we will see in a moment.
The "M3" money supply includes everything in the "M2" money supply plus all other CDs (large time deposits and institutional money market mutual fund balances), deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements. The Federal Reserve does not keep track of M3 anymore, but according to ShadowStats.com it is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars. But again, not all of this "money" actually "exists" either.
So why doesn't it exist?
It is because our financial system is based on something called fractional reserve banking.
When you go over to your local bank and deposit $100, they do not keep your $100 in the bank. Instead, they keep only a small fraction of your money there at the bank and they lend out the rest to someone else. Then, if that person deposits the money that was just borrowed at the same bank, that bank can loan out most of that money once again. In this way, the amount of "money" quickly gets multiplied. But in reality, only $100 actually exists. The system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.
According to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve banking can be explained this way....
"If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000)."
So much of the "money" out there today is basically made up out of thin air.
In fact, most banks have no reserve requirements at all on savings deposits, CDs and certain kinds of money market accounts. Primarily, reserve requirements apply only to "transactions deposits" – essentially checking accounts.
The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically "multiply" the amounts deposited with them than ever before. But all of this "multiplied" money is only on paper - it doesn't actually exist.
The point is that the broadest measures of the money supply (M2 and M3) vastly overstate how much "real money" actually exists in the system.
So if the U.S. government went out today and demanded every single dollar from all banks, businesses and individuals in the United States it would not be able to collect 14 trillion dollars (M3) or even 8.5 trillion dollars (M2) because those amounts are based on fractional reserve banking.
So the bottom line is this....
#1) If all money owned by all American banks, businesses and individuals was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#2) The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.
You see, this is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do. It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the elite international bankers.
It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government cannot win. As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. government owes more than what was created because of interest.
If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back.
That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists.
It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.
We could solve this problem by shutting down the Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for). But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to do that.
So unless you are willing to fundamentally change the current system, you might as well quit complaining about the U.S. national debt because it is now mathematically impossible to pay it off.
***UPDATE***
It has been suggested that the same dollar can be used to pay off debt over and over - this is theoretically true as long as the dollar remains in the system.
For example, if the U.S. government gives China a dollar to pay off a debt, there is a good chance that the U.S. government will be able to acquire that dollar again and use it to pay off another debt.
However, this is not true when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve. In that case, money is actually removed from the system. In fact, because of the "money multiplier", when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve it can remove ten times that amount of money (and actually more, but let's not get too technical) from the system.
You see, fractional reserve banking works both ways. When $100 is introduced into the system, it can theoretically create $1000 as the example in the article above demonstrates. However, when that $100 is removed, it can have the opposite impact.
And considering the fact that the Federal Reserve "purchased" the vast majority of new U.S. government debt last year, we have got a real mess on our hands.
Even if a way could be figured out how to pay off all the debt we owe to foreign nations (such as China, Japan, etc.) it would still be mathematically impossible to pay off the debt that we owe to the Federal Reserve which is exploding so fast that it is hard to even keep track of.
Of course we could repudiate that debt and shut down the Federal Reserve, but very few in Washington D.C. have any interest in doing that.
It has also been suggested that instead of just using dollars to pay off the U.S. national debt, we could use the assets of the U.S. government to pay it off.
That is rather extreme, but let us consider that for a moment.
That total value of all physical assets in the United States, both publicly and privately owned, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 trillion dollars. Of course the idea of the U.S. government "owning" every single asset of the American people is repugnant to our entire way of life, but let's assume that for a moment.
According to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is an official United States government report, the total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars. This amount is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.
In fact, there are other authors who have written that the actual figure for the future liabilities of the U.S. government should be much higher, but let's be conservative and go with 65 trillion for now.
So, if the U.S. government took control of all physical assets in the United States and sold them off, it could not even make enough money to pay for everything that the U.S. government is already on the hook for.
Ouch.
If you have not read the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, you really should. Actually the 2009 report should be available very soon if it isn't already. If anyone knows if it is available, please let us know.
The truth is that the U.S. government is in much bigger financial trouble than we have been led to believe.
For example, according to the report (which remember is an official U.S. government report) the real U.S. budget deficit for 2008 was not 455 billion dollars. It was actually 5.1 trillion dollars.
So why the difference?
The CBO's 455 billion figure is based on cash accounting, while the 5.1 trillion figure in the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government is based on GAAP accounting. GAAP accounting is what is used by all the major firms on Wall Street and it is regarded as a much more accurate reflection of financial reality.
So needless to say, the United States is in a financial mess of unprecedented magnitude.
So what should we do? Does anyone have any suggestions?
And the U.S. government would still be massively in debt.
So why doesn't the U.S. government just fire up the printing presses and print a bunch of money to pay off the debt?
Well, for one very simple reason.
That is not the way our system works.
