Producers vs. Moochers: Obama’s Execution of The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability Benefits, Earned Income Credits, Obamacare, Student Loans, Veterans Administration, Open Borders, Massive Deficits and Debts, Unsustainable Unfunded Liabilities, High Unemployment Rates — Legal Status — Amnesty — Citizenship for 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens — Overloading The Welfare System — Democratic Progressive Party Tyranny — Obama’s Unconstrained Utopian Vision– Videos

Posted on June 12, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crisis, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Freedom, Friends, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, liberty, Life, Literacy, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Unions, Video, Welfare | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 276: June 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 275: June 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 274: June 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 273: June 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 272: June 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 271: June 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 270: May 30, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 269: May 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 268: May 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 267: May 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 266: May 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 265: May 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 264: May 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 263: May 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 262: May 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 261: May 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 260: May 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 259: May 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 258: May 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 257: May 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 256: May 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 255: May 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 254: May 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 253: April 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 252: April 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 251: April 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 250: April 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 249: April 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 248: April 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 247: April 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 246: April 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 245: April 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 244: April 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 243: April 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 242: April 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 241: April 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 240: April 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 239: April 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 238: April 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 237: April 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 236: April 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 235: March 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 234: March 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 233: March 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 232: March 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 231: March 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 230: March 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 229: March 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 228: March 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 227: March 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 226: March 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 225: March 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 224: March 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 223: March 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 222: March 3, 2014

 Story 1:Producers vs. Moochers:  Obama’s Execution of The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability Benefits, Earned Income Credits, Obamacare, Student Loans, Veterans Administration, Open Borders, Massive Deficits and Debts, Unsustainable Unfunded Liabilities,   High Unemployment Rates — Legal Status — Amnesty — Citizenship for 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens — Overloading The Welfare System — Democratic Progressive Party Tyranny — Obama’s Unconstrained Utopian Vision– Videos

cloward-piven

cloward-and-piven

Cloward-Piven

org_chart_howard_piveni

rules-for-radicals

obama-read

obama_rules_radicals

rules_radicals

barack-meme-generator-using-cloward-piven-usa-will-be-bankrupt-and-ripe-for-communist-revolutionrules-for-radicals (1)

the-cloward-piven-model-spendgali-politics

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

dependencyrulers

cycle of government dependency

John Stossel – A Nation Of Moochers

John Stossel – Serious Crony Capitalism

How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market | David Stockman

David Stockman on TARP, the Fed, Ron Paul and Reagan [FULL VERSION]

The Forgotten Cause of Sound Money | David Stockman

Carmen Reinhart on Financial Crisis and Fiscal Policy

Kenneth Rogoff – Why Austerity is right & Growth is critical (19.12.12)

Record Number Of Americans Receiving Disability Benefits – Stuart Varney – America’s Newsroom

Number Of People On Food Stamps Up 70% Since 2008 – America’s News HQ

Economics 101-The Dangers Of Government Dependency

Opinion: The Government Dependency Trap

Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved

Is Government Dependence the New American Way – Working Doesn’t Pay

Welfare fraud investigation

Mark Levin: The Cloward Piven & Obama strategy

Matthew Vadum on Glenn Beck Program, May 28, 2009 (replayed June 4, 2009)

Glenn Beck Learns About Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 1

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 2

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 3

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 4

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 5

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 6

Frances Fox Piven’s opinion of Glenn Beck

Professor Frances Fox Piven on Glenn Beck targeting her

Saul Alinsky speaking at UCLA 1/17/1969

Alinsky for Dummies (Mr. Joseph A. Morris – Acton Institute)

02-05-13 Macro Analytics – The Cloward Piven Strategy

What In The World Is Cloward-PIven (and is it working?)

The End of America….The Cloward-Piven Strategy

complete cloward piven strategy project

Cloward Piven Strategy

Fall 2010 Marc Sumerlin Lecture Series Featuring Prof. Carmen Reinhart

MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama..

Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist

Thomas Sowell – Frances Fox Piven vs. Milton Friedman

Obama’s Vision for America by Thomas Sowell!

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Blues Brothers – Minnie the Moocher (Cab Calloway)

 

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
Why?
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
Newsmax rounds out the picture:
Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.
In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article bySol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”
According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad“:
The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.  
The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani citedCloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.
Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.
The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”
ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear
In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke — like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” andACORN went nationwide.
Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.
Voting
On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.
ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
  • 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
  • 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
  • 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has beenfrequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.
ACORN’s website brags: “Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.” Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.
Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:
By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.
Illegal Immigration
As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.
The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over byillegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he broughtagainst the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.
His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists.According to the Wall Street JournalAfter 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”
ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.
Mortgage Crisis
And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago.  It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”
ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining.  Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
As a New York Post article describes it:
A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999and $600 billion by early 2003.
The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.
The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)
Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”
And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.
Even now, unbelievably — on the brink of national disaster — Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!
This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.
Enter Barack Obama
In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

Cloward Piven Strategy

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. 
They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.
Saul Alinsky
Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.
Bill Ayers
Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at theWoods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:
“…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”
Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.
Carl Davidson and the New Party
We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS memberCarl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”
George Soros
The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.
ACORN
Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:
I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. – Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)
In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:
It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?
As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as alead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns — both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”
In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.
In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?
His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.
As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.
Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!
God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Explained

By  Email To A Friend Email To A Friend

Editors Note: Shortly after becoming part of a local Tea Party Group, I became aware of something called The Cloward-Piven Strategy. After researching this topic extensively, I discovered an article written in September, 2008 BEFORE Barack Obama was elected President. The article was written by James Simpson and originally posted at American Thinker. Here’s a link to the original post if you’d like to check it out. Mr. Simpson has graciously given us permission to repost the article here and will be contributing other material to this site in the future. We are looking forward to his further investigations! As far was TeaPartyConnect.com is concerned, this article should be required reading for all Tea Party members.
TheGuru

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors – Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It animates their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy of Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

 

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  • The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  • The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  • The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”

According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad”:

The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke – like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

Voting

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

  1. Register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
  2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
  3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN’s website brags:

“Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.”

Project Vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them had a pulse. For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive wascredited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiteratesCloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became theCoalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: “After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”

ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. EconomistStan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”—claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications—but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary,ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. Barack Obama represented ACORN in this effort.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide – rescued by Bank of America in July – which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor’s Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably – on the brink of national disaster – Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported Thursday night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama.

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his connection to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American Radical Left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really need go no further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal has added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with Ayers on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a non-profit Ayers designed to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states: “…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”

Also included in the mix is John and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center. No wonder Kerry, Kennedy et al love Obama. Just one big happy family.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According toDiscover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”

George Soros

The chart also suggests one reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard of the promising new politician from his former colleagues. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama. Soros is a natural suspect in this fiasco as he has made all his ill-gotten gains short-selling on national disaster. The extent of his dirty dealings is worthy of its own book.

ACORN

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:

I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I will put it more bluntly: Barack Obama is fully aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy and has actively worked to achieve its goals for most of his adult life.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for???

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns – both with money and campaign workers; it is inconceivable that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is inconceivable he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Hussein Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”

In 2005, Republicans sought to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books. To add insult to injury, the $3 million fine was paid with Fannie Mae’s insurance fund.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign, helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as owner and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in life savings of the bank’s approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American ThinkerWashington Times, FrontPage MagazineDefenseWatchSoldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences.

You can access the other parts of the Cloward-Piven series of articles by James Simpson at the American Daughter Media Center which also includes versions of these articles in Word Document format for downloading and re-printing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis 
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings 
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy

http://www.teapartyconnect.com/102/the-cloward-piven-strategy-explained/

 

Cloward–Piven strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.[2]

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)[citation needed].

 

 

The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”[4]

Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. “Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition,” they wrote. “Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5]

Reception and criticism

Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because “Great Society programs had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.”[6]

Liberal commentator Michael Tomasky, writing about the strategy in the 1990s and again in 2011, called it “wrongheaded and self-defeating”, writing: “It apparently didn’t occur to [Cloward and Piven] that the system would just regard rabble-rousing black people as a phenomenon to be ignored or quashed.”[7]

Impact of the strategy

In papers published in 1971 and 1977, Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for.[8]Political scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads.

In his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy “created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction.”[9]

According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007, “Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired.”[10]

Some commentators have blamed the Cloward–Piven strategy for the near-bankruptcy of New York City in 1975.[11][12]

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck referred to the Cloward-Piven Strategy often on his Fox News television show, Glenn Beck, during its run from 2009 to 2011, reiterating his opinion that it had helped to inspire President Barack Obama‘s economic policy. On February 18, 2010, for example, Beck said, “you’ve got total destruction of wealth coming … It’s the final phase of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is collapse the system.”[13]

Richard Kim, writing in 2010 in The Nation (in which the original essay appeared), called such assertions “a reactionary paranoid fantasy …” but says that “the left’s gut reaction upon hearing of it–to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery–does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact.”[14] The Nation later stated that Beck blames the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” for “the financial crisis of 2008, healthcare reform, Obama’s election and massive voter fraud” and has resulted in the posting of much violent and threatening rhetoric by users on Beck’s website, including death threats against Frances Fox Piven.[15] For her part, Piven vigorously continues to defend the original idea, calling its conservative interpretation “lunatic”.[16]

References

  1. Jump up^ Peters, Jeremy W. (November 7, 2010). “Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine”The New York Times. Retrieved June 17, 2010.
  2. Jump up^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. (Originally published in The Nation).
  3. Jump up to:a b Cloward and Piven, p. 510
  4. Jump up^ Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5.
  5. Jump up^ Cloward and Piven, p. 516
  6. Jump up^ Robert Pear (1984-04-15). “Drive to Sign Up Poor for Voting Meets Resistance”. The New York Times.
  7. Jump up^ Glenn Beck and Fran Piven, Michael Tomasky, Michael Tomasky’s BlogThe Guardian, January 24, 2011
  8. Jump up^ Albritton, Robert (December 1979). Social Amelioration through Mass Insurgency? A Reexamination of the Piven and Cloward Thesis. American Political Science Review. JSTOR 1953984.
  9. Jump up^ McWhorter, John, “John McWhorter: How Welfare Went Wrong“, NPR, August 9, 2006.
  10. Jump up^ Weir, Robert (2007). Class in America. Greenwood Press. p. 616. ISBN 978-0-313-33719-2.
  11. Jump up^ Chandler, Richard, “The Cloward–Piven strategy“, The Washington Times, October 15, 2008
  12. Jump up^ Frances Fox Piven: Glenn Beck Seeks ‘Foreign, Dark-Skinned, Intellectual’ Scapegoats, Kyle Olson, BigGovernment.com, February 8, 2010
  13. Jump up^ Beck, Glenn (February 18, 2010). “Study Says We’re Toast”.
  14. Jump up^ Kim, Richard (April 12, 2010). “The Mad Tea Party”The Nation.
  15. Jump up^ “Glenn Beck Targets Frances Fox Piven”The Nation. February 7, 2011.
  16. Jump up^ Piven, F.F. (2011) Crazy Talk and American Politics: or, My Glenn Beck StoryThe Chronicle of Higher Education (The Chronicle Review) 57(25), B4-B5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw3p2

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obamacare Success Story? Millions More Enrolled in Medicaid and Food Stamps — Government Dependency On The Rise — 30 Million Seeking Full Time Jobs — Wonder What Failure Looks Like? — Videos

Posted on November 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-176

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Obamacare Success Story? Millions More Enrolled in Medicaid and Food Stamps — Government Dependency On The Rise — 30 Million Seeking Full Time Jobs — Wonder What Failure Looks Like?

