This is a travesty of justice

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/22/pennsylvania-judge-sentenced-for-28-years-for-selling-kids-to-the-prison-system/

Nothing but greed and disregard for human life.

America is imploding on itself and putting the nation at risk

Loose lips sink ships. These Americans who are spouting off to the world what their country is up to are just little tools in the palms of nations with people who can outwit and outsmart any American. These kids with their rights and democracy cards waving like some kind of a wand do not have a clue as to what is going on in front of them. They have been raised too protected and maybe it’s time that Americans live like the rest of the world – because these people who are talking their heads off need common sense which is in limited supply these days.

The countries that want to adopt these renegades have some of the worst human rights abuses and keep their nations under constant surveillance. They are just going to extract from these fools as much information as possible to use against Americans. Why not, if this is the type of people Americans are raising with freedom in their heads then maybe this wake up call is appropriate
I am sick at what Americans are doing to Americans. We put too much weight on freedom and democracy and only these western countries are free while the rest of the world run super protective regimes. You don't hear non-western countries betrying their people like Americans... Why? In the majority of the countries in the world freedom is limited and you do not see people from those countries sharing top secrets with enemy nations. They hate Americans because it gives too much freedom to its people. I believe in freedom and democracy and I believe in having to gibve up some of this freedom for the greater good of my people. It is selfish of people like Snowden who jeopardize the lives of millions. These people deserves to live in regimes where freedom is very curtailed like Venezuela and thsoe other Latinamerican countries. No one should try to bring these renegades back because they can never ever be trusted as a citizen again.

I think when someone betrays his nation like Snowden did he should be stripped on his citizenship.

Was there no other option for him? Couldn't he have asked for an audience with the President to express his concern and try to solve the problem or at least make an effort. To put one's country in harm's way like this is unthinkable. Does Snowden realize that America is one of the most hated countries in the world and there are those who would want to do serious harm to the country and its citizens. Many see American democracy as a threat to dictators everywhere so this is like a god sent reason to blow off America.




Cuban citizens would not dare to do that to their country. Fidel Castro would have executed swift justice, China also would not nor any of these countries that are showing a willingness to hide this misguided young man. He needs to be return to America to face the American justice system. If he would betray his country and his people would he have sympathy for people in worst situation, would he be able to hold his tongue when a Cuban talks about how frustrated they are with a government that controls everything they do or would he expose Cuba, Russia or Ecuador as well.These countries are not known for their generosity in terms of individual freedoms and rights.



Watch out, this is a hot potato. This is a publicity stund by Snowden. He's waiting for the million dollar movie and book-deal. He should not be allowed to profit from his criminal behaviour.

http://www.alternet.org/where-edward-snowden-whistleblower-did-not-board-flight-cuba?akid=10618.35630.7Mctoh&rd=1&src=newsletter859713&t=21

Americans are all about Show Business

I sometimes have to shake my head when I read about the insanity of a nation that claims to want democracy. For every freedom you earn there is responsibility, there is something you have to be prepared to give up. Americans appear to live in the fairyland of Waltz Disney where there is a happy ending somewhere beyond the rainbow or something like that.

This  Edward Snowdown fellow might think he is doing Americans a favour by blabbing his mouth about what the CIA is doing. This is the kind of insanity that the terrorists depend upon. They know what fools we are and that some idiot will dream of himself being written about, going down in history as a hero or some such thing.

Most of the time the average Americans carry on mindless chatter on TV, internet, FB and so on - who in their right mind would want to listen to such  diatribe? Those of us who have nothing to hide do not mind the inconvenience if it means that more criminals would be caught. It is when you have something to hide that meaningful intrustions such as tapping into to conversations of people of interest would generate a furor. Do not cover criminals under the cloak of freedom and democracy.

Come on Americans, do you want to be safe or caught with your pants down by people who want to harm you and your children. Instead of worrying about democracy and freedom for criminals to get away with murder we might as well start talking about the criminals in our backyards with guns and bullets ready to take you down and your entire family. America wake up! This is not la la land. Trust President Obama, he is not George Bush. He has your best interest at heart. I totally support this administration because it has proven itself. There are no hidden agendas.

