WATCH OUT!!! KLINTON KAUSES KAOS & KA$HE$ OUT!
MRCLOUD
If these jokers are moving money out of trust funds, somebody better keep
a close eye on where it all goes. Don't you think his inner circle could
make a ton of coin by shorting $$$$$? This could be the "grand daddy" of
all Slick's scams.
"Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"
Michael Rivero
>MRCLOUD (mrc...@aol.com) wrote:
>: What a great chance for Klinton to profit...& make $$$$ dis-appear!
>: If these jokers are moving money out of trust funds, somebody better keep
>: a close eye on where it all goes. Don't you think his inner circle could
>: make a ton of coin by shorting $$$$$? This could be the "grand daddy" of
>: all Slick's scams.
>
>
> three years. This sets a good precedent. Looks like
> Rubin nabbed about $20 billion yesterday, and has
> another $60-80 billion targeted for later this week.
>
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.
--
=========== T H E A N I M A T I O N P L A N T A T I O N ============
| Michael F. Rivero - riv...@netcom.com - 17 years in the business |
| WEB PAGE OPEN AT file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ri/rivero/plant.html |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| History has shown that the honorable man loses to the teller of |
| white lies, who loses to the teller of black lies, who loses to |
| the blackmailer, who loses to the embezzler, who loses to the drug |
| dealer, who loses to the murderer, who loses to the genocidal tyrant. |
| |
| The operant question in these evil times is therefore not, |
| "What is our government capable of?", but rather, |
| "What is our government NOT capable of?" |
===========================================================================
stephenh
: MRCLOUD (mrc...@aol.com) wrote:
: : What a great chance for Klinton to profit...& make $$$$ dis-appear!
: : If these jokers are moving money out of trust funds, somebody better keep
: : a close eye on where it all goes. Don't you think his inner circle could
: : make a ton of coin by shorting $$$$$? This could be the "grand daddy" of
: : all Slick's scams.
: They've been after pension fund money for the past
: three years. This sets a good precedent. Looks like
: Rubin nabbed about $20 billion yesterday, and has
: another $60-80 billion targeted for later this week.
So Congress passes its budget and digs in its heels.
Klinton vetoes the Congress' budget and digs in her heels.
Both sides whip up a storm of oratory.
The press sides with KKlinton. "Living in debt need not be
bad, everyone has a mortage on their houses, see?"
"Our polls show that when asked if Congress is responsible
for the shutdown, more people agree."
Surely the Republicans did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
They knew on entry that the press coverage would not be favorable
from past history, and the press is their outlet to the public,
which will either retain them or drop them in another 12 months.
So what is the Republican trump card? Could it be the pension drain
reality sinking into the consciousness of the federal worker,
a bastion of Democratic strengh in the past?
After a couple of months of screw-ups and shut downs,
could the Repubs force KKKlinton to the wall and resign
without having fired a shot at the Whitewater, Mena,
or Foster weaknesses?
What WAS that Labor Day dinner with Al, Newt, and Janet all about
over Labor Day, if Orlin can be trusted??
--s.
Horne Broward
: What a great chance for Klinton to profit...& make $$$$ dis-appear!
: If these jokers are moving money out of trust funds, somebody better keep
: a close eye on where it all goes. Don't you think his inner circle could
: make a ton of coin by shorting $$$$$? This could be the "grand daddy" of
: all Slick's scams.
They've been after pension fund money for the past
three years. This sets a good precedent. Looks like
Rubin nabbed about $20 billion yesterday, and has
another $60-80 billion targeted for later this week.
--
If ( NationalDeficit > ( Sum( FoolishInvestors[] * LifeSavings[] ))
then FederalEmployeePensionFund := 0;
Horne Broward
: In article <48a7jq$p...@natasha.rmii.com> bro...@rainbow.rmii.com (Horne Broward) writes:
: >
: > They've been after pension fund money for the past
: > three years. This sets a good precedent. Looks like
: > Rubin nabbed about $20 billion yesterday, and has
: > another $60-80 billion targeted for later this week.
: The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.
