Due to that fact, there is a 'change' in the way this administration is transitioning its military leadership, Robert Gates will stay on to provide a smooth and protective transition in the first year of the Obama Presidency. It is a decent and patriotic act by Secretary Gates and I welcome his insight.
...U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he wants additional troops in place ahead of Afghanistan's national elections set for next year.
Gates also says the United States wants to move at least four combat brigades each having 3,500 to 5,000 soldiers into Afghanistan between now and early next year, to boost security amid a growing Taliban insurgency....
Maintaining consistent military leadership through the first year of transition will send a clear statement to al Qaeda. "We are a nation united in the determination to defeat terrorists networks and without pause we value the insight, known prowess and successful of Secretary Gates to date."
Keeping Secretary Gates in the cabinet will stop any estimation by terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda, that a change in the Executive Branch of the USA in 2009 equates into vulnerability. Consistency is a 'strong tool' in providing a united front against terrorists and their plans for the USA. It is the right decision and perhaps it will be a precedent that will carry forward after having proven its value to domestic harmony.
Regardless of the differences I may share with him, I thank him for his willingness to work with the Obama White House and loyalty to the country and citizens of the USA. For that I will always be grateful.
Volcker is an interesting choice.
He investigated the UN Oil for Food Program (click here) when it fell under speculation of wrong doing.
March 18, 2008, 11:06 pm
Volcker: Fed’s ‘Extreme’ Intervention ‘Raises Some Real Questions’ (click here - video)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said the Fed’s decision to lend money to Bear Stearns Cos. to keep it from collapsing is unprecedented and “raises some real questions” about whether that’s the appropriate role for the Fed. The wisdom of the decision depends on “how severe this crisis was and their judgment about the threat of demise of Bear Stearns,” Mr. Volcker said on the Charlie Rose Show on Tuesday evening. “That’s a judgment they had to make and an understandable judgment.” It is “absolutely” not “what you want for the longstanding regulatory support system.”...
Mr. Volcker has an interesting resume. He understands international relationships in regard to the USA economy AND the financial markets. He is methodical. He may very well be able to bring a view of the future based on the past that will provide stability in decision making. However, this is a unique set of circumstances to the global economy and while there are popularly qualified people involved in this economic 'restructuring' I strongly believe there is little to know in the way of defining success that conserves the well being of the USA dollar in relation to the country's recovery.
I beleive there are substantial facts in regard to this crisis that is yet to be known. One of the first acts by Mr. Volcker should be to establish a complete timeline to the demise of the USA economy dating back to the beginning of the current administration. If we recall, the USA had a treasury surplus at the end of the Clinton economy that the Bush White House inherited and squandered. No one can deny that. Bush's vision of the purpose of the USA economy is based in how it compliments foreign economies such as India and China, while providing a military that can conquer countries for their natural resources.
Mr. Volcker, along with the President-elect, has to 'define' the decline of the USA economy in regards to its loss in manufacturing and its embrace of low paying jobs serviced by huge chain stores that provide 'dirt cheap lifestyles' everywhere except the cost of energy and food. Plainly stated, "There is something very wrong here." I sincerely do not believe an answer to this crisis can be achieved through 'feeling the way' through it. It will not resolve by trial and error. There are answers to this crisis and it lies in the knowledge in understanding 'where it all went wrong.'
In this equation lies the international transactions between the USA and all the countries that have financed this travesty of 'responsible fiscal policy' regardless the country. Where did any country outside the USA ever have the insight to actually provide monies to hideous lending that resulted in subprime home lending? Why does the USA government have to now 'bailout' foreign banks and governments for undermining the good quality of lending the USA financial markets once held in esteem? Where did this insanity start, why and who is most responsible?
It is understandable to have lending relationships with other governments and foreign banks when it comes to financing war efforts that can't be handled at home or within the ability of the USA Treasury, at time of SINCERE national defense, it is quite another relationship for lending to the USA that saw annual rises in the USA debt ceiling providing the impetus to this entire MESS !
It was as if, Georgie Bush found a 'counterfit printing press' under his Christmas Treee in 2001 after the attacks of September 11th and the Bush/Cheney Culture of Fear and simply went to town printing dollar bills. Then blindly, the international financial markets lept to the occassion thinking that greed was an okay commodity in scalping the USA of its fiscal stability when Bush/Cheney declared illegal war against Iraq leaving the Brits and Canada to attempt a victory in Afghanistan. When the USA launched into war mongering and the Neocons were now at the helm of an out of control USA military it was as though the retaliation to stop the USA from embarking on WWWIII was to invade its fiscal characteristics that would eventually impune any further ability to invade ANY country, not just Iraq. So, the lending became a 'free for all' strategy and a way of maintaning control of the USA's ability 'to war.'
Along with its impuned ability 'to war' went the USA's sanity in consumer lending and it served to 'buoy' the 2004 elections for Bush. How convenient was that? I honestly don't believe it took a 'fiscal genius' to understand that the USA economy was on virtual collapse with increasing debt, diminished domestic economy and job losses and contracted ability to pay its debt or provide a new venue for economic growth. So, the international lending that has swallowed up a $700 billion bailout is doing what exactly, 'resetting the chronometers' in case they have to do it all over again? And I should consent to this? No.
And now I am to 'back' still more fiscal IRRESPONSIBILTY by "Hank" and seek for more permission to 'bailout' (click here) the entire mess to preserve Goldman Sachs infinately into tomorrow? No. Hank is really moarning his 14,000 DOW, isn't he?
...They said that after two euphoric days (click here), profit taking was only to be expected, especially after Monday when many European markets posted record single-day gains and Wall Street built another sharp advance.
Sentiment was then dented, however, after figures showed the US economy shrank 0.5 percent in the third quarter, revised up from 0.3 percent, alongside a record fall in US house prices.
The US data came after the OECD warned that the US economy will shrink 0.9 percent next year and voiced concerns over the deteriorating state of US public finances as the government borrows massively to fund its rescue plans.
The US long-term fiscal outlook appears "very unfavourable" and the United States is on course to be "among the most heavily indebted of OECD countries" in the next decade, the OECD said....
The ONLY reality that matters for the future administration and its majority House and Seante is to set the USA back on a path of prosperity by 'restructuring' the energy and transportation industries in the USA while expanding and improving the tax base of the country. To that end the citizens of the USA need to 'set their sights' on financing their own futures, because with Paulson's printing press running on near empty I doubt if there will be much 'value' left to finance a new USA labor market.
In regard to the NEXT $800 billion, I have one question.
"Are the mortgages financed herewith REQUIRING citizenship papers or birth certificates at the time of closing?"
Because if it isn't required, the people 'qualifying' for these loans aren't sovereign Americans and the nation won't know the success of improving the lives of Americans, so much as simply 'selling real estate.'