Edward Snowdown is just another Americans who is trying to get famous or infamous. Don't let him persuade you to leave yourself wide open to terrorist actions.  Or could it be he was a person of interest and was sure to be exposed? Let the CIA do its work in protecting us.

Edward Snowdown is a criminal and his fate needs to be decided by a court of law. He has betrayed his country in the worst way. Whoever this guy is I do not trust him. He is dangerous. As far as I am concerned this is treason.

American's Finance Secrets

The Great Comeback No One Will Believe


By Chris Mayer

[This article originally appeared in The Daily Reckoning in February of 2012]

Something surprising stirs in the US economy. Something no mainstream pundit would’ve dared predict. Something most people probably won’t believe.
US manufacturing is staging a comeback.
Caterpillar, the world’s largest maker of earth-moving equipment, gave us some tangible confirmation in the latest earnings roundup. Based on the business it sees, Cat expects US construction spending will increase in 2012 for the first time since 2004. And Eaton, another large industrial, followed that up by saying it expects its markets to grow faster in the US in 2012 than anywhere else. If it plays out that way, it would be the first time since the mid-2000s that the US led the way.

These are the first robins of spring. Forget the official data. This is real economics. As hard as it may be to believe, US manufacturing is coming back. There are other clues.



A new report by Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate services firm, points out that new leases for industrial property “returned to levels not seen since prior to the 2008-09 recession.” Tenants signed new leases for 306 million square feet, up 14% from a year ago and the most space signed since 2007.


What drives leases for industrial space? Let Jim Dieter, an EVP at Cushman & Wakefield answer: “Manufacturing is the main driver within the industrial landscape.” Busy factories mean more rail and truck flow. It means fuller warehouses. It means looking for more space.
How to explain this? Isn’t China eating America’s lunch?


I found a recent paper by Reynders, McVeigh Capital Management that points to a few reasons for the sudden revival that jibe with what I’ve heard from the companies themselves. The report is called “Workforce Rising: Why US Manufacturing Is Poised for a Comeback.”



One is that the wage gap is shrinking. It isn’t that much cheaper to move to, say, China anymore. The nearby chart nicely sums up what’s happening. As wages have gone gonzo in China, its wage edge melts away. US manufacturing wages were 22 times that of China’s in 2005. Today, that wage gap is under 10 times and likely will be under five by 2015. (See the chart below.)






Transportation costs figure into this too and cut further into China’s advantage. As the price of oil has stayed north of $100 a barrel, the cost to ship anything is high. As author Jeff Rubin says, “With every dollar increase in the price of the bunker fuel that powers the containerships that ply the Pacific, China’s wage advantage becomes less and less important.”

So those are two reasons for the manufacturing revival in the US. There are two more compelling reasons that have to do with what’s in the ground. Let’s start with one of my favorites: water.

In a world where fresh water is scarce, such as in China and India, the US remains water-rich by comparison. Around the world, “Many regions are already approaching ‘peak water,’ a condition under which usage rates surpass the natural rate of replenishment,” the authors write. “Importantly for the manufacturing sector, the US is home to the largest reserves of water on the planet.”

People in the US tend to ignore this lucky circumstance. Manufacturers don’t. They use lots of water to make everything from jet engines to minivans.

In addition to water, the US has plenty of cheap natural gas. As we’ve talked about before, this is bringing back firms that use natural gas to make things. The McVeigh report notes how Nucor began building a $750-million plant in Louisiana. It plans to superheat natural gas and mix it with scrap iron and iron ore pellets to make steel. If you burn natural gas, you want to be in the US.



Even the automakers are coming back. GM will invest $2.5 billion in US factories. Until recently, that money was going to Mexico. Ford signed a new contract that calls for $16 billion in US investments and 12,000 new jobs by 2015. The foreign automakers are coming too. Mercedes plans to spend $2.4 billion by 2014 to expand an Alabama plant that will add 1,400 jobs. You get the idea.



I like this whole story because it will surprise a lot of people and, hence, has some value as a contrarian observation. In September 2010 (letter No. 79), I wrote a letter with the headline “The USA — Still a Nation of Builders.” The main point, as I wrote then, was “to leave you with a different perception of American manufacturers. They are not like dinosaurs on their way to extinction. In fact, some of them are great investments.” I showed a number of ways in which US manufacturers were doing quite well.



