Luke_Wilbur

I personally feel that this decision may kill the industry and will be a major blow to the holiday industry. Growing Christmas Trees is like growing any other crop. It requires cultivating and harvesting. The only difference is that it is not harvested on the first year. During their average 10 year lifespan there is much observation occurring on the trees. Every June while we are shearing (shaping) our trees an inspector comes to our look for invasive insects and disease. Your decision will effect this service. Insects and disease will spread without being checked. During our Fall and Winter meetings members of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry Service come and discuss the latest farming techniques, pesticides, and insect and disease problems. Your decision will effect this service. In the spring Christmas Tree growers get their trees from the State Nursery run by the forestry department. Your decision will effect this. Christmas Tree Farmers have the ability to get crop insurance. Your decision will effect this. The extension service does free soil analysis for farmers to know what fertilizer and trees can be planted on their fields. You decision will affect this. I personally thought the Obama administration was about building a green economy in the USA. This decision will turn the Christmas Tree industry into an artificial tree made in China industry. All the carbon that is removed from the atmosphere during the growth cycle of the trees will be replace with plastic products made from fossil fuels. The FDR administration created the conservation corps to plant trees. What I see from this decision is Agriculture and Forestry employees losing jobs. And Christmas Tree growers having to sell their businesses to land developers or to the lumber and coal industry.

I just got this message from the National Christmas Tree Association On March 17, Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it intends to suspend the changes that it made in the new H-2A regulations that took effect on Jan. 17, 2009 (new rules) for nine months. Assuming that DOL decides to suspend the new rules after the public comment period, it would reinstate the rules in effect on Jan. 16, 2009 (the old rules). The rationale given by DOL for its abrupt action is that that it lacks the resources to implement the new H-2A rules; that it lacks an automated processing system; and it hasn't been able train staff adequately to handle the new procedures, all of which are contributing to application processing delays. DOL also states that it may disagree with the policy positions taken by the Bush Administration that are reflected in the new rules, especially in view of the current domestic unemployment rates. For these reasons, DOL claims that it needs to suspend the new rules so that it can evaluate them. Suspension of the new regulations would adversely affect Christmas tree status, which is defined under the new regulations as agricultural if Christmas trees are produced through the application of extensive agricultural or horticulture techniques. Christmas trees are only considered as forestry if they are grown in the wild under the new regulations. HOW DO I SUBMIT COMMENTS? All comments must be submitted by Friday, March 27. Comments may be submitted online or mailed to (but must arrive by Friday): http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/comp...9000064809180fc Here is the notice and old rules: Sections 780.205, 780.201 and 788.10 of the old regulations treat Christmas tree production as forestry and exclude it from the agricultural definition. Thus, workers employed in Christmas tree production and harvesting would have to be paid overtime under the old rules. By suspending the new rule, DOL would restore the inequity that it eliminated when it recognized the agricultural status of Christmas trees. Some agricultural organizations may file a lawsuit within the next week seeking a restraining order under the Administrative Procedure Act prohibiting DOL from suspending the new rules. It is impossible to predict the outcome of such litigation. Meanwhile, it is important for agricultural organizations affected by the proposed suspension to share their views with the agency about the proposed suspension and potential reopening of rulemaking during the ten day comment period. The notice asks that comments be limited to the suspension itself, or issues that have arisen since the new rule's publication, rather than specific comments on the old or new rules. Thomas Dowd, Administrator Office of Policy Development and Research Employment and Training Administration U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room N-5641 Washington, DC 20210 Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB55

U3, U7 and Giant Robot have to battle a strange reddish bloblike substance.

Johnny is given the title "U7." In this episode Giant Robot faces the Nucleon and damages it with his hand missles. But, this is only a diversion. View the video at YouTube.

Anyone remember watching Johnny Sokko? This was the first show I watched coming home from school. Johnny Sokko gets shipwrecked on a island and finds a secret base where he meets Dr. Lucius Guardian. The scientist has built a indestructible nuclear powered robot that is controlled by a miniature transmitter built into a wristwatch. Dr. Guardian gives Johnny the robot to protect the planet from the Gargoyle Gang. Here is the intro video.

