Well our government has again put the US economy on a collision course with predictably expensive and increasing oil prices. US companies can not drill in areas of known significant reserves, can not drill offshore in the Gulf for 7 years, and can not drill in oil shale areas...and there are more NO's in all sorts of states as well.

Has anyone considered how to fuel up AIR FORCE ONE in the future? Is it going to be with used fryer oil from McDonalds? Probably not, just the rest of us "little people" will have to figure out how to run our cars and lawn mowers on grass clippings and used grease from McDonald's fryers.

As American companies are forbidden to drill for oil, China has started acquiring oil reserves internationally and in the United States directly and indirectly. For instance it has agreed to billion to be invested into Chesapeake Energy and its various businesses and drilling and reserves as it slowly gains control of oil reserves and established drilling partnerships or provides financial support to oil producing entities.

China’s Oil Resources, Production, and Demand

In 2008, China consumed 7.8 million barrels of oil per day, ranking second in the world in oil consumption to the United States. Like the U.S., it must import oil since its production of about 4.0 million barrels per day meets only about half of its needs. In 2008, China imported 3.7 million barrels of oil per day, ranking third to the United States and Japan.[xvi]

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that China’s oil consumption will continue to grow during 2010 and 2011, with oil demand reaching 9.0 million barrels per day in 2010 and 9.5 million barrels per day in 2011.[xvii] Over the two-year period between 2008 and 2010, China is expected to increase its oil consumption by over 1.1 million barrels per day, while the United States is expected to reduce its oil consumption by a net of 0.57 million barrels per day.

In contrast, China’s oil production is forecast to remain relatively flat, increasing by just 0.15 million barrels per day, while the United States is expected to increase its domestic supply by 0.9 million barrels per day. Of course, that latter forecast assumes that the Department of Interior will lift its moratorium on offshore drilling and resume permitting for both onshore and offshore leases at a more normal pace.
china's oil production consumption history forecast 1991-2011
world liquid fuels consumption

Roughly 85 percent of Chinese oil production capacity is located onshore in eastern China, but most of these oil fields are mature. China’s national oil companies are using natural gas for reinjection purposes to increase the oil recovery rates of its mature fields. The remaining 15 percent of Chinese oil production is offshore, where most of China’s oil production growth is expected. According to the International Energy Agency, current offshore oil production is 680,000 barrels per day, rising to an expected 980,000 barrels per day by 2014, which will offset some of the declines from the more mature onshore fields.

Onshore oil is mostly produced by China’s two major upstream national oil companies, China National Petroleum Corporation and China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Because of the technical expertise of foreign oil companies with offshore drilling, international oil companies have been given access to offshore oil fields through production sharing contracts with the national oil companies of China.[xviii] For instance, without regard to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chinese government is allowing Chevron and BP access to drill in deep waters in the South China Sea, after attempts decades ago to drill in its shallow waters turned up dry wells.[xix]

China’s Foreign Oil Investments

Because of China’s growing future oil demand and its growing reliance on oil imports, its national oil companies are investing in overseas projects. China is taking advantage of the economic downturn and lower asset values overseas to increase its global acquisitions and financing of projects whether for direct investment in energy resources or in loan-for-oil deals where China provides loans for infrastructure development in oil-rich countries in return for future supplies of oil. While several oil-rich countries have been strapped for cash during the credit crunch of 2008 and 2009, China has foreign exchange reserves that it can use to leverage such investments. China has loan-for-oil deals with Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Ecuador and Turkmenistan, among others.[xx]

China agreed to loan companies in Russia and Turkmenistan to construct oil and gas pipelines in exchange for future energy shipments. The loan to Russia is for $25 billion to finance the East Siberia Pacific Ocean oil pipeline in exchange for 300,000 barrels of oil per day. The loan to Turkmenistan is for $3 billion for a natural gas project to feed the Central Asia Gas pipeline. Brazil’s oil company, Petrobas, is receiving $10 billion for oil development in return for 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Venezuela’s loan of $4 billion is to finance infrastructure projects in exchange for its exports to China to increase to one million barrels per day, an almost three-fold increase.[xxi]

More recently, state-owned Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation) invested $7.1 billion in Brazil’s Repsol stock offerings, giving China a 40 percent stake in that business and access to Brazilian offshore sub-salt oil fields.[xxii] China’s national oil companies are also negotiating exploration rights off the coast of Cuba, 40 miles off the coast of Florida, where Cubapetroeo, Cuba’s oil company, estimates that Cuba has up to 20 billion barrels of oil in its offshore areas, although other estimates are less.[xxiii]

When China expands its refinery capacity to include sour and high-sulfur crude types, which it plans on doing, that investment will pave the way for similar deals in other regions of the world with less favorable crude types. This year, China’s Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Company agreed to buy, for $4.65 billion, the 9 percent interest that ConocoPhillips holds in Syncrude,[xxiv] a Canadian business involved in the production of oil sands (an asphalt-like heavy oil).[xxv]