I have been assured by "experts in misc.invest"
that the "disenfranchising of pension funds" is
fully legal and above board, and said funds will
be immediately replenished after the Budget is passed. :)
( Just like the $2 billion from CALPERS in
California was. :) )
This is certainly probable. However. Sam has now
played his hand, and shown EXACTLY how safe those
pension funds are. :)
Reuters reports that "economic reports" are one
of the first casualities of the shutdown. How
convienent. :)
Horne Broward
: I understand your concerns about the fiscal responsibility (an oxymoron if
: I ever heard one) of the U.S. government, but I don't understand why
: everyone is getting worked up about the "disinvesting" (a term only a
: bureau-rat could think up) of the "government bonds" in the pension funds.
: As I underrstand it, the game is basically that the gov't takes out its
: worthless IOU's and replaces it with worthless FRNs. The pension fund is
: no worse off in this exchange as it never "owned" anything but a promise
Here's an analogy for you.
You put your house up for sale.
Someone buys the house.
The next day, you put your house up for sale again, before
the new owners move in. You sell the house to another
buyer. You promise the previous buyer that you'll find
him a comparable house.
Clear?
Uncle Sam does not OWN those IOU's, the federal employees
do. Sam is now taking the SAVINGS of someone else,
and re-selling them to raise cash a second time, whilst
promising the previous owners that "they'll be reimbursed,
we really, REALLY mean it this time".
And, I'm concerned mostly because I've been waiting for it.
It's just another sign of what we can expect if Sam continues
to borrow. At some point, Sam will move to confiscate
private pension funds, no doubt issuing a "SUPER-TREASURY"
promise to buy the current treasury holdings, and reselling
those holdings to raise a second helping of cash.
--
* Dupazoid Question * " If Clinton has "cut the Deficit in HALF" ....
* of the *
* Month * why does Congress need $67 billion to run the
********************* government for 73 days?"
John Q. Public
What's the big deal? Lots of us don't have pensions, mutual funds,
bond holdings, or even much "cash". Our multinational
corporations no longer need us to consume their goods, now
that they've got GATT and NAFTA, so they can lay us off or pay
us less, so it really doesn't matter. Small businesses are
dropping like flies, as they become unable to compete with
big, no service multis who sell for less to people who have
less to spend. This is what is known as partnership between
government and (big) business, which is the basic m.o.
for "New Democrats" and our old frienmds, the fatcat GOPs.
Pretty soon, our "leaders" will be talking VAT, and then
virtually all small businesses will fail.
How long do you think it will take for someone, in the name of
"public safety", to propose the confiscation of our firearms
in exchange for a "tax credit"? Do you think they'll sell
the newly acquired firepower to the frigging dope dealers and
criminals that we "need" the government to protect us from?
How many times can you say "RICO forfeiture" without getting
tongue-tied?
The Magic 8-Ball sez: Under 25 percent of "eligibile voters"
will bother to spit into the sea in '96.
John Q. Public
>What's the big deal? Lots of us don't have pensions, mutual funds,
>bond holdings, or even much "cash". Our multinational
>corporations no longer need us to consume their goods, now
>that they've got GATT and NAFTA, so they can lay us off or pay
>us less, so it really doesn't matter. Small businesses are
>dropping like flies, as they become unable to compete with
>big, no service multis who sell for less to people who have
>less to spend. This is what is known as partnership between
>government and (big) business, which is the basic m.o.
>for "New Democrats" and our old frienmds, the fatcat GOPs.
>Pretty soon, our "leaders" will be talking VAT, and then
>virtually all small businesses will fail.
A little clarification is in order. The above should in no way
be construed as an endorsement of the Gephardt/Bonior/Schroeder
"old" Democrat way, either. Our choices seem to be whether we'd
like to be ruined by the government in partnership with business,
or by business in partnership with government. Isn't it interesting
how most "Liberals" and "Conservatives" want more "gun control",
tougher "drug laws", and restricted speech?
Rideblast
Broward) writes:
<< I have been assured by "experts in misc.invest"
that the "disenfranchising of pension funds" is
fully legal and above board, and said funds will
be immediately replenished after the Budget is passed. :)
( Just like the $2 billion from CALPERS in
California was. :) )
This is certainly probable. However. Sam has now
played his hand, and shown EXACTLY how safe those
pension funds are. :)
Reuters reports that "economic reports" are one
of the first casualities of the shutdown. How
convienent. :) <<<<
I understand your concerns about the fiscal responsibility (an oxymoron if
I ever heard one) of the U.S. government, but I don't understand why
everyone is getting worked up about the "disinvesting" (a term only a
bureau-rat could think up) of the "government bonds" in the pension funds.
