Monday, December 1, 2008


I am old enough to remember when there was not a single credit card in all of America. You don't believe me? I'm not surprised. With your government frantically doing everything possible to persuade you to go deeper in debt via credit cards and other loans, you might well ask if this country ever survived without massive debt on all levels.

The first credit cards went into general use with the American Express card and the Bankamericard (now Visa) in 1958. Credit cards freed “consumers” from having to pay for things at the time they bought them and to delay the day of reckoning indefinitely as long as they met the payment demand each month while the cost of their purchase was grossly inflated by hefty interest rates. Thus instant gratification was introduced into the American bloodstream with the approximate disastrous effect of the forcible introduction of opium into China by the British in the 19th Century.

Add to credit cards the wild promotion of borrowing money secured by a car or a house which the lender could take if you didn't pay, and the US was ripening for economic catastrophes.


But, you ask, in the Dark Ages before 1960 did no one buy Christmas presents? Did no one own a car or go to college? Ho, ho, ho! Of course they did. There was something called “saving” in order to pay something later. There was even an atypical system, little used today, in which the bank would pay you interest to place money in a savings account – so that the bank could lend the money to others (maybe even you) at much higher interest.

Watch some old movies and you will see how your ancestors “saved up” to buy things – scrimping and putting coins in a jar until the day they could buy that fancy dress or that doll or that 40 acres. What terrible times, thankfully gone along with dentistry without anesthetics. Now you take home that dress or bicycle today and have the rest of your life to pay for it at double the cost compared to a cash purchase.

In those olden days before credit cards, when it was generally felt that borrowing money was something shameful or dangerous, there was a prominent feature of advertising during the weeks before Christmas called The Layaway Plan. The shopper gave the store a small downpayment on the merchandise, which was then held for the buyer, who made periodic payments until the great day when the bicycle or diamond ring was fully paid for and taken home. There was a small service charge, but it was nothing compared to compound interest on borrowed money. The worst that could happen if one failed to make the payments was that the money would be refunded minus the service charge and a cancellation fee.

So, why is our government not encouraging a debt-free population? Why is it not touting savings instead of the borrowing that has caused the financial collapse of the world? Who benefits from undisciplined borrowing? Who gets richer the more you go into debt?

Class, if anyone can't answer that question, please leave the room and max out all your credit cards in a Christmas shopping binge. No need to save up for that television set or Nintendo Wii that you can't afford. Just take it home today and worry about paying for it next year.

Sunday, November 30, 2008



When I began this blog two years ago I expressed its main purpose:

'What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.

That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?'

As I've shown repeatedly since writing those words, the important subjects most often missing from American “news” are Israel, the Israel Lobby, and the influence of Jews in American society. I raise this again today because of reporting of the attack on the Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai.

Notice the puzzlement over why a Jewish establishment would have been chosen as target:

'On Wednesday, the Chabad house became an unlikely target of the terrorist gunmen who unleashed a series of bloody coordinated attacks at locations in and around Mumbai’s commercial center. It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.'

At least the Associated Press said outright, 'The attackers' main targets appeared to be Americans, Britons and Jews,' . . . of course without any explanation as to why Jews were included.

As often happens, reports specifically aimed at a Jewish audience were more open:

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, this afternoon denounced the terrorist assaults in Mumbai, India. . . Hier called terrorism "the plague of the 21st century" and said the attackers "were not just delivering a message to the Indian government. They were sending a message to America and London and Jews and the state of Israel."'

The ludicrous implication that the occupation of the Jewish center was 'unlikely' and might have been 'accidental' is a typical evasion of mentioning Israel as the root cause of anger and hatred in the Islamic world and the Middle East. And who in all the world is Israel's only support? The United States. And who faithfully trots at the heels of America? England. When the United States invaded Iraq because Israel wanted Iraq neutered, England provided the illusion of a 'coalition' – while Israel was carefully omitted from any discussion of the attack on Iraq which it instigated through its creatures in the Pentagon.

(Throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON you will find many detailed discussions and facts relating to the preceding paragraph.)


'In 2003, barely out of their teens and newly married, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, moved from Brooklyn to the coastal city of Mumbai, India, to manage a mix of educational center, synagogue and social hall known as a Chabad house, one of about 3,500 outposts around the world run by the Lubavitch Hasidic movement. Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were born in Israel, though he and his siblings were brought to Crown Heights as children by their parents.

'Rabbi Holtzberg’s parents, Noah and Freida, spent most of Thursday holed up in their house in Crown Heights, but left for Israel late in the afternoon. Meanwhile, Rivka Holtzberg’s parents, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, who live in Israel, boarded a plane to Mumbai.'

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


Yesterday we were bombarded with government plans for even more huge amounts of money to be given to banks. As I forced myself to listen to the television news – BBC, MSNBC, CNN -- I heard the same message again and again:

The government must do something to get the public to start borrowing again. More billions of dollars will be given to the banks in the hope that they will begin to lend money and stimulate Americans to borrow. The people must be motivated to start using their credit cards more. America's financial future depends on more borrowing.

'Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's new $800 billion effort to combat the financial crisis is designed to make credit more accessible to shaken consumers who aren't sure they want more debt.'

Why? Why give $800 billion more to banks in order to encourage the populace to borrow more money and safari farther into Darkest Debt? What is the magic of borrowed money?

If the object is to encourage Americans to start buying more, in order to stimulate the economy with consumer purchases, why not just give the $800 billion (and all those earlier billions in handouts) directly to American citizens? There are about 306 million people in the US, and $800 billion would give every man, woman, and child about $2,600.00. This would mean about $8000 in cash for a family of three. Could you use that this Christmas?

Given the choice, would you prefer to have $8000 free and clear, or to borrow $8000 on which you'll be charged interest that will require you to repay not just $8000 but more like $12,000 and up?

We're told that it wouldn't be safe to give the $800 billion directly to the people, because they might not spend it. Horrors! Save money. Only direct donations to Al Qaeda could be more unpatriotic.

The system is insane. The thinking that supports the debt system might seem insane, but I'm sure it makes sense to the banks who not only get money directly from the U.S. government but also huge profits in interest payments from the people who will rent that money from them.

Saturday, November 8, 2008


'Dutch Outcry Over Naming Ship After Nazi' and 'Outcry in Netherlands over Nazi Link to Ship's Name' are headlines of the past 24 hours which imply that all Holland is in an uproar because of something equivalent to the discovery that a major dike was defectively engineered and is about to drown everybody in Amsterdam.

The published story begins, 'It ought to be a proud milestone in Netherlands seafaring heritage – the construction of a ship its owner claims will be the largest in the world. There's just one problem: the name.'

'Edwin Heerema, founder of the company that commissioned the vessel, wants to name it the “Pieter Schelte” after his late father, Pieter Schelte Heerema, who was renowned as a maritime engineer.'

Why is Holland in a state of collective outcry because a man wants to name a ship with his illustrious father's first two names? Note the picture which appears in the story.


Next note the solitary source of the 'outcry': Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, who cried, 'For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever.'

'Pitch black?' A spokesman for the son explained that Pieter Schelte Heerema was widely appreciated during his life, that he joined the Nazis out of opposition to Stalin's soviet communism (as did a multitude of other non-German Europeans) rather than enthusiasm for national socialism, and by 1943 had changed his mind and worked against the Nazis. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says that he provided "very important" services to the resistance. There is no assertion that he ever did anything illegal or immoral in his life.

But his virtues or lack of them aren't the point here. The point is that the head of a small pro-Israel organization in the Netherlands has managed to have a minor event reported and exaggerated by news organizations all around the world.

I had never heard of the “CIDI” until this morning, but it took me about two seconds to realize its similarity to the major Jewish/Zionist pressure organizations in the U.S. which are plentifully discussed in this blog – the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith (ADL) and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

By its own account, the Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel distributes propaganda about Israel and the Jewish people. 'Our publications on the relationship between the Netherlands and Israel, anti-Semitism . . . play a large role in defining public opinion in the Netherlands.'