One of China’s strategic objectives is to offset its growing import dependence with production in oil-rich countries by acquiring access to enough of their oil reserves overseas. According to Michael Wang of IHS Herold, China consumed nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day in 2009[xxvi], with less than 4 million barrels per day of domestic production, creating a gap of nearly 5 million barrels per day. And while China has assets of 1.2 million barrels per day in international oil production, according to Wang, another 3.8 million barrels per day is needed to bridge the gap, without even considering future demand increases. According to Wang, that will require another 12 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent resources, and at a going rate of $25 per barrel for proved oil reserves, it will cost the Chinese national oil companies an additional $300 to $500 billion.[xxvii]

Most recently, China’s CNOOC is trying to invest in an oil field in southern Texas, paying up to $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake’s Energy’s assets that could result in up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent. This is China’s second try at investing in a U.S. oil field, having failed 5 years ago to buy California-based Unocal Corporation. In this current deal, if it proves successful, China will also be gaining technical expertise in drilling in hard-to-get deposits in shale rock.[xxviii]


China’s oil consumption will grow to keep its escalating auto market in fuel and to construct the highways to carry the vehicles. If EIA’s forecast for China’s oil growth of more than one million barrels per day every two years continues, China’s need for oil imports will accelerate due to its low level of oil reserves and fairly constant domestic production of around 4 million barrels per day. Recognizing this, China’s national oil companies and government banks are making deals in oil-rich countries providing infrastructure loans or purchasing shares in those countries’ resources in exchange for future oil supplies.

The Chinese have learned that affordable, accessible energy is needed to keep its economy booming and are planning accordingly. Not unlike elsewhere in the world, oil remains king of the transportation market.

Is there any doubt that oil will be used for all the reasons that it is necessary all over the world and as the economies grow so will the need for oil? China will have it, the USA will not...what happens then?? Back to living in caves and using whale oil for light? No you can not hunt wales either.


Have you noticed that every single item you may be buying on a regular basis so as to remember its price, is UP this Christmas? Every item I regularly buy is up at every store including WALMART as the dollar has lost value against key currencies and the costs of delivering the products to the stores has increased dramatically for truckers and delivery companies.

Worse yet, due to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the government, the 7 year moratorium on drilling for oil off our coasts, and other "wimpy" non decisive actions, the price of gasoline has skyrocketed as well as now bringing Obama's prediction of higher prices for electricity-all these have made it an easy prediction to say that you should buy everything BIG NOW, before it all goes higher in 2011, and it will.

Imagine, corn is over $6 a bushel...this is a staple in all food products, as well as thousands of non-food items and it is about double its usual price; DOUBLE. Did you remember that one of the key MANDATES of the government is to force more and more ETHANOL TO BE USED in gasoline...? What will happen to the price of gasoline if a mandated component is now double in cost?

The administration promised no new taxed for various population groups...well they did worse as the cost increases are worse than taxes and will cost everyone a significant amount, EVERYONE.

Look for $4 gasoline in 2011, as start, then everything else going higher due to the costs of transportation alone. Logistics, the ability to get deliveries to every little convenience store and to your home by UPS and USPS will go up and therefore the cost of the products will also.

In December 2009, gasoline average price $1.61, today two years later $3.04, just short of double!


The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

This act is the most irresponsible act that a government can commit against its citizens and can best be explained during the days of the WIEMAR republic in Germany when it took a barrel of money to buy a loaf of bread. Do not kid yourself, we are going in that director albeit a lot slower, but still going there!

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009--the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. When that Congress adjourned less than two years ago, it claimed the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history. As it turned out, however, its record did not last long.

The $3.22 trillion in new federal debt run up during the 111th Congress exceeds by 64 percent the $1.957 trillion in new debt run up during the 110th.

Although the 111th Congress cast its last vote on Dec. 22, it will not officially adjourn until next week.

Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

The 108th Congress ($1.159 trillion in new debt) and 109th ($1.054 trillion in new debt) take third and fourth place among all U.S. Congresses for accumulating debt. In both these Congresses, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.

Still, the $3.22 trillion in new debt accumulated during the record-setting 111th Congress is more than three times the $1.054 trillion in new debt accumulated by the last Republican-majority Congress (the 109th) which adjourned on Dec. 8, 2006.

Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion.

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996.

In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Here is an accounting of the new debt accumulated during the tenure of each Congress since the 101st. The convening and adjourning dates are reported by the Clerk of the House and the debt levels are recorded by the U.S. Treasury:

