You HAVE to see this. The other day I was perusing the news and came across an article about overhauling the compensation of Wall Street executives. In that article, there was a bit about how the top brass at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other such firms were pledging not to take bonuses this year.

Well, I'm glad to see these people are so willing to sacrifice themselves. I mean, pledging not to take bonuses after leading their companies to the edge of financial ruin, now that takes some real courage, doesn't it? It's good to know we have the kind of leaders in our nation's big financial firms that will not take a bonus when their company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Isn't that just so brave of them? I mean, no matter how tempted they may be, they have pledged not to take bonuses. Isn't that amazing? I'm just so proud of them, I could cry. No wait, I believe the urge I have is to puke not to cry.

Have you had just about enough of all this government bailout business? Whatever happened to good old fashioned capitalism anyway? Isn't potential failure simply part of the risk when running a business? Isn't losing out to the competition always a possibility? Isn't having a bad year something that is going to happen once in a while no matter what? Aren't all these companies run by highly experienced, highly intelligent, well educated, business school graduates? Haven't they been taught how to plan for their company's future? Don't they know how to manage cash flow and capital so as to be prepared for downturns in the business cycle? So when did running to the government and begging for money become part of everyone's business plan anyway? And just how big of a company do you have to be to get such privileges in the first place? Are there any small business owners out there that are going to get a chunk of this bailout money? I highly doubt it, but why not? What's the difference? My savings account could use a bump up in its balance, why not throw me on the bailout list? I can hurry and run up a bunch of bad debts and fail as a business owner if that's all it takes to get a piece of the $700 billion pie. I mean, if you're going to spend $700 billion dollars on banks and big companies, why not throw the money around to everyone?

As far as that goes, why give that much money to financial institutions in the first place? Oh yeah, so these wonderful institutions, who are failing because they have too many bad debts, can loan out even more money.

Great. Good idea. Give them more money to do what they have already proven to be failures at doing.

That's some top notch thinking there. Makes about as much sense as using dirt to wash your car.

As I understand it, many of these banks are failing because too many people have failed to keep up payments on their homes. OK, so instead of giving banks more money to make more loans, why not give regular people money to pay off their mortgages?

If people pay off their home loans, that still puts the money into the hands of the financial institutions, plus it takes care of the bad debts that supposedly caused the problem in the first place, and it frees up more money for these home owners to spend on other things which, in turn, would stimulate the rest of the economy, right?

Am I not right here? $700 billion dollars could buy a LOT of homes, you know? It would do more good for more people than just sticking a bunch of money into the hands of some bank that's already FAILED.

And as far as that goes, instead of pumping several billion into the auto industry, why not simply give a million people $30,000 each to spend on a new car? That totals out to $30 billion, not a bad number for our apparently rich government to toss around.

So why not? Why not do it that way? Why not give money to people instead of failed businesses?

Oh yeah, because that would be way ridiculous, completely stupid, and so NOT within the purpose of government!

Of course, neither is what they are doing now.

Oh I know, I know, I'm not an economist. I'm no financial expert. Who am I to say what is good for the economy? Who am I to say what big businesses and the federal government should do? I don't have a business degree. I'm not an elected official. I'm not in a position of power. I'm just a wanna be writer who drives a school bus. But you know what? I've never screwed up to the tune of $700 billion either.

Remember that when you pull taxes out of my paycheck to pay for this stinking mess, will you? Oh, and one more thing, after all the bailouts put the government another TRILLION dollars in debt, who's going to bail that out?

By: Joe Bingham
More Jokes, Humor, and other Sarcastic Ramblings at http://www.JoeHumor.com
Plus Check Out "Team Sarcasm T's"
Truly funny t-shirts with the right sarcastic attitude.
"Life's A Joke, Why Not Laugh At It?"

Has anybody seen our Free Market System lately? I'm looking for it. I am looking on the side of milk cartons and I am watching America's Most Wanted - but I don't see it anywhere - no one feels that it is lost - the so called "objective" television media isn't talking about it (except for a select few) and certainly none of our elected leaders. What has happened to our free market system of Capitalism? Are those growing up now - those kids 6-13 - are they getting gypped out of a chance at Capitalism?

