White House: Deficit Will Increase 20% This Year (Despite Record Tax Revenue)
February 3, 2015 - 12:00 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey


President Barack Obama speaking about his budget proposal at the Department of Homeland Security on Feb, 2, 2015. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

(CNSNews.com) - The data that the White House published with President Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget proposal yesterday indicate that the federal deficit will increase by 20 percent during this fiscal year (2015) even though the administration predicts the Treasury will bring in record revenue during the year.

According to Table S-1 in the “Summary Tables” appendix to the Obama budget, the deficit was $485 billion in fiscal 2014 and will be $583 billion in fiscal 2015—an increase of $98 billion, or 20.2 percent.

The federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

In fiscal year 2015, according to the Obama budget tables, the federal government will take in $3.176 trillion in tax revenue and spend $3.759 trillion.

The $3.176 trillion in tax revenues the White House estimates the federal government will bring in this year is a record in both current and inflation-adjusted dollars.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s historical table that shows federal tax receipts and outlays in constant 2009 dollars, fiscal 2015 federal receipts will equal $2.8952 trillion in constant 2009 dollars.

The previous record for inflation-adjusted federal tax revenue in a fiscal year, according to the OMB, was last year, when the federal government brought in $2.7912 in constant 2009 dollars.

In current year dollars, according to the OMB, federal tax receipts were $3.0215 in fiscal 2014—the first time they ever exceeded three trillion. This year’s receipts, OMB estimates, will be $3.1761 in current dollars.

In his speech announcing the release of his budget proposal yesterday, President Obama said: “Now, since I took office, we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds.”

“Since 2010,” says the Obama budget proposal, “federal deficits have shrunk at an historic pace—the most rapid sustained deficit reduction since the period just after World War II. The turn away from austerity in 2014 was ac­companied by another steep drop in the deficit, bringing it to 2.8 percent of GDP—the lowest level since 2007, about one-third the size of the deficit the president inherited, and below the 40-year average.”

Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, in the fourth month of fiscal 2009. On Feb. 17, 2009, he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), his economic stimulus bill.

“When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019,” the CBO said in a report published last year. “CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $830 billion. By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 95 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of December 2013.”

On March 11, 2009, Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which the Washington Post described as “a $410 billion spending bill to fund most of the federal government for the remainder of the year.”

In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year when George W. Bush was president, the federal deficit was $458.6 billion, according to the historical tables published by the White House OMB. In fiscal 2009, presided over by both Bush and Obama, the deficit was $1.4127 trillion. In 2010, it was $1.2944. In 2011, it was $1.2996 trillion. In 2012, it was $1.0870 trillion. In 2013, it was $679.5 billion. In 2014, it was $484.6 billion. And, in 2015, the OMB is estimating it will be $582.5 billion.

The fiscal 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion was 3.1 percent of GDP, according to the OMB. The OMB estimates that the $582.5 billion deficit it is projecting for this year will be 3.2 percent of GDP.

Since Obama took office, the federal debt has climbed from $10,626,877,048,913.08 to $18,082,294,157,510.20--an increase of $7,455,417,108,597.12.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/white-house-deficit-will-increase-20-year-despite-record-tax-revenue

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Entire Oil Collapse Is All About Crushing Russian Control Over Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2015 05:45 -0500


While the markets are still debating whether the price of oil is more impacted by the excess pumping of crude here, or the lack of demand there, or if it is all just a mechanical squeeze by momentum-chasing HFT algos who also know to buy in the milliseconds before 2:30pm, we bring readers' attention back to what several months ago was debunked as a deep conspiracy theory.

Back then we wrote about a certain visit by John Kerry to Saudi Arabia, on September 11 of all days, to negotiate a secret deal with the now late King Abdullah so as to get a "green light" in order "to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory, it "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."



We concluded:

Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?

Because at the end of the day it is all about energy. We made as much very clear one month later when in mid-October we said "If The Oil Plunge Continues, "Now May Be A Time To Panic" For US Shale Companies." The panic time has long since come, but only after we laid out the problem clearly enough for all to grasp:

... while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the "deal" with Obama's White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the "costs" meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency.



As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with "costs", he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession.



It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama's career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale "miracle" next.

Of course, all of the above was purely in the realm of the conspiratorial, because the last thing the administration would admit is that the tradeoff to its bargain with Saudi Arabia to implement a (largely failed) foreign policy regarding ISIS (which has grown in size since the coalition campaign) was to put at risk the entire US shale miracle, a miracle which is evaporating in front of everyone's eyes. And all thanks to that "closest" of US allies in the middle east: Saudi Arabia.

It was conspiratorial, that is, until today, when thanks to the far less "tinfoil" NYT one more conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, following a report that "Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices."

From the NYT:

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices."

As we predicted, correctly, in September: it was all about Syria:

“If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don’t see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal,” a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

So what would it take for the price of oil to finally jump? Not much: Putin's announcement that Syria's leader Bashar is no longer a strategic ally of Russia.

Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft. Saudi officials have said publicly that the price of oil reflects only global supply and demand, and they have insisted that Saudi Arabia will not let geopolitics drive its economic agenda. But they believe that there could be ancillary diplomatic benefits to the country’s current strategy of allowing oil prices to stay low — including a chance to negotiate an exit for Mr. Assad.

...

"Russia has been one of the Syrian president’s most steadfast supporters, selling military equipment to the government for years to bolster Mr. Assad’s forces in their battle against rebel groups, including the Islamic State, and supplying everything from spare parts and specialty fuels to sniper training and helicopter maintenance."

Will Putin relent?

"Mr. Putin, however, has frequently demonstrated that he would rather accept economic hardship than buckle to outside pressures to change his policies. Sanctions imposed by the United States and European countries have not prompted Moscow to end its military involvement in Ukraine, and Mr. Putin has remained steadfast in his support for Mr. Assad, whom he sees as a bulwark in a region made increasingly volatile by Islamic extremism."

Actually that's not it: Syria, as we have been explaining for nearly two years is the critical transit zone of a proposed natural gas pipeline, originating in Qatar, and one which would terminate somewhere in central Europe. The same Qatar which was the "mystery sponsor of weapons and money to Syrian mercenary rebels" who eventually became ISIS. The same Qatar which is now directly funding ISIS. Of course, if Putin were to handover Syria to the Saudi princes (and to Qatar), he would effectively shoot himself in the foot by ending any leverage Gazprom has over Europe.

This too is very well known to Putin. For now he has shown that he has no intention of abdicating Syria, and losing critical leverage when it comes to being the provider of last resort of European gas:

The Saudis have offered economic enticements to Russian leaders in return for concessions on regional issues like Syria before, but never with oil prices so low. It is unclear what effect, if any, the discussions are having. While the United States would support initiatives to end Russian backing for Mr. Assad, any success by the Saudis to cut production and raise global oil prices could hurt many parts of the American economy.



After the meeting in Moscow in November between Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, and Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov rejected the idea that international politics should play a role in setting oil prices.



“We see eye to eye with our Saudi colleagues in that we believe the oil market should be based on the balance of supply and demand,” Mr. Lavrov said, “and that it should be free of any attempts to influence it for political or geopolitical purposes.”

Which, in retrospect puts the Ukraine conflict, and the western isolation of Russia in a very simple spotlight - the whole point is to inflict as much pain as possible, so Putin has no choice but to hand over Syria.

Russia is feeling financial pain and diplomatic isolation because of international sanctions stemming from its incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, American officials said. But Mr. Putin still wants to be viewed as a pivotal player in the Middle East. The Russians hosted a conference last week in Moscow between the Assad government and some of Syria’s opposition groups, though few analysts believe the talks will amount to much, especially since many of the opposition groups boycotted them. Some Russia experts expressed skepticism that Mr. Putin would be amenable to any deal that involved removing support for Mr. Assad.



Saudi Arabia’s leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenues. “If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service.