Congress Convening/Adjourning Debt Levels

111th Congress

Jan. 6, 2009 $10,638,425,746,293.80

Dec. 22, 2010 $13,858,529,371,601.09

New Debt: $3,220,103,625,307.29

110th Congress

Jan. 4, 2007 8,670,596,242,973.04

Jan. 3, 2009 10,627,961,295,930.67

New Debt: 1,957,365,052,957.63

109th Congress

Jan. 4, 2005 7,601,016,892,663.19

Dec. 8, 2006 8,655,403,967,590.98

New Debt: 1,054,387,074,927.79

108th Congress

Jan. 7, 2003 6,387,381,983,103.35

Dec. 9, 2004 7,546,778,677,941.37

New Debt: 1,159,396,694,838.02

107th Congress

Jan. 3, 2001 5,723,237,439,563.59

Nov. 22, 2002 6,332,715,758,032.33

New Debt: 609,478,318,468.74

106th Congress

Jan. 6, 1999 5,615,428,551,461.33

Dec. 15, 2000 5,706,990,981,165.37

New Debt: 91,562,429,704.04

105th Congress

Jan. 7, 1997 5,312,781,237,956.91

Dec. 19, 1998 5,583,950,306,972.53

New Debt: 271,169,069,015.62

104th Congress

Jan. 4, 1995 4,801,793,426,032.89

Oct. 4, 1996 5,222,049,625,819.53

New Debt: 420,256,199,786.64

103rd Congress

Jan.5, 1993 4,169,232,407,244.75

Dec. 1, 1994 4,774,851,353,596.54

New Debt: 605,618,946,351.79

102nd Congress

Jan. 3, 1991 (Dec. 31, 1990) 3,364,820,000,000.00

Oct. 9, 1992 (Sept. 30, 1992) 4,064,621,000,000.00

New Debt: 699,801,000,000.00

101st Congress

Jan. 3, 1989 (Dec. 31, 1988) 2,684,392,000,000.00

Oct. 28, 1990 (Oct. 31, 1990) 3,274,950,000.000.00

New Debt: 590,558,000,000.00

The Congress has taken steps to destroy the future value of the US DOLLAR and the future of our children and grandchildren. The ONLY way that the USA will be able to escape the ravages of this destruction will be to have a significant devaluation of the currency which will occur as a natural act and result of these irresponsible spending policies and accumulation of the national debt.


I remember the times when articles advising people about retirement plans would be using models of a 5%-7% or more interest rate as the growth we expected our money to grow at while in a savings account. Does anybody even remember those rates?

Just yesterday when I signed into my bank's on line account information, I received a full screen pop-up advertisement advertising a CD at 1.01%, and offering me a 10% BONUS of .10 of 1% if I took a 2 year term and locked in that rate! Imagine that, I could get a whopper of a rate of 1.11% for the next two years and I could lock in that rate right now!

Well we all remember that a sucker is born every minute, and it is truly so as demonstrated by this pop-up ad attempting to lure in the suckers.

Imagine that if you are hoping to build a savings cushion for trying times in the future or a retirement nest egg to live on, and you had $50,000 in that fund, the bank was offering to pay you about $555 a year for that privilege.

In the past that same bank would be offering you $2,500-$3,500 a year, thus providing somewhat of an ability to at least buy food?

The theory behind a cash cushion was to be able to have the principal preserved and that the interest would be used to 'live on" while the principal generated the interest amount and was not touched. Can a person live on $555 a year? That is $1.52 a day to live on...can anyone do that and actually live?

Let's see what can be done on $1.52 a day in a typical city in the USA.

You can buy a McDonald's $1 meal ( plus tax), the same at the other Chins, since they all have a $1 meal special which consists of ONE ITEM a small item off their menu. But you can not get that item and a drink, since the smallest drink is also $1.

I checked and the calorie count of that single meal would still be less than half of the daily recommended count for a person per day, so basically a person would be undernourished and practically starving and dead before long.

The US government defines poverty as earning less that $11,161 annually and less than $21,750 annually for a family of 4 people. So obviously, $555 a year qualifies as poverty, way below the poverty level attempting to live in the USA at this income level is impossible, period.

But, there are options for Americans who want to live on $555 a year, in fact, if one was to move to INDIA, poverty there is defined as less than $12 a month, or $144 a year! So in INDIA, with $555 one can live above the poverty level...unfortunately it would cost $1,000 to get there to begin with. Again however, if one was to eat at a McDonald's in India, there would not be any items on the $1 menu to buy.

I am not sure what one would eat at $12 a month or for that matter where one would live, as I saw on a HOME SHOW people looking for a home or condo in INDIA for $200,000, with other going for $400,000 or more.

So thanks to our government policies of low interest rates, those on fixed income are going to have to move to INDIA to live above the poverty line.

Great policies indeed.


In ancient times, invading armies would take over and the defeated country became part of the conqueror's empire. Today, there are no invading armies, just pieces of paper, wire transfers, credits in world banks and ledgers that show loans made to a country.

China, with its trillions in cash reserves, mostly of US dollars, is planning to place a financial TROJAN HORSE outside the gates of faltering European countries. in fact for as little as a few billion Euros, they hope to bail out countries that need cash and then of course will expect their allegiance on yet unknown matters, of course.

The struggling countries are debt ridden due to outlandish social program which are destroying them financially with no end in sight, as populations get a sense of entitlement to all sorts of benefits.

China has said it is willing to bail out debt-ridden countries in the euro zone using its $2.7trillion overseas investment fund in a small way.

In a fresh humiliation for Europe, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said it was one of the most important areas for China's foreign exchange investments.

The country has already approached struggling European countries with financial aid, including offering to buy Greece's debt in October and promising to buy $4billion of Portuguese government debt.

