Friday, March 2, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 2, 2012


Well... so far, at least, no one I care about has died today.

* Added at 4:53 p.m. Eastern Standard Time: Jeezus Frigg'n Christ...!!!
Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trillions-the-government-doesnt-account-for/2012/02/17/gIQABgdZlR_story.html

Accounting standards may seem like a sleep-inducing subject to many people. But when retirement promises are improperly accounted for, companies and governments can go bankrupt, and hardworking Americans who have relied on the promises can suffer.

General Motors made its first retirement promises to workers in 1950.

Under the accounting rules of the time, GM did not have to recognize the current cost of these future promises, as they were considered immaterial to the company’s operations.

* FUCKING INSANE, HUH?!

Forty-two years later, Americans’ longer life spans and increasingly expensive health care had dramatically increased the cost. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, a private organization given responsibility by the U.S. government for setting private-sector accounting rules, decided that corporate retirement promises had become material, and it required GM and other companies to begin recognizing their current cost.

The $33 billion charge GM recorded in 1992 was equal to 29% of the company’s revenue — well above the 5% threshold that accountants commonly use to gauge whether a liability is material. Seventeen years later, these retirement promises were a major factor in GM filing for bankruptcy.

* WELL, "DUH!"

Given this history, consider the Treasury Department’s decision to not accrue for Social Security and Medicare promises.

* TICK...TICK...TICK...TICK...

The current cost of these programs is calculated each year by the GAO and described in great detail in appendices. But Treasury’s “Citizen’s Guide” to the GAO financials does not accrue for Social Security or Medicare promises, even though it does accrue for the cost of retirement promises to federal employees and veterans.

(*SMIRK*)

This decision is embraced by virtually every one of our elected leaders and accepted by virtually all of our journalists.

* DIRTBAGS!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The $1.3 trillion budget deficit would be $4.2 trillion if the change in the current cost of Social Security and Medicare promises during fiscal 2011 were included.

Why is this cost excluded?

* SO AS TO MANIPULATED CITIZENS' PERCEPTIONS VIA LIES. (*SHRUG*) THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE POLITICIANS OF COURSE!

It is not because the promises are immaterial.

Remember that 5% threshold? The current costs of Medicare and Social Security total $33.8 trillion, which is more than 1,400% of the federal government’s 2011 revenue.

(*SMIRK*)

Instead, the legal reason for this exclusion is that the government follows “obligation-based” accounting standards, which require the recognition of future promises not when they become material but only when they are legally binding.

* SEE, FOLKS... THAT'S THE CATCH; NONE OF THESE "PROMISES" IS BINDING. EACH AND EVERY ONE CAN BE UNDONE VIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION! (i.e. VIA CHANGING THE LAW!)

Since the U.S. government made its first retirement promises in 1935, it has seen the economics of Social Security and Medicare affected by the same demographic and cost trends experienced by the private sector. But because the government can rescind its Social Security and Medicare promises, it does not have to recognize their current costs, even though they are material to its financial condition.

(*SNORT*) FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

They are also material to the financial expectations of tens of millions of Americans. The typical U.S. household has been promised retirement payments totaling $1.2 million, more than 1,200 percent of its median net worth of $96,000.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Is it acceptable that our leaders are able to promise trillions of dollars to the voters but do not have to recognize the cost because their promises can be rescinded?

* APPARENTLY SO. (*SMIRK*) AFTER ALL, YOU DON'T SEE OBAMA OR BIDEN OR BOEHNER OR PELOSI OR REID OR MCCONNELL CALLING FOR A CHANGE - DO YOU?

If the accounting rules for the private sector changed when corporate retirement promises approached a third of annual revenue, why haven’t those for the government changed when its promises have grown to 14 times its annual revenue?

* BECAUSE GOVERNMENT HAS A MONOPOLY ON FORCE. (*SHRUG*) IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

Americans know something is wrong, and they know hard choices about promises and taxes need to be made. They deserve a clear accounting and an honest discussion of how to fix the system.

* PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. (*SHRUG*) THE AUTHOR IS LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD.

March 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/opinion/will-wall-street-ever-face-justice.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Last week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proclaimed in a speech that when it comes to fighting financial fraud, the Obama administration’s “record of success has been nothing less than historic.”

(*SNORT*)

Such self-congratulation is not only premature, but it also reveals a troubling lack of understanding about what is required to win the war against financial wrongdoing.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

* HOLDER IS SIMPLY LYING. REVISIONIST HISTORY. WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT JUST CALLING A SPADE A SPADE?!

* AND, NO... I'M NOT MAKING A RACIAL PUN! (*SMIRK*) (*GIVING THE FINGER TO ANYONE WHO THOUGHT OTHERWISE*)

Four years after the disintegration of the financial system, Americans have, rightfully, a gnawing feeling that justice has not been served.

Claims of financial fraud against companies like Citigroup and Bank of America have been settled for pennies on the dollar, with no admission of wrongdoing.

Executives who ran companies that made, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in toxic mortgages and mortgage-backed securities remain largely unscathed.

* JEFFREY IMMELT...??? GE CAPITAL...???

* LISTEN... FOLKS... FEEL FREE TO READ THE ENTIRE PIECE, BUT DON'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF "NAMING NAMES." THIS CERTAINLY ISN'T AN "EXPOSE" BY THE NYT. (*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... THOSE OF YOU WHO REGULARLY READ USUALLY RIGHT KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS. OBAMA IS NECK DEEP IN THE CORRUPTION AND IF ANYTHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE MORE AT FAULT (SEE: FANNIE MAE; FREDDIE MAC) THAN REPUBLICANS.

