 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Thursday, 24 December 2009
911 truth - did the cockpit door even open?
Mood:  amorousNow Playing: Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 "Hijack" Topic: 911 TRUTH
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:49 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 24 December 2009 1:01 PM PST
Sunday, 20 December 2009
portland independent media rose peace sign
Mood:  hug meNow Playing: ZEN Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:29 AM PST
common Dreams Top Stories on 12.20.09
Mood:  luckyNow Playing: Links from Common Dreams Topic: ANYBODY * ANYDAY
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PST
Thursday, 17 December 2009
38 billion - Guess what America - You got took!
Mood:  celebratoryNow Playing: Citigroup Gets Huge New $38 Billion Bailout, Wiping Out All Of The Taxpayer's "Profits" Topic: CORPORATE CRAP Citigroup Gets Huge New $38 Billion Bailout, Wiping Out All Of The Taxpayer's "Profits" The Treasury may have made some silly paper "profit" on its bailout of Citigroup (C) but the taxpayer may not get much of anything. The Washington Post reports that as part of the bank's TARP payback agreement, it's quietly been given a $38 billion tax break by the IRS. Seriously. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits. So what specifically happened? Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said. Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership. This is actually an issue that's been talked about for a while. Mike Mayo and Rolfe Winkler have been banging the drum on this, warning that the eorsion of these tax credits would eat into Citi's coming quarterly earnings, big-time. But apparently they didn't count on the generosity of Uncle Sam once again. U.S. gave up billions in tax money in deal for Citigroup's bailout repayment DEAL MADE TO RECOVER BAILOUT Firms exempted from rule when U.S. sells its stake By Binyamin Appelbaum
The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits. The IRS, an arm of the Treasury Department, has changed a number of rules during the financial crisis to reduce the tax burden on financial firms. The rule changed Friday also was altered last fall by the Bush administration to encourage mergers, letting Wells Fargo cut billions of dollars from its tax bill by buying the ailing Wachovia. "The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It's another form of assistance, maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form," said Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting who runs a firm of the same name. "I've been doing taxes for almost 40 years, and I've never seen anything like this, where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts." Treasury officials said the most recent change was part of a broader decision initially made last year to shelter companies that accepted federal aid under the Troubled Assets Relief Program from the normal consequences of such an investment. Officials also said the ruling benefited taxpayers because it made shares in Citigroup more valuable and asserted that without the ruling, Citigroup could not have repaid the government at this time. "This rule was designed to stop corporate raiders from using loss corporations to evade taxes, and was never intended to address the unprecedented situation where the government owned shares in banks," Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq said. "And it was certainly not written to prevent the government from selling its shares for a profit." Congress, concerned that Treasury was rewriting tax laws, passed legislation earlier this year that reversed the ruling that benefited Wells Fargo and restricted the ability of the IRS to make further changes. A Democratic aide to the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees federal tax policy, said the Obama administration had the legal authority to issue the new exception, but Republican aides to the committee said they were reviewing the issue. A senior Republican staffer also questioned the government's rationale. "You're manipulating tax rules so that the market value of the stock is higher than it would be under current law," said the aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "It inflates the returns that they're showing from TARP and that looks good for them." The administration and some of the nation's largest banks have hastened to part company in recent weeks. Bank of America, followed by Citigroup and Wells Fargo, agreed to repay federal aid. While the healthiest banks escaped earlier this year, the new round of departures involves banks still facing serious financial problems. The banks say the strings attached to the bailout, including limits on executive compensation, have restricted their ability to compete and return to health. Executives also have chafed under the stigma of living on the federal dole. President Obama chided bankers at the White House on Monday for not trying hard enough to make small-business loans. The Obama administration also is eager to wind down a program that has become one of its largest political liabilities. Officials defend the program as necessary and effective, but the president has acknowledged that the bailout is "wildly unpopular" and officials have been at pains to say they do not enjoy helping banks. Federal regulators initially told Citigroup and other troubled banks that they would be required to hold on to the federal aid for some time as they return to health. But in recent months, the government switched to pushing the companies to repay the money as soon as possible. All nine firms that took federal money last October now have approved plans to pay it back. This urgency has come despite the lingering concerns of many financial experts about the companies' health. These analysts said they worry that the firms could face rising losses next year as high unemployment and economic weakness continue to drive great numbers of borrowers into default. "They are rolling the dice big time," said Christopher Whalen, a financial analyst with Institutional Risk Analytics. "My fear is that the banks will definitely have to raise a lot more capital next year. The question is from whom and on what terms." The Citigroup repayment deal required significant sacrifices by both sides, underscoring the mutual determination to get it done. Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said. Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership. The IRS notice issued Friday saves Citigroup from the consequences by stipulating that the government's share sale does not count toward the definition of an ownership change. The company, which pushed for the ruling, did not return calls for comment. At the end of the third quarter, Citigroup said that the value of its past losses was about $38 billion, allowing it to avoid taxes on its next $38 billion in profits. Under normal IRS rules, a change in control would sharply reduce the amount of profits that Citigroup could shelter from taxes in any given year, making it much more difficult for Citigroup to realize the entire benefit before the tax breaks expired. The precise value of the IRS ruling depends on Citigroup's future profitability and other factors, but two accounting experts said it was fair to estimate that Citigroup would save at least several billion dollars as a result. Treasury acknowledged that the tax break was significant, but a senior official said the benefit was unavoidable. Either the government changed the rules and parted ways with Citigroup or the company kept the government as a shareholder and kept the tax break anyway. "The choice is whether Treasury sells or doesn't sell," the official said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534_pf.html
hahaha!