'To have any discernible effect China will have to buy a lot more than 5billion euros if they expect to have any impact on the negative sentiment surrounding Europe,' said Michael Hewson, currency analyst at CMC Markets.

China's astonishing economic growth has put it on track to overtake America as the world's economic powerhouse within two years, a recent report claimed.

But experts believed still be some years before America's leadership role is really challenged - largely because Beijing has given no indication it is ready to take on the responsibility of shepherding the world' economy.

This foray into the future of the euro could be a signal from Beijing that it is ready to change that perception.

The euro rose temporarily on the news of China's support - but was sinking again this morning to a three-week low against the dollar.
Protest: Strikers carrying placards demonstrate outside the Greek Parliament in Athens. Greece is among a number of EU countries struggling financially

Protest: Strikers carrying placards demonstrate outside the Greek Parliament in Athens. Greece is among a number of EU countries struggling financially

The single currency earlier fell to around $1.3050, below its 200-day moving average currently located at $1.3092 on trading platform EBS.

Investors have pushed the euro beneath this key support level for the past three sessions, only to see the currency bounce back later in the day.

Analysts said the euro will likely hold above $1.30 in the coming days, with traders reluctant to place big bets before year-end.


China could overtake America as the world’s biggest economy within two years, according to a leading financial think tank.

As growth in the U.S. slows down to a virtual standstill, China’s economy is revving up into double digits, the Conference Board said in a report published today.

In purely dollar terms, it is going to take much longer than two years for China’s $5 trillion economy to match up to the $15 trillion output in the US.

Even if the Chinese can sustain their current growth, it would take another ten years.

But in terms of purchasing power, taking into account the goods and services a country actually buys at home, China is well on its way to outstripping its fading competitor.

Looking even further ahead, the Conference Board predicts China could account for almost one quarter of the global economy in 2020, compared to 15 per cent for the US and 13 per cent for Western Europe.

The board predicted China’s economy should grow 10 per cent this year and 9.6 per cent in 2011, while America’s 2.6 per cent growth in 2010 will sink to 1.2 per cent next year.

The outlook for the single currency remains shaky, with fresh losses expected into 2011, they added.

The Financial Times reported yesterday that China had offered to take more 'concerted action' to support European financial stabilisation.

It cited unnamed senior European officials after talks with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

Portuguese officials have said the government is trying to diversify its debt investor base, with China as a priority.

Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira dos Santos met Chinese Finance Minister Xie Curen and the head of the People's Bank of China during a visit to the country last week.

But it is unclear whether Beijing would be prepared to take on so much fresh exposure to Portugal, after domestic political pressure to invest the country's foreign reserves more carefully.

Chinese investment funds suffered from large, high-profile losses during the global financial crisis.

In October, during a visit to Greece, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao offered to buy Greek bonds when Athens resumed issuing.

A month later, President Hu Jintao visited Portugal and offered 'concrete measures' to help the weak economy, but stopped short of promising to buy Portuguese bonds.

It is still believed that it will be some years before China actually overtakes the U.S. to become the world's largest economy.

Politicians argue that technology is still behind and much of the country still lives in poverty.

And in another economic measure, output per person, China lags way behind the US.

Last year, the International Monetary Fund calculated gross domestic product per head in the US at $46,000. The GDP breakdown in China was just $4,000 per person.

I guess nobody did the follow-up to that calculation; USA population 308 million, and China likely 1.3 BILLION, all of whom will become consumers in the next century thus easily overtaking the USA and all other economies.

Don't forget that currently, the largest English Speaking country in the world is...CHINA!!!!!


Our Community Organizer, you know who I am referring to, who by the way still sends me almost daily and weekly emails under the letterhead titled "ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA" had the bright idea of meeting with top Ceo's to arm-twist them into using the billions in cash that their companies are showing on the balance sheets to "hire people".

This makes perfect sense to a community organizer who has never run a business and has been on one type or another of the public dole for his entire life. he just assumed that a business which shows cash, should quickly use it up to hire, spend and spend! That was the way it works in "his" world of living on money one gets from somebody else.

For instance an organization that he was involved in would have to spend and spend its budget as much as possible so that it could be replenished again the following year. That is not the way it works in a capitalist system, an American system, as corporations are formed and owned for the benefit of their STOCKHOLDERS and not to just spend money.

The best thing he cold have suggested to these CEO's is to ask them to distribute the excess cash to its owners, the stockholders who would then pay a dividend tax and start actually spending the money on most likely, consumer purchases actually stimulating the economy!

No our community organizer had no idea of how that works, so he just had a group of very confused corporate leaders too timid to explain that to him, since he knows everything anyway.

This was an article releted to this:

The socialist president plays host to capitalism

By Dana Milbank

The titans of American industry were all assembled at the White House complex Wednesday. There was Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google. There was Kenneth Chenault, the chairman of American Express. And there was Barack Obama, the sometimes owner of General Motors, Chrysler, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The president's advance team handled it like a state visit. The Secret Service shut down Lafayette Square as the CEOs huddled inside Blair House -- where foreign dignitaries often stay. The U.S. Park Police were mounted, the presidential limousines were idling, and men with scary-looking weapons stood in the shrubbery. The only thing missing was the display of the visitors' flag -- in this case, the dollar sign -- from the lampposts.

