EIN News says, "Chevron Chiefs Face Shareholders After Huge $18 Billion Ecuador Fine Chevron bosses are facing shareholders for the first time since the company was fined a total of $18 billion by a court in Ecuador over contamination from oil extraction in the Amazon. California's largest oil company is coming under increasing pressure from institutional investors and long-term shareholders who are gathering at the annual general meeting at Chevron's HQ in San Ramon, near San Francisco. (guardian.co.uk)".
Let's not assume that Chevron actually caused $18 billion of damage in Ecuador.
The sign of the times is to go after people or organizations with "deep pockets". Oil companies have made very large profits and what better way for individuals or companies to also obtain some benefits by suing them. Enter now lawsuits by governments, in order to solve their internal financial problems. It's not necessary that the lawsuits be legitimate. It is only necessary that the defendants pay.
We have some trillions dollars of debt. Who can we sue that has money? China?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Congressional Spending
Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your 5/25 newsletter.
You are communicating well through your newsletter program.
I partially agree that the budget is important. But, Harry Reid is also correct in saying that the budget is not important, and we don't need it. In effect, he is saying we don't need to spend time developing a budget, if we are not going to follow it. You well know that this is the way Social/Democrats operate. The key is in the spending (allocation of funds). Not in the planning (budget).
You seem to understand most of the problems, but I would like to see you take a much stronger position in trying to solve them. Overspending is a Congressional problem. What are you doing to STRONGLY correct it?
I read your 5/25 newsletter.
You are communicating well through your newsletter program.
I partially agree that the budget is important. But, Harry Reid is also correct in saying that the budget is not important, and we don't need it. In effect, he is saying we don't need to spend time developing a budget, if we are not going to follow it. You well know that this is the way Social/Democrats operate. The key is in the spending (allocation of funds). Not in the planning (budget).
You seem to understand most of the problems, but I would like to see you take a much stronger position in trying to solve them. Overspending is a Congressional problem. What are you doing to STRONGLY correct it?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Only Congress Can Stop the Giveaway Progran to Egypt
Obama said on Thursday that the U.S. will relieve up to 1- billion-U.S.- dollar debt and guarantee another 1 billion dollars in loan for Egypt.
In his major speech on the Middle East policy, Obama said U.S. does not want Egypt to be "saddled by the debts of its past," and the loan will help Egypt on finance infrastructure and job creation.
Does this make sense to you? Egypt has just been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is antagonistic to all Christian based nations, including the US. The US is itself strongly in debt for trillions of dollars. We have our own unemployment problem and need for infrastructure development.
Obama's interpretation of a loan guarantee is likely not the same as the usual interpretation. I suspect he plans to send Egypt a billion dollars of US currency to pay their debts to other lenders, while we pay interest to China on the new loan amount, which we have given to Egypt.
If Obama turns the previous billion $ loan into a grant, what do you think he will later do on the new billion $ loan?
Only Congress can stop this foolishness. I am depending on you. A word of caution. Avoid tying this in with Israel. It is a separate item and should be handled as such.
In his major speech on the Middle East policy, Obama said U.S. does not want Egypt to be "saddled by the debts of its past," and the loan will help Egypt on finance infrastructure and job creation.
Does this make sense to you? Egypt has just been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is antagonistic to all Christian based nations, including the US. The US is itself strongly in debt for trillions of dollars. We have our own unemployment problem and need for infrastructure development.
Obama's interpretation of a loan guarantee is likely not the same as the usual interpretation. I suspect he plans to send Egypt a billion dollars of US currency to pay their debts to other lenders, while we pay interest to China on the new loan amount, which we have given to Egypt.
If Obama turns the previous billion $ loan into a grant, what do you think he will later do on the new billion $ loan?
Only Congress can stop this foolishness. I am depending on you. A word of caution. Avoid tying this in with Israel. It is a separate item and should be handled as such.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Make Heads Roll for the Stanford Ponzi Scheme
Open letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer:
In your newsletter and at your website, I read about your investigation of the Stanford Ponzi Scheme, in which investors were defrauded out of $7.2 billion resulting in thousands of shattered lives in Texas.
You have apparently concluded that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) were negligent in performing their duties.
I am concerned that this investigation will follow the same course of action that most congressional investigations follow. That is, there is a lot of talk but little action. When are we going to get tough? I suggest a need for you to call for the resignations or firings of the chairmen of both these organizations.
In your newsletter and at your website, I read about your investigation of the Stanford Ponzi Scheme, in which investors were defrauded out of $7.2 billion resulting in thousands of shattered lives in Texas.
You have apparently concluded that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) were negligent in performing their duties.
I am concerned that this investigation will follow the same course of action that most congressional investigations follow. That is, there is a lot of talk but little action. When are we going to get tough? I suggest a need for you to call for the resignations or firings of the chairmen of both these organizations.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Bloated Budgets of Federal Agencies
In the April 18 issue of C&E News, Susan Morrissey has an article involving the federal budgets of several science agencies. She discusses budget cuts in dollar terms rather than percentages. When the dollar reductions for the 2011 budget are compared with the expenditures in 2010, the percentage reductions are respectively for the NHS, NIST, and DOE, 0.7%, 12%, and 0.7%
The basic fault of the article is that it implies that there have been significant cuts in the new budgets for the three agencies, when the actual percentages show the reverse. Only the NIST has had a significant budget cut of 12%. The other two budget cuts are miniscule. This is unacceptable in these times of high budget deficits. All three of these agencies should have had their budgets cut by at least 30 to 40%.
I understand that we would not like to reduce the budgets too rapidly, since it would cut many federal emp-loyees from the payroll and exacerbate the unemployment problem. However, it still behooves us to keep in mind that the slight reductions of the two agencies mentioned above is not significant in terms of year to year change and also considering that the previous year budgets were likely considerably bloated.
The basic fault of the article is that it implies that there have been significant cuts in the new budgets for the three agencies, when the actual percentages show the reverse. Only the NIST has had a significant budget cut of 12%. The other two budget cuts are miniscule. This is unacceptable in these times of high budget deficits. All three of these agencies should have had their budgets cut by at least 30 to 40%.
I understand that we would not like to reduce the budgets too rapidly, since it would cut many federal emp-loyees from the payroll and exacerbate the unemployment problem. However, it still behooves us to keep in mind that the slight reductions of the two agencies mentioned above is not significant in terms of year to year change and also considering that the previous year budgets were likely considerably bloated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