As for Assad, the Syrian president "has shown no inclination to step aside. He said in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine that the true threat in Syria comes from the Islamic State and Qaeda-affiliated groups that, in his words, make up the “majority” of rebellion. American and Arab officials said that even if Russia were to abandon Mr. Assad, the Syrian president would still have his most generous benefactor, Iran. Iranian aid to the Syrian government has been one of the principal reasons that Mr. Assad has been able to hold power as other autocrats in the Middle East have been deposed.



And as a major oil producer, Iran would benefit if Saudi Arabia helped push up oil prices as part of a bargain with Russia.



“You are going to strengthen your enemy whether you like it or not, and the Iranians are not showing any flexibility here,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi royal family.



But the military aid that Russia provides to Syria is different enough from what Damascus receives from Iran, its other major supplier, that if “Russia withdrew all military support, I don’t think the Syrian Army could function,” a senior Obama administration official said.

The conclusion:

A number of Arab nations have been pushing for the Saudis and Russians — polar extremes in their positions toward Mr. Assad — to find common ground on the matter as a step toward ending the carnage of Syria’s civil war, now almost four years old. But, as one Arab diplomat put it, “This decision is ultimately in Putin’s hands.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the great oil collapse of 2014/2015 is all about. For those who want to know when to buy oil, the answer is simple: just after (or ideally before) Putin announces he will no longer support the Assad regime. If, that is, he ever does because that act will effectively destroy all leverage Putin may ever have over Europe, and in the process, also end - quite prematurely - his career.

Until then, every single HFT-induced spike in oil is one to be ultimately faded, because as the past few months have shown, it is the Saudis who set the price, and they will not take no for an answer, even if it means crippling the entire US shale, and energy, industry in the process.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/another-conspiracy-theory-becomes-fact-entire-oil-collapse-all-about-crushing-russia

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

by Jim Clifton

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

Of Course It's A Big Lie


If you've read my employment reporting for the last several years you already know this.

Gallup has been talking about it too, but this is a particularly poignant reminder.

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

Of course. The facts don't matter; all that matters is that the stock market continues to go up and Obama isn't drummed out of office and then run out of the country on a rail. Between government gimmes and outright lies about the economy the orchestration has been stunning in both scale and scope.

But as I've pointed out the simple math is something else entirely. Yes, there are 2 million more people working now than there were when the unemployment rate first went over 6% in 2008.

However, there are 15 million more working-age people in the country.

One of the "big lies" is that the population is getting older and thus not working any more. That's a lie too. Of those who are over 65 want a job and are not disabled the unemployment rate is under 4%.

No other portion of the population is doing as well.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

Well, no on the latter.

What hollowed out the middle class is pretty simple too, but nobody will talk about that either. Unbridled unlawful immigration and exporting our jobs to effective slave labor nations in the name of "free trade" did that. Oh, by the way, they want to do more of that too -- the "Trans Pacific Partnership" is the latest incantation.

You're not going to stop that one either are you America?

Nope, you're not, just like you won't stop the illegal immigration and you won't stop the offshoring. Hell, you won't even stop buying iCrap made in sweatshops over in China; that iCrap is far more important to you than whether you, or your neighbor, has a good job.

We deserve what's coming and we have in fact done it to ourselves.


http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker

Ayock- question-

Before we try to go head to head on veterans' issues would you kindly tell me if you are a veteran and in which TO were you operational. I was US Army 1966 to 1975 active. TO Vietnam.

I know you like to blame everything on repubs, but claim no handle on being a democrat. Over the years it's been plain to me that both major parties have a hand in screwing vets.

.....al

I do get it, not being sarcastic at all. I love political humor and satire. Much better than sick bar room jokes.

...al

Barack Obama Says That What America Really Needs Is Lots More Debt
By Michael Snyder, on February 2nd, 2015




When it comes to taking a chainsaw to the future of America, nobody seems more eager than Barack Obama. Despite the fact that the U.S. national debt is on pace to approximately double during his eight years in the White House, he has just proposed a budget that would take government spending to crazy new heights. When Barack Obama took the oath of office, the U.S. national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. Today, it has surpassed the 18 trillion dollar mark. And even though we are being told that “deficits are going down”, the truth is that the U.S. national debt increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal 2014. But that isn’t good enough for Obama. He says that we need to come out of this period of “mindless austerity” and steal money from our children and our grandchildren even faster. In addition, Obama wants to raise taxes again. His budget calls for 2 trillion dollars in tax increases over the next decade. He always touts these tax increases as “tax hikes on the rich”, but somehow they almost always seem to end up hitting the middle class too. But whether or not Congress ever adopts Obama’s new budget is not really the issue. The reality of the matter is that the “tax and spend Democrats” and the “tax and spend Republicans” are both responsible for getting us into this mess. Future generations of Americans are already facing the largest mountain of debt in the history of the planet, and both parties want to make this mountain of debt even higher. The only disagreement is about how fast it should happen. It is a national disgrace, but most Americans have come to accept this as “normal”. If our children and our grandchildren get the opportunity, they will curse us for what we have done to them.

All debt destroys.

All debt enslaves.

And when you are talking about an 18 trillion dollar debt, you are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable.

If our national debt was reduced to a stack of one dollar bills, it would circle our planet at the equator 45 times.

How could we have done such a thing?

Thomas Jefferson once said that “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” He correctly understood that government debt is stealing. We are financially raping our children, our grandchildren and all future generations of Americans. It is an incredibly wicked thing to do.

But instead of men like Thomas Jefferson running our country, we have men like Barack Obama running it.

And to Barack Obama, running up a trillion dollars of debt a year is “mindless austerity”…

“I want to work with Congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security. “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward. It would be bad for our security, and bad for our growth.”

Yes, if we steal money from future generations it will artificially inflate our current standard of living and make our economy look temporarily better than it should be.

But it is morally wrong to do this, and our current crop of politicians have no intentions of ever bringing the debt party to an end.

Even with the ridiculously optimistic economic assumptions that are used in Obama’s new budget, the federal budget is never projected to balance within the next decade. Instead, Obama’s budget projects that the national debt will rise from 18.1 trillion dollars right now to 26.2 trillion dollars in 2025.

Of course it would greatly help if the federal government actually spent our money wisely. But instead, the feds often waste our hard-earned tax dollars in some of the most bizarre ways imaginable. The following is just one example…

The U.S. federal government has prompted controversy after spending over $33,000 on a study to find out whether same-sex couples live closer to tobacco shops than heterosexuals.

The large sum was spent on a study by the National Institutes of Health entitled, ‘Relationship Between Tobacco Retailer Density and Sexual Minority Couples.’

Thanks to this kind of insane spending, our debt is completely and totally out of control.

While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the U.S. national debt has increased by $84,266 per full-time private sector worker. Anyone that believes that this kind of debt accumulation is sustainable is absolutely delusional.

The only reason why our house of cards has not completely collapsed already is because the rest of the world has been willing to lend us gigantic piles of money at artificially low interest rates.

In December, the average rate of interest on the government’s marketable debt was 2.013 percent. But in the past, interest rates have been much higher than that. For example, in January 2000 the average rate of interest on the government’s marketable debt was 6.620 percent. If we returned to that level today, we would be paying well over a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the national debt.

And the issue isn’t just the more than one trillion dollars in new debt that we are accumulating every 12 months.

As I have discussed previously, the U.S. government has more than seven trillion dollars of debt that must be “rolled over” each year. In other words, the federal government must issue more than seven trillion dollars of new debt just to pay off old debts that are coming due.

If something were to happen which would cause the rest of the planet to either be unwilling or unable to lend us trillions of dollars at ridiculously low interest rates all of a sudden, the game would be over.

We were handed the keys to the greatest and most prosperous economy in the history of the planet, and our greed has totally wrecked it.

We were wealthy beyond imagination, but that was never good enough for us. We always had to have more.

