DebateGate

'For all practical purposes the markets are closed right now'
by Jerome a Paris
Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:10:52 PM PDT
Banks Delay Sale Of Chrysler Debt As Market Stalls

Wall Street's corporate-debt machine has helped to finance the increasingly exotic takeover deals of the buyout boom and to shore up some of the nation's ailing industries with cheap loans and bonds. Now, that machine is sputtering.

Yesterday, Chrysler Group became a signpost for the high-yield-debt market's strain as bankers for the ailing auto giant postponed a $12 billion sale of debt to investors as part of a buyout severing Chrysler from German parent DaimlerChrysler AG.

(...)

"For all practical purposes the markets are closed right now," said Chad Leat, co-head of Global Credit Markets at Citigroup.
Jerome a Paris's diary :: ::
While you've certainly heard of the big drop in the Dow Jones in the past two days, and probably heard that the housing market keeps on getting worse, the most ominous news are actually coming from a distinct part of the financial markets - leveraged debt.

That particular market, as suggests the quote I used in the title of the diary, is undergoing a dramatic change in mood as bankers, which had been bending over backwards to lend ever more money at ever more favorable conditions have suddenly decided that this was not a good idea and are brutally turning off the taps. Deals such as the huge $12 billion financing for the purchase of Chrysler by Cerberus have been cancelled - or, to be more precise, the syndication of these deals has been killed, which means that the client will still get the money, but the banks that structured the deal initially and underwrote the loans (i.e. they committed to lending the money) won't be able to share that risk with others on the market and are stuck with it. For those deals already underwritten, the victims are the banks that did the deal; for deals not yet underwritten, the client won't see any money.

That market matters, as it is the one that has been feeding the private equity boom, i.e. the increasingly aggressive purchases of companies by funds which were able to bid high prices precisely because they could find cheap and easy finance. That boom had fuelled the increase in stock market prices (with the price of targetted companies aften jumping on such deals, and many others going up on speculation that they could be purchased) and in the price of many other assets - simply because buyers had lots of money.

It's the same kind of market that lent money to subprime lenders for them to on-lend to clients borrowing to buy overpriced houses (in the hope of flipping them quickly). As long as money was plentiful, prices kept on going up and the bet on them going up was vindicated, further fueling the boom.

Easy lending came through lower interest rates, and lower financing costs. Thus, for a while, higher acquisition prices (whether of homes or of other companies) did not translate into higher financing burdens, making such acquisitions not unreasonable proposals. But as interest rates increased (because of Fed-driven increases, out of inflationfears), these costs jumped up - at least for those borrowers on adjustable rates.

The first to feel the pain were those home owners that took out the most recent mortgages, i.e. the most aggressive and those the most unlikely to resist to any market deterioration like those called "ninja" loans: no income, no job or assets, which often included interest rate triggers after a year or two and delayed principal repayments. Many of these are in payment arrears, dragging down with them the subprime lenders that provided the money, and damaging the banks that financed these. That has been going on for a number of months, and will take many more months to fully reveal itself, as lenders are not keen to take drastic action that would reveal how bad things are: acknowledge payment defaults and you trigger covenants (obligations to inform your own lenders and the markets) and risk downgrades and increased costs, repossess and you end up with hard to sell houses in a tough market (repossess lots of houses and you cause a supply glut and a price crash), call in loans to weakened subprime lenders and you might push it to bankruptcy, and get handed a big pile of dodgy loans instead of actual money, etc... So everybody is trying to slow the day of reckoning as much as possible, and we're basically seeing a big slow motion crash, with no panic as of yet.

Everybody is tightening lending and practices (so as at least not to increase the size of the existing problem), which is a good thing per se, but is contributing to the market slowdown as buyers can no longer access aggressive financing terms and can afford to spend less on their purchases, thus bringing the market down and forcing additional tightening.

