*Written by L.B. Frank.

Wow, was I in for a surprise last night. I had the pleasure of attending a US Congressional Candidate Forum for District 19 last night. I’m not going to say what state I live in, nor the names of the people running for office. I will make up names for them that better exude their personality or my impression of them. The following are my thoughts on the questions and their answers.

There were 8 candidates on stage last night. We had a Mitt Romney Wannabe, a Lawyer Kid, a Guy They Say doesn’t have a Chance, a Bean Counter from Washington, a Mitt Romney Wannabe #2, a Duck Phillips, a Formerly Libertarian Leaning Radio Show Host, and a Democrat. 7 of the 8 people on stage are running in the Republican Primary for US Congressional Seat 19 in our district, the last guy is the only Democrat running for the seat.

They were asked a series of questions off of the GOOOH questionnaire, and a series of questions from the audience. I submitted three questions, and none were asked. Boo. They were asked the questions, and then they had to hold up a red or green sign whether they were for or against the topic.

The first question was “Would you support any legislation that would alter the promise made to those 55 and up when it comes to their Social Security benefits?”.  All but one said “No”. That is “No” to privatizing, “No” to voluntary disassociation, “No” to raising the cap, “No” to lowering benefits. The Formerly  Libertarian Leaning Radio Show Host was the only one that said we have a $16 trillion dollar debt, and was the only one that would say that we had to look at everything on the table. I can respect that. I submitted a question to be asked, that wasn’t, “Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme?” The way that Social Security is run right now, it’s relying on the forced confiscation of wealth earned by tax payers in the form of FICA withholdings on their paychecks. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security will run out of money and be in perpetual RED in as little as 2016. The last time I looked at the calendar, it’s 2012. So, in an effort to garner the votes and campaign donations from the nearly 300 people in attendance, they said “No, I would rather let the Social Security bankrupt our country instead of tell you the truth”.

The second question was “Would you support any legislation that would alter, remove, abolish the Tax Code as it stand now and replace it with a flat tax or the FairTax?” All Greens on stage. The Lawyer Kid said basically that he supports a flat tax and the FairTax is dangerous. The FairTax is a 194 page legislation, but takes an over 400 page book to explain. That is not even remotely true. The FairTax legislation is 133 pages as written today, the book written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder is  188 pages, that includes the Table of Contents and the Index in the back. He said it was dangerous because we don’t know what it will do, but it is wholly acceptable to support a flat tax, even thought that only adds to the complexity of the 3 million word, 76,000 page Tax Code we currently have today. He was saying that it is wholly acceptable to only tax producers in our economy. He was saying that is wholly acceptable to continue to have the world’s highest corporate tax rate. He was saying that it is wholly acceptable to keep the IRS to track you down and put you in a cage if you make a mistake on your tax forms and point a gun at you and force you to pay your taxes in weekly withholdings, whether you can afford it or not. He completely misunderstood and misrepresented the FairTax, where there are no corporate taxes, where you don’t have to file taxes, where you keep 100 percent of your income and investments. Only The Guy They Say Doesn’t Have a Chance said that the FairTax returns the tax system to the original constitutional restrictions and treats everyone equally, removes loop holes and lobbyists. The rest of them basically said, “Yeah, pander, pander, pander.” No solutions, nothing. If we want to get serious in this country about the economy, about jobs, about the future, we have to look at a solution that is simple and makes sense that also takes power out of the hands of government and returns it to the people. The FairTax is that solution. If only these people on stage would stand behind it, they promise “To fight for you!” Bull, show me by supporting legislation that will get the government out of my finances, out of my pay check and won’t throw me in jail if I don’t understand something with 76,000 pages and 3,000,000 words.