And now we are hurtling toward financial oblivion, and we have a man in the White House that wants us to go into debt even faster.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/barack-obama-says-america-really-needs-lots-debt

Factory Orders Plunge 5th Month In A Row As ISM New York Crashes Most Since 2007
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2015 10:05 -0500




On the heels of the biggest crash in ISM New York since May 2007 (swinging from 9 year highs at 70.8 to 6 year lows at 44.5 in one month), Factory Orders plunged 3.4% in December (against an expectation of a 2.4% drop) - the biggest drop since Mar 2013 (ex last year's Boeing swing). Factory Orders 3.6% YoY drop is the largest since Nov09. Which explains why stocks are soaring... (despite Fed's Bullard saying "there is a lot of momentum in the US economy.")



ISM New York Crashed...



and factory orders plunged...



The biggest YoY drop in Factory Orders since Nov 2009.



Charts: Bloomberg

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/factory-orders-plunge-5th-month-row-ism-new-york-crashes-most-2007

Factory Orders Plunge 5th Month In A Row As ISM New York Crashes Most Since 2007
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2015 10:05 -0500




On the heels of the biggest crash in ISM New York since May 2007 (swinging from 9 year highs at 70.8 to 6 year lows at 44.5 in one month), Factory Orders plunged 3.4% in December (against an expectation of a 2.4% drop) - the biggest drop since Mar 2013 (ex last year's Boeing swing). Factory Orders 3.6% YoY drop is the largest since Nov09. Which explains why stocks are soaring... (despite Fed's Bullard saying "there is a lot of momentum in the US economy.")



ISM New York Crashed...



and factory orders plunged...



The biggest YoY drop in Factory Orders since Nov 2009.



Charts: Bloomberg

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/factory-orders-plunge-5th-month-row-ism-new-york-crashes-most-2007

Obama wants to strip funding from veterans' medical choice program
By Susan Ferrechio | February 2, 2015 | 5:31 pm




President Obama’s 2016 budget blueprint proposes rolling back a program that gives veterans the right to receive faster care outside of the long waitlists at the troubled Veterans Affairs medical system.

Obama signed the Veterans Choice Program into law in August following months of partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill that finally led to a compromise measure to overhaul the agency.

The Veterans Choice Program was a key GOP provision in the deal.

Authored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the measure provides “choice” cards to veterans that can be used to obtain medical care at designated facilities outside of the VA system.

But Obama announced Monday he’ll send a legislative proposal to Congress that would allow the VA to raid the program's funding, now set at $10 billion.

Obama, in his fiscal 2016 spending blueprint, said the money is needed “to support essential investments in VA system priorities in a fiscally responsible, budget-neutral manner.”




Obama has requested a nearly 8 percent boost in funding for the beleaguered VA in 2016, for a total of $70.2 billion in discretionary spending.

Democrats have pushed for additional money for the VA to pay for new hospitals and more doctors, but Republicans contend that waste and mismanagement are the primary problems facing the VA, and the Choice Program gives vets a chance to escape the dysfunction by allowing them to receive outside medical care.

Veterans groups were angered by the move to divert funding from the program, noting that Obama had touted the legislation to reform the VA in the months leading up to the November election and did not express opposition to the choice cards.

The program was funded to last until 2017 but would end sooner if money is diverted, critics said.

“That money was specifically allocated by him for the choice program,” Dan Caldwell, the legislative director for Concerned Veterans for America, told the Washington Examiner. “What that would do is cause the choice program to be a lot shorter and to inevitably serve fewer veterans.”

But in a conference call with reporters on Monday, officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs defended the move. They said the choice program was underused, and that many of the 8.6 million veterans who received cards said they would rather obtain care at VA facilities.

“What we are getting ... is that they are looking for more care within the VA system,” Helen Tierney, assistant VA secretary for management and the VA’s chief financial officer, said.

But veterans groups say the choice program rollout has been hindered by red tape, including a requirement that those who receive a choice card call the VA to determine whether they are actually eligible to use it.

Officials at the VA said they don’t know how much money they would like to shift from the program. Tierney said the VA has made “a tremendous number of calls to veterans,” and that the use rates are “much lower than anticipated.”

Tierney, however, said she did not know the specific use rates.

Republicans on Capitol Hill denounced the move and said they’d reject it.

“The president’s idea to reallocate a portion of Veterans Choice Program funding to other areas of VA is a complete non-starter, which I will not support,” House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said. “When a near-unanimous Congress worked with President Obama last year to create the choice program, we made a promise to veterans to give them more freedom in their healthcare decisions. I will not stand idly by while the president attempts to renege on that promise.”


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-wants-to-strip-funding-from-veterans-medical-choice-program/article/2559681?utm_campaign=Fox%20News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

gm ChrisJP- been following your dialogues on the guns issue and I think this says it all-

gm arizona- let me get this straight, it's not ok to re post someone's article or blog if it contains a lie, a misquote, untrue facts or anything else that is intended to deceive the reader. But it's ok as long as it's a cartoon, spoof, or otherwise satirical in nature. OK I get it now.

.....al

Speaking of fabrications, did the Israeli PM really say that? Or was that just satirical?

I never said nor intimated you posted any lies. You just took a portion of the sentence and made that accusation. I think you can and usually do better than that.

......al

Can you imagine...a right-wing troll, lying

Yup I sure can. I can also imagine left wing radicals lying. I'm sure we could go tit for tat posting lies, misrepresentations, out of context suppositions etc about conservatives and liberals. If people told the bare faced truth all the time, they couldn't get anyone's attention.

.......al

Obama threatens stopping paychecks to 143,000 Homeland Security employees at month's end if Republicans don't give up fight over 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants


Looks like the start of the blame game. Obama plays it really well. Played it on the gov't shutdown trying to hurt as many people as possible and blame the repubs. I think he found out a little different last Nov at election time......al


Obama warned GOP against holding DHS funding hostage as they fight him on sweeping immigration policy changes that he made on his own
President said critical DHS workers will have to work without pay after February 27 if there's no deal for the department's funding
Republicans funded the rest of the government through September but put Homeland Security on a tighter leash
Obama moved last year to unilaterally change immigration policy and guarantee no deportations for 5 million illegal immigrants

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com

Published: 12:44 EST, 2 February 2015 | Updated: 20:07 EST, 2 February 2015



President Barack Obama claimed on Monday that without a comprehensive budget covering the Department of Homeland Security, more than 130,000 mission-critical employees will be forced to work without pay by the end of the month.

They include 40,000 employed by Customs and Border Protection, 50,000 Transportation Security Administration screeners, 13,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and 40,000 Coast Guard personnel.

Pay would be restored at the end of any withholding period.

'I know how vital you are, and I want to make sure more Americans know how vital you are,' Obama told an auditorium full of DHS employees Monday the department's headquarters, as the White House rolled out his $4 trillion budget request for 2016.

In addition, it's likely that 4,000 people who work for the Secret Service will see paychecks on hold if Obama doesn't strike a deal with Republicans in Congress.

President Barack Obama spoek to Department of Homeland Security employees about his 2016 budget proposal on Monday, also warning congressional Republicans that he won't accept a spending plan that withholds DHS funding over Washington's epic immigration fight
+3

President Barack Obama spoek to Department of Homeland Security employees about his 2016 budget proposal on Monday, also warning congressional Republicans that he won't accept a spending plan that withholds DHS funding over Washington's epic immigration fight

'I want to make sure you have what you need to keep getting the job done,' he said.
ANNUAL TRADITION: Journalists photographed copies of the president's budget proposal, which is considered a dead letter in Congress
+3

ANNUAL TRADITION: Journalists photographed copies of the president's budget proposal, which is considered a dead letter in Congress

'The men and women of America's homeland security apparatus do important work to protect us, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress should not be playing politics with them,' he added.