On November 10, 2008, AIG and the FRBNY established Maiden Lane III, a financing entity, to purchase the securities underlying certain CDS contracts from the counterparties to such contracts, allowing the cancellation of the contracts. Attachment B lists payments made by Maiden Lane III to such counterparties. Municipalities in the states listed on Attachment C received a total of $12.1 billion from AIGFP between September 16, 2008 and December 31, 2008 in satisfaction of Guaranteed Investment Agreement (GIA) obligations. GIAs are structured investments with a guaranteed rate of return. Municipalities typically use GIAs to invest the proceeds from bond issuances until the funds are needed. Public aid was also used to satisfy obligations to financial counterparties related to AIG’s securities lending operations. Securities lending counterparties listed on Attachment D received $43.7 billion from September 18, 2008 to December 31, 2008. AIG Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward M. Liddy said that the counterparty and collateral information show that billions in government assistance flowed to dozens of financial counterparties and municipalities during a time of acute stress in the economy. Mr. Liddy emphasized that AIG’s disclosure of the counterparties does not change AIG’s commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of its business transactions. “Our decision to disclose these transactions was made following conversations with the counterparties and the recognition of the extraordinary nature of these transactions,” Mr. Liddy said. Collateral Postings Under AIGFP CDS The collateral amounts reflected in Schedule A represent funds provided by AIG to the counterparties indicated after September 16, 2008, the date on which AIG began receiving government assistance. Societe Generale - $4.1 Billion Deutsche Bank - 2.6 Billion Goldman Sachs - 2.5 Billion Merrill Lynch - 1.8 Billion Calyon - 1.1 Billion Barclays - 0.9 Billion UBS - 0.8 Billion DZ Bank - 0.7 Billion Wachovia - 0.7 Billion Rabobank - 0.5 Billion KFW - 0.5 Billion JPMorgan - 0.4 Billion Banco Santander - 0.3 Billion Danske - 0.2 Billion Reconstruction Finance Corp - 0.2 Billion HSBC Bank - 0.2 Billion Morgan Stanley - 0.2 Billion Bank of America - 0.2 Billion Bank of Montreal - 0.2 Billion Royal Bank of Scotland - 0.2 Billion Other - 4.1 Billion Total Collateral Postings - $22.4 Billion AIG has used the balance of the public aid it received during that time period for other purposes, including the funding of Maiden Lane II and III, debt repayment and capital support for some of its businesses. The counterparties received additional collateral from AIG prior to this date, and AIG’s SEC report relating to ML III reflects the aggregate amount of collateral that counterparties were entitled to retain pursuant to the terms of the ML III transaction. Maiden Lane III Payments to AIGFP CDS Counterparties Deutsche Bank - $2.8 Billion Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg - 0.1 Billion Wachovia - 0.8 Billion Calyon - 1.2 Billion Rabobank - 0.3 Billion Goldman Sachs - 5.6 Billion Société Générale - 6.9 Billion Merrill Lynch - 3.1 Billion Bank of America - 0.5 Billion The Royal Bank of Scotland - 0.5 Billion HSBC Bank USA - 0.0 Billion (amounts round out to zero) Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank - 1.0 Billion Dresdner Bank AG - 0.4 Billion UBS - 2.5 Billion Barclays - 0.6 Billion Bank of Montreal - 0.9 Billion Total $27.1 Billion AIG’s original problem – an over-reliance on U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in its investment portfolios – has now been deepened by weakness in the commercial mortgage-backed securities market, the global real estate market, the global equities market, slowing business and consumer spending activity and the concomitant demand for higher liquidity by regulators and customers around the world. Maiden Lane LLC Following is the introduction to the Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.4.1 (Factors Affecting Reserve Balances) For Release at 4:30 P.M. Eastern time July 3, 2008 The Board's H.4.1 statistical release, "Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks," has been modified to include information related to Maiden Lane LLC, a limited liability company formed to facilitate the arrangements associated with JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s acquisition of Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. On June 26, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) extended credit to Maiden Lane LLC under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This limited liability company was formed to acquire certain assets of Bear Stearns and to manage those assets through time to maximize repayment of the credit extended and to minimize disruption to financial markets. Payments by Maiden Lane LLC from the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings will be made in the following order: operating expenses of the LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to JPMorgan Chase & Co., and interest due to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Any remaining funds will be paid to the FRBNY. Consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, the assets and liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC have been consolidated with the assets and liabilities of the FRBNY in the preparation of the statements of condition shown on the release because the FRBNY is the primary beneficiary of Maiden Lane LLC. The consequences of this consolidation appear on the release in the following ways. The extension of credit from the FRBNY to Maiden Lane LLC is eliminated as is the accrued interest on this loan. The net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC appear as an asset on the statement of condition of the FRBNY (table 5), the consolidated statement of condition of all Federal Reserve Banks (table 4), and factors affecting reserve balances of depository institutions (table 1). The liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC to entities other than the FRBNY are included in "other liabilities and capital" in table 1 and in "other liabilities and accrued dividends" in table 4 and table 5. Information on the LLC is presented separately in the newly created table 2, "Information on Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane LLC." This table presents the fair value of the net portfolio holdings of the LLC along with the book value of the outstanding principal of the loan extended by the FRBNY, the book value of accrued interest payable to the FRBNY, and the book value of outstanding principal and accrued interest on the loan payable to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Information pertaining to fair values will be updated quarterly. Following is a note for the new table (2) now dedicated to "Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane LLC" Note: On June 26, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) extended credit to Maiden Lane LLC under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. This limited liability company was formed to acquire certain assets of Bear Stearns and to manage those assets through time to maximize repayment of the credit extended and to minimize disruption to financial markets. Payments by Maiden Lane LLC from the proceeds of the net portfolio holdings will be made in the following order: operating expenses of the LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to JPMorgan Chase & Co., and interest due to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Any remaining funds will be paid to the FRBNY. Source: http://www.maidenlanellc.com/ Information on Principal Accounts of Maiden Lane III LLC http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