2013_US_poverty_linepoverty-guidelines-2013

US-Poverty-Rate

How Medicaid & Obamacare Hurt the Poor – and How to Fix Them

Medicaid Sign Ups Outnumber People Enrolling In Paid For Obamacare Plans Lou Dobbs

CBS: ObamaCare System Threatened From High Medicaid Enrollment In Many States

Obamacare: Medicaid enrollment outpacing private insurance could ca

Stimulus, Obamacare & The New Republic: May 2013 Reason Mag

Your Doctor Is Not In? ObamaCare may put your doctor out of business.

83% of Private Practice Doctors Quiting Due to Obamacare Main Stream Media Keeping Quiet

Obamacare Has Always Been About Killing Grandma & Grandpa

Government Payouts – Nick Gillespie

ObamaCare Event In Arkansas Hands Out Condoms As Prizes

[youtube3=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5AbKY4ZSY]

Is There a Silver Lining to the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Decision?

The History of Medicaid (According to Frank Thompson)

47 Years of Medicare & Medicaid

Heritage Hangout: Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion

Why new Medicaid enrollment is soaring

Christine Vestal

States are reporting far higher enrollment in Medicaid than in private insurance since the Affordable Care Act exchanges opened Oct. 1. In Maryland, for example, the number of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees is more than 25 times the number of people signed up for private coverage.

Even some Medicaid experts say they are surprised at the early numbers.

Stateline survey of the 25 expansion states and the District of Columbia provides clear explanations for the strong Medicaid rollout so far.

The biggest reason for the initial jump in Medicaid enrollment is that hundreds of thousands of people in the expansion states have been pre-qualified for expanded Medicaid because they are already enrolled in low-income state health care. Illinois, for example, will roll over 100,000 Cook County residents who have received expanded Medicaid benefits since 2011.

Another reason for the big numbers is aggressive outreach campaigns in many states, including mailings to residents enrolled in other safety net programs. Oregon, for example, signed up 70,000 enrollees in October by contacting residents who receive food stamps.

A much smaller number of people in expansion states are also signing up on state exchanges and Medicaid websites. The federal government has not yet released the number of Medicaid applications filed on federally-operated exchange sites in the 34 states that are not running their own exchanges.

To be sure, the rush to enroll in Medicaid indicates a strong demand for health care coverage. But the early spike is more a function of states’ proven ability to find, educate and enroll low-income residents than an indication of an imbalance with healthier people who can afford insurance, as has been suggested.

It is important to note that early enrollment numbers reflect so-called “low hanging fruit,” said Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. Future increases are expected to be smaller.

The states that chose to expand Medicaid, Salo said, are predisposed to aggressively reach out to potential beneficiaries. “Most have been more committed to Medicaid than the other states,” he said.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Medicaid expansion was up to states, the Congressional Budget Office downgraded its original projection that 13 million people would qualify for expanded Medicaid in 2014 and 17 million by 2020. Now, the federal estimate is 7 million by the end of 2014 and 11 million by 2020.

Stateline‘s survey indicates at least 1.5 million people have already signed up or have been pre-qualified for expanded Medicaid in the 19 states that provided counts. Expected total enrollment in those states is 3.7 million.

Following are the details available as of Nov. 5:

Arizona: The number of new applications is not available at this time. In total, Arizona expects 57,000 people to qualify for its expanded Medicaid program. In addition, the state expects 240,000 more individuals to enroll in its existing Medicaid program for childless adults with incomes at or below the federal poverty level ($11,490). Enrollment in that program was frozen in 2012 and currently totals 70,000.

Arkansas: Arkansas has received 70,595 applications for its expanded Medicaid program. Of those, 3,672 came through the state’s existing Medicaid website, 1,785 were paper or phone applications, and the rest were positive responses to a mailing to 132,000 households that receive food stamps. Ultimately, the state expects about 250,000 uninsured residents to qualify.

California: California plans to release enrollment numbers from its state-run website in mid-November. Newly eligible enrollment in expanded Medicaid is expected to total about 1.4 million. Of that number, 600,000 people will come from the state’s early expansion program approved by the federal government in 2011.

Colorado: Colorado has qualified more than 25,000 adults for its expanded Medicaid program. Of that number, approximately 9,000 were on a waiting list for an existing Medicaid program that covers adults with extremely low incomes. Another 10,000 people enrolled in that program will also be transferred to expanded Medicaid coverage in January. Combined, that comes to 35,000 individuals, more than 20 percent of the 160,000 uninsured residents Colorado expects to be eligible for its expanded Medicaid program.

Connecticut: Connecticut has enrolled 3,550 new people in its expanded Medicaid program through its state-run exchange and Medicaid website. In addition, at least 48,000 enrolled in a state-run low income-health program have already been moved into expanded Medicaid. Connecticut expects a total of 55,000 expanded Medicaid enrollees in 2014.

Delaware: No new enrollment data is available yet. Delaware already provides Medicaid coverage for 30,000 adults with incomes up to the federal poverty level ($11,490). Its expanded Medicaid program is expected to cover another 30,000 people with incomes between $11,490 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,856).

District of Columbia: D.C. began expanding its Medicaid program in June 2010. By June 2013, nearly 50,000 new people were enrolled. The District has not estimated how many people will ultimately enroll in expanded Medicaid.

Hawaii: Hawaii has approved 6,100 applications for expanded Medicaid. By 2014, the state expects a total of 54,000 enrollees.

Illinois: The Illinois Medicaid agency has received 30,124 applications for expanded Medicaid through its existing website. Illinois has an exchange partnership with the federal government so applications are also being filed on the federally-run exchange. In addition to online applications, 46,000 people responded to an August mailing to 123,000 food stamp recipients. Illinois has enrolled 26,000 of those respondents and is processing the balance. In addition, 100,000 people in Cook County who participate in a limited early Medicaid expansion enrollment group will automatically be rolled over to the expansion program on Jan. 1. Projected enrollment is 342,000.

Iowa: No new numbers are available on Medicaid applications. In all, 150,000 uninsured Iowans are expected to qualify under the proposed expansion. About 63,000 residents with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($22,980) are currently enrolled in a Medicaid health plan with limited benefits. Most are expected to qualify for expanded Medicaid. Iowa has not yet received federal approval for its Medicaid expansion plan, which is similar to Arkansas’ so-called private option.

Kentucky: Kentucky has received 25,654 applications for expanded Medicaid through its state-run exchange. Ultimately, the state expects 308,000 low-income individuals to qualify.

Maryland: The number of applications from its state-run website is not yet available. However, Maryland has an existing, limited-benefit health plan known as Primary Adult Care (PAC) available to all adults with incomes up to 123 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,133). As of Sept. 30, enrollment in the plan was 82,423. Maryland expects enrollment in PAC to expand to 88,000 by Jan. 1, 2014, when the entire population will automatically convert to full Medicaid benefits. In addition, residents in a narrow income band (124 percent to 138 percent of poverty) can sign up for expanded Medicaid on the state exchange. Overall, Maryland expects 110,000 people to be enrolled by the end of 2014.

Massachusetts: No enrollment numbers are available at this time. As a result of its own health care reforms launched in 2006, Massachusetts has a 97 percent insured rate. Still, the state expects about 45,000 people to obtain Medicaid coverage as a result of the expansion.

Michigan: No enrollment numbers are available. The Michigan legislature approved Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed Medicaid expansion in September but postponed implementation until April 2014.

Minnesota: The federal government granted Minnesota special permission to enroll 84,000 individuals in the expanded Medicaid program in 2011. Another 2,496 newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries completed applications on the state-run exchange in the first two weeks of October. Ultimately, Minnesota expects to cover 265,000 adults in its expansion. In addition, it is the only state that has opted to provide a so-called “Basic Health Plan” for people with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($22,980). Under the ACA, the federal government will pay 85 percent of the costs starting in 2015. That program is expected to grow to 160,000.

Nevada: No information is available at this time.

New Jersey: No information is available at this time.

New Mexico: New Mexico has approved 2,507 applications for expanded Medicaid through the federally operated exchange and its existing Medicaid website. In addition, 100,000 enrollees in two limited-benefit state health care programs will be rolled into the expanded Medicaid. New Mexico expects 130,000 people will be in the expanded program by 2015.

New York: No enrollment numbers are available yet. New York already covers parents with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty line ($17,235) and childless adults with incomes up to the poverty line ($11,490).

North Dakota: The Medicaid agency has received 147 applications for expanded Medicaid. In December, the state plans to send letters to 36,000 households that receive food stamps or home heating assistance, inviting eligible adults to sign up for expanded Medicaid. Total enrollment in expanded Medicaid is expected to reach 32,000.

Ohio: The most recent state to expand Medicaid, Ohio expects to sign up 275,000 newly eligible Medicaid enrollees. Republican Gov. John Kasich sidestepped the state legislature and won approval for expansion Oct. 21 from an executive branch Controlling Board. The state has not yet begun enrollment. The Medicaid agency says it will announce soon when enrollment will begin.

Oregon: Oregon has approved 70,000 applications for expanded Medicaid. Its state-run website had some initial technical difficulties, but new applications were filed over the phone, in person and through the mail. The vast majority of enrollments came from a mailing in late September that went to 260,000 residents who either receive food stamps or have children enrolled in Medicaid. The state expects roughly 223,000 adults to be enrolled in its expanded Medicaid program by 2015.

Rhode Island: Rhode Island has approved 3,213 new applications for its expanded Medicaid program. Another 835 are in progress. Projected enrollment is 23,428.

Vermont: About 1,000 individuals have signed up for Medicaid on Vermont’s exchange or by submitting paper applications. In addition, 30,000 adults enrolled in two state-run low-income health plans will be rolled into the expanded Medicaid program. By 2015, Vermont expects enrollment to reach 160,000.

Washington: Through its state-run exchange and Medicaid sites, Washington has signed up 26,336 people. Another 30,000 people enrolled in a low-income health program will be automatically enrolled in expanded Medicaid, bringing the total to 56,336. The state expects 270,000 people to qualify by the end of 2014.

West Virginia: West Virginia has pre-qualified 52,056 residents for its expanded Medicaid program. Projected new enrollment is 63,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/new-medicaid-enrollment-healthcare/3453929/

About Medicaid


Medicaid Home
About Medicaid
Medicaid Expansion
Medicaid Defense
Waivers

Since 1965, Medicaid has been the backbone of this country’s health care safety net. Jointly funded by the states and the federal government, Medicaid covers more than 58 million low-income Americans, including families, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Today, Medicaid provides coverage for almost 29 million children and pays for approximately half of all long-term care costs.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the states and the federal government. Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover certain categories of individuals and services. Beyond that, states have wide flexibility in the design and implementation of their Medicaid programs.