Republicans agreed in December to fund most of the government through September 2015, but put Homeland Security on a shorter leash in order to keep their leverage as Obama threatened to implement sweeping changes to America's immigration enforcement policy.

DHS’s funding runs out in less than four weeks, and could be stopped entirely if Obama continues to pursue his plan to give residence and work permits to 5 million or more illegal immigrants.

GOP leadership calls the plan 'executive amnesty,' and insists that Congress – not the White House – has sole authority to determine who may and may not legally stay in the United States.

The president pushed back on Monday as he rolled out the larger budget designed to get America through September 2016. That budget would add $474 billion to the national debt.

'I will not accept a budget that severs the vital links between our national security and our economic security,' Obama said.

'Those two things go hand in hand,' he insisted.

But that budget is likely dead on arrival since he is proposing higher taxes on wealthier Americans and job-creating companies.

'Like the president’s previous budgets, this plan never balances – ever,' House Speaker John Boehner said Monday morning. 'It contains no solutions to address the drivers of our debt, and no plan to fix our entire tax code to help foster growth and create jobs.'

'Worse yet, President Obama would impose new taxes and more spending without a responsible plan to honestly address the big challenges facing our country.'


Republicans blast Obama as 'liberal' and 'fiscally... President Obama sits with Savannah Guthrie for an interview Obama tells parents to get their kids vaccinated but Chris... Obama weighs in on deflate-gate: President says NFL should... Vice President Joe Biden gestures while speaking to members of the House Democratic Caucus in Philadelphia, Friday Jan. 30, 2015. (AP Photo/ Joseph Kaczmarek) Joe Biden tells Democratic lawmakers the Obama years 'have...



Boehner pledged that he would present a balanced budget that 'will help promote job creation and higher wages, not more government bureaucracy.'

In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell charged that Obama's budget is a 'top-down, backward-looking document that caters to powerful political bosses on the Left.'

Obama's budget includes an unprecedented $478 billion public works program that promises to repair crumbling highways, bridges and public transit systems, largely by providing jobs to Democrats' powerful labor union constituency.

Its tax rate on capital gains – investment income – would be the highest in America since 1997.

The president is demanding a 7 per cent increase in domestic spending and the defense budget, undoing the fiscal restraint that marked the 2011 budget deal.

Obama called those cuts 'mindless austerity.'

On Monday he quoted an unnamed Republican whom he said had insisted that if DHS funding were on hold, 'it's not the end of the world.'

'I guess that's literally that's true,' the president said. 'It may not be the end of the world. But unril they pass a funding bill, it is the end of a paycheck for tens of thousands of front-line workers who will continue to have to work without getting paid.'

That was different from what he said last week in Philadelphia, when he implied that the department would actually shut down its operations in the wake of a budget impasse.
PAYCHECK POLITICS: Obama warned DHS workers that they might have to wait for their salaries after February 27
+3

PAYCHECK POLITICS: Obama warned DHS workers that they might have to wait for their salaries after February 27

'What do you mean, "It's not the end of the world"?' Obama said on Jan. 29. 'That’s all you’ve been talking about. And now, suddenly, because you want to make a political point, you think that we can afford to have the Department of Homeland Security not functioning – because of political games in Washington?'

The GOP congressman who said it wouldn't be 'the end of the world,' Florida's Mario Diaz-Balart, was referring to the fact that critical functions wouldn't stop.

'It's not the end of the world if we get to that time because the national security functions will not stop – whether it's border security or a lot of other issues,' Diaz-Balart had told Politico.

'Having said so, I think we should always aspire to try to get it done.'

Obama was chastened by The Annenberg School of Communications' FactCheck.org website, which declared that he had 'fudged facts in Philly.'

So on Monday he focused instead on a temporary stoppage of paychecks, the same phenomenon employees across all cabinet agencies saw in 2013.

'These Americans aren't just working to keep us safe,' he said. 'They have to take care of their own families. The notion that they would get caught up in a disagreement around policy that has nothing to do with them makes no sense.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2936746/Obama-threatens-stopping-paychecks-143-000-Homeland-Security-employees-month-s-end-Republicans-don-t-fight-amnesty-illegal-immigrants.html#ixzz3QduxON00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I remember the pen and phone statement but not exactly. Perhaps if you are seeking an answer, email the author of the article. He may have a link for you.

......al

Here’s The Reason Valerie Jarrett Is Scared Of Benjamin Netanyahu
Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?

L. Todd Wood — February 2, 2015

We have all seen the White House’s reaction to House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the Iranian nuclear situation. The Obama administration has completely freaked out, lobbing public barrages against Netanyahu and Boehner for “going around the White House and diplomatic protocol.” This is quite humorous for the president who famously said “I have a pen and a phone and can do anything I want”–but that’s for another column.

I’ve written about the Obama administration’s agenda when dealing with Iran. The agenda is to run out the clock and allow Iran to develop, or be on the verge of developing, a nuclear weapon that would threaten the entire Middle East and the world. Israel would especially be in danger.

The real questions are: Who is pushing this agenda? Who is pushing for Iran to go nuclear? And, who is so scared of Netanyahu briefing Congress and the American people on what Iran is up to?

The answer is Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin. This is where the anger from the White House is coming from.

Most people know she was born in Iran. This in itself does not disqualify her from advising the president, but it does open her agenda to scrutiny. There have been reports that she has been secretly negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, but the White House has vehemently denied it.

I, for one, don’t trust a thing this administration says.

Now, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the Obama administration has already given Iran eighty percent of what it has demanded in the negotiations. The “deal” to be reached will leave Iran within months of going nuclear if they decide to move forward. All of the centrifuges will remain under their control.


This “deal” is not a deal, but an appeasement.

The Post reports: “Jerusalem officials appear alarmed at the prospect that the United States will soon strike a deal with the Iranian regime that will leave it with a ‘breakout capacity’ of months during which it can gallop toward a nuclear bomb.”

This is what Valerie Jarrett is so scared of–that her secret deals with Iran to allow them to go nuclear will become public knowledge. She is scared Netanyahu will tell Congress and the American people what is really going on. We can’t have that, can we?

Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-reason-valerie-jarrett-scared-benjamin-netanyahu/#fbgWFIDOxFuKg0LO.99

Here’s The Reason Valerie Jarrett Is Scared Of Benjamin Netanyahu
Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?

L. Todd Wood — February 2, 2015

We have all seen the White House’s reaction to House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the Iranian nuclear situation. The Obama administration has completely freaked out, lobbing public barrages against Netanyahu and Boehner for “going around the White House and diplomatic protocol.” This is quite humorous for the president who famously said “I have a pen and a phone and can do anything I want”–but that’s for another column.

I’ve written about the Obama administration’s agenda when dealing with Iran. The agenda is to run out the clock and allow Iran to develop, or be on the verge of developing, a nuclear weapon that would threaten the entire Middle East and the world. Israel would especially be in danger.

The real questions are: Who is pushing this agenda? Who is pushing for Iran to go nuclear? And, who is so scared of Netanyahu briefing Congress and the American people on what Iran is up to?

The answer is Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin. This is where the anger from the White House is coming from.

Most people know she was born in Iran. This in itself does not disqualify her from advising the president, but it does open her agenda to scrutiny. There have been reports that she has been secretly negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, but the White House has vehemently denied it.

I, for one, don’t trust a thing this administration says.

Now, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the Obama administration has already given Iran eighty percent of what it has demanded in the negotiations. The “deal” to be reached will leave Iran within months of going nuclear if they decide to move forward. All of the centrifuges will remain under their control.


This “deal” is not a deal, but an appeasement.

The Post reports: “Jerusalem officials appear alarmed at the prospect that the United States will soon strike a deal with the Iranian regime that will leave it with a ‘breakout capacity’ of months during which it can gallop toward a nuclear bomb.”

This is what Valerie Jarrett is so scared of–that her secret deals with Iran to allow them to go nuclear will become public knowledge. She is scared Netanyahu will tell Congress and the American people what is really going on. We can’t have that, can we?

Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-reason-valerie-jarrett-scared-benjamin-netanyahu/#fbgWFIDOxFuKg0LO.99

Hi Basserdan- yes, I read Denninger and he has for a long time been posting the very same on the medical industry and the banksters. I don't agree with everything he says but he does make many good points.

.........al

I'm looking forward to the upcoming fight on the DHS budget. The house has passed a bill including no funding for Obama's executive orders. Senate dems have said they will filibuster it and Obama said he would veto it. I guess the dems have now become the "party of no". I say shut it down if they don't want it funded. If the FBI wasn't so busy trying to be oh so politically correct and kept busy running after the phoney civil rights claims from the race baiters (remember the 200 agents sent to Florida to investigate civil rights violations after the not guilty verdict on Zimmerman) we probably wouldn't need a DHS anyway. Yet I'll make this call; The repubs have become the party of wussies, they will cave in and give Obama everything he wants.

.....al

As long as he is so buddy buddy with Obama and Holder he can keep playing his get out of jail free card. An old saying- it's not what you know it's who you know and how much money you have.

.........al

Obama administration treats journalists as ‘enemies of the state’



The Obama administration treats journalists that “cross this administration” as “enemies of the state” who “will be attacked and punished,” according to a former CBS News investigative journalist.

Sharyl Attkisson, who resigned from CBS News in March, 2014 after 21 years with the network, lashed out at the White House and Justice Department on Thursday for blocking her various attempts to report on the activities of the US government.

“If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don’t like, you will be attacked and punished,” Attkisson testified at the Senate confirmation hearing for US Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch.

“You and your sources will be subjected to the kind of surveillance devised for enemies of the state," she said.

"They bully and threaten the access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth,” she added.

Attkisson is one of several reporters who have accused the Justice Department of spying on them for doing critical reports on the government. Earlier this month, she filed a $35 million lawsuit against outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder for the “unauthorized and illegal surveillance” of her computers and telephones from 2011 until 2013.

She was among a number of journalists who were investigating the Justice Department’s failed gun-running program, known as Operation Fast and Furious, that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels.

That investigation upset the White House and Justice Department, who called and emailed CBS News executives to put a lid on the story, Attkisson said.

Later, she discovered the government was spying on her and that the Justice Department also prevented her from attending Fast and Furious briefings with select reporters.

"There’s still a large distrust of the Justice Department, and in some cases, the government in general,” Attkisson said.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/30/395413/WH-treats-press-as-enemies-of-the-state

Meet Loretta Lynch – Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Who Might Be Even Worse than Eric Holder



Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”



– From the New York Times article: Criticism of Holder Dominates Hearing on Loretta Lynch, Attorney General’s Possible Successor

Eric Holder made a career out of protecting and coddling financial oligarchs (his 1999 memo essentially invented “Too Big to Jail”). This was such a lucrative decision for Mr. Holder, that it allowed him to climb all the way to the top of his profession. The dividends that supporting this man ultimately paid to Wall Street criminals were priceless. Not only were they bailed out despite wrecking the U.S. economy, they have since funneled all of the wealth gains since 2008 to themselves, while remaining above the law. This truly remarkable heist is what both Barack Obama and Eric Holder will be remembered for by history. Congratulations guys.

When Eric Holder announced his resignation, many of us breathed a sigh of relief thinking it can’t get much worse, but not so fast. The authoritarian streak and rampant cronyism of the Obama administration is a well oiled machine. You didn’t think you’d get off that easily did you? Enter Loretta Lynch.

I’ve touched upon Mrs. Lynch’s record previously, in the post, Wall Street Journal Reports Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Has Been Involved in $904 Million in Asset Forfeitures. Here’s an excerpt:

As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.

Naturally, that was just the tip of the iceberg. What we have learned from her ongoing confirmation hearing is that she’s a lover of NSA spying and the death penalty, while disagreeing with the statement that “marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol.”

I wonder if she has much personal experience to base this opinion on, or if it’s just more of the same we “know what’s best for you plebs, despite the fact that we have no idea what we are talking about.”

Meet the new Attorney General, same as the old. From the New York Times:

Ms. Lynch had steeled herself for tough questioning from a new Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, particularly on her views of President Obama’s immigration policy. But the questioning was mostly cordial, and, most important, the Republicans on the committee who hold the key to Ms. Lynch’s confirmation — she needs three of their votes to proceed to a vote by the full Senate — showed little opposition.

Of course it was cordial. Other than perhaps immigration, she basically espouses complete and total neo-con principals.

On the issue of immigration, Ms. Lynch said she found it “reasonable” that the Justice Department had concluded it was lawful for Mr. Obama to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Holder similarly endorsed that view.



Democrats see some Republicans, such as Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona, as possible confirmation votes. Mr. Flake said he had made no decision on Ms. Lynch but had come away with a favorable impression and expected that she would be confirmed.



On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”



Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat on the panel, said she had given “a flawless performance.” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, called her testimony “among the most accomplished and impressive that I’ve seen as a member of this committee.”

Oh, but there’s more. As if you needed proof that Ms. Lynch shares Eric Holder’s financial oligarch coddling tendencies, the International Business Times reports that:

WASHINGTON — In advance of her nomination hearing, Loretta Lynch did what every cabinet nominee is required to do: fill out a questionnaire listing all her media interviews so lawmakers can evaluate her candor. But the questionnaire U.S. attorney general nominee Lynch submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee has a notable omission. Lynch failed to include an interview in which she defended the controversial settlement she orchestrated with the bank HSBC.



The bank was accused of knowingly allowing Mexican drug cartels to launder money and of allowing violations of economic sanctions against countries including Iran, Libya, Sudan and Cuba. Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the bank to avoid prosecution in 2012 by paying a $1.9 billion fine and submitting to a monitor for five years to oversee compliance. Critics slammed the deal as an example of the Obama administration’s pattern of going easy on the financial industry. In the Dec. 11, 2012, interview she did with CBS News, Lynch endorsed the settlement and dismissed criticism of the deal as “shortsighted.”



Lynch’s boss at the time of the HSBC deal, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who was then head of the Department of Justice’s criminal prosecution division, resigned after a scathing Frontline piece that highlighted Justice’s failure to try any of the banks tied to the recession and the risky trades that led to it. It was during a discussion of HSBC before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Attorney General Holder famously said some banks — although not HSBC specifically — were too big to prosecute.

Well there you have it. This woman, like Eric Holder, will be an unmitigated disaster for freedom in America.

That’s what “liberal” looks like in today’s America.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-30/meet-loretta-lynch-%E2%80%93-obama%E2%80%99s-attorney-general-nominee-who-might-be-even-worse-eric-h

Meet Loretta Lynch – Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Who Might Be Even Worse than Eric Holder



Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”



– From the New York Times article: Criticism of Holder Dominates Hearing on Loretta Lynch, Attorney General’s Possible Successor

Eric Holder made a career out of protecting and coddling financial oligarchs (his 1999 memo essentially invented “Too Big to Jail”). This was such a lucrative decision for Mr. Holder, that it allowed him to climb all the way to the top of his profession. The dividends that supporting this man ultimately paid to Wall Street criminals were priceless. Not only were they bailed out despite wrecking the U.S. economy, they have since funneled all of the wealth gains since 2008 to themselves, while remaining above the law. This truly remarkable heist is what both Barack Obama and Eric Holder will be remembered for by history. Congratulations guys.

When Eric Holder announced his resignation, many of us breathed a sigh of relief thinking it can’t get much worse, but not so fast. The authoritarian streak and rampant cronyism of the Obama administration is a well oiled machine. You didn’t think you’d get off that easily did you? Enter Loretta Lynch.

I’ve touched upon Mrs. Lynch’s record previously, in the post, Wall Street Journal Reports Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Has Been Involved in $904 Million in Asset Forfeitures. Here’s an excerpt:

As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.