Tell that to Congressman David Wu. Read his release below. China invests in U.S. treasuries because it is the safest place to gain interest on their money. My credit is not the greatest, but the bank gave me a loan to buy a tractor with a backhoe and a loader. I appreciate the fact that this loan will greatly help out my farm. The Eagle is waking up.

United States v. Bernard L. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC). United States v. Bernard L. Madoff has been assigned to United States District Judge Denny Chin. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. On March 10, 2009, a Criminal Information was filed in Manhattan federal court charging Bernard L. Madoff with eleven felony charges including securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, false statements, perjury, false filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and theft from an employee benefit plan. There is no plea agreement between the Government and the defendant. On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to all eleven counts in the Information. Madoff faces a statutory maximum sentence of 150 years’ incarceration.Madoff is also subject to mandatory restitution and faces fines up to twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offenses. The Criminal Information also includes forfeiture allegations which would require Madoff to forfeit the proceeds of the charged crimes, as well as all property involved in the money laundering offenses and all property traceable to such property. The COURT: Mr. Madoff, would you state your full name for the record please. THE DEFENDANT: Bernard L. Madoff THE COURT: And how old are you, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Seventy years old. THE COURT: And what is your highest level of schooling? THE DEFENDANT: I graduated Hofstra University, attended one year at Brooklyn Law School. THE COURT: Are you now or have you recently been under the care or treatment of a doctor or psychiatrist? THE DEFENDANT: No, I have not. THE COURT: Have you ever been hospitalized for any mental illness or any type of addiction, including drug or alcohol addiction? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: In the past 24 hours have you taken any drugs, medicine, or pills, or have you drunk any alcohol? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: Is your mind clear today? THE DEFENDANT: Yes THE COURT: And are you feeling all right today? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Now, you have been represented in this matter by Mr. Sorkin? THE DEFENDANT: Correct. THE COURT: And are you satisfied with his representation of you so far? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am. THE COURT: And do you understand that we are here today to consider the potential conflicts of interest that Mr. Sorkin may have in representing you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Now, there are two areas. I guess there's a third area which I will be mentioning, but in particular there are two areas. The first, as I understand it, is that in the 1990s, Mr. Sorkin represented Frank Avellino, Michael Bienes and their accounting firm, Avellino & Bienes. Did Mr. Sorkin discuss this with you? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, he did. THE COURT: And I gather you've also discussed it with Mr. Chavkin? THE DEFENDANT: I have. THE COURT: And have you had enough time to discuss this matter with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin? THE DEFENDANT: I have. THE COURT: Now, this representation by Mr. Sorkin of Avellino and Bienes was in connection with a civil case brought against them by the Securities and Exchange Commission. And as I understand it, the matter was settled in 1993. You are aware of these facts? THE DEFENDANT: I am. THE COURT: And, Mr. Sorkin, your representation of them terminated when? MR. SORKIN: At the time that the -- I believe the consent injunction was filed. I thought it was '92, maybe '93, but that was the end of my representation. THE COURT: Whether it was '92 or '93, that was it? MR. SORKIN: That was it, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, Mr. Madoff, as I understand it, you had a long-standing business relation with both Mr. Avellino and Mr. Bienes, is that true? THE DEFENDANT: That's true. THE COURT: And after Avellino & Bienes dissolved, you or your company took on some of their clients, is that true. THE DEFENDANT: Correct, yes. THE COURT: Now, these facts create a potential conflict of interest because if this matter were to go to trial, it is possible that the government might call Mr. Avellino or Mr. Bienes to testify as witness against you. Do you understand that that is the possibility? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: And no one can say with any certainty at this point whether these former clients of Mr. Sorkin would be called to testify if the case were to go to trial. But, if that were to happen Mr. Sorkin might be limited in his ability to defend you. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: Because he might have limitations on his ability to cross-examine them because they would be his former clients. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And the fact that Mr. Sorkin previously represented these individuals and their company could cause him to have divided loyalties between you and these potential witnesses. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: And, for example, the communications that Mr. Sorkin had with his former clients while he was representing them would be priviledged by the -- covered by the attorney-client privlege. And unless they waive that privilege, he would no be able to use any of that information that he gained while representing them in his efforts to defend you. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: Because of his prior representation, Mr. Sorkin might not be permitted to cross-examine his former clients were they to testify against you. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you understand that these are only examples, and that it is possible that other scenarios might unfold where Mr. Sorkin's prior representation of these individuals could ask -- adversely affect his ability to represent you in this case? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: Now, so that I can be sure that you understand, would you tell me in your own words what you understand this potential conflict to be. THE DEFENDANT: Well, I understand that if there were -- if there was a trial, and if these gentlemen were called as witnesses, then Mr. Sorkin would be limited in revealing any confidential client privileged information, attorney-client privilege information he may have. I also realize that he might not be -- he would not be able to cross-examine them. I do realize that if that were to arise, I could have an independent counsel cross-examine them, and that he would have to be available immediately, providing the Court allow that to occur. I understand that his -- he might have compromised interests because his son -- sons had a -- THE COURT: Well, let's hold off on the son's for a moment. I'll come to that in a bit. All right. I'm satisfied you understand the potential conflict with respect to the former client, so let's turn to the second area of potential conflict. As I understand it, at some point Mr. Sorkin's parents had invested approximately $900,000.00 with your company, the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. And as I understand it, when Mr. Sorkin's parents died, the $900,000.00 investment was transferred into trust accounts that had been established for the benefit of Mr. Sorkin's sons. I understand that Mr. Sorkin himself never had a benificial interest in the funds, and that further, the funds were transferred to Merrill Lynch in approximately August of 2007. You are aware of these facts? THE DEFENDANT: I am. THE COURT: And you've discussed them with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin? THE DEFENDANT: I have. THE COURT: And have you had enough time to discuss this matter with both Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Chavkin? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Now, as I understand it, Mr. Sorkin's sons did not lose any money because the full $900,000.00 was transferred to Merrill Lynch in 2007. But there is a possibility that the Court appointed trustee from Madoff Securities could bring litigation against Mr. Sorkin's sons to try to undo this transfer, to try and bring the moneys back into a larger pot for victims. In other words, it is possible the trustees could sue Mr. Sorkin's sons to get the money back, and if the trustee were to do this, then it is possible that they then would turn around and sue you. Do you understand that is a possibility? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: And if that were to happen, then Mr. Sorkin's loyalties could be divided between you and his sons. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: For example, these divided loyalties could possibly affect the way Mr. Sorkin represented you in challenging any requests by the government for restitution or fpr fines. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: These divided loyalties could affect Mr. Sorkin's representation of you with respect to arguments that he might make to the Court at sentencing, should you be convicted, or as to decisions as what witness to call or what evidence to present, should there be a hearing required for sentencing or should there be a trial required. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: Okay. So now, so that I can be sure you understand, tell me in your own words what you understand this potential conflict to be. THE DEFENDANT: I understant that potentially in the issue of restitution, his interests would be divided or might be divided and the he might no defend me in a way that's most beneficial to me. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SORKIN: Your Honor, may I just make one -- respectfully, your Honor said the trust account was transferred. The only point I wanted to make is the trust account was closed to Bernard L. Madoff on my mother's death, and then the money was transferred out. THE COURT: All right. The accounts were closed first and the moneys? MR. SORKIN: First, and then the money was transferred out, the one account was closed and the accounts -- the account was transferred out. Thank you.

Why not give banks vouchers that expire in six months? When the banks actually give credit to small business and consumers then they can give the Federal Reserve or the Department of Treasury the vouchers in return for taxpayer money. That way we can track our taxpayer money like the stock market.