Medicaid Today: Even though Medicaid has helped millions gain access to health care, many low-income people have been left out.  In 30 states, income eligibility for parents is set below 50 percent of poverty (in 2012, that’s an annual income of $9,545 for a family of three). In most states, adults without dependent children, no matter how poor, cannot get Medicaid coverage at all.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, states can get substantial federal funding to expand Medicaid to all residents with incomes at or below 133 percent of poverty, thus extending Medicaid coverage to individuals who have been left out of the program. [Note: Since 5 percent of income is not included—is “disregarded”—when eligibility is determined, the expansion, in effect, applies to those with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty.]

For more on how Medicaid works today, and how it will work under the Medicaid expansion, see:

Financing 

Medicaid Today: Generally speaking, each state receives matching dollars from the federal government, and those matching rates vary across the states from 50 to 76 percent. This means that, for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid, the federal government contributes between $1.00 and $3.17. Federal matching rates are based on the per capita income of the states, so states with lower per capita incomes get higher matching rates.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act gives states the opportunity to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all individuals with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty (see note above), an income of about $31,809 for a family of four in 2012. That will extend coverage to many low-income adults currently left out of the program and simplify eligibility determinations across the program.

Eligibility 

Medicaid Today:

Federal Requirements
Federal law requires states to cover certain categories of people in Medicaid. In general, there are six categories of so-called “mandatory” individuals: 1) children, 2) pregnant women, 3) very low-income parents, 4) the elderly, and individuals who are 5) blind or 6) disabled. Eligibility levels for these groups of people varies by income:

  • Children under age six with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($25,390 for a family of three in 2012)
  • Children ages 6-19 with family incomes up to 100 percent of poverty ($19.090 for a family of three in 2012)
  • Pregnant women with family incomes up to 133 percent of poverty
  • Parents whose income meets the state’s AFDC (former welfare program) criteria in place as of July 1996
  • People who are elderly, blind, or who have disabilities and who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) may have incomes up to 74 percent of poverty ($8,266 for an individual in 2012)
  • Certain people with severe disabilities who would qualify for SSI if they did not work
    Elderly individuals and people with disabilities whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid through the “QMB,” ”SLMB,” and “QI” programs—generally speaking, these are individuals who have incomes below 150 percent of poverty

State Options
States have the flexibility to increase these income limits to allow more people to qualify for Medicaid for several general categories of people, as follows:

  • Low-income children, parents, and pregnant women with family incomes above mandatory cutoff levels and up to whatever income limit the states decide
  • People who are blind, elderly, or disabled with incomes above the SSI level but below 100 percent of poverty ($10,830 for an individual in 2010)
  • Nursing home residents with incomes above SSI levels but below 300 percent of poverty ($32,490 for an individual in 2010)
  • People with disabilities who work and have incomes above the SSI limit
  • Medically needy individuals who require institutional care but who have incomes that are too high to qualify for SSI—these individuals can deduct the cost of their institutional care from their income in order to qualify for Medicaid

The Affordable Care Act requires states to maintain the Medicaid eligibility levels, policies, and procedures that were in place in March 2010 (the date the Affordable Care Act was enacted) until the state has an operational exchange.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, states can expand their Medicaid programs to cover virtually all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of poverty. Income eligibility for those over 65 will remain unchanged. For those newly eligible through this expansion, the federal government will cover 100 percent of costs for 2014 through 2016, gradually falling to 90 percent in 2020. The federal contribution will remain at 90 percent thereafter. States have the option to implement this expansion sooner.

In states that expand Medicaid, the historic federal Medicaid matching formula will still apply to individuals who meet the Medicaid eligibility criteria in place as of December 1, 2009.

For more information on current state-by-state eligibility, see Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Eligibility by State (May 2010) or Kaiser’s statehealthfacts.org and scroll down to “Medicaid Eligibility.”

Benefits

Medicaid Today:

Federal Requirements
Federal law requires states to provide a minimum benefit package in Medicaid. So-called “mandatory” benefits include physician services, hospital services, family planning, health center services, and nursing facility services. The benefit package for children is more comprehensive than the one for adults because federal law requires states to provide coverage for certain health screenings and services that are medically necessary. This requirement is called the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit.

State Options
States are permitted to provide coverage for certain other health care services that are approved by the federal government. Such “optional” services include dental care, mental health care, eye glasses and vision care, coverage for prescription drugs, home health care, case management, and rehabilitation services. For a detailed list of what benefits state Medicaid programs cover, click here.

Medicaid Expansion: In states that take advantage of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there are specific benefit requirements for those who are newly eligible. For those individuals, states must provide a set of essential health benefits. For more information on Medicaid’s essential health benefits, see Designing the Essential Health Benefits for Your State: An Advocate’s Guide.

Additional Resources

Medicaid


Medicaid Home
About Medicaid
Medicaid Expansion
Medicaid Defense
Waivers

Medicaid provides health coverage for low-income children and adults, medical and long-term care coverage for people with disabilities, and assistance with health and long-term care expenses for low-income seniors. More than 58 million people rely on Medicaid services today, and millions more will qualify for Medicaid when the provisions of the Affordable Care Act take effect in 2014.

Children receive health coverage through Medicaid and the state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To learn more about CHIP, see the Children’s Healthsection.

This section of our website provides resources on Medicaid laws and regulations and keeps you up-to-date on the battle to sustain and improve this important program.

Medicaid Expansion Center
States that plan to expand Medicaid coverage in 2014 have much to do to prepare. In many states, advocates need support in making the case for expansion. The Medicaid Expansion Center offers information on everything from the Supreme Court decision’s effect on Medicaid to news from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), plus the best tools for helping your state make the most of the expansion.

Medicaid Defense Center
While some states move ahead to expand their Medicaid programs, the existing Medicaid program remains under fire at both the federal and state level. Many in Congress—and some governors, as well—seek to make deep cuts in Medicaid funding and to change the structure of the Medicaid program through proposals for block grants, per capita caps, and similar schemes. The Medicaid Defense Center features the latest news on the federal budget battle plus tools to help you fight for Medicaid funding in your state.

http://familiesusa.org/issues/medicaid/

Obamacare Event Hands Out Condoms as Prizes

The Obamacare event took place at the University of Central Arkansas last weekend. It was hosted by a group called the Living Affected Corporation, which apparently has received a grant from the federal government to educate the public about Obamacare.

The event organizer spilled out a bag of condoms — as a couple whoops and hollers could be heard from the small crowd.

Then she says, “Ok, if anyone wants a paper application,” but she interrupts herself to pickup condoms that had fallen on the floor. “I have those as well.”

“So when you’re leaving, you can stop by my table and I’ll give you whatever — condoms — that box has a bunch in it. Anyway … Our corporation, LA Corp … And I’m waiting on my dental dams and female condom order that still hasn’t come in. If you ever need condoms, let me know because we have thousands — boxes of magnums, we get magnums a lot. So here is the prize table.”

The condom give-away was a training event with young Democrats, I’m told.

Is Obamacare on the rebound? Media turn to positive stories. (+video)

Positive headlines are creeping into the news coverage of Obamacare, amid a Democratic counteroffensive and signs the program could be turning a corner. But tough tests lie ahead.

Bit by bit, the media narrative around the travails of Obamacare and its main enrollment vehicle, HealthCare.gov, is starting to look up. Or to put it more precisely, it is no longer so crushingly negative.

After weeks of stories about website crashes and canceled health plans – and an extraordinary mea culpa from President Obama – a competing story line is starting to emerge. Slowly but surely, people are navigating the exchanges and getting insurance – for some, cheaper and better than what they had. Last week, The New York Times and Los Angeles Timestouted a “surge” in enrollment figures, especially in states that have their own exchanges.

This week, a Washington Post story described almost an Obamacare nirvana – people in rural Kentucky lining up and getting coverage, some for the first time in their lives.

Part of this wave of positive stories may be a media effect: Reporters (and the public) get tired of all the wall-to-wall negativity, and to keep interest up, seek out happy stories for a change of pace.

The Obama administration has also ramped up its public relations efforts on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), going around the national media and directly into local markets. On Tuesday, the administration

announced that seniors saved $8.9 billion on prescription drugs thanks to the ACA. And Democratic senators have headed off for Thanksgiving with marching orders: Find and publicize the ACA success stories. At the very least, say Democrats, they need to counter the Republican message machine and story-gathering.

“It’s true, the Democrats are more on the offensive than they were,” says Terry Madonna, a professor of public affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “But they still have serious problems. No one knows where this is going. And for Democrats, the last thing they want is for this to dominate the elections next year.”

This Saturday, Nov. 30, will be one moment of truth. That is the day the Obama administration promised HealthCare.gov would work smoothly for the vast majority of users, after the disastrous Oct. 1 launch. The definition of “vast majority” was later downgraded to 80 percent – with the remaining 20 percent enrolling by other means or still encountering slow loads and error messages.

On Tuesday, in a conference call with state and local elected officials, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promised a “significantly different user experience” on HealthCare.gov by the end of the month. And with reporters on the line, she urged the officials “to not hesitate to recommend that people go to HealthCare.gov and get signed up.”

Secretary Sebelius has put her credibility on the line at a time when she can ill afford to see it go any lower. The problem for the Obama administration is that by announcing a hard deadline – Nov. 30 – for vast improvements on a once-profoundly dysfunctional website, it has raised expectations (again) for how well the site will work. As with the initial rollout, Obamacare opponents will be on the lookout for failures, and the media will surely cover them.

Another moment of truth will come when the administration reveals demographic data of people who have enrolled in coverage via the exchanges, possibly with the next official enrollment numbers in mid-December. The ACA will work only if less-healthy enrollees are balanced by enrollees without expensive health issues. On Tuesday’s conference call, Sebelius said she didn’t have demographic information on enrollees, but promised it “very soon.” Then she urged the county executive from Milwaukee to reach out to “young and healthy individuals.”

The daily report Tuesday from Kaiser Health News (KHN) was noteworthy for its positive stories:

  •  “Health law may offer part-time workers better options,” said one headline. The story talked about “mini-med” plans – low-cost, low-benefit plans that are no longer allowable under the ACA – and cited the case of a woman with a serious health problem who is likely to get better, subsidized coverage on the exchange.
  • Another piece reported on Californians happy to have their insurance policies canceled. Some people, the story reported, had felt trapped with subpar plans but had kept them because of preexisting medical conditions. Now, under the ACA, people with health problems cannot be denied coverage.
  • A story out of Philadelphia, highlighted websites that have been set up that allow people to calculate their health-care subsidy without going on HealthCare.gov – and if they’re not eligible, allow them to buy coverage directly from the site.