As I underrstand it, the game is basically that the gov't takes out its
worthless IOU's and replaces it with worthless FRNs. The pension fund is
no worse off in this exchange as it never "owned" anything but a promise
to pay future benefits from not yet born taxpayers. The only risk is that
the gov't doesn't either replace the missing interest income (and why
won't they- they simply order the Fed to print up more FRNs to do it) or
they don't unwind this exchange of IOUs for FRNs, inwhich case they have
monetized the debt (thus placing us that much closer to the only solution
they have to this problem anyway-big time inflation.)
Horne Broward
: What's the big deal? Lots of us don't have pensions, mutual funds,
: bond holdings, or even much "cash". Our multinational
I guess that's the problem. Nobody has a vested
interest.
I'm feeling kind of stunned today. I'm just...
I have no words for it. I can't believe what I'm
seeing. We've had a president that lies his butt off
for three years. The "currency stabilization" fund
has been carted off to Mexico, no replacement in sight.
The Deficit is about double what's really being
reported in the papers. Our media lies almost daily
now, mouthing government disinformation. The Feds
have now started dismembering the federal pension
funds, promising to pay it back. And, nobody cares.
We've made secret deals to prop up Tokyo. There are
four RTC officials who are doing poor imitiations of
Dean and Haldeman. We get story after story out of
the White House that, when it doesn't add up, gets
changed. My CAT has more sense. I mean, if I move
his food dish around, playing games on him, he
eventually starts hissing.
I'm just dumbfounded.
I. Am. Dumbfounded.
I can't ... GRASP it. I can't grasp this mentality.
I'm the guy in line at the McDonalds, carefully
examining the other customers, and then staring down
at the ground, silently shaking his head once in awhile.
I think we truly must be an evil and dishonest people
now. We have to be. Nothing else makes sense.
: How long do you think it will take for someone, in the name of
: "public safety", to propose the confiscation of our firearms
: in exchange for a "tax credit"? Do you think they'll sell
: the newly acquired firepower to the frigging dope dealers and
: criminals that we "need" the government to protect us from?
Well. I'd say we might not have to worry about
confiscation. It looks like most of the population
are too stupid to shoot straight. Good BATF material.
: The Magic 8-Ball sez: Under 25 percent of "eligibile voters"
: will bother to spit into the sea in '96.
I won't. I just can't see the point. With a
population of "Lucilles" and "Swopas", why bother?
I can only think that this must be what pre-Depression
Germany was like. I feel like I'm walking among a
crowd of people afflicted with mass irrationality.
Paul Barnett
> The real question is - is Clinton shooting for
> a real blowout? A lot of stuff gets fixed, ya
> know. The Whitewater hearings. Mena. The
> Deficit. Congress, or lack thereof. I'm inclined
> to think not, but perhaps he really is on the
> verge of impeachment. Perhaps the Republicans
> aren't blasting him for just this reason.
Clinton was widely quoted in a TV interview yesterday:
"If the American people want the budget that they have proposed to be
the law of the land, they're entitled to another president, and that's
the only way they're going to get it."
Do you suppose that he is positioning himself for a face-saving exit?
Intr...@superlink.net
>Do you suppose that he is positioning himself for a face-saving exit?
Which face?
Ted E. Gray
abig...@inx.net
>>>>
the health care "crisis")--out as long as he can, even as far as the next election.
Then if there finally is some kind of "official" Whitewater or Foster charge or
revelation that would begin the impeachment process, Clinton can and will cry
"politics," and the media will stand around scratching themselves and echo
"yeah, politics." That is why the Republicans have been so negligent in not
having this stuff ready to go--the investigations. Anyway, from here on out this
thing is a toss-up. But the President is a very unstable man, so look for
something very unusual to happen, perhaps a "nervous breakdown," hush-hush
hospitalization, Gore officially taking the reigns while the President is
"recuperating." You know, the kind of stuff that they perfected in the USSR.