Later the question was asked, “Would you support any efforts to use legislation to decriminalize marijuana?” Now, I’m going to be as honest as I can, even though I’m writing on the Internet where nothing is true yet everything is believable. I have never smoked marijuana. I have never put any drugs into my body other than alcohol, caffeine, and medications. It’s not something that appeals to me. But, I am a warrior for freedom. I am a defender of liberty. And when I heard this question last night, I thought “Finally! A question that actually has value!” Nope. These so-called liberty-loving Republican candidates said “NOPE”. The Repubs all raised the red flag of the War on Drugs. The Lawyer Kid said “It’s a gateway drug, it’s dangerous, I don’t want kids smoking it and also there is this thing in the Constitution called the Commerce Clause, so yeah, I don’t think it’s a good idea.” The rest of them parroted his sentiments. Even though I know at least one of them on that stage has smoked before. “Commerce Clause??” Really? If the user grows the plant themselves, in their own garden, on their own property, and uses it in their own home, while consenting to administering the smoke of some sort of vegetation into his or her own body and THAT is enough justifiable reason for the imperial federal government to reach into your home and yank you out and put you into a cage?

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”

Where does it say that they have the authority to do so? These people, these men, these human beings, are appealing to us, the audience, the voters, more human beings, for  the authority and permission to hire men with guns to tell us how we are allowed to live. Don’t ever forget that. These holier than thou, righteous men want the power to tell you what you must do, what you are not allowed to do in your own home.

“IV Amendment of the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

I’m sorry, but that is just wrong. And the worst part, the audience applauded them. Freedom dies every time the audience applauds unjust laws. They got us into $16 Trillion in debt, the “War on Drugs” has cost us a trillion dollars. After 40 years of this, even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn’t worked. “In the grand scheme, it has not been successful, forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.” We have already tried the whole prohibition thing, it doesn’t work. Violent cartels are making hundreds of millions, we are paying hundreds of millions to imprison hundreds of thousands for victimless crimes, we paying billions in a “war effort” that doesn’t make sense. If someone has a drug problem, they can be treated just like someone with an alcohol problem. If they are caught driving while intoxicated, treat them the same as with alcohol. The whole supply/demand paradigm works with drugs too, the demand is still there today, after forty years, but supplies are scarcer due to the black market effect and it raises the cost. If you increase the risk, you increase the cost. As the costs go up, but demand stays the same, the risk taking to get the money to purchase the product goes up, thus crime, violent crime. That is what should be punished and that is what would go down. Market forces would reduce the prices of the goods; reduce the crimes inherent in procuring the goods, tax dollars won’t go to waste in incarcerations. debt goes down.

If the thought that if it is dangerous and therefore should be outlawed is true, the candidates should have proposed to outlaw cotton candy, hamburgers and alcohol, among everything else in life. Too much of anything is bad for the body, the best way to reduce its use is through education and not more guns and more political power.

This Lawyer Kid and the rest of them are just pandering to the masses, while trying to sound strong, and in effect, trample on the Constitution, our Rights, they are treating us adults as children. We have brains, we can think, we don’t need a government to make decisions for us, and these people are trying to get the power to do so.

They asked a bunch more questions, like about ending the Federal Reserve, they all send “No”. “We need market stability” and crap like that. As if the market was worse prior to the Fed, fiat currency and so forth.

I walked away with more disgust in my stomach than anything else. They were cheered; it was like those in the audience didn’t even listen to them. “Yay! Take more of my rights away!” Remember the old saying “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”? It’s the same thing with rights, just because you don’t use all of your rights, there might be someone else that does. Just because you don’t value some of your rights, doesn’t mean that there is another person’s freedoms being trampled on, and if their freedoms are being trampled on, so are yours.

This primary season and this November, please remember to vote on principles. Vote on what your heart tells you. Read the Constitution and vote down the line on what the Constitution authorizes and nothing else. These people last night, if elected, will get to vote on hundreds of issues over their time in office. They are promising you that they will vote on principles when they get there. You do the same. The way I see it, if they get to vote 100 times in Congress, and you only get to vote for them once, you have to make a decision that is 100 times more principled than theirs’. If everyone does the same, we might actually be able to vote a better class of people into Washington and have a better, freer future of us and our children. As for the Republican Party, I wished they learned from their mistakes from the past instead of repeating it like they did last night.

President Obama said in his State of the Union speech, “We’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings.”

That was reassuring.

The new budget he released this week promises $4 trillion in “deficit reduction”—about half in tax increases and half in spending cuts. But like most politicians, Obama misleads.

Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell, a recent guest on my Fox Business show, cut through the fog to get at the truth of the $2 trillion “cut.”

“We have a budget of, what, almost $4 trillion? So if we’re doing $2 trillion of cuts,” Mitchell said, “we’re cutting government in half. That sounds wonderful.”