Ronny Naftaniel, director and outcrier of the CIDI, son of a German Jew, expanded the CIDI to 'monitoring anti-Semitism in addition to challenging criticism on Israel.' The American ADL also describes itself as 'monitoring' 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it is a bruising and unscrupulous aggressor in trying to silence all criticism of Israel or Jews.

The fictitious 'outcry' over the name of a ship which will lay pipes in offshore oil fields is typical of the ludicrous extremes to which such groups as the CIDI, the ADL, AIPAC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center will go – not least in order to stir up unease among Jews who may donate and pay their leaders' salaries.

Thursday, November 6, 2008


The election just ended reinforced my belief that the most important characteristic of a leader is confidence. Even a would-be leader who is equipped with the intellect and experience to lead people through a challenge will not attract as many followers as a would-be leader who exudes a superior imperturbable confidence.

Most people, whether soldiers or voters, are unsure of themselves. In a difficult or dangerous situation they hope that somebody is better able than they are to guide them to a successful outcome. When pressure is on, emotions make the uneasy herd more likely to flock after a supremely confident leader than after a person who makes good arguments but doesn't appear as sure of himself.

Ironically, it doesn't matter whether the confidence of the strongest leader is based on superior ability or not, as long as the crowd believes that it is. 'He wouldn't be so confident if he didn't know what he's doing.' On the other hand, the confidence that brings power to a leader must be completely convincing in every way.

Words alone won't do the trick. In the recent election one candidate constantly repeated, “I can do this! I'm prepared! I know how to do this!”, but beyond the words a large number of voters intuitively felt that the man lacked complete, unshakable confidence. Tone of voice, tempo, body language, along with a kind of instability when making decisions under pressure were at least as important as words in communicating true confidence or lack thereof. From that candidate, the herd sniffed uncertainty and nervousness.

The other candidate conveyed confidence with an impressively steady demeanor under pressure, with certainty, and with a sense that his daily decision-making was thoughtful and firmly controlled. He didn't boast as much about his leadership ability as the other candidate did, but his carriage, his voice, the calm and measured movement of his body, aroused in those looking for a leader to trust a sense of steadiness, sureness, and unshakable confidence that they concluded must rest on a solid foundation.

Monday, November 3, 2008


You are “friends” of presidential candidates even if they've never met you.

Your dollars are always “hard earned”.

“I'm a maverick” means, “I've worked in the Republican Party for years, but now that they're in deep trouble I'm disowning them.” [“Maverick”: An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, considered the property of the first person who brands it. From Samuel Maverick, 1870 American pioneer who did not brand his calves.]

“Elitist”: One who speaks good English and is therefore ill-suited to be president.

“Just like us”: A candidate who speaks poor English and therefore qualifies for the presidency.

“Our heroes”: Everybody who has enlisted in the army.

“Support our troops” : Support continuing whatever wars the politicians have involved our troops in.

Regardless of what much of the world has thought for a century, in American politics “socialism” is the equivalent of “hell”, and “socialist” is the equivalent of “devil”.
(Exception: Socialist economic policies are not “socialism” if promulgated by Republicans.)

There are “real Americans”, and therefore “unreal Americans”. The difference can't be defined, but one clue is that the more an American favors wars and rude behavior toward foreign leaders, the more “real” he is.

Any criticism of American society is “un-American” and automatically makes the critic unfit for public office.

“Threats to our allies” means “Threats to Israel”.

“Our good, stalwart friend, Israel” means, “I want the Jewish vote”.

“It's time we get this country moving again” means, “I'm running for President.”

Friday, October 24, 2008


As I write this early in the morning in Florida, world stock markets have plummeted overnight, and it looks as if it will be the same in the U.S. -- at least at the opening.

I am not an investment advisor, and anything I write about stock markets is strictly for my own amusement and the entertainment of my readers. I do not suggest that you act on what I say.