It looked like a state visit because it was a state visit, in the sense that President Obama was hosting leaders who are, to his administration, very foreign. The land's leading capitalists were sitting down with a leader caricatured by many Republicans as a socialist, or even, in Newt Gingrich's view, a Kenyan anti-colonialist.

"Chilly out here, guys!" the president said with a friendly wave as he crossed the street from the White House to Blair House.

Chilly outside? Wait until you're in a room with all those CEOs.

"Mr. President!" bellowed CNBC's John Harwood from the press risers on the north lawn. "Can you repair your relationship with business?"

"It's chilly out here," Obama repeated.

Harwood, live on the air, did not know quite what to do with this answer. Off camera, a producer's voice prompted him: "Go, John. Keep talking."

"You see that the president is not in a mood to answer questions today," Harwood continued gamely. "He said, 'It's a little chilly out here,' when I tried to get him to say something."

The president was not about to answer questions because he didn't want to do anything to upset the choreography of the day. It was a chance for Obama to show, in contrast to the perception that many voters had last month, that he is a big fan of the free market and private industry. And it was a chance to have a mostly friendly crowd of CEOs (there wasn't an oil man or a health-insurance boss among them) validate Obama's pro-business bona fides.

Obama has a long climb to overcome the reputation that he is hostile to business; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, inflamed by health-care reform and Obama's climate-change policy, is on record accusing him of a "general attack on our free enterprise system." But on Wednesday, he began to implement his pro-business business plan.

Before walking to meet the 20 corporate chiefs, Obama delivered a speech that, in the space of just four minutes, included seven mentions of jobs, six of growth or growing, and two of hiring. "Spurring economic growth is what I'll talk about later this morning when I meet with some of America's top business leaders," the president said. (READ: I am a capitalist!) "That includes Jim McNerney of Boeing, who also heads up my Export Council, and several members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board." (READ: Some of my best friends are capitalists!)

I believe that the primary engine of America's economic success is not government," the president went on. ( As you may recall from all his policies and changes mandated to date it is GOVERNMENT that he believes to be the answer, not free enterprise.) "It's the dynamism of our markets. And for me, the most important question about an economic idea is... whether it will help spur businesses, jobs and growth."

The business of America is business.

By this time, the CEOs had already disembarked from their Lincoln Town Cars on 17th Street and were waiting in Blair House. Google's Schmidt arrived later than the others, went to the wrong building -- he obviously hadn't consulted Google Maps -- and was set straight by CNBC's Eamon Javers.

Whatever Obama said privately to the executives over the next four-plus hours, they must have liked it. When they emerged from Blair House, several of them stopped at the microphones to welcome the president into the club of capitalists.

"I think they have a lot of business acumen in the White House," judged UBS's Robert Wolf, an Obama golfing partner. What a joke as about 5% of his WH cronies ever had a REAL JOB in a real business!

"The president and a number of the business leaders there felt they were on the same team," contributed Mark Gallogly, co-founder of Centerbridge Partners and one of those on the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"We all want America to win!" gushed Amex's Chenault.

Boeing's McNerney said the CEOs had granted Obama forgiveness for the hostility many of them felt from the administration over the last two years. "We all wanted to move beyond the tone that created this confrontational environment," he said. "We all made our apologies and all said we're moving on. We all wanted to wear the same thing on the front of the jersey, which is about this nation's employment and competitiveness."

Go team! If he keeps it up, this socialist president will earn himself a tickertape parade on Wall Street as a real MOGUL.


The FAA-Federal Aviation Administration is missing key information on who owns one-third of the 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. — a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers.

No kidding, and they only discovered this almost 10 years after the 9-11 debacle? Imagine that, there are thousands and thousands of people working for the FAA, and it did not dawn on any of them, including the administrators, the top bosses, the honchos as to what their job was !!!!

The records are in such disarray that the FAA says it is worried that criminals could buy planes without the government's knowledge, or use the registration numbers of other aircraft to evade new computer systems designed to track suspicious flights. It has ordered all aircraft owners to re-register their planes in an effort to clean up its files.

Never mind that all the owners have paid fees for these registrations, and filed lots and lots of paperwork.

Now imagine that this "error and omission" will be multiplied by millions and millions under the new and "fantastic" programs of every sort with over 100 new agencies under the the new health care programs.

About 119,000 of the aircraft on the U.S. registry have "questionable registration" because of missing forms, invalid addresses, unreported sales or other paperwork problems, according to the FAA. In many cases, the FAA cannot say who owns a plane or even whether it is still flying or has been junked.


The FAA has about 50,000 employees and about $20 billion as its budget....!

Already there have been cases of drug traffickers using phony U.S. registration numbers, as well as instances of mistaken identity in which police raided the wrong plane because of faulty record-keeping.

Next year, the FAA will begin canceling the registration certificates of all 357,000 aircraft and require owners to register anew, a move that is causing grumbling among airlines, banks and leasing companies. Notices went out to the first batch of aircraft owners last month.