If they are eligible, however, they have to buy their coverage on the federal exchange. So ultimately, for those living in the 36 states that are served by HealthCare.gov, all roads lead back to that site. Among the challenges ahead for the federal site:

  • By Saturday, the Obama administration says HealthCare.gov should be able to handle 50,000 users simultaneously. Whether that will be enough capacity is an open question. But it’s safe to say that if too many people wait till the last minute to sign up, there could be another wave of embarrassing website failures.
  • People who want their insurance to begin on Jan. 1 now have until Dec. 23 to enroll. But again, if everyone waits until Dec. 23, that leaves the insurers just eight days – right during the holidays – to process all that paperwork.
  • And about that paperwork… The “834” forms that are supposed to go to the insurance companies after consumers enroll on HealthCare.gov still need work, the HHS agency in charge of the site said Monday.
  • Then there’s the issue of Healthcare.gov’s “back-office system,” which a week ago was still unbuilt. On Nov. 19, Henry Chao, a top official at HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that between 30 and 40 percent of the IT system for the marketplace remained to be constructed. That sounded alarming, but a CMS spokeswoman said that that portion of the website is involved in paying federal subsidies to insurance companies and will not affect individuals.

Getting HealthCare.gov fully functioning in time still sounds like a high-wire act. If there are more major stumbles, the bad headlines will come roaring back.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1126/Is-Obamacare-on-the-rebound-Media-turn-to-positive-stories.-video

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 176, November 27, 2013, Segment 1: Pope Francis Attacks Unfettered Capitalism in Apostolic Exhortation or “The Joy of the Gospel” — Instead of Out of Control Government Spending  and Government Failures — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech To Congress–Videos

Posted on December 2, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

ron-paulRon-Paul1

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech to Congress, November 14th, 2012

Ron’ Pauls Greatest Speech “The Last Nail” 

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned 

Thank You Dr. Ron Paul 

Duncan Pays Tribute to Ron Paul

Ron Paul RNC Tribute Video 

Ron Paul ‘Exit Interview’ with The Washington Post 11/29/2012

rp12-champion-of-the-constitution-collage-we-the-peopleron_paul_family

Background Articles and Videos

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy 

Constitutional Conservatism or Die

A man of principle and integrity ahead of his time.

He will be greatly missed by the American people who love liberty.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

How to get your “free” Obama Phone!–Americans Pay Over $1 Billion–Videos

Posted on June 22, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

UPDATED Septmeber 27, 2012

Romney Protester Says Vote for Obama Because He Gives Free Phones 

True Wireless TV Spot – Got Food Stamps? Get A Free Cell Phone Too!

Free Obama Cell Phones

 SafeLink Wireless Provides Free Cell Phone Service to Low Income Families in Tennessee

4409 — OBAMA PHONE: Obama giving away FREE cellphones

Rush: “Obama Phones” Free Cell Phones and Service Doubles Under Obama

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Repeat of Ronald Reagan’s 1976 Convention Speech–Which Speech Will Ron Paul Give At the Republican Convention? –Bridge Over Troubled Waters–The Dream Is Still With Us–Videos

Posted on April 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Reagan’s Impromptu Speech at 1976 GOP Convention

Ron Paul greatest speech

Simon & Garfunkel, Bridge Over Troubled Water, Central Park

When you’re weary

 Feeling small

 When tears are in your eyes

 I will dry them all

I’m on your side

When times get rough

 And friends just can’t be found

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will lay me down

 Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will lay me down

When you’re down and out

 When you’re on the street

When evening falls so hard

 I will comfort you

 I’ll take your part

When darkness comes

And pain is all around

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will lay me down

 Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will lay me down
Sail on Silver Girl, Sail on by

Your time has come to shine

All your dreams are on their way

See how they shine

If you need a friend

I’m sailing right behind

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will ease your mind

Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will ease your mind

Background Articles and Videos

Ronald Reagan Convention Speech 1976 Election

Ron Paul: What If… Amazing Speech 2-12-09

The Last Nail – Floor Speech May 25 2011

Ron Paul ”Imagine For A Moment” Speech

Simon and Garfunkel – Bridge Over Troubled Water Original Version

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CBS–Communists, Bolshevik, Socialists–Progressives All–Limited Ron Paul To 90 Seconds And Pulls Poll In Republican Presidential Debate On Foreign Policy–Warfare and Welfare Washington vs. Peace and Prosperity People–Videos

Posted on November 14, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul CBS Debate Bias

Obama’s great white hope – Ron Paul

Professor Murray Sabrin admits Ron Paul is silenced by the media because of the Federal Reserve

Jerry Doyle: Exposes CBS Bias and the GOP Candidates Copying Paul’s Views (11-14-11)

CBS 90 Seconds Or Less

Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak: Silenced by CBS

CNBC 600 Seconds or More

Ron Paul Responses At Debate (11-9-11)

Info News 2011-11-14 Monday Part 1/6

Ron Paul – CBSNews.com Post-Debate Poll plus General Poll – Results 11-14-11

Ron Paul 2012 Wins Again Nov 12th 2011 CBS Debate CORRUPT MEDIA (UPDATED)

Who won the GOP Debate? Take our poll

The GOP Post-Debate Poll

Paul Got Over 35 Percent of The Vote!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57323832/who-won-the-gop-debate-take-our-poll/

Ron Paul “Super Brochures” On Sale @ RonPaulProducts

Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak In CBS Debate

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 13, 2011

“…Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.

“…Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.

As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.

After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded. …”

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-gets-89-seconds-to-speak-in-cbs-debate/

CBS on defensive after Republican debate

By Josh Lederman

“…”CBS’ coverage of the Republican Debate from Wofford College in Spartanburg was scheduled by the network to air for one hour on the CBS affiliates around the country with any overage to air Sunday morning on Face the Nation,” said Rob Romine, the station’s general manager. “We are sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and for any confusion Mr. Pelley’s comments have caused by telling South Carolina viewers to stay tuned for more debate coverage.”

The other major line of attack came from the candidates, many of whom complained during the debate that strict adherence to 60-second time limits and 30-second rebuttals prevented them from fully articulating any policy and kept many of the minor candidates in the shadows. Jon Huntsman joked that he felt like he was in Siberia; Rick Santorum concurred.

Ron Paul’s campaign was the first to cry foul after the debate, with his chairman, Jesse Benton, accusing CBS News of arrogance and of thinking they could choose the next president. Two hours later, Paul supporters received a message with the subject line “What a joke.”

“Ninety seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds,” wrote campaign manager John Tate.

But it was Michele Bachmann whose complaint came backed up by evidence that concerns about candidates’ being sidelined were raised even before the debate took place.

Just after the debate ended, Bachmann’s campaign accused CBS News of deliberately keeping her questions to a minimum and planning a biased debate, with campaign manager, Keith Nahigian, reportedly calling CBS’s newly anointed political director, John Dickerson, a “piece of s**t.” …”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/193263-cbs-on-defense-after-gop-debate

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: Principle, Patriotism and Constitutional Government

This is a classic edition of Conservative Roundtable from 1997, the nationally broadcast conservative television program hosted by Howard Phillips, and produced by The Conservative Caucus. Producer: Art Harman.
Unlike “politicians,” statesman Ron Paul never lost his belief that government is the problem, not the answer; you’ll see here that his positions are as sound today as when this was recorded in 1997!

Alan Keyes discusses media bias with Bernard Goldberg

VOICES OF REASON – Bernard Goldberg

Scott Pelley


Pelley’s Liberal Path to the Anchor Chair

“…On Monday, June 6, 2011, Scott Pelley took over as anchor of the CBS Evening News, following the departure of Katie Couric. A review of the MRC’s archive reveals Pelley will most likely continue the long tradition of liberal bias advanced by his anchor predecessors Couric, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.

From celebrating the likes of liberal heroes like Hillary Clinton, saying that she is of the rare few that can match Barack Obama’s “global star power” to even offering praise of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, depicting him as a “genuinely humble” figure with “no fancy clothes, fancy cars” who was “absolutely incorruptible,” Pelley’s new stint as anchor promises to be one filled with biased platitudes for those on the left and harsh criticism of the right. Below are just a dozen examples of Pelley’s slanted take over the years as a CBS correspondent for the Evening News and 60 Minutes. …”

http://www.mrc.org/static/profiles/ScottPelley/NewEveningNewsAnchor.aspx

Bolshevik

“…The Bolsheviks, originally also[1] Bolshevists[2] (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular) Russian pronunciation: [bəlʲʂᵻˈvʲik], derived from bol’shinstvo, “majority”) were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction[3] at the Second Party Congress in 1903. [4]

The Bolsheviks were the majority faction in a crucial vote, hence their name. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[5] The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would later in 1922 become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin, were by 1905 a mass organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism. Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky commonly used the terms “Bolshevism” and “Bolshevist” after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Republican Party Presidential/Commander In Chief Debate–November 12, 2011-Spartanburg, South Carolina–Foreign Policy and National Security–CBS–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul Highlights of September 12, 2011 Debate–Videos

Posted on September 13, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Ron Paul Highlights in 9/12/2011 Presidential Debate

Background Articles and Videos

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Dismantling the Empire–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Warfare and Welfare Economy Worsens With 30 Americans Killed and Over 45 Million Americans On Food Stamps–American People Want A Peace and Prosperity Economy–A Paycheck Not Food Stamps–Stop Out Of Control Spending On Government Interventions Abroad and At Home–Videos

Posted on August 8, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Strategy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 40:August 10, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 39:August 3, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 38:July 27, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 37:July 20, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 36:July 13, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 35:July 6, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38--40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

~George Santayana

Eve of Destruction

Most Of The Navy Seals Killed Were Part Of SEAL Team Six The Unit That Went After Osama Bin Laden

Navy SEALs Killed (some SEAL TEAM 6) Chinook Helicopter Crash-Afghanistan

“…More than 20 Navy SEALs from the unit that killed Osama bin Laden were among those lost in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. That’s according to one current and one former U.S. official. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified of the loss of their loved ones.

Source says the team thought to include 22 SEALs, three Air Force air controllers, seven Afghan Army troops, a dog and his handler, and a civilian interpreter, helicopter crew.”

MSNBC – Nightly News – Nearly 46 Million Receive Food Stamps 8-3-2011

Record number of people on food stamps

 

US choosing between World Supremacy and caring for its citizens

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

Ron Paul’s Debt Solution: Bring the Troops Home, Fire Useless Bureaucrats, Phase Out Entitlements

Ron Paul, “What if the Chinese had military bases in America?”

Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up?

Pete Seeger: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

~George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, Volume 1

“The primary objects of government, are peace, order, and prosperity of society…”

Oliver Ellsworth, Founding Father and Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

No man is an island

May the thirty Americans and seven Afghans killed in Afghanistan rest in peace and be remembered for their service to their country.

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.

~John Donne

President Lyndon B. Johnson is remembered primarily for three things–the war in Vietnam, the war on poverty and Medicare.

All three involved massive government intervention abroad and at home costing hundreds of billions of dollars that continues into the future.

Since World War II the United States government has not declared war as set forth in the Constitution.