But as the tightening includes lending to many funds that dabbled into real estate, banks are reconsidering their lending practices to other sectors, starting with those where other funds are active, and that's where we get to the leverage buy-out / private equity credit crunch: banks are simply becoming more prudent and, to put it simply, have stopped throwing money at funds for big-ticket acquisitions. That does not mean that existing deals are going bad, but that it's getting harder to do new deals. But, again, we have a vicious circle starting: with fewer buyers, the price of the targets will stop going up and may go down as market speculation on take-over recedes. As prices go down, older deals look increasingly expensive, and may create (as of yet virtual) losses for those that bought at inflated prices. Should any buyer be unable to service its debts, the banks that lent the money will end up owning assets that are worth less than the money they put on the table to help buy it, and will swallow real losses (the investors lost their money first, but as they borrowed a lot, they may not have lost that much in absolute amounts).

Currently, default rates are at record lows, so there is no emergency yet. But part of that was made possible because companies that were in trouble (you know, in their actual economic activity, not in the financial engineering layer on top of it that hides the real business) could simply borrow more to go past their difficulties - which were usually of the debt servicing kind. They borrowed to pay old debts they would otherwise had trouble paying. But if borrowing more is suddenly no longer an option, then paying debt, especially if large new piles have been added on top of everything, is going to become, again, an issue. Thus default rates are likely to increase again simply because there is no longer any easy money to help hide the problems. And with record numbers of companies burdened with record level of debt following the private equity binge, defaults can only go up, especially as the economy slows down.

Financial markets make bets on the future income of the actual underlying economic activity of companies. Often, simply, financial deals effectively allow one side to "sell" (or "lock in") the future profits of a company, i.e; make these profits appear today. The other side, which puts up (borrowed) money today, expects to be repaid over the long term and usually will lowball somewhat the expectation of future streams in order to be sure to be repaid. What happened in the past couple of years is that these expectations became increasingly optimistic, and those that lent the money need the underlying economic performance to continue to do well.
Thus, the pressures that have driven profits up (and wages down, or sideways) in recent years are not going to abate, quite the opposite; in fact, they will become even more violent as the economy slows down: in order to continue to squeeze profits out of increasingly tough, or stagnant, markets, you can expect the time-tested restructurings, downsizings, rightsizings and wage restrictions to continue with ever more viciousness.

As we know, US consumers have barely seen their incomes increase in recent years. Consumption has been propped up by ever increasing levels of debt, and by buoyant house prices (whch made possible to raise home equity, i.e. to pile in again more debt). Such levels of debt are no longer going to be available, both as banks tighten standards, and as house prices stagnate or worse. And as incomes are unlikely to go anywhere in the context described above, consumption is likely to struggle, leading to lower growth, creating more economic hardship and tightening the noose over weak, over-indebted borrowers, whether households or companies, and putting their lenders in the position of having to take over assets (houses, businesses, or financial assets underpinned by the same) and holding them or trying to sell them in a hostile market. Selling makes the cost visible, but at least ends the problem. The problem is that if everybody tries to do the same, the markets will crash, as there won't be enough buyers on the other side - or not at the prices needed by the sellers.

Banks have lots of reserves, built up in the good days, and ways to hold on to assets (essentially by refinancing them, or restructuring their payment obligations) in the hope that they will survive and be worth more after things get better, and they will absorb a lot of the crisis (that process has started a while ago already in the real estate market). But at some point, there may be a bigger credit accident than the market can swallow (say, a bankruptcy by Ford or GM or by a medium-sized bank) and then all bets are off.

And of course, markets are all interlocked and all of this may have an impact on - or may be impacted by - the dollar exchange rate (a further weakening of the dollar would probably push interest rates up in order to incentivize foreigners to keep on buying the dollars needed to cover the current account deficit, which would worsen the woes of the weakest borrowers), the commodity markets and others.