* OH... DON'T GET ME WRONG! I'M CERTAINLY NOT "ABSOLVING" REPUBLICANS. AMERICA IS NOW AN OLIGARCHY. THE OLIGARCHS TRANSCEND IDEOLOGY AND PARTY. I'M SIMPLY DISGUSTED BY WHAT A JOKE THIS OP-ED IS.

March 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

* NOTICE, FOLKS... NOT A WORD ABOUT GETTING AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS - LET ALONE ASKING FOR A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR.

* NOTICE, FOLKS... YOU'LL NOT HEAR MOST REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS - LET ALONE DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS - MAKE THIS POINT.

* UNDERSTAND, FOLKS... THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT - BY AND LARGE - KNOW... UNDERSTAND... OR RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION. THEREFORE NEITHER DO THE POLITICIANS. THEREFORE... THERE IS NO REAL "RULE OF LAW" IN THE UNITED STATES.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff."

* "I..." NOT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. NOT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. JUST... "I"...

* I TRULY AM SURPRISED HE HASN'T SIMPLY SWITCHED TO THE ROYAL "WE."

He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

* HMMM... I SUPPOSE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE ABOVE QUALIFIES AS USE OF THE ROYAL "WE." CERTAINLY OUR PRESIDENT BELIEVES HE HAS UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH THIS NATION INTO A PROACTIVE WAR WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A FORMAL CONGRESSIONAL "BY YOUR LEAVE."

* FOLKS... YOU WON'T HEAR THIS VIA THE MSM (OR EVEN FOX) NOR FROM THE ACADEMY... BUT AMERICA AS A CONSTITUTIONAL NATION IS CLEARLY NO MORE. THE POLITICIANS DON'T EVEN PRETEND TO ADHERE TO CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT ANYMORE.

"Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," he told me. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"

* BACK TO "I" AND "ME".

* FINALLY... (*SIGH*)... IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE/INTERVIEW YOU'LL NOTE THAT THIS CLOWN JEFFREY GOLDBERG DOESN'T BOTHER TO EVEN ASK THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH A PROACTIVE "WAR BY CHOICE" ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF SOME SORT. I'M BETTING THE QUESTION DOESN'T EVEN OCCUR TO HIM.

* WE... ARE... SO... FUCKED.

March 2, 2012 at 3:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292320/obama-s-oil-switch-nash-keune

An Institute for Energy Research report shows that...American oil production is rising.

However, this has nothing to do with Obama’s administration.

The rise in overall oil production comes from state and private land.

Since 2000, oil production on state and private land has increased 11%.

Last year, state-land production jumped 14%. Production on privately held land went up 12%.

The report singled out the Bakken wells, which are located on a privately held formation in North Dakota and which saw a 250% increase in production over the last decade.

According to the report, oil production has actually gone down by 44% on federal lands over the same span.

* ONE... MORE... TIME:

According to the report, oil production has actually gone down by 44% on federal lands over the same span.

* BUT, WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

Last year alone, oil production on federal land decreased by 11%.

* ONE... MORE... TIME:

Last year alone, oil production on federal land decreased by 11%.

* FOLKS... EVERY TIME YOU HEAR, READ, OR WATCH A NEWS REPORT WHICH NOTES THAT "UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AMERICAN OIL PRODUCTION HAS ACTUALLY INCREASES" WITHOUT GIVING YOU THESE SPECIFICS... THAT'S FURTHER EVIDENCE OF HOW CORRUPT THE MSM IS.

This decrease in oil produced on federal lands should surprise no one. After all, in 2008 Obama declared that he’d be the “president who will free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.”

One of his administration’s first moves upon taking office was to cancel 77 leases auctioned off at the end of 2008, which covered over 100,000 acres and were sold for $6 million.

* THEY CANCELED 77 LEASES... (*PURSED LIPS*)

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar claimed that the leases had been granted hastily and without the proper environmental analysis, the “midnight” before the Bush administration was to leave office. Though the leases were sold in December 2008, this was just the end of a seven-year process, according to the Department of Interior itself. Nevertheless, these leases still haven’t been reinstated.

* THE LEASES STILL HAVEN'T BEEN REINSTALLED. (*SIGH*)

In February, the administration rescinded plans drawn up during the Bush years to open land in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah for shale-gas exploration. This area includes the Great River Formation, reported by the Rand Corporation to hold between 1.5 and 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil.

(Overall, the American Petroleum Institute claims that leases on federal lands are down 44% from 2007.)

* DOWN 44% UNDER OBAMA... (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

Obama’s policies have had the same effect on offshore drilling.

(*JUST THROWING MY HANDS UP IN THE AIR*)

After the Bush administration ended the moratorium on offshore drilling (and even then, only after oil hit $147 a barrel), the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) was available for leasing.

As a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, Obama enacted a moratorium on permits for new deepwater oil wells (a “permitatorium”). The Interior Department didn’t approve another permit for a new well in more than 500 feet of water until February 28, 2011. Even now, the administration plans to open only part of the OCS. According to the report from the Institute for Energy Research, “a mere 2.2% of taxpayer-owned offshore areas are leased.”

* A MERE 2.2%.

March 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)