Naturally, that was just the tip of the iceberg. What we have learned from her ongoing confirmation hearing is that she’s a lover of NSA spying and the death penalty, while disagreeing with the statement that “marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol.”

I wonder if she has much personal experience to base this opinion on, or if it’s just more of the same we “know what’s best for you plebs, despite the fact that we have no idea what we are talking about.”

Meet the new Attorney General, same as the old. From the New York Times:

Ms. Lynch had steeled herself for tough questioning from a new Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, particularly on her views of President Obama’s immigration policy. But the questioning was mostly cordial, and, most important, the Republicans on the committee who hold the key to Ms. Lynch’s confirmation — she needs three of their votes to proceed to a vote by the full Senate — showed little opposition.

Of course it was cordial. Other than perhaps immigration, she basically espouses complete and total neo-con principals.

On the issue of immigration, Ms. Lynch said she found it “reasonable” that the Justice Department had concluded it was lawful for Mr. Obama to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Holder similarly endorsed that view.



Democrats see some Republicans, such as Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona, as possible confirmation votes. Mr. Flake said he had made no decision on Ms. Lynch but had come away with a favorable impression and expected that she would be confirmed.



On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”



Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat on the panel, said she had given “a flawless performance.” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, called her testimony “among the most accomplished and impressive that I’ve seen as a member of this committee.”

Oh, but there’s more. As if you needed proof that Ms. Lynch shares Eric Holder’s financial oligarch coddling tendencies, the International Business Times reports that:

WASHINGTON — In advance of her nomination hearing, Loretta Lynch did what every cabinet nominee is required to do: fill out a questionnaire listing all her media interviews so lawmakers can evaluate her candor. But the questionnaire U.S. attorney general nominee Lynch submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee has a notable omission. Lynch failed to include an interview in which she defended the controversial settlement she orchestrated with the bank HSBC.



The bank was accused of knowingly allowing Mexican drug cartels to launder money and of allowing violations of economic sanctions against countries including Iran, Libya, Sudan and Cuba. Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the bank to avoid prosecution in 2012 by paying a $1.9 billion fine and submitting to a monitor for five years to oversee compliance. Critics slammed the deal as an example of the Obama administration’s pattern of going easy on the financial industry. In the Dec. 11, 2012, interview she did with CBS News, Lynch endorsed the settlement and dismissed criticism of the deal as “shortsighted.”



Lynch’s boss at the time of the HSBC deal, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who was then head of the Department of Justice’s criminal prosecution division, resigned after a scathing Frontline piece that highlighted Justice’s failure to try any of the banks tied to the recession and the risky trades that led to it. It was during a discussion of HSBC before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Attorney General Holder famously said some banks — although not HSBC specifically — were too big to prosecute.

Well there you have it. This woman, like Eric Holder, will be an unmitigated disaster for freedom in America.

That’s what “liberal” looks like in today’s America.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-30/meet-loretta-lynch-%E2%80%93-obama%E2%80%99s-attorney-general-nominee-who-might-be-even-worse-eric-h

Hello Ayock- nice chart on minimum wage. It should be raised IMHO. The problem is that there are too many candidates for the limited number of jobs available. That's where economics comes into play. When there is lots of competition for a job the employer doesn't have to offer much in the form of wages and/or benefits to attract candidates for that job. I know I'm telling you something you already know, just reiterating it. Just leading in to my argument.

I thought both dems and repubs were seriously concerned about the job market and the millions of unemployed currently in the economy. Yet the dems are cheering over Obama's actions putting work papers into the hands of 6 million illegal aliens creating more competition for the already few jobs available. Sounds a little like speaking out of both sides of one's mouth to me. I just wonder how they can cheer something that that will place an already tight job market into further turmoil by the addition of 6 million more competitors. I'm sure you have an answer.

.......al

Got nil, nix, nein, no sympathy for them. They keep voting morons into office that open their arms and welcome illegals into the state. Wait till they start getting the tax bills to support all of them.

........al

basserdan- I said it before, let the democrats filibuster the bill to fund DHS. Call them the "party of no". Start a big PR campaign to tell the public that the democrats have shut down DHS(who needs it anyway) by filibustering the DHS funding bill. Put the onus on the anus(one of my favorite sayings).

..........al

WHY GRANDPA CARRIES A GUN..... an excellent read!
Thanks to Bertsllc
Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to "A Little Gun History" about half way down.

Why Carry a Gun?
My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles, and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun be cause I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't ca rry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....
author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the U S evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

The US Gov’t Has Created A Huge Illusion That May Soon Explode And Cost Citizens Billions
This could mean economic disaster for millions of Americans.
)

Why do Russians and Ukrainians line up around the block to exchange their own currency for dollars? What about Venezuelans? They will pay almost anything on the black market to get dollars for their almost worthless bolivars.

The reason they will do such things is that they believe the U.S. Dollar is worth something. Unfortunately, that is the only thing the dollar has going for it: that people think it is worth something.


Right now, most of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The Russian economy is crashing, China is sitting on a massive loan bubble, Europe is stagnating and possibly entering a depression, and terrorism is threatening the very fabric of life that the West has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Right now, the U.S. dollar is the cleanest shirt in the dirty pile.

So people are buying dollars, lots of them. The geopolitical uncertainty has caused a massive “flight to quality” in international markets. This has pushed the value of the dollar higher.

The concept is simple: if everybody wants something, the value gets moved to the upside. It’s simple supply and demand.

Another factor is that commodities, especially oil, tend to move in negative correlation to the dollar. So as the price for crude has fallen off the cliff, the value of the dollar has moved higher in the opposite direction. But oil can only go down so far; and eventually, international crises get resolved.


Do you get my point?

Eventually, the dollar will drift back down. It cannot stay in the stratosphere forever. Oil will rebound and move higher as the market shakes itself out.

When it does, investors will not think so much of the dollar. At that point, maybe they will realize they are buying paper, backed by nothing.

Peter Reagan of Birch Gold Group recently stated: “Here’s the takeaway: Dollar supremacy is hanging on by a thread. That thread is military might supported by a weak economy. That weak economy keeps trying to tell everyone that things are actually fine and getting better, but underlying facts do not bear this out. Recent unemployment figures show that fully a quarter of Americans in their prime working years are still unemployed after unemployment benefits run out. This is abysmal.”

The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States and other central banks around the world are doing their best to manipulate markets and economies to the advantage of their home countries. The fiat currencies of the world are only as good as their central banks’ last trick.

Look at what just happened in Switzerland. The Swiss National Bank had pledged to keep the franc from appreciating past 1.20 to the euro. That is, until this policy got too expensive.

Then, in the blink of an eye, they reversed their policy and allowed the franc to appreciate thirty percent against the euro and the dollar in one day. Investors around the world lost billions upon billions.

At some point, the manipulations of the Fed will run their course as well. Investors will lose billions as well when the Fed can no longer support the bond market in the U.S. by buying the debt of America to keep interest rates low.

Reagan has more to say about the Fed’s tomfoolery: “The best protection in this uncertain economic climate is to preserve your wealth by trading in your devalued dollars for gold. It is foolish to trust those in charge of the dollar, hoping they have some special knowledge and can magically turn this all around.” In my opinion, those are prophetic words. How could any one institution turn around this $18 trillion dollar debt monster they have created? How can this money be effectively paid back? The answer is, it can’t.

At some point, the dollar will come crashing back to earth. When I give speeches around the world on fiscal and monetary policy, I always get the question: Well, if what you are saying is true, what should we do? Where should we put our money?

My answer is the same every time. Buy something you can touch. Buy something that has held its value as a currency for centuries.