--Martin McPhillips
Michael Rivero
>
>The Magic 8-Ball sez: Under 25 percent of "eligibile voters"
>will bother to spit into the sea in '96.
>
Odd, I just asked my Magic 8-Ball if we would even have
elections in '96, and it said,"No"!
Max Kennedy
: Clinton was widely quoted in a TV interview yesterday:
: "If the American people want the budget that they have proposed to be
: the law of the land, they're entitled to another president, and that's
: the only way they're going to get it."
: Do you suppose that he is positioning himself for a face-saving exit?
More like if I go down, I'm going to bring America down too.
Course, Clinton will be playing the Sax instead of the fiddle.
Max Kennedy
--
Rideblast
Broward) writes:
>Rideblast (ride...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I understand your concerns about the fiscal responsibility (an oxymoron
if
>: I ever heard one) of the U.S. government, but I don't understand why
>: everyone is getting worked up about the "disinvesting" (a term only a
>: bureau-rat could think up) of the "government bonds" in the pension
funds.
>: As I understand it, the game is basically that the gov't takes out its
>: worthless IOU's and replaces it with worthless FRNs. The pension fund
is
>: no worse off in this exchange as it never "owned" anything but a
promise
>
>
> Here's an analogy for you.
>
> You put your house up for sale.
>
> Someone buys the house.
>
> The next day, you put your house up for sale again, before
> the new owners move in. You sell the house to another
> buyer. You promise the previous buyer that you'll find
> him a comparable house.
>
> Clear?
>
> Uncle Sam does not OWN those IOU's, the federal employees
> do. Sam is now taking the SAVINGS of someone else,
> and re-selling them to raise cash a second time, whilst
> promising the previous owners that "they'll be reimbursed,
> we really, REALLY mean it this time".
>
> And, I'm concerned mostly because I've been waiting for it.
> It's just another sign of what we can expect if Sam continues
> to borrow. At some point, Sam will move to confiscate
> private pension funds, no doubt issuing a "SUPER-TREASURY"
> promise to buy the current treasury holdings, and reselling
> those holdings to raise a second helping of cash.
>
I'm with you 100% on your disgust, but it's properly directed at the way
in which these trust funds were set up intially (as Ponzi schemes) as
opposed to what Tsy Sec Rubin did today. Your analogy is wrong, as
"disinvestment" causes no one to be forced to settle for anything
different than they were promised all along . Nor has the government
"taken" anyone's savings. They've simply replaced the interest-bearing
IOUs in the funds (called Treasury bills/notes/bonds) with
non-interest-bearing IOUs (called cash or FRNs). See, no one is
questioning who owns what- the gov't is simply changing which gov't IOU
the fund is invested in, which unfortunately is in their power to do. My
point was that since you were stuck investing in an IOU of the Federal
Gov't all along, it makes no real difference (with the exceptions re
repaying interest lost and ultimately reversing the FRNs issued which I
cited in my intial reply) whether they are green pieces of paper or
digital entries in a Federal Reserve Bank somewhere. You are still an
unsecured creditor of the federal gov't either way.
To conclude this thread (for the benefit of those less interested in the
slow but assured decline of the U.S. dollar as we know it), I am NOT
arguing that your federal "pension benefit" is anything other than a
guarantee you'll get your promised quantity of worthless little pieces of
green paper upon your retirement. That promised amount of currency upon
retirement may only buy you a loaf of bread (as in the past it would have
in hyperinflationary Germany, Argentina, Poland, and Brazil and currently
would in Mexico). But you'll get it whether the fund holds green gov't
IOUs or digital IOUs.
And I agree with you that the gov't will move to tap into the largest
liquid pool of wealth out there (private pension assets) that they haven't
gotten their grubby hands on yet. This could come in the form of mandating
tax advantages only for private pension assets investing in gov't
securities- thus keeping the Ponzi scheme going a while longer.
SNOOKAVE
(Paul Barnett) writes:
>
>Do you suppose that he is positioning himself for a face-saving exit?
>
>
>
He still hasn't announced his candidacy.
ken_s.
But,he has never stopped campaigning since taking office.
Ken S.