About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

THE TRAP THAT LIES IN WAIT IN COPENHAGEN AS DESCRIBED BY SOROS!

Thursday, December 10, 2009

The Guardian newspaper printed and published on the internet an article written by billionaire George Soros that details his idea of how to pay for the redistribution of the wealth of so-called Developed Countries to Developing countries in Africa and the various islands that are included in the organisation called the Group of 77.


The following post includes quotes directly taken from the published article written by Soros and my comments on the absurdity of this Marxist , elitist ideas.

“It is now generally agreed that the developed countries will have to make a substantial financial contribution to enable the developing world to deal with climate change.(No it is not. Perhaps among the jet setting elites who don’t give a damn what the voters think but among real people who have to pay real bills every month this is not generally agreed at all. And any politician that actually did,t can look forward to a being replaced when the facts come out!)

Funds are needed to invest in new low-carbon energy sources, reforestation and protection of rainforests, land-use changes, and adaptation and mitigation. But there is no similar agreement on where the money will come from.
The developed countries are reluctant to make additional financial commitments. They have just experienced a significant jump in their national debts, and they still need to stimulate their domestic economies. This colours their attitudes. It looks like they will be able to cobble together a “fast-start” fund of $10bn a year for the next few years, but more does not fit into their national budgets. This is unlikely to satisfy the developing countries.
I believe that this amount could be at least doubled and assured for a longer time span. Developed countries’ governments are labouring under the misapprehension that funding must come from their national budgets. But that is not the case. They have the money already. It is lying idle in their reserve accounts at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Spending it would not add to any country’s fiscal deficit. All they need to do is to tap into it.
In September 2009, the IMF distributed to its members $283bn worth of special drawing rights (SDRs), arcane financial instruments that essentially constitute additional foreign exchange. They can be used only by converting them into one of four currencies, at which point they begin to carry interest at those currencies’ combined treasury bill rate. At present, the interest rate is less than 0.5%.

Of the $283bn worth of recently distributed SDRs, more than $150bn went to the 15 largest developed economies. These SDRs will sit largely untouched in the reserve accounts of these countries, which don’t really need any additional reserves.
I propose that the developed countries – in addition to establishing a fast-start fund of $10bn a year – band together and lend $100bn worth of these SDRs for 25 years to a special green fund serving the developing world. The fund would jump-start forestry, land use, and agricultural projects – areas that offer the greatest scope for reducing or mitigating carbon emissions, and that could produce substantial returns from carbon markets.
The returns such projects could generate go beyond addressing carbon emissions. Returns from land-use projects, for example, could also include the potential to create more sustainable rural livelihoods, enable higher and more resilient agricultural yields, and generate rural employment.

This is a simple and practical idea, and there is a precedent for it. The UK and France each recently lent $2bn worth of SDRs to a special fund at the IMF to support concessionary lending to the poorest countries. At that point, the IMF assumed responsibility for the principal and interest on the SDRs. The same could be done in this case.
I further propose that member countries agree to use the IMF’s gold reserves to guarantee the interest payments and repayment of the principal. The IMF owns a lot of gold – more than 100m ounces – and it is on the books at historical cost. Thus, at current market prices, it is worth more than $100bn over its book value. It has already been designated to be used for the benefit of the least developed countries. The proposed green fund would meet this requirement.
This means that the developed countries that lend the SDRs would incur no interest expense and no responsibility for repayment. There are some serious technical problems involved in offsetting the interest income against the interest expense, particularly in the United States, but the net effect would be a wash. These technical difficulties stood in the way of previous attempts to put the SDRs to practical use, but they do not apply to the proposed green fund.
There are three powerful arguments in favour of this proposal. First, the green fund could be self-financing or even profitable; very little of the IMF’s gold, if any, would actually be used.
Second, the projects will earn a return only if developed countries co-operate in setting up the right type of carbon markets. Establishing a green fund would be an implicit pledge to do so by putting the gold reserves of the IMF at risk.
Finally, this money would be available now, jump-starting carbon-saving projects.