The thesis landed with a thud. It was mostly ignored. If anything, I heard people tell me how it couldn’t be so. Nevertheless, I urged my subscribers at Capital & Crisis to buy Globe (NASDAQ:GSM), a low- cost US manufacturer, which went on to double.



A lot of investors will miss the opportunity to cash in on this rebound in American manufacturing, simply because the idea is so counter to what they think they know. When it’s obvious to everyone what’s going on, of course, it will no longer be a worthwhile investment theme. But for now, US manufacturers get little respect and offer a good pool of potential investment ideas.
Regards,
Chris Mayer

for The Penny Sleuth
[Editor’s Note: It’s often the case that some of the most profitable investing comes from being a contrarian. While the news headlines would make a U.S. revival seem unlikely, Capital and Crisis readers could have doubled their money on Chris’ recommendation mentioned above. But Chris didn’t mention something (maybe because he’s just a humble guy). He didn’t say that over the past two years, his readers have earned an average of 42% on his recommendations. If you want to get in on the same opportunity, without having to go through a long presentation, simply click here.]

The truth About Obama's Spending Habits

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.


As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.



• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor/2

American have a choice to make

Back to the Future: What's at Stake for the Economy in the Obama-Romney Contest?


Published: September 12, 2012 in Knowledge@Wharton

Share this Article

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing ServicesTo hear the two candidates tell it, the U.S. presidential election offers a dramatic choice on the economy: Vote for me, each says, if you want a robust recovery; pick my opponent, and we'll plunge back into recession.



But regardless of who wins, important economic factors will remain facts of life. Millions of American homeowners are "underwater," owing more than their homes are worth and weakening the consumer demand that is key to the economy. Employers, even if they are flush with money, won't hire more workers until they need them -- when demand rises or appears ready to.



The debt crisis in Europe resists a quick solution, and deficits and overhanging debt in the U.S. are too big to be whittled down very fast. These deficits will compete for federal revenue that could stimulate the economy through more spending or cuts in taxes.



Given the size of these problems, what is the most likely economic landscape to emerge after the election if President Barack Obama, a Democrat, wins, or if Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins?



Three Wharton faculty members say that, either way, the future is likely to look much like the present, for several years at least. "The notion in the political debate is that if you just do something a little bit differently, things will get much better. But it doesn't work like that," says Wharton finance professor Franklin Allen.



"It seems to me that one of the most depressing things about this campaign has been that it's more or less tit-for-tat, gotcha issues that have emerged, rather than any serious talk about what [the candidates] are going to do [regarding] the looming problems with the economy," says Wharton finance professor Richard J. Herring.



Whoever he is, the next president will face an immediate economic crisis, including the "fiscal cliff," tax increases and deep spending cuts that will kick in automatically unless Congress and the White House can agree on an alternative. The cliff is a result of a standoff in 2011 over raising the debt ceiling. "I think once the election's over, that's going to be the big issue," says Allen.



What if the Democrats, who support tax increases on the wealthy, and the Republicans, who do not, cannot agree, and the automatic provisions kick in? "I think it's quite likely that would lead to recession," Allen states, predicting that tax hikes and cuts in government spending would reduce gross domestic product by about 3%.



While both candidates say their policies would speed job creation, the problems run too deep to be resolved quickly, Allen adds. "It's become a much more serious problem than we have ever had in this country before," he says, arguing that many of today's unemployed will remain so unless they are retrained, a lengthy and expensive process that he says is currently inadequate.



Indeed, according to Allen, the current economic problems are unique in American history. The clearest analogy is Japan, which has been struggling for many years. What's the solution? "I don't think anybody really knows," Allen says.



A Divided Government



Obama proposes a continuation of the policies of his first term, which included efforts to stimulate the economy through federal spending and modest tax reductions focused mainly on people with low and middle-class incomes. He would allow the Bush-era tax cuts to lapse for people earning more than $250,000 a year, but would keep them for people earning less. He would stay the course with his health care overhaul -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare -- and would keep most of the regulations imposed on the financial services industry after the financial crisis.



Romney's most dramatic economic proposal is to reduce tax rates even below the Bush levels in effect today, while making up for the lost revenue by eliminating some unspecified deductions and tax loopholes. Romney wants to repeal parts of Obamacare and many of the financial regulations. He would loosen environmental regulations and, compared to Obama, place heavier emphasis on exploiting coal and oil.