Do you believe our government is now operating under the guidance of Capitalism and the Free Market?

I know for sure they are not. And even the President of the United States - someone who swore under oath that he would uphold the Constitution and its principles - even the President openly now admits that we are not operating under the concept of Capitalism. He recently said "We had to abandon the principles of the Free Market (are you ready for this?) - to save the Free Market!". Think about the absurdity of this statement!

Socialism is slowly (maybe not slowly anymore) seeping into our government and society. The government wants to take away most of your freedoms and leave you reliant on the government. Is this what you want? Is this what the founding fathers had in mind? Where is the ruggedness of old times? Where is the "stick it out" attitude of the old times? Are our so called "business leaders" such pansies that they are afraid to fail - and start up again? I hate to inform you guys but that happens out here in the "real world" everyday! Businesses start and businesses fail - better ones take their place - survival of the fittest - Capitalism.

Why are companies too big to fail? The tax paying, hard working people of the United States are too big to fail - the American people - We the People. Remember us? We hired you people in Washington. We elected you. And we shall now slowly unelect you, because We the People will rise up and have our voices heard.

You can only oppress the people for so long and for so hard. They revolted in the late 1700's and it looks like it may be time for another. They are pushing the American people into a corner with no escape - and how to trapped animals respond? We must stand strong and - through our numbers - push them back. The Constitution allows us to do this.

Who is too big to fail? The people are too big to fail not these large single companies. The reason these companies are deemed too big to fail is solely because of the greed and corruption that prevails in Washington - in the hallowed offices of our founding fathers - how dare those slobs in Washington? The so called "too big to fail" companies have our elected politicians in their pocket - nice and snug and they convinced their buddies in Washington to bail them out - at the expense of the American people.

The media is saying that the President will not let these Auto companies fail on his watch! How unbelievably arrogant and selfish. If a business fails it is the businesses fault - let it fail - let Capitalism work. Let these companies fail and let ingenuity and entrepreneurship rise to the occasion and open a better stronger company - what happened to that idea? What happened to our free market?

Please people we must rise up as a nation - as a people and stand up to the government and their disastrous policies. The government has screwed things up so badly that they will soon look to the world for all the answers and soon there will be one government - one world government - one currency - one world currency. Is this what you want? If there was a vote of all the tax paying Americans tomorrow as to if this is what We the People wanted - what do you think the outcome would be? American tax payers are AGAINST these policies and simply want the real America to rear its head, prop up ole' Uncle Sam and dig our heals in - we MUST stand up to our government! And we must do it NOW, TODAY!

By: Ken Ross Jr
http://www.AmericansForTheConstitution.com
Join me in this battle. The battle to once again show those in power who the real boss is. It is time people. The tax paying masses have to stop wasting time watching TV and instead get involved on a local level and begin to discuss and petition government and build these meeting groups in enough volume throughout the country so that our voice is finally heard. We must take advantage of the First Amendment and exercise our rights of FREE SPEECH, ASSEMBLY and PETITION. Join me today and be counted.

The Clintons MUST report their secretive list of contributors to the shadowy library, the modern technique for laundering money to public servants. It's revealed today that $500M has been shoveled at Bubba Inc from foreign interests, and the Clintons will never be able to stop defending their integrity, and their true committment to the welfare of the American people now that the slush fund has been made public. Hannity and other noise generators will trumpet these facts for the rest of their careers.

Meanwhile, any dealing Clinton makes as SecState will be filtered through this baggage and she will have a never ending task of demonstrating how her foreign activities don't have any connection to the slush fund and their personal interests. In any event, voters don't care about foreign policy as long as their children don't get conscripted for war, and properly so. Since it's impossible to ever declare a victory of diplomacy, Clinton will have no achievements to speak of that can differentiate her from Obama's policy since he will get to take any credit she gains by declaring it a triumph for his administration.