I rely on a “technical” approach involving charts based on price and volume, and on various technical indicators, especially the MACD and the William%R.

It looks as if the U.S. market will plunge in panic selling this morning, which could be so extreme that it will lead soon to a “reversal” day, followed by a strong bounce up in prices.

The most likely level for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to find temporary support is around its low point of 2001-2002 -- about 7100. It closed yesterday (October 23) at 8691.

For the S&P 500 the support level is around 770. It closed yesterday at 908.

The rebound will not necessarily mean that we've seen the bottom of this bear market, but it could mean a vigorous rise in prices for awhile – probably setting an even bigger bear trap than the one I pointed out a few days ago.

Of course stock prices could go straight on down through those support levels like a hot meteorite through thin ice, but if so, don't despair. No matter what happens to stocks and banks, we'll always have plenty of politicians!

Sunday, October 19, 2008


Will prices go up or down as we head into a recession or depression?

Should we prepare for inflation or for deflation?

In deflationary times, cash is king. In inflationary times, we want to own things like gold whose price will rise. My mother told me that in the Great Depression of the 1930's, “You could buy a car for ten dollars, but nobody had ten dollars.” On the other hand, in hyperinflationary times, a gold coin may be worth a fortune.

German Children Play with Money During the Great Inflation of the 1920's. Employees were paid daily or several times daily so they and their families could rush out and buy things before the money lost most of its buying power as prices skyrocketed.

Having cursorily researched expert opinion on the relationship between recessions and inflation and deflation, I can summarize the results as follows:

A recession may see either inflation (rising prices), or deflation (decreasing prices). Brilliant! Wikipedia: 'Recessions are the result of falling demand and may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or sharply rising prices (inflation) or a combination of rising prices and stagnant economic growth (stagflation).'

Armed with this lack of knowledge, I predict that despite the example of deflation during the Great Depression, we are entering a period of increasing inflation.

Logically, the economic collapse the United States is experiencing will result in loss of jobs, loss of spending power, and a surplus of goods over demand, which will lead sellers to slash the prices of refrigerators and television sets and automobiles in order to find buyers. So, prices will go down, right?

Yes, right in the near term for some items, but wrong in the longer term. The increase in the supply of money (combined with eventual decrease in production of cars, refrigerators, etc.) is the giant fly in the ointment. During the Great Depression the government let the money supply go down, but at present the government is creating money by the ocean-full and pumping it into banks virtually without limit. To my amateur eyes, this certainly looks like an unprecedented increase in the money supply which will drown any deflationary tendencies of the recession/depression.

The government's panicky efforts to make us borrow our way out of a crisis caused by borrowing will most likely result in a long-term tsunami of inflation. If production is decreasing, as we hear every day, then how can the supply of goods keep up with the supply of money? And when money supply grows in proportion to things for sale, the prices of things for sale go up. Even with the current financial malaise, most grocery items are “on sale” for far more than they were a year ago.

I would really appreciate some comments on the issues raised here. I want to know whether to buy a new refrigerator or a new car now, while desperate sellers are offering price-cutting sales, especially leading into Christmas, or whether I can get even better deals next year. I want to know whether to prepare for inflation by buying gold or gold mining stocks, or whether to prepare for a deflation in which “cash is king” by putting cash under the mattress.

I am betting on inflation and will be closely watching those sale prices to see if they go down or up.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


Come, Igor. We must stop this financial Frankenstein monster before it destroys the world.

Photo: Reuters (Candidates leaving debate, Oct 15.)
Caption: Fleming Lee

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


I'm betting that the tremendous stock market gains of the past couple of days do not mark the bottom of this bear market, and that the current rally will turn into a “bear trap” for those who buy stocks and don't get out quickly.

I was shocked to read in interviews with several investment "experts" that they are as heavily into the market as ever (which means they must have lost 40% of their stake already), and are buying more now -- because stocks are "cheap." Well, $20 a share compared to $60 is cheap, but so will $8 a share be in comparison with $20.