Buy gold.



http://www.westernjournalism.com/dollar-wizard-behind-curtain/#2qVBGhX1oVBlOHKC.99

The US Gov’t Has Created A Huge Illusion That May Soon Explode And Cost Citizens Billions
This could mean economic disaster for millions of Americans.
)

Why do Russians and Ukrainians line up around the block to exchange their own currency for dollars? What about Venezuelans? They will pay almost anything on the black market to get dollars for their almost worthless bolivars.

The reason they will do such things is that they believe the U.S. Dollar is worth something. Unfortunately, that is the only thing the dollar has going for it: that people think it is worth something.


Right now, most of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The Russian economy is crashing, China is sitting on a massive loan bubble, Europe is stagnating and possibly entering a depression, and terrorism is threatening the very fabric of life that the West has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Right now, the U.S. dollar is the cleanest shirt in the dirty pile.

So people are buying dollars, lots of them. The geopolitical uncertainty has caused a massive “flight to quality” in international markets. This has pushed the value of the dollar higher.

The concept is simple: if everybody wants something, the value gets moved to the upside. It’s simple supply and demand.

Another factor is that commodities, especially oil, tend to move in negative correlation to the dollar. So as the price for crude has fallen off the cliff, the value of the dollar has moved higher in the opposite direction. But oil can only go down so far; and eventually, international crises get resolved.


Do you get my point?

Eventually, the dollar will drift back down. It cannot stay in the stratosphere forever. Oil will rebound and move higher as the market shakes itself out.

When it does, investors will not think so much of the dollar. At that point, maybe they will realize they are buying paper, backed by nothing.

Peter Reagan of Birch Gold Group recently stated: “Here’s the takeaway: Dollar supremacy is hanging on by a thread. That thread is military might supported by a weak economy. That weak economy keeps trying to tell everyone that things are actually fine and getting better, but underlying facts do not bear this out. Recent unemployment figures show that fully a quarter of Americans in their prime working years are still unemployed after unemployment benefits run out. This is abysmal.”

The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States and other central banks around the world are doing their best to manipulate markets and economies to the advantage of their home countries. The fiat currencies of the world are only as good as their central banks’ last trick.

Look at what just happened in Switzerland. The Swiss National Bank had pledged to keep the franc from appreciating past 1.20 to the euro. That is, until this policy got too expensive.

Then, in the blink of an eye, they reversed their policy and allowed the franc to appreciate thirty percent against the euro and the dollar in one day. Investors around the world lost billions upon billions.

At some point, the manipulations of the Fed will run their course as well. Investors will lose billions as well when the Fed can no longer support the bond market in the U.S. by buying the debt of America to keep interest rates low.

Reagan has more to say about the Fed’s tomfoolery: “The best protection in this uncertain economic climate is to preserve your wealth by trading in your devalued dollars for gold. It is foolish to trust those in charge of the dollar, hoping they have some special knowledge and can magically turn this all around.” In my opinion, those are prophetic words. How could any one institution turn around this $18 trillion dollar debt monster they have created? How can this money be effectively paid back? The answer is, it can’t.

At some point, the dollar will come crashing back to earth. When I give speeches around the world on fiscal and monetary policy, I always get the question: Well, if what you are saying is true, what should we do? Where should we put our money?

My answer is the same every time. Buy something you can touch. Buy something that has held its value as a currency for centuries.

Buy gold.



http://www.westernjournalism.com/dollar-wizard-behind-curtain/#2qVBGhX1oVBlOHKC.99

Greek Elections and the World’s Flawed Currency
January 28, 2015 by Vasko Kohlmayer

Euro_coins_and_banknotesThe triumph of the anti-austerity Syriza party in the Greek elections means that we are very likely headed for a serious currency crisis.

We have, in fact, been in a currency crisis for some time. Signs of it are all over the place. If one major currency (the Swiss Frank) can appreciate against another major currency (the euro) by one third within twenty-four hours as it did earlier this month, there is obviously something deeply wrong. The steady depreciation of the euro against the dollar — which itself is a deeply over-indebted and unsound currency — is another indicator of the flawed nature of the world’s currency regime.

The Greek election may have sounded the death knell for the Eurozone. The Eurozone is a fragile and unsustainable arrangement that cannot but disintegrate eventually. As one observer presciently put it years ago, the euro encompasses too many conflicting interests for it to be able to survive in the long-run.

Bad arrangements can last for some time but reality inevitably asserts itself in the end. The flawed euro already nearly fell apart in 2010. Things became so dire at one point that then French President Nicolas Sarkozy shoutingly threatened German Chancellor Angela Merkel with leaving the Eurozone. Had Merkel said “adieu” much future pain could have probably been averted. Needless to say the Eurozone project was preserved by a combination of bailouts, loans, stimuli and pledges amidst tensions and bickering of various Eurozone member nations pursuing different agendas.

The Greek government has incurred large debts and now it cannot repay. To be able to do so, spending would have to be cut further which is something the Greek people are unwilling to accept. It is difficult to blame them — they already have a hard time of it as large segments of the Greek population are undergoing considerable hardship and pain. It is just sad that they were not thinking of this when they were borrowing like there was no tomorrow and using the money to finance an unsustainable way of life. About 20 percent of the Greeks had jobs in the public sector with an early retirement age and generous benefits. When so much money is consumed by the unproductive sphere of the population things cannot but turn sour eventually. Reality invariably catches up in the end.

But Greece is only the tip of the iceberg. The problem of over-indebtedness is considerable across the Eurozone. Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and even Belgium are also straining under public debts of more than 100 percent of GDP. Unfunded liabilities, implicit promises that these governments have made to their populations, are not included in this.

In the short term the focus will be on the euro and its tribulations. The dollar is likely to appreciate in the process. This itself is an indication of how tainted the world’s currency regime really is. With its public debt in excess of 100 percent GDP and unfunded liabilities of more than $200 trillion, the dollar carries greater debt burden than any other currency ever known to man. It is quite obvious that there is no way these liabilities can ever be met.

Yet, because of the way the currency system is presently set up, the defective dollar is likely to strengthen on the back of the euro’s troubles. The dollar, however, is no true King. With the United States being the greatest debtor in history, the dollar is a poor man masquerading as King. For now the masquerade continues, but the question is how long can it last.

Reality has a way of catching up in the end.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/vasko-kohlmayer/greek-elections-and-the-worlds-flawed-currency/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1020c6b3a4-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-1020c6b3a4-156971809

Infinite Gold
An Endless Supply of Paper Gold
By Adam English 2015-01-27

What if I told you that your gold could be multiplied over and over... that a single bar of gold can be turned into a nearly endless hoard of the yellow metal?

I certainly couldn't blame you if you think I was either full of it or living in a fantasy land. But it's true. And all you need to get started is a central bank, a bullion bank, and a bunch of greedy brokers.

Pass around that gold bar, and it'll turn into a nearly infinite supply of gold...

Welcome to the bizarre reality we know as gold rehypothecation.

It may be perverse, fraudulent, and just about the worst idea ever, but don't doubt for a second that banks and brokers are minting an endless supply of gold — at least on paper.

How It Works

Few people understand exactly how far this goes, how it affects the market, and how it creates tremendous risk for everyone out of what we're assured are safe "reserves."

The Fed has this musty, subterranean vault in New York filled with gold that isn't doing anything.

How terribly boring, right?

Luckily, a bullion bank executive wanders along and has a proposal...

He wants to borrow the gold, pay some interest on it, and then return it at a later date. And the Fed loves it. After all, it gets to profit off of some metal that's otherwise gathering dust in its basement — and pump some more wealth into the market in the interim.

Other central banks love the idea, too, and the bullion banker has an easy time getting similar deals from them.

So the bullion banker now has possession of a bunch of borrowed gold, but can't really do much with it, because virtually no one accepts gold payments. So he needs to monetize it while turning a profit greater than the interest due to the central banks.

Thankfully, everyone loves gold as collateral... So our bullion banker hypothecates the gold, meaning he gives the gold — or, more commonly, pledges access to it — as collateral for cash.