But what the president was talking about is not even a cut. The politicians just agreed that over the next 10 years, instead of increasing spending by $9.48 trillion, they’d increase it by “just” $7.3 trillion. Calling that a “cut” is nonsense.

Mitchell gave an analogy: “What if I came to you and said, ‘I’ve been on a diet for the last month, and I’ve gained 10 pounds. Isn’t that great?’ You would say: ‘Wait, what are you talking about? That’s insane.’ And I said: ‘I was going to gain 15 pounds. I’ve only gained 10 pounds, therefore my diet is successful.’”

Democrats use this deceit when they want more social spending. Republicans use it for military spending.

And the press buys it. The Washington Post has been writing about “draconian cuts.”

“The politicians know this game,” Mitchell said. “The special interests know this game. Everyone gets a bigger budget every year. … And we wind up, sooner or later, being Greece.”

We are definitely on the road to bankruptcy.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by John Stossel.

Alleged fraud at JP Morgan.  Who could have guessed?

Source

A federal class action lawsuit is making some strong allegations against JPMorgan Chase, claiming the  lender routinely fabricates documents to deceive bankruptcy judges into believing Chase is the beneficiary in bankruptcy cases, and goes so far as to Photoshop documents to “create the illusion” of standing “in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases.”

According to the JPMorgan Chase bankruptcy fraud class action lawsuit, “Chase is engaged in the business practice of deceiving bankruptcy judges, Chapter 7 trustees, Chapter 11 trustees, Chapter 13 trustees, the Office of the United States Trustee, creditors, creditor attorneys, debtors in possession, debtors and debtors attorneys as to Chase’s status as a secured creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases filed nationwide.”

Among the numerous allegations in the Chase bankruptcy fraud class action lawsuit, Chase is alleged to have:

1. engaged in perjury, fraud and intentional misrepresentation by manufacturing a chain of title transfer evidence in order to falsely prove it stands in thousands of bankruptcy matters; and

2. used manufactured evidence to deceive the bankruptcy court and other bankruptcy players as to the identity of the true beneficiary or creditor of Class Members’ non-negotiable promissory notes (MLNs).

A copy of the Chase Bankruptcy Fraud Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is Ernest Michael Bakenie v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. SACV12-0060 JVS (MLGx), U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

CONTINUED at Top Class Actions.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Let me start by saying that even though I’ve referred to other debates as the worst, this one definitely took the cake and showed us just how godawful these things can be. This debate came to us from Tampa, Florida and was hosted by NBC. Brian Williams was the moderator and he was a shitty one at that. To start, there were no intros and the audience was not allowed to participate in any way. This means that the crowd could not applaud, boo or get fired up like they have in most previous debates. While I understand that this is done to speed up the process and fit in more quality time with the candidates, it creates bad television and boring debates, especially when the candidates argue incessantly for long periods of time and the moderator is too chicken shit to break it up and stick to his own rules regarding time. My biggest regret about watching this goddamned thing is that I only had one beer in the whole fucking house. I was also too lethargic from a 20 oz. New York strip to get up and mix a stronger drink. At least the ecstasy I got from my giant piece of premium American red meat kept me from losing my shit and going completely insane throughout this episode of ‘Three Statists and a Constitutionalist’.

So we start with Newt Gingrich being asked to respond to Mitt Romney recently calling him “erratic” and a “failed leader”. Woohoo! Here we go already starting with the personal attacks over policy issues. Gingrich immediately dropped several Reagan references and was shocked that he didn’t get any applause. Oh yes, the crowd must stay silent or be forced to stare into the droopy eyes of Brian Williams who has been known to turn people into hipster liberals with just a quick glare. This didn’t bode well for Newt as he was waiting for the crowd to react to his empty one-liners. Gingrich said he was like Reagan, who ignored Carter and went on to win the election. Really Newt? You’re ignoring the attacks against you? Funny, because every show I’ve seen you on, you’ve just gone on and on about all the attacks against you.

Gingrich is immediately given a second question, as Williams asks him how he has changed since being Speaker of the House. Gingrich says that as Speaker he had four consecutive balanced budgets, which he says is unheard of. He also brags about how many jobs he created and how he reformed welfare. This is also funny because in a recent interview he took the Romney approach and said government doesn’t create jobs the private sector does. So which is it Newt?