"We have identified some potential risk areas, but I think we're trying to eliminate as much risk as possible through the re-registration process," said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown.

The FAA says security isn't the only reason it needs an up-to-date registry. Regulators use it to contact owners about safety problems, states rely on it to charge sales tax, and some airports employ it to bill for landing fees. Also, rescuers use the database to track down planes that are missing.

But the FAA has emphasized the security and law enforcement angle as the new measure has moved through the rule-making process over the past two years. The agency says the paperwork gap is becoming a bigger problem as authorities increasingly rely on computers to tighten aviation security in the wake of 9/11 and other terrorist plots.

There have already been cases of criminals using U.S. registration numbers, also known as N-numbers or tail numbers, to disguise their airplanes. In 2008, Venezuela authorities seized a twin-engine plane with the registration number N395CA on the fuselage and more than 1,500 pounds of cocaine on board.

Soon afterward, airplane owner Steven Lathrop of Ellensburg, Wash., received a call from a reporter.

"He sort of started the conversation with, 'Do you know where your airplane is? ... Your airplane's in a jungle in South America,'" Lathrop said.

Lathrop's Piper Cheyenne II XL was locked safely in its hangar at the Ellensburg airport. The smugglers had apparently chosen his tail number because the model was similar to their plane.

"Anybody with a roll of duct tape can put any number they want on an airplane," Lathrop said.

Federal law requires all U.S. aircraft owners to register their planes with the FAA and carry the registration certificate on board. The registration number — all U.S. registrations start with the letter N — is painted on the fuselage or tail. The numbers are used on flight plan forms and by air traffic controllers to communicate with aircraft in flight.

The amount of missing or invalid paperwork has been building for decades, the FAA says. Up to now, owners had to register their planes only once, at the time of purchase. The FAA sent out notices every three years asking owners to update their contact information if needed, but there was no punishment for not doing so. As of 2008, there were 343,000 airplanes on the registry. By 2010, the number had risen to 357,000.

The U.S. registry includes 16,000 aircraft that were sold but never updated with the names of the new owners, and more than 14,000 aircraft that have had their registrations revoked but may still be flying because the FAA has not canceled their N-numbers. Other registrations are outdated because the owners have died or the planes were totaled in crashes. Some planes are simply derelicts corroding in barns or junkyards.

As a result, there is a "large pool" of N-numbers "that can facilitate drug, terrorist or other illegal activities," the FAA warned in a 2007 report.

The problem became more acute after the government launched a new computer system for tracking flights called the Automatic Detection and Processing Terminal, or ADAPT, the FAA says. The system combines dozens of databases, from a list of stolen aircraft to the names of diplomats. It flags suspicious flights in red on a map.

Unreliable data in the system has led to cases of mistaken identity.

Pilot Pierre Redmond said his Cirrus was searched by Customs and Border Protection agents in fatigues and bulletproof vests last year in Ramona, Calif. They told him his tail number had been confused with that of a wanted plane in Florida.

In August, police in Santa Barbara, Calif., detained flight instructors John and Martha King at gunpoint after federal authorities mistook their Cessna for a plane that was stolen in 2002. The Kings are famous in aviation because they produce and star in a popular series of test-preparation videos for pilots.

The error in the Kings' case was eventually traced to a law-enforcement database that is cross-referenced with the FAA's registry, not to the registry itself. But Brown of the FAA called it an example of the real-world consequences of bad recordkeeping.

"It's very, very scary," Martha King said. "If this keeps happening to people, somebody's going to get shot."

To update the FAA registry, the agency will cancel all aircraft registrations over the next three years. Owners will have three months to re-register. In addition, the FAA will do away with its one-time registration certificate and adopt one that has to be replaced every three years. Those who fail to re-register will lose their certificate, and the plane must be grounded.

"We're trying to model it more closely on some of the programs that are in effect for automobiles," Brown said. "With the more regular renewal process, you will capture bad data much more frequently."

Airlines, leasing companies, charter operators and banks agree there is a problem but have complained about having to repeatedly re-register planes.

The Air Transport Association of America, which represents airlines, warned in 2008 that the measure "had the potential to wreak havoc on the commercial air transportation system." On Tuesday, ATA spokesman David Castelveter said airlines are still gauging the potential effect of the new rule.

Other groups noted that most of the aircraft with paperwork problems are smaller planes that pose little terrorist threat.

"I don't think we're going to see a tremendous security benefit as a result of this," said Doug Carr, a vice president of the National Business Aviation Association.

Banks and finance companies that hold loans used to buy planes will be among those hardest hit, said David Warner, general counsel for the National Aircraft Finance Association. A bank's claim to an aircraft is often tied to the FAA registration, so lenders are having to hire more staff and buy computer systems to track hundreds of aircraft registrations, Warner said.

He said the FAA has exaggerated the danger.

Well, without danger and urgency, there is no reason to do anything, so here we go again, we all suffer due to government incompetence, again.


The big question of "can we trust whet the government tells us?" Was answered for us this week with the release ( although slyly and begrudgingly) by the FED of the extent of loans, temporary and otherwise to a whopping 21,000 individual institutions ranging from the world's biggest banks to the largest corporations including GE, HARLEY DAVIDSON and others. SURPRISE!!!!!