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 5:06 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 17 December 2009 5:10 PM PST
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
All the videos I made in the last 30 days - Filming for Peace and Justice
Mood:  energeticNow Playing: Joe Anybody Presents: 32 days and 36 video's in 2009 Topic: MEDIA
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 8:02 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 8:04 PM PST
Genetic Engineers in Germany Destroy Dandelion
Mood:  crushed outNow Playing: GM crops and mad science is screwing the planet and all you live on it Topic: ENVIRONMENTAL Genetic Engineers in Germany Destroy Dandelion
homepage: http://www.sporecollective.org
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:21 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 7:24 PM PST
Monday, 14 December 2009
Are you a Democrat
Mood: hug meNow Playing: Podcast by Joe Anybody reading this text about Hope & Change Topic: POLITICS http://zebra3report.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/podcastjoeanybodynumber8.mp3 The link at he top is myself reading the following article. It is a download and about 8 minutes long. Right click on the link at the top and then choose the option "save target as" REPOSTING FROM: http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2009/12/are-you-democrat.html Are you a Democrat? Well, if you are, I have some questions for you. It occurs to me that somewhere in the last decade (maybe longer),the differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been blurred. I'm going to try to
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 10:25 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 15 December 2009 12:15 AM PST
Sunday, 13 December 2009
My Notes
Mood:  brightNow Playing: anti war notes Topic: WAR Hello Z3 Readers here is a recreation from some notes I found scratched on a small piece of paper that I must written from an anti war meeting, and then latter misplaced this small paper with the follow words. “Book” “On Killing” ß Dan Sir No Sir “The Nine For Peace’ FTA show (For Travel Army) Jane Fonda 2 killed in Jackson State (From top to bottom side two) “Another World Is Possible” Radio Firt Termer WORMS We Openly Resist Military Stupidly 18 a day suicide Rita Sing Sing 1971 FTA show “Vietnam song”
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 10:01 PM PST
Saturday, 12 December 2009
The People Speak (links included)
Mood: brightNow Playing: Howard Zinn - TV - and - WebSite information Topic: POLITICS The People Speak airs on History THE PEOPLE SPEAK The long awaited documentary film inspired by Howard Zinn's books A People's History of the United States and, with Anthony Arnove, Voices of a People's History of the United States will air on History http://www.history.com/peoplespeak
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:05 PM PST
Updated: Saturday, 12 December 2009 2:11 PM PST
What the OPR Torture Report Will Not Say
Mood: amorousNow Playing: Torture Memos and Judge ByBee Bullshit: by David Swanson Topic: TORTURE What the OPR Torture Report Will Not Say
By David Swanson
It's October 23, 2002, and you're Jay Bybee, the man in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice. John Yoo and a bunch of other lawyers willing to claim that absolutely anything is legal work for you. But you'd much rather be a judge. That would be a cushy job, a lifetime job, a job with a book of the Bible named for it, a job where you would get to decide which crimes to legalize rather than being told by someone else, a job where you might eventually even get to rule on the legality of some of the crimes you were presently engaged in committing. At the moment, however, if you want to become a judge you're going to have to follow instructions, and that means legalizing the greatest crime of them all. Millions may die in the process, but you will get that nomination and you will become a judge.
"AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ"
This is a remarkable thing for you (or even Yoo, your psychotic sidekick) to have written, because the Constitution is the supreme law domestically, and it gives Congress the exclusive power to decide to wage war. And under the United Nations Charter, no nation has the authority to attack another. But you were Jay Bybee. You were the man. You were the authority handing out personalized torture laws for individual victims. You were, in fact, already a judge convicting and sentencing people in lengthy rulings before "legalizing" and imposing their sadistic punishments. Granting U.S. presidents the power to launch aggressive wars didn't trouble you in the way it might have someone who cared about people and their lives. But this single memo would mean far more pain and suffering than all of your soon-to-be-famous torture memos put together.
"The President possesses constitutional authority to use military force against Iraq to protect United States national interests."
Now you were showing off, digging yourself deeper. Now you would need to explain how the United States could have national interests in somebody else's distant nation that outweighed that nation's own interest in not being attacked or invaded.
"This independent constitutional authority is supplemented by congressional authorization in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution."
This is apparently a reference to the 1991 version of this type of congressional buck passing. In fact, such a resolution could not alter the Constitution to either remove or augment anything. In addition, it was more than a decade old. That wouldn't faze you, Jay Bybee, because you'd already given the president "independent constitutional authority" to treat such an authorization as redundant and superfluous. Its primary purpose was to pack these pages and obscure the simplicity of your primary argument, if that's a name merited by your bald assertion that verily this is that.
"Using force against Iraq would be consistent with international law because it would be authorized by the United Nations Security Council or would be justified as anticipatory self-defense."
Now you were digging deep indeed. By citing the two exceptions that the UN Charter makes to its ban on war, you were acknowledging its authority. But neither exception applied. The UN rejected a US attack on Iraq as something it could not authorize, and such an attack would -- of course -- not be self-defense. But that didn't matter either, because you'd already begun to alter the law. You invented something called "anticipatory self-defense." But international law did not recognize such a thing, and no international authority agreed that it legalized an attack on Iraq. Your citation-packed memo failed to present any citations for this hooey.
"You have asked our Office whether the President has the authority, under both domestic and international law, to use military force against Iraq. This memorandum confirms our prior advice to you regarding the scope of the President's authority. We conclude that the President possesses constitutional authority for ordering the use of force against Iraq to protect our national interests. This independent authority is supplemented by congressional authorization in the form of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, Pub. L. No. 102-1, 105 Stat. 3 (1991), which supports the use of force to secure Iraq's compliance with its international obligations following the liberation of Kuwait, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), which supports military action against Iraq if the President determines Iraq provided assistance to the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
Now this is curious. You've already granted the president absolute authority. Then you've granted him authority on the basis of an AUMF from 1991. Now you throw in the 2001 version that allowed the attack on Afghanistan. That one will provide additional redundant authorization, you claim, if Iraq provided assistance to 9-11, or rather: if the president determines that to be the case. Congress passed yet another non-declaration of war less than two weeks before the date on your memo. This one, even if you chose to accept it as constitutional, had terms attached to it that George W. Bush had no intention of complying with and in fact violated. And none of these domestic justifications for the crime you are here "legalizing" fit with any of the international justifications you were alleging in this same memo. A war is no more authorized by the UNSC or defensive because Congress misplaces its spine or the president "determines" that pigs fly. And your arguments for the domestic legality of the war do not attempt to portray it as defensive of U.N.-approved.
"In addition, using force against Iraq would be consistent with international law, because it would be authorized by the United Nations ("U.N.") Security Council, or would be justified as anticipatory self-defense."
And you were still just clearing your throat: "This memorandum is divided into three sections. First, we explain the background to the current conflict with Iraq, touching upon the U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the Persian Gulf War and its aftermath, and highlighting the situations in which the United States has used force against Iraq between 1991 and the present. Second, we discuss the President's authority under domestic law to direct military action against Iraq, examining both his constitutional authority and supplementary congressional support. Finally, we detail the justification under international law for the United States to use force against Iraq, considering the circumstances in which the U.N. Security Council has authorized such action and the scenarios in which it would be appropriate to use force in anticipatory self-defense."
Appropriate? If what is legal morphs into what is appropriate, and the determiner of what is appropriate is Jay Bybee, what are the law books for? And what would best make an aggressive war appropriate? Why, pretending it was simply an ordinary and even defensive continuation of a war long-since legalized. Making that case, however, would require providing some background. Forgive me if I quote and then quickly dismiss a large stinking, steaming pile of it (background). I've deleted your footnotes throughout, by the way, Mr. Bybee, simply because they are in the same vein as the rest of the document and consequently make it even worse, not better. Those wanting to read the footnotes can go to your original:
PDF.To continue reading this annotated blogger's edition of Bybee's confession to mass-murder, open one of these documents:
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:07 PM PST
Updated: Saturday, 12 December 2009 1:15 PM PST
|
You are not logged in.
Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics « 5-5-5 Social Distance 911 TRUTH Anarchism ANYBODY * ANYDAY BIG MONEY PLAYERS CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY CORPORATE CRAP COVID TOPIC DRONES Economy and Labor ENVIRONMENTAL FAILURE by the GOVERNMENT HUMANITY IMMIGRATION MEDIA NADER NATIVE AMERICANS OCCUPY PORTLAND POLICE POLITICS Privacy & Security PROTEST! SMILE SMILE SMILE Survivalist TECHNOLOGY TORTURE TSA VENEZUELA SOLIDARITY Venezuela Trip WAR |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