I truly believe that improving public confidence is one of the necessary conditions to overcome the present woes. I understand that there are still concerns about capital, asset quality, and credit risk that continue to limit the willingness of many banks to extend credit, notwithstanding the access of these firms to central bank liquidity. I am not going to focus on the bad points of what is happening during this period. They are well understood by many. Rather I want to start focusing on the positive developments. The Obama administration Budget expands lending in underserved neighborhoods by doubling funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. Through merit-based grant programs, the CDFI Fund helps locally based financial institutions offer small business, consumer and home loans in communities and populations that lack access to affordable credit. The Budget supports: $17.5 billion in guarantees under the Section 7(a) Guaranteed Loan program, an important source of credit for small businesses; $7.5 billion in guaranteed debentures in the Section 504 Guaranteed Loan Program, providing Certified Development Companies financing to support commercial real estate development; $3 billion in authority for the Small Business Investment Company debenture program; and $25 million in Microloan volume, allowing intermediaries to provide small loans and technical assistance to entrepreneurs and other start-up businesses. In addition, the Administration’s Small Business and Community Bank Lending Initiative will expand small business credit availability and affordability by unfreezing the secondary markets for small business loans—as part of the larger plan to revive the flow of credit in the Nation’s economy. New Basic FDIC Deposit Insurance Limits for Common Ownership Types* Single Accounts (owned by one person) $250,000 per owner Joint Accounts (two or more persons) $250,000 per co-owner IRAs and other certain retirement accounts $250,000 per owner Revocable Trust (ITF/POD) Accounts $250,000 per owner per beneficiary subject to specific limitations and requirements Corporation/Partnership/Organization Accounts $250,000

The one tragic flaw of the Freedom of Speech is that you can use words that effect the masses. My dad used to say "Son, if you look for the bad in the world you will find it. Now, if you look for the good in the world you will find that too. It is up to you to decide where you want to look." I choose to believe that our country is going to be alright. I am working to make sure my family is happy and healthy.

Video is over 8 minutes long, but intriguing to see how nature plays out

In this time of budget constraints how is it possible that the Postmaster General is receiving $867,459 annually in compensation, as reported by the Postal Regulatory Commission. His salary jumped nearly 39 percent from 2006. These steps include: Eliminating $5.9 billion in costs through fiscal year 2010, including the reduction of 100 million workhours this year, doubling last year’s efforts. In quarter one, almost 27 million workhours were reduced compared to the same period last year. Other cost-containment efforts include freezing the salaries of all Postal Service officers and executives at 2008 pay levels, reducing travel budgets, and halting all construction of new postal facilities. Requesting Congress to provide legislative assistance by adjusting a portion of the payment requirements of more than $7 billion a year for retiree health benefits (no tax subsidy is requested) and by providing the Board with the authority to adjust the number of delivery days, if necessary, based on mail volume. Working with the National Association of Letter Carriers to implement a new process to evaluate and adjust delivery routes to help achieve workhour reduction targets. Maximizing operational efficiency by pursuing efforts to consolidate some excess capacity in mail processing and transportation networks while protecting service. Reducing employee complement through attrition and voluntary early retirement. The number of career employees at the end of the first quarter was down by 24,240 compared to the same time a year ago. Introducing new products and offering price and volume incentives to consumers and businesses. Last year’s creation of a new Mailing and Shipping Service division is also helping to bring new products to market more quickly and effectively. “The Postal Service is an important public service and a vital economic engine. We are focused on identifying and implementing strategic solutions to ensure the Postal Service continues to deliver for Americans today and for future generations,” Potter assured the Board. In other action, the Board voted today to give the Postal Service the authority to engage in long-term borrowing. The action will provide the Postal Service with added flexibility in its debt management. Board Election Also at today’s meeting, Carolyn Lewis Gallagher was elected chairman and Louis J. Giuliano was elected vice chairman of the Board. Gallagher previously served as vice chairman and was appointed a governor by former President George W. Bush in 2004. She is the former CEO of Texwood Furniture, Inc., and has served on numerous private and public sector boards as well as on the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service. Giuliano, appointed to the Board in June 2006, is the former chairman, CEO and president of ITT Corp. and currently serves on the board of the John Maneely Company and is a senior advisor to The Carlyle Group. How about the Executive taking a pay cut??? The Postal Service is investigating whether Potter improperly received a sweetheart deal on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp.

Beware of this message. The person is trying to phish for your identity.

You will never be alone Joe. We all love you very much.