If it were not for specific previously passed legislation that mandated the disclosure of these unbelievable intervention loans which at its height reached a staggering $8 TRILLION, we would just be all treated as too dumb to be told about the extent of the intervention.

Literally, everybody who asked got money from the FED ( not us citizens of course, our collateral-homes, are just repossessed with no fanfare). Keep in mind the FED has no money, it just writes checks that never bounce though internal bookkeeping that can best be described as "don't ask don't tell" accounting. That is not according to GAAP, accounting standards the rest of the world needs to abide by.

The FED took collateral of every type ( not really, it was just told that it would have such collateral pleaded for its benefit) to extend the loans. It bought commercial paper of GE, of HARLEY DAVIDSON and took "securities of indeterminable value" of some $800 BILLION while extending loans.

Based on what we know about literally every department of the government, do you actually think that someone there knows anything about the 21,000 "loans" that were extended? Does the purported collateral actually exist?

So, forget Congress AND ITS "OVERSIGHT", forget common sense, the FED can do as it pleases with no oversight, and can "lend" TRILLIONS" if it wants to on its own. IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE LENDING CAN DESTROY THE DOLLAR!

Time to rein it in, don't you think!? THEY NEED DAILY oversight and supervision.

he Federal Reserve withheld details on individual securities pledged as collateral by recipients of $885 billion in central bank loans, denying taxpayers a measure of the risks they faced from its emergency aid.

The central bank yesterday released data on 21,000 transactions from $3.3 trillion in emergency lending to stem the financial crisis. July’s Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to disclose the names of borrowers, the size and interest rates of loans, and “information identifying the types and amounts of collateral pledged or assets transferred.”

For three of the Fed’s six emergency facilities, the central bank released information on groups of collateral it accepted by asset type and rating, without specifying individual securities. Among them was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created in March 2008 to provide loans to brokers as Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

“This is a half-step,” said former Atlanta Fed research director Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Sarasota, Florida. “If you were going to audit the facilities, then would this enable you to do an audit? The answer is ‘No,’ you would have to go in and look at the individual amounts of collateral and how it was broken down to do that. And that is the spirit of what the requirements were in Dodd-Frank.”

Fed spokesmen in Washington declined to comment.

Public Disclosure

The public disclosure of the lending data should have been prevented because it could spur runs on the banks listed, said Darrell Duffie, a finance professor at Stanford University ( yeah, let's just lie instead, genius!).

“That’s a very destructive process,” he said. Still, with the data released, “if you’re justified in getting the information, then you’re justified to get enough information to judge the risk the Fed took,” he said.

Under its definition of the “ratings unavailable” category for collateral posted under the PDCF, the Fed said that “in some limited cases, ineligible collateral was pledged, but it was reviewed with the clearing banks for exclusion from future pledges.” The central bank didn’t elaborate.

The secrecy surrounding Fed bailouts led lawmakers to demand disclosure after the central bank approved aid dwarfing the federal government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Think about it $ 8 TRILLION...that is more than the Gross National Product of all countries in the largest 7 together excluding the USA.

Collateral Pledged

The loans extended to primary dealers under the PDCF by the New York Fed were recourse loans, meaning the potential liability of borrowers who defaulted was greater than the value of the collateral pledged, according to the Fed. Primary dealers are the firms authorized to deal in government securities directly with the Fed. At its peak, borrowing under the facility came to about $156 billion.

It is “specifically impossible” to know how much risk taxpayers were taking by looking at pools of collateral grouped by asset class and rating, said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and co-author of “Elements of Structured Finance,” published in May by Oxford University Press.

“I need to know the individual composition because a $2 billion pool can be one asset of $2 billion, which would be very risky, or 2,000 assets of $1 million each, and that’s not risky at all,” Raynes said. “The spirit of Dodd-Frank was not respected, and they used the vagueness in the wording of the law to weasel out of fulfilling their duty to the American people.”

Corporate Debt

Over the life of the PDCF, $1.5 trillion of collateral with “ratings unavailable” was pledged, according to the Fed data. That’s larger than the $1.39 trillion of municipal debt pledged. Corporate debt posted totaled $2.35 trillion.

A total of $8.95 trillion was lent over the life of the PDCF, backed by $9.67 trillion in collateral.

The Fed released details identifying thousands of transactions including bonds bought under its mortgage purchase program and asset-backed commercial paper pledged under its Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money-Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility.

The central bank also omitted details on individual securities pledged as collateral under its Term Auction Facility and its Term Securities Lending Facility, which was announced on March 11, 2008, as the first program under which the Fed planned to lend to non-bank dealers.

The Fed authorized its New York branch to establish the PDCF on March 16, 2008, the same day it made commitments to convince JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy troubled dealer Bear Stearns. A run on New York-based Bear Stearns was seen as threatening the stability of global markets, and the PDCF for the first time allowed dealers to borrow on a collateralized basis from the New York Fed.