War results in the loss of life and the lasting scars of the wounded and impacts their families and friends.

Government intervention abroad has become entirely too easy when you do not declare war.

All wars need the continuing support of the American people and should be declared.

Today United States government intervention abroad includes the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya that will soon be expanded to include Yemen and Somali.

The majority of the American people want the troops home from around the world.

At home government intervention into the United States economy includes President Bush’s expansion of the Medicare entitlement program to include coverage for prescription drugs and President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better know as Obamacare.

For over sixty years the warfare and welfare economy has bankrupted the United States with massive Federal Government deficits and unfunded liabilities to fund warfare and welfare entitlements.

Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan warned the American people:

Military Industrial Complex – Eisenhower ‘s warning

Ronald Reagan .. “Government is the problem”

President Ronald Reagan ON A SOUND ECONOMY

The time has come to transition away from the warfare and welfare economy to a peace and prosperity economy free from United States government intervention abroad and at home.

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Behold: US Debt

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

U.S. Government Is Bankrupt; Default Will Come through Inflation

 

Government Debt and Historical Truth | THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Napolitano 7/26/11

Background Articles and Videos

US Navy Seals Killed in Afghanistan

59% Want Troops Home from Afghanistan

“…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely Voters nationwide want the troops to come home either immediately or within a year. Twenty-eight percent (28%) oppose any firm timetable and 13% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

At 59%, support for bring the troops home is up from 51% in June, 52% in March, 43% last September, and 39% in September 2009.

Notably, 43% of Republicans now support bringing the troops home within a year while just 42% oppose a firm timetable. As recently as June, most Republicans opposed any firm timetable.

Just 22% now believe the U.S. has a clearly defined mission in Afghanistan.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 9-10, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats and 58% of unaffiliated voters want the troops home within a year.

Among those aligned with the Tea Party, 47% say it’s time to bring the troops home and 43% oppose any firm timetable.

Support for the U.S. military mission in Libya is down to 24%.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters agree that “the United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanistan/59_want_troops_home_from_afghanistan

 

US helicopter crashed in Taliban trap: Afghan official

By Sabawoon Amarkhail | AFP

“…The Taliban lured US forces into an elaborate trap to shoot down their helicopter, killing 30 American troops in the deadliest such incident of the war, an Afghan official said Monday.

US President Barack Obama pledged that the incident — which killed 38 people — would not keep foreign forces from prevailing in Afghanistan, and the Pentagon called the downing of the Chinook a “one-off” that would not alter US strategy.

The late Friday attack marked the biggest single loss of life for American and NATO forces since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban in late 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks.

The loss of the Chinook during an anti-Taliban operation southwest of Kabul dealt a blow to elite US special forces, which had 25 members on board — 22 US Navy SEAL commandos and three Air Force Special Operations Forces.

Five US Army personnel, seven Afghan commandos and an interpreter also died.

A senior Afghan government official told AFP on condition of anonymity that Taliban commander Qari Tahir lured US forces to the scene by tipping them off that a Taliban meeting was taking place.

He also said four Pakistanis helped Tahir carry out the strike.

“Now it’s confirmed that the helicopter was shot down and it was a trap that was set by a Taliban commander,” said the official, citing intelligence gathered from the area.

“The Taliban knew which route the helicopter would take,” he continued.

“That’s the only route, so they took position on the either side of the valley on mountains and as the helicopter approached, they attacked it with rockets and other modern weapons. It was brought down by multiple shots.” …”

http://news.yahoo.com/us-helicopter-shot-down-taliban-trap-afghan-official-070456126.html

Photos of the Fallen: Americans shot down in Afghanistan

“Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to the same elite Navy SEALs unit that killed Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2011/08/photos-of-the-fallen-30-americans-shot-down-in-afghanistan-/aaron-carson-vaughn-6217-451.html

 

Arlington Navy SEAL Among Those Killed in Attack

Family members say Chief Petty Officer Matt Mills was on his last mission

“…Family members confirmed that an Arlington man was one of 30 service members killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on Saturday.

Chief Petty Officer Matt Mills, 36, was on his last mission when the Chinook helicopter crashed in the restive Wardark province, his family said.

“He’s always loved what he did,” said his sister, Ashley Mills. “He told me he couldn’t believe he could do this for a living because he loved it so much.”

He was a Navy SEAL for 10 years.

“He was very humble about what he did,” said his cousin, J.B. Abbot. “He never bragged about being a Navy SEAL.”

Matt Mills grew up in Arlington and graduated from Martin High School.

He has three children, an 18-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter from a previous marriage.

Mills remarried just a few months prior to his last mission, on April 29. He and his current wife, Keri, who lives in Virginia, have a 1-year-old son together.

Family member said Mills greatly admired his grandfather, a Marine, and when he was younger, often talked about wanting to join the military.

Ashley Mills said she finds comfort in the fact that her brother served in what he saw as his mission in life.

“It would be that he had a lot of love in his heart and he was proud of his country and he was proud to serve,” she said. “He loved his family, his children, and we also loved him very much.”

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Navy-SEAL-Among-Those-Killed-in-Attack-127112738.html?dr

Our Next Wars: Yemen and Somalia

America’s clandestine activities in both nations only provoke the conflicts they are meant to prevent.

By Philip Giraldi

“…The U.S. military’s African command, or AFRICOM, is actually located in Stuttgart, Germany, but its principal operational component is located at the large French military base Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. The CIA runs its drone operations targeting Somalia and Yemen out of that same location and has been using its assets on the ground in those countries to help direct predator strikes against suspected terrorist targets. CIA and special ops soldiers have been busy placing sensors and electronic surveillance devices throughout the Horn of Africa and in Yemen to permit greatly expanded operations. Both CIA and Army units in Djibouti have recently been beefed up in expectation that fighting will intensify in 2011.

And what is the nature of the threat justifying major military and intelligence operations in two new countries? Well, according to the State Department’s own recently issued report on global terrorism, the only terrorist incident originating in Yemen that directly threatened U.S. interests was the unsuccessful Nigerian underwear bomber in December, an attack that was carried out in retaliation for a deadly CIA drone strike shortly before. And there have been allegations that U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi might have influenced Major Malik Nadal Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood last November. Apart from that, terrorism in Yemen is internally directed with some spillover against neighbor Saudi Arabia. In Somalia, al-Shabaab, which the State Department describes as “a disparate group of armed militias, many of whom do not adhere to the ideology of the group’s leaders,” is the target of Washington’s ire. Foggy Bottom concedes that the group is linked to al-Qaeda only by “mutually supportive rhetoric.” It has not targeted the United States at all, though some government officials have expressed concerns that Somali-Americans who travel back to their country of birth to join al-Shabaab might return to the U.S. to commit terrorist acts.

So we are again talking of secret wars conducted in places where we do not understand the local issues or players very well, all part of a massive overreaction directed against low-level troublemakers who do not actually pose any serious threat against the United States. Where it will all lead is anyone’s guess, but it should be noted that the pattern of new terrorism emerging as the response to misdirected and heavy-handed American intervention has been repeated over and over again during the past ten years.”

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/our-next-wars-yemen-and-somalia/

Bush signs landmark Medicare bill into law

“…It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965, though most of its provisions won’t take effect for several years. The drug benefit, for example, does not take effect until 2006. Before that, seniors will be able to purchase a discount card that could provide a 10 to 25 percent off prescription drugs.

“Our nation has made a promise, a solemn promise, to America’s seniors,” Bush said. “We have pledged to help our citizens find affordable medical care in the later years of life.”

“These reforms are the act of a vibrant and compassionate government,” Bush said.

In 2006, Medicare recipients will pay $35 per month with a $250 deductible for prescriptions. The plan will pay 75 percent of costs up to $2,250. The prescription drug provision left out a proposed guideline the president had originally sought — requiring seniors to join an HMO to be eligible for the benefit.

The law also allows the importation of drugs from Canada — where many are cheaper — but only if the Food and Drug Administration has approved the drugs.

It also provides subsidies to private insurers to compete with traditional Medicare, giving seniors the opportunity to join managed-care plans, which typically cut costs by restricting patient access to specialists. That provision does not take effect until 2010. …”

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-08/politics/elec04.medicare_1_prescription-drug-private-insurers-medicare?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

“…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)[1][2] is a United States federal statute that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is a product of the health care reform agenda of the 111th United States Congress and the Obama administration. The primary aspects of the law are reform of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, to improve coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, expand access to care for over 30 million Americans, and reduce the long term costs of the United States health care system.[3][4]

The PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a filibuster-proof vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and one Independent voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voting against the bill.[5] The law has received legal challenges regarding its constitutionality. Three cases in federal courts upheld the constitutionality of the bill while two deemed it unconstitutional.[6] Six other challenges were dismissed on grounds such as plaintiffs being unable to demonstrate sufficient standing.[6] The Supreme Court could review this law as early as the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012.[7]

Overveiw of Provisions

The law includes numerous health-related provisions to take effect over a four-year period beginning in 2010. In order of their assessed impact the primary provisions are as follows:

  • Guaranteed issue and community rating will be implemented nationally so that insurers must offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age, sex, and geographical location regardless of pre-existing conditions.
  • Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level.
  • Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).
  • Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will pay a “shared responsibility payment” if the government has had to subsidize an employee’s health care
  • A shared responsibility requirement, also referred to as an individual mandate,[8] requires individuals not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government programs to maintain insurance or pay a penalty. (unless the applicable individual “is a member of a recognized religious sect” exempted by the Internal Revenue Service.)[9]
  • Medicare prescription drug payments are to be increased.
  • Changes are enacted which allow a restructuring of Medicare reimbursement from “fee-for-service” to “bundled payments”.
  • Establishment of a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support.
  • Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).
  • Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange.
  • Additional support is provided for medical research and the National Institutes of Health.
  • Enrollment into CHIP and Medicaid is simplified with improvements to both programs.
  • The law will introduce minimum standards for health insurance policies and remove all annual and lifetime coverage caps.
  • The law mandates that some health care insurance benefits will be essential coverage for which there will be no co-pays.
  • Policies issued before the law came into effect are grandfathered in and are mostly not affected by the new rules.