For all these reasons, the developing countries ought to embrace my proposal. The key point is that it is possible to increase substantially the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world by using the existing allocations of SDRs, with interest payments on them guaranteed by the IMF’s gold reserves.
All that is lacking is the political will. The mere fact that tapping SDRs requires congressional approval in the US ensures that nothing will happen without public pressure – including pressure from the developing countries. Yet it could make the difference between success and failure in Copenhagen”.

It is good to know that one of the main supporters and financial backers of our President is in lock step with Obama’s international thinking, as if there was any doubt about why he is making a massive effort to destroy our free enterprise system by spending and taxation that will if not checked WILL lead to insolvency of this Country. Then we will have to turn to international ,aka UN, control of our government and it’s people!
THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
The massive lending the Developed World made to the Third World in the 1970s and 1980s could have been self-financing too. Even profitable. It was in South Korea for instance. It was not in Congo or the rest of Africa, it was not in Peru or Argentina. I wonder why that is? Now having lent them hundreds of billions and watched their Governments waste it all, you want us to give them more so they can p**s it away against the same wall? Really. How fascinating.

Second, the projects will earn a return only if developed countries cooperate in setting up the right type of carbon markets. Establishing a green fund would be an implicit pledge to do so by putting the gold reserves of the IMF at risk.Why in God’s Green Earth should Americans do this if you and your “ecobozos” consider China and India developing Countries when they produce more good and services presently than we do here in the USA, and pollute the air while doing it with your” blessing”!

Earlier Soros wrote:
“I further propose that member countries agree to use the IMF’s gold reserves to guarantee the interest payments and repayment of the principal”.
So let me get this right – we have a large number of countries in the world who have been indifferently blessed with mostly kleptocracy Governments to whom we lent hundreds of billions in the 1970s and 1980s. That money all magically disappeared and virtually none it was paid back – and it had no particularly beneficial or even obvious effect on the borrowers. So now you want to lend them a few hundred billion more – but this time, and this is the bit I really hate!
We guarantee their interest repayments? So if their Governments steal all our money again, as they almost certainly will, we will get the joys of paying ourselves back with our own gold? Oh joy! What a Christmas present for the USA!

But there’s more, the repayment from the Third World would, in theory, rely on us further destroying our economy, imposing massive costs on everyone and spending billions more we don’t have to buy permits from people who don’t need them – all for a so far, unproven and non-existent problem? It just doesn’t get any better than that as a policy proposal. I suggest your buddy Obama go to the electorate with this. You think Tea Partys were loud and radical, try putting this over on the already mad electorate!

Finally, this money would be available now, jump-starting carbon-saving projects.You Mr. Soros and Al Gore stand to make billions on his Ponzi scheme!
So they wouldn’t have to wait? Just when I thought it couldn’t get any better. Why bother with due diligence?


For all these reasons, the developing countries ought to embrace Soros proposal.?
Offer me a few hundred billion now and more later for which I have to do nothing, pay back nothing and generally steal as much as I liked and I would embrace it too. Embrace it? Hell, I’d make cart wheels all down Pennsylvania Avenue!

WAKE UP AMERICANS THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOCIALISTS DON'T WANT A BETTER ECONOMY

 





The leftist leaning Media tells the people that the TARP plan and Cash for Clunkers have been the impetus for the beginning of the economic recovery.
Conservatives like myself believe that the recovery is artificial, and we are in for a back slide in the stock market and the economy in particular.

If you analyse the effect that the TARP program has had, you will find that less than 15% of the hundreds of billions that were appropriated have actually been spent, and very little has gone to "shovel ready" plans!
The Clunker program is a temporary stimulus that is fast on car sales, but slow on payment to the auto dealers. Some dealers have as much as 45 million dollars outstanding.
Some well known economic experts, people who have analysed the clunker program, believe that once the program ceases there will be a dearth of sales as car buyers have tripled the pace of car purchases during the CFC program.

