SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (704704)3/17/2013 6:58:18 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1578900
 
Yes, MF Global was the Direct Antecedent to Cyprus

by Ann Barnhardt - March 17, 2013
barnhardt.biz


Cyprus is MF Global on a national, retail banking scale. Corzine absolutely blazed this trail.

The particulars are almost exactly the same
. Both MF Global/Corzine and Cyprus were failing entities, both took massive, uber-leveraged risks on European sovereign debt, both swept sacrosanct customer money when the house of cards finally collapsed under the weight of its own math. The indefensible zeroes and ones were instantly swept from the computer servers and customers were locked-out of their accounts.

Interestingly, both were goaded on and enabled by the same people. Corzine was a crony of the Obama regime, which is operationally a Chicago-based phenomenon, as are the regulators of the futures industry, along with the CME group itself.

Cyprus was goaded, overseen, and then "harvested" by the International Monetary Fund, which is chaired by Christine Legarde, who is a Chicago player, and who actually was a partner at Baker & McKenzie before being placed at the IMF by the Obama regime and bankster oligarchy. Cyprus was Christine Legarde's play, and Legarde is in the Chicago oligarch circle.

This will happen here. It already has with MF Global, Cyprus is testing the national, retail banking level, and then it will happen here. They might go straight to bank holidays here, as Warren Pollock has been talking about for over 18 months now, or they may do a levy confiscation like this on retirement accounts.

If you have any money exposed to the financial system, you're just stupid. That's it. Bottom line.



To: bentway who wrote (704704)3/17/2013 8:06:22 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578900
 
A moment of real clarity in the fiscal debate

Posted by Greg Sargent on March 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm

washingtonpost.com

As you regulars know, I’ve been hoping and hoping that reporters will press top Republicans on a simple question: Is there any ratio of entitlement cuts of your choosing to new revenues you’d accept? Three to one? Four to one? Five to one?

Well, John Boehner was asked something very close to that question on ABC News today:

MARTHA RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you this simple question: Is there any ratio of entitlement cuts to new revenues that you would –

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: The president got his –

MARTHA RADDATZ: — say that the ratio is three to one, four to one –

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — tax hikes. The president –

MARTHA RADDATZ: — nothing?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — got his tax hikes on January the 1st.

MARTHA RADDATZ: So, the answer to –

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: He–

MARTHA RADDATZ: — that is no?





SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — he ran his election on taxing the wealthy. He got his tax hikes. But he won’t talk about the spending problem and that’s the problem here in Washington.

We’ll take that as a No. House GOP majority whip Kevin McCarthy was also asked that question on NBC today:

DAVID GREGORY: Is there any ratio that you could accept?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: There are no new tax increases because you don’t need it. If you look at this report –

DAVID GREGORY: But you’re never going to get entitlement reform –

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’re going to get nothing.

DAVID GREGORY: — without tax increases. Is that political reality?

Again, until we hear otherwise, we’ll take that as a No.

And so it’s now sinking in that: 1) Republicans are not getting the entitlement cuts they want without agreeing to new revenues; and 2) Republicans are explicitly confirming that there is no compromise that is acceptable to them to get the cuts they themselves say they want. The GOP position, with no exaggeration, is that the only way Republican leaders will ever agree to paying down the deficit they say is a threat to American civilization is 100 percent their way; they are not willing to concede anything at all to reach any deal involving new revenues to reduce the deficit, or to get the entitlement reform they want, or to avert sequestration they themselves said will gut the military and tank the economy.

But … but … but … Obama needs to lead and prove he’s Serious by offering still more entitlement cuts than he already has!

Come on. Is the situation clear enough now?