What's happening today is that some alerts are ringing, and the overall financial system is highly vulnerable. Any shock could destabilise it. Some will say it will inevitably happen; some will say that the markets will manage to absorb the risks and spread them around. But we simply don't know. And the banks are clearly saying that some markets are vulnerable, and they are getting in a much different behavior than until recently, suddenly preferring prudence to doing what it takes to get the next deal.

:: ::

Politically, we need to say loudly that the current boom was the cause of much of the increasing inequality in recent years, and has been the source of many extravagant fortunes. As the bubble unwinds (or pops), it is essential to make it clear that it should not be workers, or taxpayers, that end up paying for the recklessness of the financiers, and that those that gorged on the good times should bear the pain of the new, leaner times. The dismantling of all the barriers between commercial banking and investment banking unsurprisingly took place near the beginning of the great Greenspan Bubble, it might be necessary to reconsider it. Taxes on capital gains, and on income on capital, have been lowered in the past; maybe it's time to change that again. The crushing of labor, and the erosion of labor rights, has made ever-increasing profits a reality and has fuelled the ever-more optimistic expectations of the financial markets. That should also be reconsidered. The focus on financial profits over industrial ones, unable to provide the same instant returns, has skewed the economy ever more towards financial services rather than other "real" activities (except the finance fuelled construction sector). That may not prove to have been the most sustainable policy.

Altogether, the politics of individual greed over those of a collective future need to be blamed.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/26/175633/277

Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face."

Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."

However, Roberts emphasized, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. ... You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."

Hartmann asked what we as the people can do if impeachment isn't about to happen. "If enough people were suspicious and alert, it would be harder for the administration to get away with it," Roberts replied. However, he added, "I don't think these wake-up calls are likely to be effective," pointing out the dominance of the mainstream media.

"Americans think their danger is terrorists," said Roberts. "They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. ... The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren't able to perceive that."

Roberts pointed out that it's old-line Republicans like himself, former Reagan associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Pat Buchanan who are the diehards in warning of the danger. "It's so obvious to people like us who have long been associated in the corridors of power," he said. "There's no belief in the people or anything like that. They have agendas. The people are in the way. The Constitution is in the way. ... Americans need to comprehend and look at how ruthless Cheney is. ... A person like that would do anything."

Roberts final suggestion was that, in the absence of a massive popular outcry, "the only constraints on what's going to happen will come from the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military. They may have had enough. They may not go along with it."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_somethings_in_works_0719.html

Why Bush Is A Loser

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701456_pf.html

By David Corn
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; 7:45 PM

Who knew Bill Kristol had such a flair for satire?

How else to read his piece for Outlook on Sunday, in which he declared, "George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one"? Surely Kristol, the No. 1 cheerleader for the Iraq war, was mocking himself (and his neoconservative pals) for having been so mistaken about so much. But just in case his article was meant to be a serious stab at commentary, let's review Kristol's record as a prognosticator.

On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." A day later, he said Saddam Hussein was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction.... Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world." On March 1, 2003 -- 18 days before the invasion of Iraq -- Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." He maintained that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. (The running tab is now about half a trillion dollars.) On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction."

After a performance like this -- and the above is only a partial review; for more details, click here -- Kristol, a likeable fellow, ought to have his pundit's license yanked. But he's back again with a sequel: W. will be seen as a wonderful president. His latest efforts should be laughed off op-ed pages. But in the commentariat, he's still taken seriously. So assuming the joke is indeed unintended, I'll examine Kristol's most recent fantasy as if it's real.

Iraq: Kristol says "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome." The war has been a mess from the start, and these days even leading Republican senators no longer buy the argument that Bush's so-called "surge" is succeeding or can succeed as promised. Kristol contends that with the recent escalation "we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population." Many in Iraq would find little comfort in his assurances. Despite the "surge," Iraqi civilian deaths are still running at 2,500 to 3,000 a month. And since the "surge" began, according to the Pentagon's own numbers, the number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians has marginally increased.

