"...[W]e found that BofA tapped an estimated $931 billion from the Fed in short term loans and government subsidies."
So, were those lots and lots of little loans? If so, it evokes a delicious fantasy: hordes of petty government bureaucrats robo-signing reams of default papers on B of A.
Bank of America is a criminal organization but without the Wikileaks' documents nothing will bring them down. The Fed will keep propping it up and the bank will keep mistreating it's customers and ruining countless lives.
I honestly wish whoever has these documents would release them to the public a soon as possible. I have put up with this banks neglect, so called mistakes that takes weeks on the phone to straighten out. I can imagine that most people have to earn a living and can't fight them the way I was able to do. Their "loan Modification" program was a joke which caused already hurting mortgage holders a great deal of grief.
I think a great many Americans are so tired of seeing crooked corporations get all the help from Washington (with our tax dollars) while the public is ignored that it would lift our spirits to see a modicum of justice. I won't be satisfied until the culprits who deregulated the banks get punished too. That includes a very long list of very high up people including formers presidents.
There should be little surprise about this activity, the founding "fathers" held from the beginning that the chief reason for the government was to serve and protect the interests of moneyed individuals, to protect the haves from the have-nots (read Federalist Paper 10). The country has always been the servant of the few moneyed elite, that is why I quite frankly am surprised about those who are surprised. All the Wikileaks release does is confirm what the government has done since its inception. The only reason why it ever listened to the people is because it was threatened, and any gains there has been for the people were conceived by the peoples own design - not because of the magnanimous nature of the government.
Go a hundred years into the future from the US creation and you will find this written by Wilson -
"Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market - the flag of the nation must follow him, and the doors which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions gained by finance must be safeguarded by ministers of state. Even if the sovereignty of the nations are outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained and planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused."
This is just more of the same, and any view you had of the government other than this, is just the nonsense you were taught in school.
I think the Army has a point. If you believe in heaven and God, you are probably more willing to be cannon fodder for your the high priests of the Nation-State. You are more compliant and less likely to think for yourself, so you are a better soldier.
I thought PRSA ethics committee handled this type of challenge within the society. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for its member(s) to investigate what happen, who did what to who, instead of the back and forth he said, she said? The real question is who threaten who with bodily harm during a public
meeting of an organization representing public relations nationwide. What the publics right to know violated in coverage of a meeting nonAPR or APR, doesn't matter. If we have an violent person representing PR members, its needs immediate attention by the ethics committee, the so called watchdog of the organization, correct?
There should be little surprise about this activity, the founding "fathers" held from the beginning that the chief reason for the government was to serve and protect the interests of moneyed individuals, to protect the haves from the have-nots (read Federalist Paper 10). The country has always been the servant of the few moneyed elite, that is why I quite frankly am surprised about those who are surprised. All the Wikileaks release does is confirm what the government has done since its inception. The only reason why it ever listened to the people is because it was threatened, and any gains there has been for the people were conceived by the peoples own design - not because of the magnanimous nature of the government.
Go a hundred years into the future from the US creation and you will find this written by Wilson -
"Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market - the flag of the nation must follow him, and the doors which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions gained by finance must be safeguarded by ministers of state. Even if the sovereignty of the nations are outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained and planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused."
This is just more of the same, and any view you had of the government other than this, is just the nonsense you were taught in school.
I think the Army has a point. If you believe in heaven and God, you are probably more willing to be cannon fodder for your the high priests of the Nation-State. You are more compliant and less likely to think for yourself, so you are a better soldier.
I thought PRSA ethics committee handled this type of challenge within the society. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for its member(s) to investigate what happen, who did what to who, instead of the back and forth he said, she said? The real question is who threaten who with bodily harm during a public
meeting of an organization representing public relations nationwide. What the publics right to know violated in coverage of a meeting nonAPR or APR, doesn't matter. If we have an violent person representing PR members, its needs immediate attention by the ethics committee, the so called watchdog of the organization, correct?
Pages