Summary of funding

The Act’s provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on “Cadillac” insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as improved fairness in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[10]

Total new tax revenue from the Act will amount to $409.2 billion over the next 10 years. $78 billion will be realized before the end of fiscal 2014.[11] Summary of revenue sources:

  • Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
  • Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
  • 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
  • Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
  • Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
  • Require information reporting on payments to corporations: $17.1 billion
  • Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: 15.2 billion
  • Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans: $13 billion
  • All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

United States public debt

“…The United States public debt is the money borrowed by the federal government of the United States at any one time through the issue of securities by the Treasury and other federal government agencies. The gross public debt comprises two components:

  • Debt held by government accounts, also known as intragovernmental holdings, that is, Treasury securities held in accounts that are administered by the federal government, such as the Social Security Trust Fund
  • Debt held by the public, that is, securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by the Federal Reserve System and state and local governments. This is the net public debt.[1]

The net public debt increases or decreases as a result of the annual unified budget deficit or surplus. The federal government budget deficit or surplus is the cash difference between government receipts and spending, ignoring intra-governmental transfers. However, there is certain spending (supplemental appropriations) that add to the gross debt but are excluded from the deficit. The deficit is presented on a cash rather than an accruals basis, although the accrual deficit provides more information on the longer-term implications of the government’s annual operations.[2]

Gross debt has increased by over $500 billion each year since fiscal year (FY) 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008, $1.9 trillion in FY2009, and $1.7 trillion in FY2010.[3] As of August 3, 2011, the gross debt was $14.34 trillion dollars, of which $9.78 trillion was held by the public and $4.56 trillion was intragovernmental holdings.[4] The annual gross domestic product (GDP) to the end of June 2011 was $15.003 trillion (July 29, 2011 estimate),[5] with gross debt at a ratio of 96% of GDP, and debt held by the public at 65% of GDP.

Together with the budget deficit, the political climate was one of the reasons given by Standard & Poor’s to revise the outlook on the US sovereign credit rating down to negative on April 18, 2011.[6] Standard and Poor’s downgraded the credit rating by one notch from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, for the first time ever. The longterm outlook is negative and it could lower the rating further to AA within the next 2 years.[7][8] The downgrade was met with severe criticism from the Obama administration, commentators, and other political figures.[9][10][11][12] The US still has a AAA rating from other ratings agencies.

The government budget deficit or surplus should not be confused with the trade deficit or surplus, which is the difference between net imports and net exports.

Currently, the date of December 16, 2009 marks the beginning of the only week long period in the history of the debt limit when the debt ceiling ever exceeded the statutory limit enacted by Congress. It was during this time that the treasury department invoked the use of “extraordinary accounting tools” that it could then use to give the government a range of $150 billion that it then used to pay its outstanding obligations.[13]

In the United States Congress there are currently a number of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans regarding the United States debt. On August 2, 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, averting a possible financial default. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 40, August 10, 2011: Segment 1: More GORE–Great Obama Recession Economy–Government Treasury Securites Downgraded From AAA to AA+ With A Negative Outlook By Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency–Too Little Too Late–The Austrian School of Economics Was Right!–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 40, August 10, 2011: Segment 2: It’s Time For A Permanent, Pervasive and Predictable Stimulus Package–The FairTax–Launching A Peace and Prosperity Economy–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 40, August 10, 2011: Segment 3: United States of America: Problem: A Triple A Country With A Triple F President–Solution: Fire The President And Democratic Senators And Representatives–Vote For Tea Party Candidates–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

More GORE–Great Obama Recession Economy–Government Treasury Securites Downgraded From AAA to AA+ With A Negative Outlook By Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency–Too Little Too Late–The Austrian School of Economics Was Right!–Videos

Posted on August 6, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

Research Update:
United States of America Long-Term Rating
Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And
Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Overview

· We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United
States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term
rating.
· We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from
CreditWatch negative.
· The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s
medium-term debt dynamics.
· More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
· Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any
time soon.
· The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case. 

http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

President Obama’s Statement on Credit Downgrade  

 

 

Peter Schiff: Welcome to the Twilight Zone

 

 

Obama Has Dictatorial Power To Confiscate Europe’s Gold

 

S&P: Why we downgraded the U.S.

 

 Ron Paul On Neil Cavuto: Talks about The AAA Rating Downgrade To AA+

 

S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating From AAA

 

S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating (First Time IN HISTORY)

 

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

 

 

The Austrians Were Right

 

Peter Schiff on Charles Adler (8/5/11)

 

 

“The market going down has nothing to do with S&P downgrade” Jim Rogers

 

The Fed’s ‘Fictitious’ Debt – Can the US Treasury just stiff the fed?

 

Peter Schiff On Freedom Watch- 1 8 2011 – The US will default through inflation

 

Peter Schiff – ‘Recession is coming back’

 

Peter Schiff: More Money is about to be Dropped from Helicopters

 

AAA-rmageddon: S&P downgrade knocks off US credit crown

 

S&P downgrades US debt outlook-On the Edge with Max Keiser-04-29-2011-(Part1)  

S&P downgrades US debt outlook-On the Edge with Max Keiser-04-29-2011-(Part2)

 

Interview on Credit Rating Agencies

 

The essence of the problem is simply massive Federal Government spending  and not too little tax revenues.

President Obama’s is one of the primary causes of the problem with his ridiculous budget proposal that was voted down in the Senate by 97 Senators voting No!

President  Obama’s call for a  ” balanced approach” to the budget or massive tax increases in 2013 and beyond as the economy enters another recession is a firm indication that he is an economic illiterate, out of touch with economic reality and deserves to be fired next November for incompetence and the damage his economic policies to the American people.

Instead of running deficits over the next ten years of $7,000 to $8,000 billion and increasing the national debt by another $7,000 to $8,000 billion, the size of the Federal Governments needs to cut by about 30% to 50% and the national debt reduced over the several decades.

This would require actually cutting entitlement programs ( Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare), national defense spending, and all other spending by permanently closing between eight to ten Federal Departments, many agencies, and hundreds of government programs.

Also the Federal income tax system needs to be replaced by the FairTax to encourage economic growth by increasing savings and investment which would in turn reduce unemployment and the Federal deficit.

The FairTax: It’s Time

Lugar Cosponsors the FairTax

Neither the Democratic or Republican political establishments have the vision, will or courage to do this.

While the majority of the  American people are prepared for and calling for a huge downsizing of the Federal Government, the political ruling class is opposed to any significant reduction in the size and scope of the Federal Government.

For both political parties most of their campaign contributions come from those companies and individuals who directly benefit from an ever larger and expanding Federal Government and a National Debt.

This includes bankers and financial institutions, the military industrial complex, lawyers, lobbyists, unions, just to name a few of the big campaign contributors.

 

S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

“…The United States has lost its sterling credit rating from Standard & Poor’s.

The credit rating agency on Friday lowered the nation’s AAA rating for the first time since granting it in 1917. The move came less than a week after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion — a tumultuous process that contributed to convulsions in financial markets. The promised cuts were not enough to satisfy S&P.

The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was telegraphed as a possibility back in April. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody’s Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. Moody’s said it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation’s debt, but that it might still lower it.

One of the biggest questions after the downgrade was what impact it would have on already nervous investors. While the downgrade was not a surprise, some selling is expected when stock trading resumes Monday morning. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 699 points this week, the biggest weekly point drop since October 2008. …”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html

Background Articles and Videos

 

Treasury Bond Prices and Yields

 

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

 

The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (Part 1 of 2) by Murray N. Rothbard

 

The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar (Part 2 of 2) by Murray N. Rothbard

 

Open Market Operations

Open market operations–purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities–are the Federal Reserve’s principal tool for implementing monetary policy. The short-term objective for open market operations is specified by the Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC). This objective can be a desired quantity of reserves or a desired price (the federal funds rate). The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.The Federal Reserve’s objective for open market operations has varied over the years. During the 1980s, the focus gradually shifted toward attaining a specified level of the federal funds rate, a process that was largely complete by the end of the decade. Beginning in 1994, the FOMC began announcing changes in its policy stance, and in 1995 it began to explicitly state its target level for the federal funds rate. Since February 2000, the statement issued by the FOMC shortly after each of its meetings usually has included the Committee’s assessment of the risks to the attainment of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.For more information on open market operations, see the article in the Federal Reserve Bulletin(102 KB PDF).http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm

Federal Funds Target Rate
Month/Day 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Jan 1 6.50% 1.75% 1.25% 1.00% 2.25% 4.25% 5.25% 4.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Feb 1 5.50% 1.75% 1.26% 1.00% 2.25% 4.50% 5.25% 3.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Mar 1 5.50% 1.75% 1.25% 1.00% 2.50% 4.50% 5.25% 3.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Apr 1 5.00% 1.75% 1.25% 1.00% 2.75% 4.75% 5.25% 2.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
May 1 4.50% 1.75% 1.25% 1.00% 2.75% 4.75% 5.25% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Jun 1 4.00% 1.75% 1.25% 1.00% 3.00% 5.00% 5.25% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Jul 1 3.75% 1.75% 1.00% 1.25% 3.25% 5.25% 5.25% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Aug 1 3.75% 1.75% 1.00% 1.25% 3.25% 5.25% 5.25% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%
Sep 1 3.50% 1.75% 1.00% 1.50% 3.50% 5.25% 5.25% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%  
Oct 1 3.00% 1.75% 1.00% 1.75% 3.75% 5.25% 4.75% 2.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%  
Nov 1 2.50% 1.75% 1.00% 1.75% 4.00% 5.25% 4.50% 1.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%  
Dec 1 2.00% 1.25% 1.00% 2.00% 4.00% 5.25% 4.50% 1.00% 0%-0.25% 0%-0.25%

http://www.moneycafe.com/library/fedfundsrate.htm

United States Treasury security  

“…A United States Treasury security is government debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury through the Bureau of the Public Debt. Treasury securities are the debt financing instruments of the United States Federal government, and they are often referred to simply as Treasuries. There are four types of marketable treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). There are several types of non-marketable treasury securities including State and Local Government Series (SLGS), Government Account Series debt issued to government-managed trust funds, and savings bonds. All of the marketable Treasury securities are very liquid and are heavily traded on the secondary market. The non-marketable securities (such as savings bonds) are issued to subscribers and cannot be transferred through market sales.

History

The U.S. government knew that the costs of World War I would be great, and the question of how to pay for the war was a matter of intense debate. The resulting decision was to pay for the war with a balance between higher taxes (see the War Tax Act) and government debt. Traditionally, the government borrowed from other countries, but there were no other countries from which to borrow in 1917: U.S. citizens would have to fully finance the war through both higher taxes and purchases of war bonds.[1]

The Treasury raised funding throughout the war by selling $21.5 billion in ‘Liberty bonds.’ These bonds were sold at subscription where officials created coupon price and then sold it at Par value. At this price, subscriptions could be filled in as little as one day, but usually remained open for several weeks, depending on demand for the bond.[1]

After the war, the Liberty Bonds were reaching maturity, but the Treasury was unable to pay each down fully with only limited budget surpluses. The resolution to this problem was to refinance the debt with variable short and medium-term maturities. Again the Treasury issued debt through fixed-price subscription, where both the coupon and the price of the debt were dictated by the treasury.[1]

The problems with debt issuance became apparent in the late-1920’s. The system suffered from chronic oversubscription, where interest rates were so attractive that there were more purchasers of debt than supplied by the government. This indicated that the government was paying too much for debt. As government debt was undervalued, debt purchasers could buy from the government and immediately sell to another market participant at a higher price.[1]

In 1929, the U.S. Treasury shifted from the fixed-price subscription system to a system of auctioning where ‘Treasury Bills’ would be sold to the highest bidder. Securities were then issued on a pro rata system where securities would be allocated to the highest bidder until their demand was full. If more treasuries were supplied by the government, they would then be allocated to the next highest bidder. This system allowed the market to set the price rather than the government. On December 10, 1929, the Treasury issued its first auction. The result was the issuing of $224 million three-month bills. The highest bid was at 99.310 with the lowest bid accepted at 99.152.[1]

Foreign countries later started to buy U.S. debt as an investment of their surplus U.S. Dollars. There is fear that foreign countries hold so many bonds that if they stopped buying them, the U.S. economy would collapse; however, the reality is that more bonds are transferred in a single day by the Treasury than are held by any single sovereign state.[2] The perception of this dependence furthers belief that the U.S. and China economies are so tightly linked that both fear the consequences of a potential slow down in China’s purchase of those bonds. In her 2010 visit to China, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on authorities in Beijing to continue buying U.S. Treasuries, saying it would help jumpstart the flagging U.S. economy and stimulate imports of Chinese goods.[3]

As the economic recession continues, more doubts arise over the real value of U.S. treasury securities. Though carefully worded, Chinese premier Wen Jia Bao’s warning about possible devaluation of Chinese held U.S. bonds was taken very seriously by Washington:

“Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I’m a little bit worried” … “I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets.”[4]Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, said at a news conference after the closing of China’s 2009 legislative session.