Still, Kristol advises, stick with the "surge," train more Iraqi troops, and all will be well. The United States has already spent $19 billion training 346,500 or so Iraqi troops and police officers, and now merely six battalions -- down from 10, according to Gen. Peter Pace -- can function independently. That is, only 3,000 Iraqi troops are operating on their own after all this time and money.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is making little, if any, progress on key political matters that must be resolved, and the parliament is taking off August -- while American GIs continue to fight and die. What are they dying for? Kristol and Bush argue the war is a vital part of the battle against al Qaeda and international jihadism, and Kristol claims the U.S. military is "routing al Qaeda in Iraq." But, as the Los Angeles Times recently reported, of the 19,000 insurgents held by the U.S. military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners. The United States is not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq; it's fighting Iraqis. Kristol is whistling past a graveyard -- filled with the bodies of thousands of American soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- when he insists the United States is heading toward a "messy" victory.

And Kristol keeps arguing the past. The problems that have arisen in Iraq since the invasion, he maintains, have to be judged against what would have occurred had there been no invasion: a nuclear-armed Saddam conspiring with al Qaeda. To justify the war, Kristol is pushing the myth (debunked by U.S. intelligence) that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, and he's ignoring the fact that WMD inspectors were present in Iraq right before the invasion and (as we now know) doing a good job in determining Saddam had no unconventional weapons or nuclear bomb program. Such a policy could have been maintained.

Afghanistan: Steady as she goes, says Kristol. Well, not if you're one of those dozens of civilians who seem to be killed every few days in an errant attack from NATO and western forces. (Even Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is fed up.) And shouldn't this war have been over years ago? Reconstruction is at a crawl The Taliban is resurgent. Opium production is setting new records. And the Bush administration (last time I checked) had no high-level official solely responsible for Afghanistan policy. Afghanistan has been a job neglected and unfinished.

Terrorism: Yes -- thankfully -- there have been no attacks here since 9/11. But recent intelligence reports say that al Qaeda (the real al Qaeda, not al Qaeda in Iraq) is becoming stronger. The man responsible for the worst act of terrorism ever visited upon the United States remains free. And the Bush administration's excesses in combating terrorism -- Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, and more -- have undermined the cause at home and abroad.

Foreign policy: Kristol does not mention that, thanks to Bush's misadventure in Iraq and other missteps, the United States' image abroad is in the sub-basement. He does note that we now have decent relations with Brazil. But he forgets about the worsening conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (and the other Palestinians) -- a conflict arguably exacerbated by Bush administration blunders.

The economy: All is fine, Kristol claims, pointing to conventional indicators and hailing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. But most Americans tell pollsters the country is not on the right track. Are they stupid? No, they are coping with various forms of insecurity and stress that Kristol does not recognize. Since 2000, the median income of working-age household has fallen each year. The economy has been growing, corporate profits are up, and the stock market is on the rise, but this recovery has handed working Americans weak growth in wages and salaries. The share of national income going to salaries and wages is at the lowest level since such stats were first compiled in 1929.

Moreover, the high costs of health care and education also worry many Americans. Kristol praises Bush's Medicare drug plan -- which routinely is assailed by critics on the left and right -- but Bush has done nothing to make health care more affordable and more available for most Americans. Forty-five million or so Americans remain uninsured. And while Kristol cheers globalization -- which is causing employment instability for Americans -- we can celebrate by eating tainted shrimp from China.

The Supreme Court: In Kristol's world, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Bush's contributions to the court, are titans of jurisprudence respected throughout the land. Yet the Roberts court's recent decisions have sparked (justifiably) much controversy and rancor. In two separate decisions, Roberts protected corporate speech but trampled on the free speech rights of students. Roberts was also slammed by Justice Antonin Scalia for not having the guts to admit he was overturning precedent when he was. Bush's Supreme Court has become another battlefront in the partisan wars--not a symbol of accomplishment.