Brian Williams then directs his attention to Mitt and I can already tell that Paul and Santorum are probably going to get the shaft on time this round. Romney is asked if he is electable, which is a dumb fucking question. It’s a dumb question when anyone is asked this, really. Romney talks about how he saved the Olympics and created tons of businesses. He doesn’t actually answer the question he just runs through his already well-known yet well-rehersed talking points. He then switches to attacks on Gingrich and disses him for talking bad about the Paul Ryan Plan and for aligning with Nancy Pelosi on several occasions.

Newt Gingrich says that he isn’t going to spend the entire evening “chasing Mitt’s misinformation.” Yes he will, just keep reading. Gingrich says that the American people need a discussion on how the candidates are going to beat Obama and that they need to move passed the bullshit. Romney jumps in and points out that 88 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against Newt, which caused him to resign from his position in disgrace. Mitt also points out that Newt’s approval rating when he left Congress was 18 percent. Romney then takes a stiff shot at Gingrich when he says that we can’t retake the White House if the person leading the fight was in the pocket of Freddie Mac. This fight then goes on forever and Brian Williams just lets them duke it out regardless of time restraints and the fact that there are other candidates who haven’t even talked yet. Gingrich tries to explain how he left Congress, which is all bullshit and just leads to him arguing with Romney over who has the most inaccurate attack ads. I thought you were ignoring the attacks and weren’t going to spend the evening “chasing Mitt’s misinformation”? Can we please discuss the real issues?!

Rick Santorum finally gets asked a question and as much as I loathe the guy, I’m glad to see him at this point. Of course he is asked to comment on the Romney-Gingrich spat because Brian Williams wants the two feuding idiots to be front and center to help discredit the GOP as a whole. Santorum rambles some nonsense about painting a positive vision for the country and adds that he creates a real contrast to Mitt and Newt. Um, not really homeboy unless you’re referring to the religio-fascist part. Santorum then claims to “..have a track record of being a strong conservative.” Well that depends on what your definition of a conservative is, as it varies greatly from candidate to candidate.

Brian Williams then takes a shot at Santorum and says that he lost his seat in the Senate by 18 percent. This was of course after Santorum bragged about winning the seat in a liberal state. Santorum responds to the criticism by saying that the Republican governor in Pennsylvania lost worse than he did that same year. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Santorum also physically crouched down when he was rambling incoherently and actually said the word “crouch down”. Thanks for the visual buddy.

Finally Ron Paul gets brought into this thing! Williams reminds us that Paul once said that he never visualized himself as winning the nomination so why does he think he can win now. Paul says that he doesn’t sit around and dream about being in the White House like everyone else on stage. He points out that, according to polls, when he is put head-to-head with Obama he has a better chance at beating him than anyone else in the GOP. Paul also clues the masses into the fact that Iowa was just a straw poll and the real winner hasn’t yet been decided, as it will be the person who acquires the most delegates. He’s asked if he will run third party because every goddamned moderator has to seemingly ask this question. Once again, Ron Paul says that he has no intentions to do so. He is then asked if he would ever support Newt. Paul gives Gingrich props on his stance with the Federal Reserve and the gold standard but adds that he needs to change his stance on foreign policy. Newt responds by giving Paul some props on economic issues.

They then get into the boring topic of Mitt Romney’s tax returns which just shifts all the attention back to Tweedledum and Tweedledumber – that being Romney and Gingrich, you can choose which is which. Romney says that his income tax info will show how he made profits and rewards. He then goes on to claim that he’ll drop corporate tax rates while reshaping the entire tax code in an effort to simplify it. Gingrich jumps in and channels Mitt’s dad, who released a dozen years worth of tax information. Newt then says something about a Hong Kong tax model. This guy’s always pulling obscure shit from other countries. Romney jumps back in and says he and his father disagreed on many things and unlike his dad, he will only release a few years worth of his personal tax data. Romney then goes on to say that he inherited nothing and made his own mark in the world. He name drops Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics as ten minutes have passed without mentioning them. Truthfully, I think everything Mitt says is a pre-recorded statement and he just moves his lips to the words.