However, it is important to note that such comments, while critical, were very likely indicative of Chinese “gesturing” ahead of the April 1st G-20 Economic Summit. As of April 2009, the U.S. dollar had rallied YTD against all other major world currencies. On March 18, 2009, the Federal Reserve used quantitative easing “to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.”[5]

Marketable securities

 Directly issued by the United States Government

 Treasury bill

“Treasury bill” redirects here. Note that the Bank of England issues these in the United Kingdom.

Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Like zero-coupon bonds, they do not pay interest prior to maturity; instead they are sold at a discount of the par value to create a positive yield to maturity.[6] Many regard Treasury bills as the least risky investment available to U.S. investors.

Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. Offering amounts for 13-week and 26-week bills are announced each Thursday for auction, usually at 11:30 a.m., on the following Monday and settlement, or issuance, on Thursday. Offering amounts for 4-week bills are announced on Monday for auction the next day, Tuesday, usually at 11:30 a.m., and issuance on Thursday. Offering amounts for 52-week bills are announced every fourth Thursday for auction the next Tuesday, usually at 11:30 am, and issuance on Thursday. Purchase orders at TreasuryDirect must be entered before 11:00 on the Monday of the auction. The minimum purchase, effective April 7, 2008, is $100. (This amount formerly had been $1,000.) Mature T-bills are also redeemed on each Thursday. Banks and financial institutions, especially primary dealers, are the largest purchasers of T-bills.

Like other securities, individual issues of T-bills are identified with a unique CUSIP number. The 13-week bill issued three months after a 26-week bill is considered a re-opening of the 26-week bill and is given the same CUSIP number. The 4-week bill issued two months after that and maturing on the same day is also considered a re-opening of the 26-week bill and shares the same CUSIP number. For example, the 26-week bill issued on March 22, 2007, and maturing on September 20, 2007, has the same CUSIP number (912795A27) as the 13-week bill issued on June 21, 2007, and maturing on September 20, 2007, and as the 4-week bill issued on August 23, 2007 that matures on September 20, 2007.

During periods when Treasury cash balances are particularly low, the Treasury may sell cash management bills (or CMBs). These are sold at a discount and by auction just like weekly Treasury bills. They differ in that they are irregular in amount, term (often less than 21 days), and day of the week for auction, issuance, and maturity. When CMBs mature on the same day as a regular weekly bill, usually Thursday, they are said to be on-cycle. The CMB is considered another reopening of the bill and has the same CUSIP. When CMBs mature on any other day, they are off-cycle and have a different CUSIP number.

Treasury bills are quoted for purchase and sale in the secondary market on an annualized discount percentage, or basis.

With the advent of TreasuryDirect, individuals can now purchase T-Bills online and have funds withdrawn from and deposited directly to their personal bank account and earn higher interest rates on their savings.

General calculation for the discount yield for Treasury bills is

\text{Discount Yield} (%) = \frac{\text{Face Value} - \text{Purchase Price}}{\text{Face Value}} \times \frac{\text{360}}{\text{Days Till Maturity}} \times 100[%]

 Treasury note

This is the modern usage of “Treasury Note” in the U.S., for the earlier meanings see Treasury Note (disambiguation).

Treasury notes (or T-Notes) mature in one to ten years. They have a coupon payment every six months, and are commonly issued with maturities dates between 1 to 10 years, with denominations of $1,000. In the basic transaction, one buys a “$1,000” T-Note for say, $950, collects interest over 10 years of say, 3% per year, which comes to $30 yearly, and at the end of the 10 years cashes it in for $1000. So, $950 over the course of 10 years becomes $1300.

T-Notes and T-Bonds are quoted on the secondary market at percentage of par in thirty-seconds of a point (n/32 of a point, where n = 1,2,3,…). Thus, for example, a quote of 95:07 on a note indicates that it is trading at a discount: $952.19 (i.e., 95 + 7/32%) for a $1,000 bond. (Several different notations may be used for bond price quotes. The example of 95 and 7/32 points may be written as 95:07, or 95-07, or 95’07, or decimalized as 95.21875.) Other notation includes a +, which indicates 1/64 points and a third digit may be specified to represent 1/256 points. Examples include 95:07+ which equates to (95 + 7/32 + 1/64) and 95:073 which equates to (95 + 7/32 + 3/256). Notation such as 95:073+ is unusual and not typically used.

The 10-year Treasury note has become the security most frequently quoted when discussing the performance of the U.S. government bond market and is used to convey the market’s take on longer-term macroeconomic expectations.

Treasury bond

“U.S. Bonds” redirects here. For the singer/performer, see Gary U.S. Bonds.

Treasury bonds (T-Bonds, or the long bond) have the longest maturity, from twenty years to thirty years. They have a coupon payment every six months like T-Notes, and are commonly issued with maturity of thirty years. The secondary market is highly liquid, so the yield on the most recent T-Bond offering was commonly used as a proxy for long-term interest rates in general.[citation needed] This role has largely been taken over by the 10-year note, as the size and frequency of long-term bond issues declined significantly in the 1990s and early 2000s.[citation needed]

The U.S. Federal government suspended issuing the well-known 30-year Treasury bonds (often called long-bonds) for a four and a half year period starting October 31, 2001 and concluding February 2006.[7] As the U.S. government used its budget surpluses to pay down the Federal debt in the late 1990s,[8] the 10-year Treasury note began to replace the 30-year Treasury bond as the general, most-followed metric of the U.S. bond market. However, because of demand from pension funds and large, long-term institutional investors, along with a need to diversify the Treasury’s liabilities – and also because the flatter yield curve meant that the opportunity cost of selling long-dated debt had dropped – the 30-year Treasury bond was re-introduced in February 2006 and is now issued quarterly.[9] This brought the U.S. in line with Japan and European governments issuing longer-dated maturities amid growing global demand from pension funds.[citation needed]

 TIPS

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (or TIPS) are the inflation-indexed bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury. The principal is adjusted to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the commonly used measure of inflation. When the CPI rises, your principal adjusts upward. If the index falls, your principal adjusts downwards.[10] The coupon rate is constant, but generates a different amount of interest when multiplied by the inflation-adjusted principal, thus protecting the holder against inflation. TIPS are currently offered in 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities.[11]

Federal Reserve holdings of U.S. Treasuries

For the Quantitative easing policy the Feds holding of US treasuries increased from $750 billion in 2007 to over $1.5 trillion by June 2011. Source Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. [12]   …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security

 

Understanding the Financial Crisis – very well explanation!

 

Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis

Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance

Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis

Understanding The Debt Crisis In The U.S.

 

 

CNN: Understanding the Crisis

 

Understanding the Financial Crisis

 

Stein Says Economy to Accelerate; U.S. Downgrade Likely

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Weak Obama Recovery Ends–Great Obama Recession Economy Or GORE Starts–Labor Participation Rate in July 2011 Hits 27 Year Low of 63.9%–Over 130,000 Workers Leave Workforce In July 2011–No Jobs!–Videos

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The American People’s Solution To Economic Stagnation: Increase National Debt Ceiling By $2,000 Billion To $16,300 Billion In Exchange For Passage of A Balanced Budget Amendment And The FairTax Bills And Repealing The Income Tax 16th Amendment To U.S. Constitution–A Balanced, Fair And Transparent Approach To Creating Jobs and Growing A Peace and Prosperity Economy–Videos

Posted on July 18, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Pronk Pops Show 37:July 20, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 36:July 13, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 35:July 6, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

 

The Story of Spending

 

Smoke and Mirrors on Spending Cuts

 

 

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

 

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

 

The National Debt Road Trip

 

How To Balance the Obama Budget

 

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

 

National Debt- How Much Is A Billion Dollars? Dave Walker  

 

Obama: I’m Willing to Compromise

 

We Cannot Bind a Future Congress

 

GOP: We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Obama: We don’t need a balanced budget amendment

 

A Balanced Budget Amendment: The Path to Fiscal Sanity

 

The Time is NOW – Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Senator Lee Introduces Cut, Cap, Balance Act as a Sensible Solution for Raising the Debt Ceiling

 

Our Troubling Tax System

 

 

Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes…even if it means less tax revenue!!

 

Ron Paul & Judge Napolitano on FOX News 03/10/11

 

 

The FairTax: It’s Time

 

Lugar Cosponsors the FairTax

 

Herman Cain on Taxes

 

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

 

Ron Paul – THE FAIRTAX REVOLUTION

 

Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”  

 

Fair Tax Panel with Grover Norquist on FOX Business

 

Ron Paul Opposes Raising Debt Limit

 

Bachmann Stands Strong Against Raising Debt Ceiling

 

 

 

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

 

How To Amend The U.S. Constitution

 

How To Amend the U.S. Constitution

 

Cut, Cap & Balance! Senators Paul, Lee and Vitter want a Constitutional Amendment

 

Cut, Cap and Balance…A Great Way To Keep Our Debt From Overtaking Our Future

 

Ron Paul Ad – Conviction Not Compromise

 

Ron Paul Will Beat Obama In 2012

 

 

 

I agree with Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann that the National Debt ceiling should not be increased.

I support and have signed the cut, cap, and balance pledge.

Only if both the balanced budget amendment and FairTax bills are passed with a provision  repealing the income tax 16th Amendment would I support the raising of the National Debt ceiling by an amount not exceeding $2,000 billion.

This would require the Democratic Party in both the House of Representatives and Senate to vote for this and the President signing these bills.

Barring this, the President needs to start informing nonessential government employees that their jobs have been terminated.

The priorities for Federal Government outlays should be as follows:

1. Interest on the national debt

2. Social Security

3. Medicare and Medicaid

5. Department of Treasury

6. Department of Justice

7. Department of State

8. Department of Defense (60% of total budget outlays)  with salaries of military personnel on active duty paid first.

The above is about 65% of total government expenditures or outlays.