It's remarkable what Kristol leaves out of his bizarro-world view of Bush the Great: Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of the Justice Department, global warming, and much else. An American city was practically destroyed on Bush's watch, but that merits no consideration in Kristol's case for Bush. The Justice Department -- run by Bush cronies accused of corruption, incompetence, or both -- is in tatters. (A former department official tells me the administration is having a hard time finding people willing to fill the vacancies at the top.) And though Bush begrudgingly conceded that global warming is underway and human-induced, he has taken no significant steps to redress this pressing problem. If one wants to peer into the future, it could well be that Bush will be judged a failure more for his inaction on global warming than for his action in Iraq. Vetoing stem cell research legislation, commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence, rewriting clean air rules to benefit industry, pushing tax breaks for oil companies, suppressing the work of scientists, enhancing government secrecy -- Bush has repeatedly placed parochial interests over the public interest.

The Bush-Cheney years have been marked by ineptitude, miscalculation, and scandal. A successful presidency? Bush will be lucky if he gets a public elementary school in his adopted hometown of Crawford, Tex., named after him. He has placed this country in a hole. Yet Kristol, with shovel in hand, points to that hole and says, Trust me -- we're about to strike oil!

If it's true that history repeats first as tragedy and then as farce, Kristol has short-circuited the process and gone straight to parody. His Bush boosterism -- an act of self-justification -- would be amusing were it not for all the damage he has helped Bush to cause.

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is coauthor of "Hubris; The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." He blogs at www.davidcorn.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Richard Dawkins is so great...

Al Gore is the only man alive who can save us from Global Warming. Al Gore is that cool.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Al Gore.

Al Gore is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Al Gore.

Al Gore isn't running for President. Al Gore IS President.

Al Gore only let Bush serve to prove to the world that Republicanism is a totally bankrupt philosophy and practice. It worked.

After Al Gore is elected, Al Gore will turn back time and erase the last seven years.

Al Gore was waiting for America to grow up.

Time waits for no man. Unless that man is Al Gore.

Al Gore will be the first President to win three terms since Roosevelt.

Al Gore always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego.

Al Gore gave Mona Lisa that smile.

Note: some of these are blatantly stolen. Go ahead, sue me. Al Gore is my lawyer.

Al Gore does not sleep. He waits.

Republicants want to build a wall on the border. To keep Al Gore out.

Al Gore is so smart, he can divide by zero.

Al Gore doesn?t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

In 2000, Al Gore should have chosen Al Gore as his running mate.

Tipper is Al Gore's wife. But afterwards, she tips him.

Al Gore is so smart, he counted to infinity - twice.

When Al Gore falls in water, Al Gore doesn't get wet. Water gets Al Gore.

Al Gore CAN believe it's not butter.

Al Gore didn't just invent the internet. All Gore invented science. And fire.

Al Gore can touch MC Hammer.

Al Gore didn't invent color TV. But before Al Gore was born, the world was in Black and White.

It takes Al Gore 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.

Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.

When Al Gore is elected, Al Qaeda will follow us home from Iraq. To surrender.

Al Gore can slam a revolving door.

When the election is over, Al Gore will have won more than 50 states

Al Gore IS that tall. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Al Gore just slouches to make the rest of us feel better.

Al Gore can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.

Al Gore can balance the budget. On one finger. While juggling.

Al Gore can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.

Al Gore did in fact, build Rome in a day.

Al Gore is not running for President. He is strolling to President.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/6/172852/0575

How say you?


Now if you go to the WHITE HOUSE page, and find the page that talks about the branches of government there is a link for EXECUTIVE BRANCH and on that page it says this:

Executive Branch
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.

 In order for a person to become President, he or she must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years of age, and have resided in the United States for at least 14 years. Once elected, the President serves a term of four years and may be re-elected only once.

 To learn more about the Executive Branch please visit the President's Cabinet page on the White House web site.

Go ahead and click that President's Cabinet link there. We'll wait...

...