I really think this is Clinton saying she accepts that she won't be President, and has settled for the ability to maintain the lines of finance and communication to the slush fund for Bubba Inc. After some years as Sec State, she will probably ask to be Supreme Court judge where her legacy can be consummated. What a distasteful thought.

Meanwhile Obama has demonstrated he understands the power of the concept of funding in the public consciousness by opting for the democratic, principled, and more importantly, untraceable method of millions of anonymous credit card donors spontaneously supporting him. This is cash that doesn't even have to be filtered through the laundry, because of the way they turned off credit card address validation right as the surge of donations occurred. Brilliant. He has secured an unassailable war chest for all future projects after his Presidency. I am sure he is studying how to maintain the same level of anonymity for future contributions to his foundation and library when his tour as President is over. All he has to do is get through his term without any mud sticking to him and he will be Saint for Life. He will make Clinton look amateurish when it comes to international influence after his term.

Brilliant. Mao would be proud.

By: Ken Long
Ken Long, Chief of Research, Tortoise Capital Management
finance: http://www.tortoisecapital.com
essays: http://kansasreflections.wordpress.com
Independent research, combining technical analysis and behavioral psychology.
30 day free trial of reports and live trader chatroom.
Training, education, mentoring and coaching for professional traders.

Many like to argue that President Bush knew of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. They cite the title of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), which read: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."

The PDB's actual text; however, gives no specifics, or warnings, on what eventually happened on 9/11 attacks. The title is immediately followed by this PDB statement: "Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S."

The briefing continues on in a tone similar to terror related security briefings. It gives a basic history of Bin Laden's attacks against U.S. interests, then gives a general overview of specific attempted, or desired, attacks. Its theme was Bin Laden's desires to strike inside the US, and his mode of operation.

According to the PDB, Osama Bin Laden wanted to attack Washington D.C. in retaliation for our missile strikes against Afghanistan. He wanted to go on the offensive and fight in America.

The first post Afghanistan attack opportunity came with the botched millennium attacks. It started with a guy planning on attacking the Los Angeles airport, then developed to a plan that Al-Qaeda ended up supporting. The report goes on to talk about how Al Qaeda prepared for its attacks by initially conducting surveillance, then planning the attacks. The PDB talked about how terrorists take their time preparing prior to carrying the attacks out.

The report talked about al Qaeda cells in the U.S., groups of people that were ready to carry these attacks out.

The PDB does mention a Bin Ladin desire to conduct a hijacking operation, but it wasn't for bombing the World Trade Center. He wanted to hijack an American airplane to try to get the Blind Sheik, al-Rahman, and Islamic extremists released. In other words, this PDF mentioned a routine, pre 9/11 style airplane hijacking. This is where an airplane is taken, Americans are held hostage, a few days of negotiations take place; and then the hostages hopefully get released. This part of the report wasn't corroborated, and the hijacking was listed as the most "sensational" report.

The PDB talked about pre terror attack surveillance taking place in the US, to include surveillance being conducted in New York. The surveillance targets; however, were federal buildings, not the World Trace Center buildings. The PDB also explained explosions, but in terms of explosions being carried out from within the US. Not via airplane.

Simply put, the warning was general, vague, and projected based on Pre 9/11, or 9/10, assumptions.

History tells us that even if the President, after reading this PDB, set defenses up to meet those threats, the 9/11 attacks would've still happened. This PDB is an example of the kind of information that the intelligence community constantly receives. Throughout the 1990s, the government received numerous terrorist related threats. Most the threats didn't bear fruit; this is what the government has to work with when trying to prevent future attacks.

To argue that President Bush turned a blind eye to the 9/11 attacks, by using this PDB, is to apply a double standard. President Bush's critics take the hijacking part of the PDB; which was uncorroborated; then argue that President Bush "knew" that a 9/11 style hijacking was supposed to take place in the near future. The PDB doesn't support that assumption. Ironically, many of these critics will turn around and dismiss as "unconfirmed" strong circumstantial evidence that helps the Bush Administration's arguments.

Resource:

Presidential Daily Brief dated, Dated August 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

By: Travis Hill
Travis is a freelance writer that specializes in information market, political writing, fundraising and communications.