The mic in this rap battle is then passed back over to Santorum. He takes a shot at Newt and Mitt when he says that they claim to support capitalism but how can they make that claim when they supported the bailouts. Santorum says that we should have allowed these moronic financial institutions go through bankruptcy. What some people might not know though is that Rick Santorum wasn’t in office at the time of the bailouts so he couldn’t vote on TARP; so it is easy for him to say he didn’t support it. When looking a little deeper however, Rick Santorum did support the bailout of the airline industry. So would he have really rejected TARP? Based off of the $15 billion dollar airline bailout and his past voting record with other things, Santorum looks to be a pro-TARP motherfucker. Lucky for him he lost his seat in the Senate and didn’t get stuck with TARP on his record.

Newt is asked about more criticism from Mitt, who apparently claimed Gingrich “peddled influence” with Freddie Mac. Why couldn’t this be addressed the first time in this very same debate when Newt was asked to comment on Mitt’s criticisms? Time wasting bullshit! Newt said he never “peddled influence” and added that Romney’s approach about the Freddie Mac situation is nasty. Gingrich claims that he never lobbied for them and actually says that he brought in experts to teach his staff how to not lobby. Sorry, I just find that laughable. Romney quickly lashes back at Gingrich saying that Freddie Mac doesn’t pay “historians” as much as they paid Newt. Romney also points out that Gingrich was pushing GSEs every chance he got, which is a form of lobbying. Newt said he only made $35,000 per year, which is a lie. Why do people like either of these shady bastards? Aren’t Americans sick of criminals in power?

The Mitt-Newt show goes on for a long time as these two duke it out with no buzzer going off and Brian Williams sitting quiet – wasting our precious fucking time on this bitch fight. Williams, after minutes of this nonsense finally cuts in to stop it but only because NBC has to go to commercial break. Brian Williams has the spine of a squid.

After the commercial break, the issue of the housing crisis comes up. Santorum is the first person asked to address it. He claims that he saw the crisis on the horizon and tried to stop it. Yep asshole but you were about a decade behind Ron Paul on seeing it. Santorum, while explaining his fallacious knowledge on the subject, actually utters the phrase: “Let capitalism work.” Hilarious! This guy doesn’t know what capitalism is! Santorum immediately follows up his pro-capitalism line by saying that the government needs to step in and help the people who have lost their houses. Here we go with the doublespeak! Santorum continues by saying that people need the freedom to get out from under these houses and get relief. Really dude? Just “let capitalism work”?

On the same issue, Paul is asked if the government owes the people anything. Paul says that they owe the people a free market and sound money. He says that the interest rates were kept too low for far too long. Ron Paul says that he introduced legislation to help prevent the housing bubble from bursting years before it actually did. He declares that the bubble and the consequences of these actions were easy to spot but no one in Washington did. Paul says that the government needs to get out of the way. He then closes by saying that the Federal Reserve dumped so much debt on the taxpayers after wiping the slate clean with banks and corporations they bailed out.

Brian Williams, who apparently wants to suck Mitt’s dick, gives us another Mitt-Newt session when he brings them in on the housing issue. Romney says that the government has to help the people they fucked but immediately after that says that the government has to get out of it. Which is it bro? Gingrich says we need to repeal Dodd-Frank as it would improve the economy overnight. He says that the bill led big banks to get bigger. Newt is asked if the financial system is overregulated, which just proves how stupid Brian Williams is. Romney jumps back in to monopolize more time and says that the markets need regulation to work. What? What happened to capitalism? He then adds that we need up-to-date regulation not that old shitty regulation.

Williams, who wants to keep Romney in the spotlight, switches the subject and asks him about opening up Cuba. Mitt actually says that he’d be glad if Fidel Castro died and went to see his maker.. WTF?! Romney says we can’t talk about opening up Cuba but we need to support those in the country who want freedom. Okay, so how are we supporting them by contributing to making their economy shit? Why do you think that it is so easy for Castro to convince his people that America is bad? This is why! Romney wants to help Cubans by punishing them and not “giving in”.