Now is when the real fun begins, as that gold gets multiplied time and time again...

The creditor is now making money through the loan and has gold as collateral if anything goes wrong. And no need to stop there... Remember, the creditor has a guarantee that it'll at least get the gold if the loan defaults.

So the creditor goes and pledges the gold that was pledged to it as collateral for another deal. The gold has now been hypothecated again, or rehypothecated.

In the United States, this presents a problem. You see, rehypothecation is capped at 140% of the value of the original collateral. But bankers and brokers are crafty, and they easily found a way around the rules. They just need to get the money out of the country...

So they bury legally binding clauses into their lengthy contracts to get U.S. clients to let them move a client's assets and funds over to subsidiary accounts in the United Kingdom.

Now there are virtually no limits. 100% of any pledged assets (such as collateral) can be rehypothecated in the UK.

So the gold that came from the Fed was used as collateral for a loan. Then that collateral was used as collateral. Then again. And again. From bank to broker to investment firm, the original bullion has become the basis for an endless chain of guaranteed gold.

Since each and every agreement, loan, and contract depends on it, it is mitigating the risk of all of these deals if they go sour. On paper, there is a whole lot of gold being used as collateral, but the actual amount of the precious metal hasn't changed.

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.outsiderclub.com/infinite-paper-gold-rehypothecation/1392

Meet The Extreme Super Rich: A List Of The 80 People Who Own As Much As The World’s Poorest 3.6 Billion

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/28/2015 15:31 -0500



Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Before I get into the meat of this post, I want to make it clear that the definition of oligarch, a term I use a lot, does not center solely around money.

Late last year, in the post Inside the Mind of an Oligarch – Sheldon Adelson Proclaims “I Don’t Like Journalism,” I attempted to frame the word oligarch as I use it. I wrote the following:

In a nutshell, while many oligarchs are extremely wealthy (or have access to extreme wealth), not all people with extreme wealth are oligarchs. The term oligarch is reserved for those with extreme wealth who also want to control the political process, policy levers and most other aspects of the lives of the citizenry in a top-down tyrannical and undemocratic manner. They think they know best about pretty much everything, and believe unelected technocrats who share their worldview should be empowered so that they can unilaterally make all of society’s important decisions. The unwashed masses (plebs) in their minds are unnecessary distractions who must to be told what to do. Useless eaters who need to be brainwashed into worshipping the oligarch mindset, or turned into apathetic automatons incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thought. Either outcome is equally acceptable and equally encouraged.

With that out of the way, Five-Thirty-Eight provided the following:

Eighty people hold the same amount of wealth as the world’s 3.6 billion poorest people, according to an analysis just released from Oxfam. The report from the global anti-poverty organization finds that since 2009, the wealth of those 80 richest has doubled in nominal terms — while the wealth of the poorest 50 percent of the world’s population has fallen.

There you have it. The reason the wealth of the richest has doubled since 2009, is because “it’s not a recession, it’s a robbery.” Central bank and government policy has done this, it is no accident.

For more evidence…

Four years earlier, 388 billionaires together held as much wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world.



Thirty-five of the 80 richest people in the world are U.S. citizens, with combined wealth of $941 billion in 2014. Together in second place are Germany and Russia, with seven mega-rich individuals apiece. The entire list is dominated by one gender, though — 70 of the 80 richest people are men. And 68 of the people on the list are 50 or older.



Oxfam notes that global wealth inequality is increasing while the rich get richer. If trends continue, the organization projects that the richest 1 percent of people will have more wealth than the remaining 99 percent by 2016.

Now here’s the list:
1 Bill Gates $76 USA Tech
2 Carlos Slim Helu $72 Mexico Telecom
3 Amancio Ortega $64 Spain Retail
4 Warren Buffett $58 USA Finance
5 Larry Ellison $48 USA Tech
6 Charles Koch $40 USA Diversified
7 David Koch $40 USA Diversified
8 Sheldon Adelson $38 USA Entertainment
9 Christy Walton $37 USA Retail
10 Jim Walton $35 USA Retail
11 Liliane Bettencourt $35 France Product
12 Stefan Persson $34 Sweden Retail
13 Alice Walton $34 USA Retail
14 S. Robson Walton $34 USA Retail
15 Bernard Arnault $34 France Luxury
16 Michael Bloomberg $33 USA Finance
17 Larry Page $32 USA Tech
18 Jeff Bezos $32 USA Retail
19 Sergey Brin $32 USA Tech
20 Li Ka-shing $31 Hong Kong Diversified
21 Mark Zuckerberg $29 USA Tech
22 Michele Ferrero $27 Italy Food
23 Aliko Dangote $25 Nigeria Commodities
24 Karl Albrecht $25 Germany Retail
25 Carl Icahn $25 USA Finance
26 George Soros $23 USA Finance
27 David Thomson $23 Canada Media
28 Lui Che Woo $22 Hong Kong Entertainment
29 Dieter Schwarz $21 Germany Retail
30 Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud $20 Saudi Arabia Finance
31 Forrest Mars Jr. $20 USA Food
32 Jacqueline Mars $20 USA Food
33 John Mars $20 USA Food
34 Jorge Paulo Lemann $20 Brazil Drinks
35 Lee Shau Kee $20 Hong Kong Diversified
36 Steve Ballmer $19 USA Tech
37 Theo Albrecht Jr. $19 Germany Retail
38 Leonardo Del Vecchio $19 Italy Luxury
39 Len Blavatnik $19 USA Diversified
40 Alisher Usmanov $19 Russia Extractives
41 Mukesh Ambani $19 India Extractives
42 Masayoshi Son $18 Japan Telecom
43 Michael Otto $18 Germany Retail
44 Phil Knight $18 USA Retail
45 Tadashi Yanai $18 Japan Retail
46 Gina Rinehart $18 Australia Extractives
47 Mikhail Fridman $18 Russia Extractives
48 Michael Dell $18 USA Tech
49 Susanne Klatten $17 Germany Cars
50 Abigail Johnson $17 USA Finance
51 Viktor Vekselberg $17 Russia Metals
52 Lakshmi Mittal $17 India Metals
53 Vladimir Lisin $17 Russia Transport
54 Cheng Yu-tung $16 Hong Kong Diversified
55 Joseph Safra $16 Brazil Finance
56 Paul Allen $16 USA Tech
57 Leonid Mikhelson $16 Russia Extractives
58 Anne Cox Chambers $16 USA Media
59 Francois Pinault $16 France Retail
60 Iris Fontbona $16 Chile Extractives
61 Azim Premji $15 India Tech
62 Mohammed Al Amoudi $15 Saudi Arabia Extractives
63 Gennady Timchenko $15 Russia Extractives
64 Wang Jianlin $15 China Real Estate
65 Charles Ergen $15 USA Telecom
66 Stefan Quandt $15 Germany Cars
67 Germán Larrea Mota Velasco $15 Mexico Extractives
68 Harold Hamm $15 USA Extractives
69 Ray Dalio $14 USA Finance
70 Donald Bren $14 USA Real Estate
71 Georg Schaeffler $14 Germany Product
72 Luis Carlos Sarmiento $14 Colombia Finance
73 Ronald Perelman $14 USA Finance
74 Laurene Powell Jobs $14 USA Entertainment
75 Serge Dassault $14 France Aviation
76 John Fredriksen $14 Cyprus Transport
77 Vagit Alekperov $14 Russia Extractives
78 John Paulson $14 USA Finance
79 Rupert Murdoch $14 USA Media
80 Ma Huateng $13 China Tech



I didn’t provide this list to say whether these people are good or bad. I provide it, because whenever 80 people own as much as the poorest 50% of the globe, we sure better know who they are. We should also be cognizant of the disproportionate influence any of them can have on public affairs should they want to.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-28/meet-extreme-super-rich-list-80-people-who-own-much-world%E2%80%99s-poorest-36-billion