Actually there is nothing funny about someone's death. Also, making a joke at the expense of a well known journalist who is in no way related to the crime is just plain bad taste. In respect to the late Mr. Rees I would put no credibility or seriousness in a user that has the priest from the movie "Exorcist" as his avatar.

This another example how fault should be blamed on both sides aisle. Republicans always use Barney Frank as a punching bag. But they fail to mention how they promised to fillibuster the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. A Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) might have stemmed this financial catastrophe. Congress was run by the GOP for the last 4 years of Clinton administration and 6 of the 8 of Bush administration. House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 In my opinion there was way to loose lending practices by Sub prime institutions, Greenspan should never had kept the interest rates down that low. He made the same mistake with the Tech bubble. Also, there was way to little regulation in the hedge fund market. Both sides also blame the S.E.C, but they never give it the powers it really needs. You need to also understand how Phill Graham’s "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made loans more accessible to lower-income borrowers. Then you need to understand the Phil Graham's Enron Loophole provision in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Which basically deregulated energy trading causing high gas prices in 2007. I personally think everyone should get a 4.7 percent interest on the mortgage. That would make everyone happy and possibly stimulate our economy. http://mediamatters.org/items/200902190010 According to Media Matters In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.

The Archdiocese of Washington has launched a new online parish directory. Search by parish name, county, zipcode, language, Mass time, priest name and more. http://directory.adw.org/directory

Just to be clear this problem stems from the corruption of both sides of the aisle. My friend sent me this video. I am going to have to research it more.

"The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect." - Bill Clinton Economists credit former Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, in ending the United States' economic crisis of the 1970s. President Reagan's economic policy had the U.S. government borrowing and spending exploded. I give him credit on outspending the Soviet Union on defense that caused their economy collapse trying to keep up. But, our national debt climbed from $1 trillion to $3 trillion by the time he left office. Today, financial trillions of dollars worth of transactions take place in markets beyond effective government oversight and supervision. In order for President Obama to be successful he needs to restore confidence in our government and our markets with the American public. Even Republican Senators: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter stated publicly that they support the bill. We will lose $2 trillion worth of worker output over the next two years if we do nothing.

You do not think investment in transportation infrastructure makes a great deal of sense? Most of it was built in the 1950's and now is in decay. Across the nation, over seventy thousand bridges (or 12 percent of all bridges) have been designated as structurally deficient. Remember the Mississippi River Bridge collapse? Imagine the same thing happening where we live. Did you know in the State of Maryland 129 bridges are classified as structurally deficient. A well functioning and modernized transportation sector will be an important part of improving America's future productivity and energy security. More importantly it preserves transportation jobs. You can't give tax cuts to the unemployed.

Head Office is located Markham, Ontario, Canada. The company states that it has been founded by leading experts in Internet technology, industry veterans with software automation expertise and cost efficient business processes. The problem is that all the programmers are from Pakistan and have difficulty understanding what you actually need. I wanted to test out the market to see how they compare to American programmers. There is no comparison. I tried to speak with the owner, Paul Popper, about the problem. He refused to answer and hung up on me. 60 Columbia Way, Ste 300 Markham ON L3R 0C9 Canada Contact 6343058 Canada Inc +1 416 520 4746, Fax: +1 416 531 5584 678-369-0634

The Senate has just voted to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1 as Amended ) Vote Number: 61 Vote Date: February 10, 2009, 12:27 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: H.R. 1 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ) Measure Title: A bill making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 61 YEAs ---61 Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) NAYs ---37 Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS) Not Voting - 1 Gregg (R-NH)

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide how the “new” Iraq’s oil revenue could be held liable in the U.S. for the actions committed by Saddam Hussein. The high court will review a decision by a federal appeals court which gave Americans allegedly held or otherwise harmed by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s the right to sue him in U.S. courts, Greg Stohr reports for Bloomberg News. In 2003, President Bush and the U.N. Security Council issued orders giving immunity to Iraq’s revenue – nearly all of it oil proceeds – as well as leftover funds from the Oil for Food program and Saddam’s seized assets. The immunity is intended to keep creditors of the former regime from taking Iraq’s revenue as the country attempts to rebuild. The funds are collected in an account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and monitored by an international oversight board, a move to ensure the funds aren’t misused and to ensure transparency. Iraq’s Ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, issued this statement following the Supreme Court decision:

I actually think that is a useful tool. It requires consent, so I have no issue with it. A hammer is a useful tool, but one can do harm with it.