As the market cliché goes, you can't turn an ocean liner around on a dime. Bear market rallies have a tendency to be swift and strong, but not to have staying power. I'm betting that the current hoorah of relief doesn't carry the Dow Jones Industrials up much past 11,000, if that. Then we shall see.


'Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.'*

Revolutions bring revelations, and the first revelation which the current financial revolution brought to me was that the United States economic system is based on borrowing money.

As we've watched the economic system collapse, and heard of failing banks and panic selling of company shares, we've repeatedly been told that without a healthy banking system we, the people, could essentially do nothing: We could not go to college because we couldn't borrow the money to go. We couldn't buy a house because we couldn't borrow the money for a mortgage. We couldn't buy a car because we couldn't “finance” it. We might not even be able to buy clothes if things got so bad that banks wouldn't lend us money via our credit cards. And if business owners couldn't borrow payroll money, their employees would go unpaid.

I got the impression that few Americans have actual money and pay for things. All most people have are debts -- and their right to borrow money from “lending institutions” was equal to their right to life and liberty. The most drastic emergency actions were needed to preserve the right not to live within one's means!

I oversimplify, but simplicity is needed here. A secret of control of societies by huge financial institutions interwoven internationally is a camouflage of complexity which gives most people the helpless feeling that there is no possible way they can understand the system. For many intelligent people I've talked to, the mysteries of quantum physics are at least as fathomable as the workings of monetary and financial machinery.

Banks Hide Reality Not Only Behind Impressive Facades, but Also Behind a Smokescreen of Complexity

Here's one simple question: Is it really to the advantage of society to encourage everybody to live on borrowed money? Can the answer be anything but “no” in light of the crash brought on by U.S. banks lending mortgage money to “subprime” borrowers (people with such bad “credit histories” that the odds were against their paying the money back)?

Why did banks loan massive amounts of money to “subprime” people who predictably might not repay it? A major reason is that America was excitedly inflating a housing bubble in which real estate rose in price weekly, and a house bought for $120,000 in March would sell for $200,000 a year later. Thus the banks enabled a subprime person to “buy” a house which the bank could take and sell at a profit if the mortgage payments weren't made. Meanwhile the bank could collect fancy fees as well as interest payments.

If a society based on borrowing is bad for society, then who benefits from it? The banks, of course. Never forget that your local banks make their living from renting out money at “interest”, plus various “costs”. The picture of a lady saying gleefully, “I'm so lucky! I got the loan! The bank gave me a loan!” should instead be the banker saying gleefully, “I sold a loan! I sold a loan!”


*Shakespeare, Hamlet. “Husbandry” in Shakespeare's time meant domestic management, thrift, or frugality.

Saturday, September 27, 2008


TODAY'S PHOTO QUIZ: Can you find the brain in this picture?

The selection of Sarah Palin as candidate for what could well be the presidency of the United States was akin to entering a poodle in the Kentucky Derby, but her goofy ramblings when interviewed by Katie Couric leave me scrambling for more extravagant similes.

That interview is available in a million places, but I can't resist a choice quote which convinces me that no sane person would trust this bubblehead to be assistant manager of a backwater Burger King, much less President of the United States. In comparison with Palin's incoherent interview as a whole, the typical “I'm for world peace” mewings of a beauty pageant contestant sound like an address by Henry Kissinger.

"COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters-- [Finally breaks down and gives up groping for words.]
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."

After posting this I received such a witty comment that I decided to rescue it from Comment obscurity and post it here:

From Adriana in Romania

'I was as astonished after I read what "brilliant" Sarah said in the interview as I was when she said that the war in Iraq is a task of God. I had the feeling I was reading the geography homework written by a kid who lives on the border with Russia. And I'm asking myself the same question: Should I laugh or should I cry?

Poodle at Kentucky Derby?! Ohhh, no, you're too nice! I'm wondering who put these "single-neuron" heads to be candidates for leading a nation? Poor Sarah! Soon her single neuron will die because of too much loneliness.