Gingrich adds to Romney’s “glad when Castro’s dead” comment by saying that he won’t meet his maker but that he’ll essentially go to Hell. Newt starts talking about a “Cuban Spring”. He says that we need to reach out to younger Cubans who want freedom. Of course he, like Mitt, wants to do this without working with them in a productive and positive way. These guys must believe in magic.

When the discussion shifts back over to Ron Paul, he says that he has a lot to teach these guys on foreign policy. Ron Paul calls Newt and Mitt’s tactics “isolationist”. Funny watching Ron flip the script when every idiot out there calls him an “isolationist” as the idiots don’t really get what it means. Paul points out that the Cold War is over and the Cuban Missile Crisis was 50 years ago. He adds that we prop up Castro with our sanctions and embargo as it helps him stay in power by gaining support through pointing the finger of blame at the United States. Paul reminds the candidates that we used to talk to the Soviets and currently talk to the Chinese while we’ve had major problems with both. He even adds that we went in and talked to the Vietnamese after the disastrous Vietnam War. He says that we are living in the dark age if we are going to refuse to talk to Cuba.

Santorum, who apparently ignored Paul’s great insight, calls for us to use sanctions against Cuba until the Castro brothers die. He says that for right now we have to keep the current policy active and we shouldn’t embrace Cuba until the dictators are dead. Santorum then goes on a dumb tangent about how Cuba works directly with jihadists. Here we go with the fear mongering!

On Iran, Romney says we need to build a super strong military to scare the fuck out of everyone. Gingirch says that we are a country that likes peace and stability. Apparently he means between all the wars he wants to bring forth. Gingrich adds that he feels that we should defend the freedom of the sea. He then shares his thoughts on Obama, saying that Iran keeps testing us because our president is weak. Ron Paul gets in the Iran talk and says that our blockade of Iran’s strait is an act of war and tells us to imagine if the roles were reversed. Paul points out that Iran needs the Strait of Hormuz as much as we do. He warns us all that we have too many wars and the thought of invading Iran is ridiculous as we don’t have any money.

Santorum is asked how he would attack Iran when they have such a large target list. Santorum doesn’t answer that, he immediately goes right into the fear mongering he is so good at. He says that if Iran gets a nuke, the whole world will change. He then says that Obama’s Iran policy is a failure and feels that no one in power is serious about the Iranian threat. He then claims that Iran’s leadership is the equivalent to having a country ran by Al-Qaeda. He hammers the point that it is reckless to not try and stop Iran from building a nuke. He then flips the script and starts rambling about manufacturing and energy in Florida.

The candidates are then asked why it is okay for them to court voters in Spanish while they are all in favor of English as a national language. Gingrich says that the common bond that unites a country is one language. He says that there will be 300-400 languages used in the U.S. very soon so we need to unify the people with just one. Romney agrees with Newt before rambling about Massachusetts teachers teaching in other languages. Ron Paul steps in and says that we need to have one language at the national level but adds that if states want ballots in Spanish, such as Florida, it is their right to do so. Paul says that you can make English the official federal language without interfering in what the states want to do.

On illegal immigration, Newt says that the children of illegals should be allowed to join the military so they can go off and die for his senseless wars. Romney says he would not sign the DREAM Act in its current form but he would if it included military service. Romney then goes on a weird rant that illegals should “self-deport” themselves, go back to their country of origin and apply for legal citizenship. Santorum, who didn’t think the “self-deportation” comments were obscure, says that people have been self-deporting for awhile now due to our shitty economy. Santorum keeps referring to illegal immigrants as “they” as if they are something other than individuals.

Newt is asked about sugar and goes on to ramble about sugar types. Romney, who gets a bunch of money from Florida sugar farmers, says that we need to kill sugar subsidies. He then goes on a rant about homes in Florida, diverting his attention away from sugar. Romney says that too many homes in Florida are underwater. OMG! Global warming is drowning us! Oh.. wait.. that was a figure of speech.

Ron Paul is asked some dumb question about saving the Everglades and then we go to a commercial break. Why couldn’t they ask that dummy Santorum about the Everglades? He’s a snake, he’d have more invested in the issue. We also get Williams asking abut the Terry Schiavo case, which happened years ago and has nothing to do with anything that is going on right now. Gingrich and Paul address it but it is just a time-waster.