The Federal government should start selling all of its real estate asset and gold  to make up any shortfall in tax revenues.

The remaining Federal Departments need to be closed and only operations that are absolutely essential should continue operating.

It should take a minimum of two to five years to have the necessary 38 states ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment and an Amendment repealing the income tax 16th Amendment to the Consitution to the United States.

Until these amendments are ratified the U.S. Federal Government budget should be balanced and the income tax replaced by the consumption tax–The FairTax.

The Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 should not exceed $3,000 billion not the proposed $3,500 billion Republican budget which has a deficit of nearly $1,000 billion.

Congress should balance the budget starting in Fiscal Year 2013 at $ 3,000 billion or less.

Time for the House of Representatives to call President Obama’s bluff.

The American people want Federal Government spending to be drastically cut and all U.S. Federal Government budgets balanced starting no later than Fiscal year 2013.

The American people want all Federal Government  taxes to be replaced with a national retail consumption sales tax on all new goods and services–the FairTax.

The FairTax should go into operation on January 1, 2013 at the latest and would replace all Federal Government taxes including income, payroll, gift and estate taxes. 

The time has come to call the President’s bluff. 

If the Democrats vote against this, then the American people will blame them for shutting down the Federal Government.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Legendary investor Jim Rogers- “Ron Paul is the only politician that has a clue”

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

 

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489

 

 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
                                                  STAR – TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  06/11

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   135,293                311,656                176,363
     NOVEMBER                                                             133,563                253,850                120,287
     DECEMBER                                                               218,919                310,329                 91,410
     JANUARY                                                                205,239                247,873                 42,634
     FEBRUARY                                                             107,520                328,429                220,909
     MARCH                                                                     153,358                218,745                 65,387
     APRIL                                                                       245,260                327,950                 82,689
     MAY                                                                          146,794                282,721                135,927
     JUNE                                                                         251,048                319,470                 68,422
     JULY                                                                         155,546                320,588                165,043
     AUGUST                                                                   163,998                254,524                 90,526
     SEPTEMBER                                                          245,207                279,813                 34,607

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                             2,161,746              3,455,949           1,294,204

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                145,951                286,384                140,432
     NOVEMBER                                                          148,970                299,364                150,394
     DECEMBER                                                           236,875                315,009                 78,134
     JANUARY                                                            226,550                276,346                 49,796
     FEBRUARY                                                          110,656                333,163                222,507
     MARCH                                                                 150,894                339,047                188,153
     APRIL                                                                    289,543                329,929                 40,387
     MAY                                                                       174,936                232,577                 57,641
     JUNE                                                                      249,658                292,738                 43,080

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                           1,734,033              2,704,557           970,524

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.txt

 

U.S. Federal Government Budget Receipts and Outlays
Totals Include On-Budget and Off-Budget Amounts
From Coolidge To Obama, In Billions of Dollars

  Total Budget   Percent of G.D.P.
President Fiscal
Year
Receipts Outlays Surplus orDeficits G.D.P. Receipts Outlays Surplus orDeficit
Calvin Coolidge 1930 4.1 3.3 0.7 97.4 4.2 3.4 .8
Herbert Hoover 1931 3.1 3.6 -0.5 83.9 3.7 4.3 -0.6
  1932 1.9 4.7 -2.7 67.6 2.8 6.9 -4.9
  1933 2.0 4.6 -2.6 57.6 3.5 8.0 -4.5
F.D.Roosevelt 1934 3.0 6.5 -3.6 61.2 4.8 10.7 -5.9
  1935 3.6 6.4 -2.8 69.6 5.2 9.2 -4.0
  1936 3.9 8.2 -4.3 78.5 5.0 10.5 -5.5
  1937 5.4 7.6 -2.2 87.8 6.1 8.6 -2.5
  1938 6.8 6.8 -0.1 89.0 7.6 7.7 -0.1
  1939 6.3 9.1 -2.8 89.1 7.1 10.3 -3.2
  1940 6.5 9.5 -2.9 96.8 6.8 9.8 -3.0
  1941 8.7 13.7 -4.9 114.1 7.6 12.0 -4.3
  1942 14.6 35.1 -20.5 144.3 10.1 24.3 -14.2
  1943 24.0 78.6 -54.6 180.3 13.3 43.6 -30.3
  1944 43.7 91.3 -47.6 209.2 20.9 43.6 -22.7
  1945 45.2 92.7 -47.6 221.4 20.4 41.9 -21.5
  1946 39.3 55.2 -15.9 222.6 17.7 24.8 -7.2
Harry S.Truman 1947 38.5 34.5 4.0 233.2 16.5 14.8 1.7
  1948 41.6 29.8 11.8 256.6 16.2 6.9 4.6
  1949 39.4 38.8 0.6 271.3 14.5 14.3 0.2
  1950 39.4 38.8 0.6 273.1 14.4 15.6 -1.1
  1951 51.6 45.5 6.1 320.2 16.1 14.2 1.9
  1952 66.2 67.7 -1.5 348.7 19.0 19.4 -0.3
  1953 60.7 70.9 -6.5 372.5 18.7 20.4 -1.7
D.D.Eisenhower 1954 69.7 70.9 -1.2 377.0 18.5 18.8 -0.3
  1955 65.5 68.4 -3.07 395.9 16.5 17.3 -.8
  1956 74.6 70.6 3.9 427.0 17.5 16.5 0.9
  1957 80.0 76.6 3.4 450.9 17.7 17.0 0.8
  1958 79.6 82.4 -2.8 460.0 17.3 17.9 -0.6
  1959 79.2 92.1 -12.8 490.2 16.2 18.8 -2.6
  1960 92.5 92.2 0.3 518.9 17.8 17.8 0.1
  1961 94.4 97.7 -3.3 529.9 17.8 18.4 -1.3
John F.Kennedy 1962 99.7 106.8 -4.8 567.8 17.6 18.8 -1.3
  1963 106.6 111.3 -4.8 599.2 17.8 18.4 -0.6
Lyndon B.Johnson 1964 112.6 118.5 -5.9 641.5 17.6 18.5 -0.9
  1965 116.8 118.2 -1.4 687.5 17.0 17.2 -0.2
  1966 130.8 134.5 -3.7 755.8 17.3 17.8 -0.5
  1967 148.8 157.5 -8.6 810.0 18.4 19.4 -1.1
  1968 153.0 178.1 -25.2 868.4 17.6 20.5 -2.9
  1969 186.9 183.6 3.2 948.1 19.7 19.4 -0.3
Richard N.Nixon 1970 192.8 195.6 -2.8 1,012.7 19.0 19.3 -0.3
  1971 187.1 210.2 -23.0 1,080.0 17.3 19.5 -2.1
  1972 207.3 230.7 -23.4 1,176.5 17.6 19.6 -2.0
  1973 230.8 245.7 -14.9 1,310.6 17.6 18.7 -1.1
  1974 263.2 269.4 -6.1 1,438.5 18.3 18.7 -0.4
Gerald R.Ford 1975 279.1 332.3 -53.2 1,560.2 17.9 21.3 -3.4
  1976 298.1 371.8 -73.7 1,738.16 17.1 21.4 -4.2
  TQ 81.2 96.0 -14.7 459.4 17.7 20.0 -3.2
  1977 355.6 409.2 -53.7 1,973.5 18.0 20.7 -2.7
Jimmy Carter 1978 399.6 458.7 -59.2 2,217.5 18.0 20.7 -2.7
  1979 463.3 504.0 -40.7 2,501.4 18.5 20.1 -1.6
  1980 517.1 590.9 -73.8 2,724.2 19.0 21.7 -2.7
  1981 599.3 678.2 -79.0 3,057.0 19.6 22.2 -2.6
Ronald Reagan 1982 617.8 745.7 -128.0 3,223.7 19.2 23.1 -4.0
  1983 600.6 808.4 -207.8 3,440.7 17.5 23.5 -6.0
  1984 666.4 851.8 -185.4 3,844.4 17.3 22.2 -4.8
  1985 734.0 946.3 -212.3 4,146.3 17.7 22.8 -5.1
Ronald Reagan 1986 769.2 990.4 -212.2 4,403.9 17.5 22.5 -4.9
  1987 854.3 1,004.0 -149.7 4,651.4 18.4 21.6 -3.2
  1988 909.2 1,064.4 -155.2 5,008.5 18.2 21.3 -3.0
  1989 991.1 1,143.7 -152.6 5,399.5 18.4 21.2 -4.9
George H.W.Bush 1990 1,032.0 1,253.0 -221.0 5,734.5 18.0 21.9 -3.9
  1991 1,055.0 1,324.2 -269.2 5,930.5 17.8 22.3 -4.5
  1992 1,091.2 1,381.5 -290.3 6,242.0 17.5 22.1 -4.7
  1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 -255.1 6,587.3 17.5 21.4 -3.9
William J. Clinton 1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 -203.2 6,976.6 2.8 6.9 -4.9
  1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -164.0 7,341.1 18.4 20.6 -2.2
  1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -107.4 7,718.3 18.8 20.2 -1.4
  1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 -21.9 8,211.7 19.2 19.5 -0.3
William J. Clinton 1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 69.3 67.6 19.9 19.1 0.8
  1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 125.6 9,208.4 19.8 18.5 1.4
  2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 236.2 9,821.0 20.6 18.2 2.4
  2001 1,991.1 1,862.9 128.2 10,225.3 19.5 18.2 1.3
George W.Bush 2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 -157.8 10,543.9 17.6 19.1 -1.5
  2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 -377.6 10,979.8 16.2 19.7 -3.4
  2004 1,880.1 2,292.9 -412.7 11,685.6 16.1 19.6 -3.5
  2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 -318.3 12,445.7 17.3 19.9 -2.6
George W.Bush 2006 2,406.0 2,655.1 -248.2 13,224.9 18.2 20.1 -1.9
  2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 -160.7 13,896.0 18.5 19.6 -1.2
  2008 2,524.0 2,982.6 -458.6 14,439.0 17.5 20.7 -3.2
  2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 -1,412.7 14,237.2 14.8 24.7 -9.9
Barack H.Obama 2010 2,165.1 3,720.7 -1,555.6 14,623.9 14.8 25.4 -10.6
estimates 2011 2,567.2 3,833.9 -1,266.7 15,299.0 16.8 25.1 -8.3
estimates 2012 2,926.4 3,754.9 -828.5 16,203.3 18.1 23.2 -5.1

Prior to fiscal year 1977 the Federal fiscal years began on July 1 and ended on June 30. For example, John F. Kennedy assumed office on January 20, 1961, but the FY 1961 budget was prepared by the Eisenhower Administration.

In calendar year 1976 the July-September period was a separate accounting period (known as the transition quarter or TQ) to bridge the period required to shift to the new fiscal year.

The Fiscal Year begins on October 1 of the previous year. For example, Fiscal Year 2012 begins on October 1, 2011. For this reason, budget years appear to not correspond with a president’s administration. For example, Barack H. Obama took office in January 2009, but the FY 2009 budget was prepared by the Bush Administration.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...