OMG! DID YOU SEE THAT?!?! Nearly right off the bat in the second paragraph it says:  The Cabinet includes the Vice President and half way down the page is this pic of Cheney! I mean, how god damned nefarious/stupid does he have to be to try and get out of following the EO by saying he's not in the Executive Branch??!? And when that clearly doesn't fly, they come back and say, "yeah, you got us. Heh, heh! But I had to try at least!!" And now, they're saying they can't wriggle out of it so they have to go ahead and say that even though the EO in question refers to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, that EO isn't supposed to include Cheney OR BUSH!!!!


GOD DAMN!!! YOU GUYS ARE SUCH GUTLESS, MORONIC COWARDS FOR NOT THROWING YOUR HANDS UP AND SAYING, "THAT'S IT, I'M OUTTA HERE!" THESE GUYS HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY!"

<p>If they will allow this to get out then we need only bide our time till it is revealed that the insurgents that the US were "inadvertently" funding, will turn out to be, just as I have prophecied, to be these kind of mercenaries.
</p>
<p>&nbsp;
</p>
<p>As with everything that they have done, BushCo doesn't think that rules apply to them.&nbsp; They are thinking on a whole 'nother level that doesn't involve honor, truth or any of the regular folk ideas that you and I consider to be necessary, desired and encouraged.&nbsp; BushCo types only have goals and they only need to find and use/abuse different means to attain their goals.
</p>
<p>In their eyes, "Americans" are not who they are out to protect nor are they even out to protect anyone other than their own personal selves and whoever they perceive as necessary to their own personal goals.&nbsp; Cheney will protect Bush only as long as he is considered necessary.&nbsp; This is a group of people who lived around parapolitics and black ops and subterfuge as a way of life for nearly all of their adult lives.&nbsp; The thinking they use for everything they do with their power is born of that CIA/psyops/blackops/ mentality.&nbsp; They are rife with paranoia.&nbsp; They are constantly questioning every action of anyone who they think may influence events or outcomes of long-planned schemes.
</p>
<p>&nbsp;If paying mercenaries to fight "insurgents" is necessary for whatever their true goal is, then they will do it.&nbsp; If paying insurgents who may kill some US soldiers is necessary to acheive their goals, then they will do it.&nbsp; If keeping their imaginary war going by paying everyone to fight for cameras is necessary to maintain whatever their true goals are, then they will do it.&nbsp; No rule applies to them.&nbsp; No norm applies to them in their minds.&nbsp; No law applies to them.
</p>
<p>
 

</p>
<h2 class="title">Private contractors in Iraq stage “parallel surge.”
</h2>
<p>“Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.”
</p>

  <p>While the military has built up troops in an ongoing campaign to secure Baghdad, the security companies, out of public view, have been engaged in a parallel surge, boosting manpower, adding expensive armor and stepping up evasive action as attacks increase, the officials and company representatives said.

[…]
  </p>
  <p>The majority of the more than 100 security companies operate outside of Iraqi law, in part because of bureaucratic delays and corruption in the Iraqi government licensing process, according to U.S. officials.
  </p>
  <p>&nbsp;
  </p>http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/16/private-contractors-in-iraq-stage-parallel-surge/

Full post at...http://www.brassmask.com/comment.php?comment.news.211



From The Hunt For Red October

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.



In America, one of the greatest freedoms we, as citizens, enjoy is the ability to travel anywhere in this whole country without restriction. That freedom is now being bought up by corporations to sell to those who can afford it.

This is happening right now. This is not some "in years to come" corporatist's wetdream. It's being done now.

Corporations are buying up United States infrastructure.

By all accounts, tolls will be applied or raised immediately. The reasoning behind towns, states, whatever selling is that the sales of such items will erase a large part of the budget freeing up money for social programs while also infusing the budget with a large does of quick cash. This is possibly the grossest case of short-sightedness in the history of the US since Bush and his cult illegally invaded Iraq.