Romney is asked if space is a priority. He says “yes” but adds that Obama doesn’t have a real vision for NASA and because of that, Florida is suffering. Actually dude, I live in Florida and I’m doing okay, so don’t speak for me. Mitt says that the right mission for NASA needs to be determined by the president. Um.. I thought you were a capitalist guy? Romney then adds that NASA shouldn’t be solely funded by the government but that it should be funded by a collaborative effort of the military and companies that have ties and can benefit from the institutions work.

Keeping with Romney, he is asked what he’s done to promote conservatism. Mitt gives the stupidest answer when he says that he has created a family and worked in the private sector. Really, that’s your answer? Gingrich is then brought in and asked to comment on Mitt and replies with, “I don’t want to spend my time commenting on Mitt.” Well what the fuck was he doing the first half of this goddamned debate?! Santorum jumps in and rants and whines about a bunch of shit regarding Gingrich and Romney not being as conservative as he is.

Brian Williams then asks Ron Paul if Gingrich and Romney are insufficiently conservative. Why didn’t Williams ask if Santorum was? Ron Paul says that it all depends on what your definition of conservative is. He points out that conservatives have lost their way completely and asks how can a person be conservative when they’ll cut food stamps but won’t stop wasteful spending overseas. He adds that you can’t have smaller government if you keep creating all these wars. He also adds that you can’t promote personal liberty and then try to legislate all the crap that the GOP wants.

Mittens says that he has a solid conservative record, just look at it. Okay dickbag. He then diverts and brags about how Ted Kennedy had to take a loan out on his house to beat him in the governor’s race back in the 90′s. Yeah, he still beat you dude. He finishes his soulless rambling by saying he will repeal Obamacare and leave health care up to the states.

Gingrich is asked about his numbers being on the rise and what scares him the most about possibly becoming president. He just says that the next president will face enormous problems. No shit cuntpickle! He then warns that there are too many huge special interest groups working against the country and only for their own benefit. Somehow he expects to defeat that. This ends the debate, twenty minutes early and Brian Williams introduces NBC’s crack staff to analyze the debate for the remainder of the time. I turn off the TV.

God this shit was awful.

Grading Scale:
Grade B: Ron Paul
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Rick Santorum
Grade D-: Mitt Romney

Eastman Kodak Co. is preparing to seek bankruptcy protection in the coming weeks, people familiar with the matter said, a move that would cap a stunning comedown for a company that once ranked among America’s corporate titans.

The 131-year-old company is still making last-ditch efforts to sell off some of its patent portfolio and could avoid Chapter 11 if it succeeds, one of the people said. But the company has started making preparations for a filing in case those efforts fail, including talking to banks about some $1 billion in financing to keep it afloat during bankruptcy proceedings, the people said.

A Kodak spokesman said the company “does not comment on market rumor or speculation.”

A filing could come as soon as this month or early February, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Kodak would continue to pay its bills and operate normally while under bankruptcy protection, the people said. But the company’s focus would then be the sale of some 1,100 patents through a court-supervised auction, the people said.

That Kodak is even contemplating a bankruptcy filing represents a final reversal of fortune for a company that once dominated its industry, drawing engineering talent from around the country to its Rochester, N.Y., headquarters and plowing money into research that produced thousands of breakthroughs in imaging and other technologies.

The company, for instance, invented the digital camera—in 1975—but never managed to capitalize on the new technology.

Casting about for alternatives to its lucrative but shrinking film business, Kodak toyed with chemicals, bathroom cleaners and medical-testing devices in the 1980s and 1990s, before deciding to focus on consumer and commercial printers in the past half-decade under Chief Executive Antonio Perez.

Continued at The Wall Street Journal.

Regulators now have a more complete picture of money transfers in the final days of bankrupt brokerage MF Global, but must sort out which transactions were legitimate before more money can be released to customers, a top official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Jill Sommers, who is heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s review of MF Global, said regulators “are far enough along the trail” that they know where the money went.

“Now it’s just finding out which ones of those transactions are legitimate and which ones of them are illegitimate,” Sommers said.

The CFTC and the trustee liquidating the firm are under intense pressure from lawmakers and customers to provide answers about what happened to hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money that went missing as the firm collapsed.