You see, for more dollars to enter the system, the U.S. government has to go into more debt.
The U.S. government does not issue U.S. currency - the Federal Reserve does.
The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned and operated for profit by a very powerful group of elite international bankers.
If you will pull a dollar bill out and take a look at it, you will notice that it says "Federal Reserve Note" at the top.
It belongs to the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. government cannot simply go out and create new money whenever it wants under our current system.
Instead, it must get it from the Federal Reserve.
So, when the U.S. government needs to borrow more money (which happens a lot these days) it goes over to the Federal Reserve and asks them for some more green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes.
The Federal Reserve swaps these green pieces of paper for pink pieces of paper called U.S. Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve either sells these U.S. Treasury bonds or they keep the bonds for themselves (which happens a lot these days).
So that is how the U.S. government gets more green pieces of paper called "U.S. dollars" to put into circulation. But by doing so, they get themselves into even more debt which they will owe even more interest on.
So every time the U.S. government does this, the national debt gets even bigger and the interest on that debt gets even bigger.
Are you starting to get the picture?
As you read this, the U.S. national debt is approximately 12 trillion dollars, although it is going up so rapidly that it is really hard to pin down an exact figure.
So how much money actually exists in the United States today?
Well, there are several ways to measure this.
The "M0" money supply is the total of all physical bills and currency, plus the money on hand in bank vaults and all of the deposits those banks have at reserve banks. As of mid-2009, the Federal Reserve said that this amount was about 908 billion dollars.
The "M1" money supply includes all of the currency in the "M0" money supply, along with all of the money held in checking accounts and other checkable accounts at banks, as well as all money contained in travelers' checks. According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 1.7 trillion dollars in December 2009, but not all of this money actually "exists" as we will see in a moment.
The "M2" money supply includes everything in the "M1" money supply plus most other savings accounts, money market accounts, retail money market mutual funds, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000). According to the Federal Reserve, this totaled approximately 8.5 trillion dollars in December 2009, but once again, not all of this money actually "exists" as we will see in a moment.
The "M3" money supply includes everything in the "M2" money supply plus all other CDs (large time deposits and institutional money market mutual fund balances), deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements. The Federal Reserve does not keep track of M3 anymore, but according to ShadowStats.com it is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 trillion dollars. But again, not all of this "money" actually "exists" either.
So why doesn't it exist?
It is because our financial system is based on something called fractional reserve banking.
When you go over to your local bank and deposit $100, they do not keep your $100 in the bank. Instead, they keep only a small fraction of your money there at the bank and they lend out the rest to someone else. Then, if that person deposits the money that was just borrowed at the same bank, that bank can loan out most of that money once again. In this way, the amount of "money" quickly gets multiplied. But in reality, only $100 actually exists. The system works because we do not all run down to the bank and demand all of our money at the same time.
According to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve banking can be explained this way....
"If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000)."
So much of the "money" out there today is basically made up out of thin air.
In fact, most banks have no reserve requirements at all on savings deposits, CDs and certain kinds of money market accounts. Primarily, reserve requirements apply only to "transactions deposits" – essentially checking accounts.
The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically "multiply" the amounts deposited with them than ever before. But all of this "multiplied" money is only on paper - it doesn't actually exist.
The point is that the broadest measures of the money supply (M2 and M3) vastly overstate how much "real money" actually exists in the system.
So if the U.S. government went out today and demanded every single dollar from all banks, businesses and individuals in the United States it would not be able to collect 14 trillion dollars (M3) or even 8.5 trillion dollars (M2) because those amounts are based on fractional reserve banking.
So the bottom line is this....
#1) If all money owned by all American banks, businesses and individuals was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#2) The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.
You see, this is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do. It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the elite international bankers.
It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government cannot win. As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. government owes more than what was created because of interest.
If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back.
That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists.
It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.
We could solve this problem by shutting down the Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for). But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to do that.
So unless you are willing to fundamentally change the current system, you might as well quit complaining about the U.S. national debt because it is now mathematically impossible to pay it off.
***UPDATE***
It has been suggested that the same dollar can be used to pay off debt over and over - this is theoretically true as long as the dollar remains in the system.
For example, if the U.S. government gives China a dollar to pay off a debt, there is a good chance that the U.S. government will be able to acquire that dollar again and use it to pay off another debt.
However, this is not true when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve. In that case, money is actually removed from the system. In fact, because of the "money multiplier", when debt is retired with the Federal Reserve it can remove ten times that amount of money (and actually more, but let's not get too technical) from the system.
You see, fractional reserve banking works both ways. When $100 is introduced into the system, it can theoretically create $1000 as the example in the article above demonstrates. However, when that $100 is removed, it can have the opposite impact.
And considering the fact that the Federal Reserve "purchased" the vast majority of new U.S. government debt last year, we have got a real mess on our hands.