Lehman Collapse

In September that year, as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, the PDCF was expanded to accept all types of collateral pledged in tri-party repo deals, including high-yield, high-risk securities and equities. The previous program only accepted investment-grade debt securities.

The first peak of PDCF lending occurred in April 2008 at nearly $40 billion, according to the New York Fed. As financial markets improved, banks reduced their balance-sheet risk and the PDCF pricing became less attractive, usage of the facility fell off and stopped in mid-July that year.

Borrowing then leapt to over $140 billion in mid-September 2008 from no activity the previous week, according to the New York Fed. The program ended Feb. 1 this year.

Under the TSLF, dealers could swap investment-grade securities, including mortgage bonds, for U.S. Treasuries for 28 days. Usage peaked at $235.5 billion in October 2008, and the program was also closed in February.

The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.

The Fed's efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota. The central bank's aid programs also supported U.S. subsidiaries of banks based in East Asia, Europe and Canada while rescuing money-market mutual funds held by millions of Americans.

The biggest users of the Fed lending programs were some of the world's largest banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain's Barclays, according to more than 21,000 loan records released Wednesday under new financial regulatory legislation.

The data reveal banks turning to the Fed for help almost daily in the fall of 2008 as the central bank lowered lending standards and extended relief to all kinds of institutions it had never assisted before.

Fed officials emphasize that their actions were meant to stabilize a financial system that was on the verge of collapse in late 2008. They note that the actions worked to prevent a complete financial meltdown and that none of the special lending programs has lost money. (Some have recorded healthy profits for taxpayers.)

But the extent of the lending to major banks - and the generous terms of some of those deals - heighten the political peril for a central bank that is already under the gun for a wide range of actions, including a recent decision to try to stimulate the economy by buying $600 billion in U.S. bonds.

"The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America," said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. "Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions."

The Fed launched emergency programs totaling $3.3 trillion in aid, a figure reached by adding up the peak amount of lending in each program.

Companies that few people would associate with Wall Street benefited through the Fed's program to ease the market for commercial paper, a form of short-term debt used by major corporations to fund their daily activities.

By the fall of 2008, credit had frozen across the financial system, including the commercial paper market. The Fed then purchased commercial paper issued by GE 12 times for a total of $16 billion. It bought paper from Harley-Davidson 33 times, for a total of $2.3 billion. It picked up debt issued by Verizon twice, totaling $1.5 billion.

"It is hard to say what would have happened without the facility, and how its absence might have affected GE, but overall the program was extremely effective in helping stabilize the market," GE spokesman Russell Wilkerson said by e-mail.

Verizon spokesman Robert A. Varettoni said that it was "an extraordinary time," adding that there was no credit available otherwise at the time.

The data revealed that the Fed continued making purchases into the summer of 2009 - after the official end of the recession - showing that it was still concerned about a fundamental part of the financial system even as economic growth was returning.

The disclosure shows "how really profound the financial crisis was in the fall of 2008 and the firepower the Fed mustered in response," said analyst Karen Shaw Petrou of Federal Financial Analytics.

Foreign-owned banks also benefited from the Fed's commercial-paper facility. The Korean Development Bank, owned by the South Korean government, used the program to the tune of billions of dollars, including a $407 million short-term loan on a single day. Many foreign banks, including the French BNP Paribas, the Swiss UBS and the German Deutsche Bank, took extensive advantage of various programs. Even a major bank in Bavaria benefited, as well as another one headquartered in Bahrain, a tiny island country in the Middle East.

Another Fed program allowed investment banks for the first time to borrow directly from the Fed as officials sought to stem the panic that had taken down Wall Street titan Bear Stearns. The central bank assisted 18 companies through this program. Among the biggest beneficiaries was Citigroup, which in a single day in November 2008 borrowed $18.6 billion from the Fed.

The data also demonstrate how the Fed, in its scramble to keep the financial system afloat, eventually lowered its standards for the kind of collateral it allowed participating banks to post. From Citigroup, for instance, it accepted $156 million in triple-C collateral or lower - grades that indicate that the assets carried the greatest risk of default.

Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher defended the Fed's actions during the financial crisis, saying the central bank "stepped into the breach" in its role as a lender of last resort.

"That's what we are paid to do," he said. "We took an enormous amount of risk with the people's money," he acknowledged. But the crisis lending programs are now all closed, he said, "and we didn't lose a dime, and in fact we made money on every one of them."

The banks universally hailed the Fed on Wednesday ( what a surprise?).

"In late 2008, many of the US funding markets were clearly broken," Goldman Sachs said in a statement, echoing similar comments made by Bank of America and Citigroup. "The Federal Reserve took essential steps to fix these markets and its actions were very successful."

By 2009, Goldman and other Wall Street firms were reporting their best profits ever. That allowed these banks to pay out huge salaries again, but it also drew the ire of lawmakers and ordinary Americans.

Sanders, for one, said these banks got off easy while receiving extraordinary aid. In rescuing these firms, the Fed never required them to lend to small businesses, modify the mortgages of homeowners or invest in a way that would create jobs.

"We bailed these guys out, but the requirements placed upon them had very little positive impact on the needs of ordinary Americans," Sanders said.