MF Global officials, including former Chief Executive Jon Corzine, have told lawmakers they simply do not know where the money is, and deny authorizing any misuse of customer money.

“We certainly don’t want to lead anyone to believe we don’t know what happened. We do know, and we see where all the transactions went,” said Sommers, a Republican commissioner, in an interview on Wednesday.

She declined to reveal details on the fund transfers until investigators have determined the purpose of all the transactions. Sommers could not estimate when regulators will complete their investigation, but said “really good progress” is being made.

Fellow CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton, a Democrat, tempered expectations. Chilton said in a statement after Sommers’ remarks were published that a thorough accounting of all customer funds remains a work in progress.

CONTINUED at Reuters.

Jon Corzine told the House Agriculture Committee, “I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date.” The public is outraged that the former CEO of bankrupt global financial-derivatives broker and prime dealer in US Treasury securities MF Global doesn’t know where the missing $1.2 billion in client funds went.

Corzine is the member a few exclusive clubs: he is a Goldman Sachs alum, former US senator, and former New Jersey governor. After the incumbent Corzine was beat by Chris Christie in the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race, the MF board probably rejoiced, believing the guy to fix their problems was suddenly available. Now he’s in the club of taking a mere 20 months to create the eighth largest bankruptcy in history.

As a stand-alone entity, MF Global was born in 2007 when it was spun off from UK hedge-fund giant, Man Group. MF booked revenues of $4 billion that year from interest earned by using its customers’ funds, an operation that sounds like fractionized banking: short-term embezzlement used to make profits.

For banks, the practice was sealed in English common law in 1811 in the court case of Carr vs. Carr, where Master of the Rolls Sir William Grant ruled that debts mentioned in a will included bank accounts since the money had been deposited into the bank and wasn’t earmarked in a sealed bag. The deposit was thus a loan rather than a bailment.

The same Judge Grant ruled the same way five years later in Devaynes vs. Noble, despite an attorney’s argument that “a banker is rather a bailee of his customer’s funds than his debtor … because the money in … [his] hands is rather a deposit than a debt, and may therefore be instantly demanded and taken up.”

In 1848, in Foley vs. Hill and Others, Lord Cottenham ruled,

Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it.… The money placed in the custody of a banker to do with it as he pleases.

CONTINUED at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Doug French.

Jon S. Corzine, the former U.S. senator and New Jersey governor who presided over the collapse of the commodities brokerage MF Global, says he cannot explain what happened to “many hundreds of millions of dollars” that the firm was holding for customers.

In testimony prepared for delivery to Congress on Thursday, Corzine says he was “stunned” to learn shortly before the firm sought bankruptcy protection at the end of October that MF Global could not account for the money.

“I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date,” the former MF Global chief executive says, according to the testimony.

Regulators pushed MF Global into bankruptcy court on Halloween after an effort to sell the troubled firm unraveled. The firm is now in liquidation.

The firm was required to keep clients’ money separated from its own. But more than $1.2 billion might be missing, the trustee overseeing the firm’s liquidation said last month. An attorney for the trustee reiterates that assessment in testimony submitted for Thursday’s hearing.

The FBI, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other authorities are investigating and have had difficulty figuring out what happened to the missing funds.

Meanwhile, the firm’s collapse has become a major disruption for customers and others who depended on MF Global.

The House Agriculture Committee, whose jurisdiction includes agricultural commodities and one of the federal agencies that regulates MF Global, subpoenaed Corzine to appear at a hearing Thursday on the firm’s bankruptcy. The committee turned down Corzine’s request to testify voluntarily in January, he says.

CONTINUED at the Washington Post.

*Taken from National Journal.

The Obama administration is in a race against the clock to close by month’s end more than a dozen renewable-energy loan guarantees totaling $9 billion. Of that, just over $3 billion would come from the federal government’s coffers.

It now has to do that amid an escalating political battle over a federally backed solar company spiraling into bankruptcy and facing an FBI probe. President Obama once praised the company, California-based Solyndra, as “the true engine of economic growth.”

At a House hearing Wednesday, there was bipartisan concern about risking more taxpayers’ dollars on renewable energy projects that ultimately fail. While Republicans’ rhetoric was more heated, Democrats agree it is a critical issue.

CONTINUED..