I tried to make the picture bigger using Photoshop and I found a weird pixel there. I think it was Sarah's neuron!'

Saturday, September 20, 2008


In the cacophony of a collapsing economy we're hearing from Republicans the perennial cry of the guilty: “This is not a time for finger pointing!”

Well, it is a time for finger pointing. The loud crash of the economy was preceded by another sound -- the “POW” of a bursting bubble which took years to form. The people who were entrusted with the care of the country during that time can't claim that they were suddenly overtaken by catastrophe in the manner of a meteor flashing into the atmosphere without warning and smashing to Earth six seconds later.

The bubble which portends a financial crisis like this one is very visibly blown bigger and bigger over months of wild speculation in something – Dutch tulip bulbs in the 1630s (the price of a single bulb reaching many times the annual income of a skilled artisan), the South Sea Bubble (worthless stock rocketing from 100 to 1000 pounds a share in a few months), the Florida land boom (and bust) of the 1920's, the U.S. stock market bubble leading to the crash of 1929, and the Internet “dot-com” stock market bubble of 1995-2000.

The pattern repeats now as then: Enthusiasm for a “get rich quick” investment spreads to people all walks of life. Stories of quick profits lure more and more people into the frenzy until even the most unlikely speculators, from shoe shine boys to drugstore clerks, are telling tales of incredible gains.

The media are only too happy to trumpet the sensational growth of wealth. The certainty that one can put a little money in and take a lot out encourages people to “invest” money they can't afford to lose – and to borrow gambling money from banks. Buy a house or tulip bulb today on borrowed money and sell it soon at a 50% profit from which you can pay back your bank loan. Guaranteed!

The South Sea Bubble

The banks love it. Banks make their living renting out money for a fee called “interest”. By the time a speculative bubble approaches the bursting point the banks are practically begging people to rent money – including people who ordinarily would be turned down as bad credit risks, as demonstrated in the most recent housing bubble.

What happens, of course, is that the inevitable limit is reached and for the first time sellers outnumber buyers. Prices falter, borrowers can't make their mortgage payments, and a chilly breeze of fear sweeps through the land as stories of foreclosures and losses replace the “New Golden Era” headlines. When it is recognized that the rainbow glistening bubble has disintegrated into insubstantial mist, there is widespread panic as borrowers default in hordes and the banking system is stuck with “toxic” loans which will never be repaid.

The Dot Com Bubble -- From 5000 to 1000 in a Gasp, But Plenty of Warning Before the Top

Meanwhile, for months before the “bust” there have been plenty of wise heads warning publicly that frenzy is leading to a predictable crash. Those warnings, citing the lessons of history, mean that even as low a form of intelligence as an American politician – not to mention political appointees like the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the heads of regulatory agencies -- had to know that the recent housing bubble was expanding to an unsustainable point long before it blew up in their faces. No wonder they are crying, “Now is not a time for finger pointing!”

Ah, but there is one happy bit to all this for one class of participants: The bankers have learned in modern times, and are being taught once more by the government's actions during the present week, that they are “too important” to be allowed to fail and go bankrupt. No matter how irresponsibly they behave in blowing up a bubble, they will be bailed out by the government taking what you and I have paid in income taxes to “buy” the worthless mortgages and IOU's from the bankers – readying them for another round of Blow up the Bubble after everybody catches his breath.

For the financial institutions, it's like going to Las Vegas with a guarantee that Uncle Sam will pay them back all the money they lose at the roulette table.

For the taxpayers it's like Robin Hood in reverse – the government robbing the poor to bail out the rich.

It's definitely time for finger pointing.

NEWS BULLETIN: As I wrote the last sentence this morning, Saturday, September 20, 2008, a USAToday story arrived in my email:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is asking Congress to let the government buy $700 billion in bad mortgages as part of the largest financial bailout since the Great Depression.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Important Freedom of Speech Issue

Please click on my title (above) to link to

There is story there about a student anti-war protest which is under dishonest attack. Your support is needed.