While the candidates' economic philosophies and positions are dramatically different, neither is likely to engineer a sweeping policy change, says Herring. The reason: divided government.



Polls predict a close election, with neither contender's coattails long enough to ensure massive wins by his party's congressional candidates. The odds thus seem to favor a continued division in government, with neither party getting a veto-proof majority in Congress or a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate.



"We have to recognize the fact that whoever wins isn't going to get a huge, sweeping mandate to do whatever they want," Herring says. Severe problems undermining the economy are therefore likely to remain unsolved, including the decay of roads, bridges and other infrastructure, debt problems, the eventual insolvency of Medicare and American students' lagging educational achievements compared to other developed countries.



"The question is, what are they going to do on the margins?" Herring asks.



Federal tax policy is, as most agree, far too complex and confusing, Herring says. But neither candidate is likely to have the mandate it would take to change this, given the vested interests that would resist. While Romney, who has emphasized tax overhaul more than Obama, says he would strip out many deductions and loopholes, he has not said which ones, but has indicated he would not go after popular ones like the income tax deduction on mortgage interest.



'The Worst Possible Consequence'



The presidential campaign has also focused on two health care issues with significant impact on the economy: Obamacare, the 2010 law that overhauled medical insurance, and Medicare, the financially troubled health care entitlement program for the elderly.



Obama considers the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act his greatest achievement and has promised to preserve it, while Romney wants to repeal much of it and replace it with a plan that he has not fully detailed. With a continuation of divided government, Obamacare will likely survive, Herring predicts. "Romney has not clearly articulated a workable alternative, though heaven knows we don't really understand the thing we've got."



From an economic perspective, a key problem with Obamacare as written, says Herring, is the requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide health insurance. That has dampened the creation and growth of small businesses, which are the primary source of new jobs, he argues. Unemployment stands at just over 8%.



In the long run, problems with Medicare will have more economic impact than issues surrounding Obamacare, says Mark V. Pauly, professor of health care management at Wharton. By providing insurance to the previously uninsured, Obamacare will "give you a clean conscience," he jokes, "but Medicare will clean out your bank account. So, from an economic point of view, Medicare is much more consequential."



Both issues, Pauly says, create uncertainties that weaken business confidence, which in turn helps stifle economic growth. Many business people favor the Republican promise to repeal Obamacare, but worry about what would come next, while Obamacare's business mandates are a known quantity for now. "If Republicans win and I'm a business providing health insurance, I have a hard time knowing what to expect," Pauly notes.



In a similar way, Republicans have a more aggressive plan for reducing the Medicare funding shortfall by subsidizing participants who would shop for health insurance on the free market. But polls show that many Americans worry they would then end up shouldering more of their own health care costs in retirement, so it is unclear Republicans would push for all the changes they have proposed even if they swept the election.



On the other hand, says Pauly, Democrats have yet to propose a clear plan for preserving the current Medicare system for the long term, making the outlook unclear for future beneficiaries. "That kind of uncertainty, in the short run, is about the worst consequence of all the debate about health care," he says.



Divided government would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve problems with the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which has business-dampening features like heavy reporting requirements to multiple agencies, Herring says. One of that law's key goals was to prevent the need for future bailouts of financial services companies deemed "too big to fail," but there are serious questions about whether the Dodd-Frank safeguards would work, he adds.



The stock market, after plunging in 2008 amid the financial crisis, has recouped nearly all of its losses. But Herring notes that a key factor in this rebound was the Federal Reserve's efforts to keep interest rates low. Stocks may not do as well after these efforts end, as they must at some point. "We're clearly relying much too much on monetary policy," he says. "The Fed has basically been turning cartwheels" to bolster the markets and economy.



The alternative -- better fiscal policy to reduce the danger from factors like the federal government's huge deficits and debt -- seems unlikely given divided government, according to Herring. As things stand now -- and are likely to stand after the election -- major problems like the deficits, debt, growing health care costs and eventual insolvency of Medicare will be kicked down the road to be dealt with later, after they have become worse and the solutions more costly, he predicts. "If we actually wait until there's no choice, it's going to be very painful."



http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3076