While Obama and his cohorts in Congress are "crowing" about the recovery they are responsible for. Many, including I say it is just the natural progression of past recessions taking place.All the depressions in the past have an inverse Bell curve pattern if you chart them. I believe we are still at the bottom and will remain there for another six months as there is very little encouraging news from the labor market.

We have a president who readily brags that he grew up and gravitated to radicals during his formative years, and it is possible that Obama is a Marxist/Leninist! After all he has so far appointed 44 Czars who are not responsible to anyone but him! Sounds tyrannical to me! And one is a Communist, The Green Czar!

Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means; that is, any attempts to reform capitalism from within, such as Fabianism and non-revolutionary forms of democratic socialism, are doomed to fail. I do not believe Obama is an advocate for revolution, but he apparently believes in redistribution of wealth and changing our free enterprise system to one where the government runs our lives from cradle to grave!

The first goal of a Leninist party is to educate the proletariat, so as to remove the various modes of false consciousness the bourgeois have instilled in them, instilled in order to make them more docile and easier to exploit economically, such as religion and nationalism. This going full force by Obama and his willing propagandists, the Media!
Once the proletariat has gained class consciousness the party will coordinate the proletariat's total might to overthrow the existing government, thus the proletariat will seize all political and economic power. Sounds like what happened to General Motors and the auto workers union!

Lastly the proletariat (thanks to their education by the party) will implement a dictatorship of the proletariat which would bring upon them socialism, the lower phase of communism. After this, the party would essentially dissolve as the entire proletariat is elevated to the level of revolutionaries.Source:Encyclopedia Britannica

Don't laugh! This is not as far fetched as you might think. If they get Obamacare and Cap and Tax passed, they will control most of our lives at home and in the work place! I believe that is the place where socialism resides!

It is my belief that what Obama wants to do to this country is based upon the "father" of Community Organizing, Saul Alinsky)1902-72), as this is where Obama spent his years before he entered politics. Community Organizing in Chicago, the birthplace of Alinsky.
Alinsky wrote a book called: "RULES FOR RADICALS"

In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing in the prologue,

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
Does this not sound like "a crisis should never be wasted", as uttered by Rahm Emanuel!!

This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default." Source:Wikapedia

This is why Obama and his associates are so attached with such organisations as SEIU, ACORN, and the Auto Workers Union to name just a few "at the ready" activists and enforcers!

Maybe I am just way off base, but something does not pass my smell test. Obama is cozy with Socialist like Chavez, and sends two billion dollars during the middle of a recession to Brazil for off shore drilling! But will not allow off shore drilling off our shores to help US get independence from oil producers that hate us and our economic system!

Americans better wake up to what the Obama administration is doing to our once strong and proud country. Uncle Sam can't run Medicaid/ Medicare/ Prescription Drug Benefit now, they are insolvent by 2017 according to a recent GAO report. I can't trust them in small things, how can I trust them in really big things?
Or maybe that is the plan? instead of reducing taxes and stopping spending, they will increase taxes, and keep spending until massive inflation occurs, and our dollar is worthless! Then we have the emergency they need to "CHANGE and SAVE" the USA with Socialism and total government control!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOES AMERICA WANT TO SUBSTITUTE MEDICAL HOMES FOR HOSPITALS FOR THE "OLD PEOPLE"?

 





(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.Is this part of Obama's grandiose schemes?
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

To quote Judie Brown "The current debate over health care is one of those scenarios that might play well in a science-fiction thriller, but must not be allowed to play out on the backs and over the dead bodies of the uninformed. The intent to create a nationalized health-care system appears more and more like a behind-the-scenes project based on government control over who lives and who dies".

In the draft now circulating in the House of Representatives is an alarming concept, but apparently interests only a few of those who should be warning the public about it. The target audience should be those who are approaching age 65 and, of course, those who are elderly and needing care. This target audience is going to become the walking target of Obama’s health-care “reform.”It was not long ago when people like me warned that the culture of death would not be satisfied with abortion, but would push for euthanasia soon. Well, the time is NOW!!