Even if a way could be figured out how to pay off all the debt we owe to foreign nations (such as China, Japan, etc.) it would still be mathematically impossible to pay off the debt that we owe to the Federal Reserve which is exploding so fast that it is hard to even keep track of.
Of course we could repudiate that debt and shut down the Federal Reserve, but very few in Washington D.C. have any interest in doing that.
It has also been suggested that instead of just using dollars to pay off the U.S. national debt, we could use the assets of the U.S. government to pay it off.
That is rather extreme, but let us consider that for a moment.
That total value of all physical assets in the United States, both publicly and privately owned, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 trillion dollars. Of course the idea of the U.S. government "owning" every single asset of the American people is repugnant to our entire way of life, but let's assume that for a moment.
According to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, which is an official United States government report, the total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars. This amount is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.
In fact, there are other authors who have written that the actual figure for the future liabilities of the U.S. government should be much higher, but let's be conservative and go with 65 trillion for now.
So, if the U.S. government took control of all physical assets in the United States and sold them off, it could not even make enough money to pay for everything that the U.S. government is already on the hook for.
Ouch.
If you have not read the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, you really should. Actually the 2009 report should be available very soon if it isn't already. If anyone knows if it is available, please let us know.
The truth is that the U.S. government is in much bigger financial trouble than we have been led to believe.
For example, according to the report (which remember is an official U.S. government report) the real U.S. budget deficit for 2008 was not 455 billion dollars. It was actually 5.1 trillion dollars.
So why the difference?
The CBO's 455 billion figure is based on cash accounting, while the 5.1 trillion figure in the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government is based on GAAP accounting. GAAP accounting is what is used by all the major firms on Wall Street and it is regarded as a much more accurate reflection of financial reality.
So needless to say, the United States is in a financial mess of unprecedented magnitude.
So what should we do? Does anyone have any suggestions?
This story goes beyond juvenile delinquency, this is a story about African American culture here in the US, where black girls have babies at 10 years old and young teen "gangstas" kill without remorse. "What would Martin Luther King Do?" Happy Black History Month!
A cold, rainy Friday ended in Madison, Alabama yesterday with one child dead and another charged with murder.
Fourteen year old student, Todd T. Brown, died at Huntsville Hospital after being shot in the back of the head at Discovery Middle School around 1:45 on Friday.
Friday's shooting happened in the middle of class change. The halls were crowded with students when the incident happened. We're told it occurred right in front of the band room. The suspected shooter was quickly subdued and taken in to custody.
Around 8:30pm, officials stated in a news conference that the suspect, believed to be another ninth grader at the school, had been arrested and charged with murder. The alleged shooter is being held in the Neaves-Davis Center for Children in Huntsville.
A community meeting is set for Sunday afternoon 2-3 PM at Bob Jones High School to respond to today's events. Counselors, school and city officials will be on hand to meet with students and parents affected by the shooting.
Madison Police Chief Larry Muncey stressed that Madison Schools are safe, and that there is no reason to believe this was anything other than an isolated incident. Chief Muncey says that his own child, as student at Discovery, will be in school on Monday morning.
There's no word yet on a possible motive for the crime, and the suspected shooter's name has not been released.
School and city officials stressed that they are "aware of Facebook and Twitter" and reminded people that there is a lot of rumor and speculation. The city will keep updates as they have them at http://www.madisonal.gov/
Meanwhile, the community prays for Todd Brown and thousands of people who never knew him mourn the shooting on Facebook.
Fourteen year old student, Todd T. Brown, died at Huntsville Hospital after being shot in the back of the head at Discovery Middle School around 1:45 on Friday.
Friday's shooting happened in the middle of class change. The halls were crowded with students when the incident happened. We're told it occurred right in front of the band room. The suspected shooter was quickly subdued and taken in to custody.
Around 8:30pm, officials stated in a news conference that the suspect, believed to be another ninth grader at the school, had been arrested and charged with murder. The alleged shooter is being held in the Neaves-Davis Center for Children in Huntsville.
A community meeting is set for Sunday afternoon 2-3 PM at Bob Jones High School to respond to today's events. Counselors, school and city officials will be on hand to meet with students and parents affected by the shooting.
Madison Police Chief Larry Muncey stressed that Madison Schools are safe, and that there is no reason to believe this was anything other than an isolated incident. Chief Muncey says that his own child, as student at Discovery, will be in school on Monday morning.
There's no word yet on a possible motive for the crime, and the suspected shooter's name has not been released.
School and city officials stressed that they are "aware of Facebook and Twitter" and reminded people that there is a lot of rumor and speculation. The city will keep updates as they have them at http://www.madisonal.gov/
Meanwhile, the community prays for Todd Brown and thousands of people who never knew him mourn the shooting on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