It is time to review the tragedy that beauracratic medicine begets! The following is from an article entitled "IT COULDN'T HAPPEN IN GREAT BRITAIN" PUBLISHED ON THE NET BY NHS BLOG DOCTOR.
• Assessing the priority of care for patients in accident and emergency (A&E) was routinely conducted by unqualified receptionists.

• No all-day, on-call cover by consultants because of shortages meant junior doctors were not adequately supervised.

• The trust had two clinical decision units (CDUs) which staff said were used as dumping grounds to avoid breaching the four-hour target for being treated in A&E

• There were not enough nurses to care properly for emergency patients

• Nurses lacked training

• The shortage of nurses on wards meant call buttons went unanswered…patients were sometimes left for hours in wet or soiled sheets...

• Delays in operations were commonplace

• There was often no experienced surgeon in the hospital after 9pm

• Few patients were given the drug warfarin to help prevent blood clots

• Essential equipment was not always available or working

• The trust board was more concerned with finance, targets and achieving foundation status, with little evidence that poor standards of nursing care were identified or discussed

• The trust was poor at identifying when things went wrong and managing risk

As a result of hospital's "appalling" emergency care, many patients died needlessly! The NHS watchdog has said about 400 more people died at Staffordshire General Hospital between 2005 and 2008 than would be expected, the Healthcare Commission said.Note the words "then would be expected"! If Obama Care is passed all patients "too old" and infirmed will be encouaged to die!

It said there were deficiencies at "virtually every stage" of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care.

One of the most damning provisions of the bill being circulated through the House of Representatives and the Senate, includes provisions to designate MEDICAL HOMES!
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.

The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.

The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.

At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.

The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.

If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."

According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.

Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectivness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”

“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.

A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.

“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.

“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”

The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.

While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, the state is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and is offering them physician-assisted suicide instead. DO AMERICANS WANT THIS TO SATISFY THE 47 MILLION UNINSURED!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PERSONAL OBSERVATION ON OBAMA'S SATURDAY SPEECH

OBAMA TALKS LIKE HE IS ROOSEVELT REBORN!





Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

During Saturdays Presidential -elect radio talk ( when did this become an accepted practice?)Obama made his pitch to the American public to accept his Socialist program as a way to get US out of the present recession. This was made with the urgency that Roosevelt used in 1930's to the American public that was in the depths of the Great Depression, not a recession that this Country has endured many times without resorting to radical left measures!

"I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won't just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.
Second, we will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.(sounds like the 1939s speech of Roosevelt) Well invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and well set a simple rule - use it or lose it. If a state doesn't act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, theyll lose the money.( If you do not do as I say I will take the money away)Third, my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen.( how about improving the quality of educationa nd teachers?) We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools".
As we renew our schools and highways, well also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm President( and you can pay for it with you hard earned dollars in the form of taxes) - because that's how we'll strengthen Americas competitiveness in the world.
In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan Im proposing will help modernize our health care system - and that wont just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctors office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes,( this is absoutely absurd-we are humans and humans make mistakes) and help save billions of dollars each year."

He continued, but you can get the point of his quasi fireside chat! He is asking the public to accept a program that will not create one dollar of income, but will spend billions of dollars on "make work projects" that will only increase the Federal deficit and devalue our dollar. It will also have to be paid for by the taxpayers!

Many people believe that Roosevelt stopped the Great Depression by instituting his "New Deal", but really the great depression was an event that occurred in the fall of 1929, because during the 1920's a boom was created that was driven by hundreds of poorly capitalized investment Trusts that borrowed money to invest in stocks.By September of 1929 it all began to unravel with stocks losing 1/4 of their value between October 28 and 29th! That would be the equivalent of stocks losing 2500base points in a two day period today!

World War two started the economic boom, because all manufacturing was running full blast to churn out war materials. However, the hangover Recession was to last until 1954.So you see we are not any where near the disaster that presented itself in the days of Hoover and Roosevelt, but Obama and his minions would like YOU to think we are so he can push through his socialist programs!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »