Tennessee getting ready to throw poor students under the bus.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just from a factual angle, I'm not sure that's why, Roger - more like, historically, poor people have had less access to birth control. The birth rates around here have dropped a hell of a lot since the economy went to shit and since universal access to birth control (actually, thanks, Obama!) the abortion rate has been halved.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

But never mind that.  Obvious, it's all about condoms and the pill.  Which is why the same behavior is demonstrated in rats.

http://www.methuen.k12.ma.us/mnmelan/AP%20Ch%2047.htm

The obvious inference is that rats use condoms.

[LMNO]

You make 1520 a month, and only spend 75 on groceries?

What do you do with the rest of it?

[Cain]

Von Zwietracht (just to add to the posts you'll need to read),

did you actually look at that thread I linked you to?  Because you should have.  It's pretty much four years worth of condensed financial news there, about how people far richer than you or I will ever be, are being given billions in handouts, avoiding taxes and even being granted effective immunity for major crimes.

On the first page you would have learnt that an estimated 45% of the world's wealth was destroyed during the financial crisis.

And here is an article that was published just yesterday:

But in the wake of rising public anger over the Obama administration's collusion with Wall Street drug banks, we were informed by The New York Times that the "Federal Reserve hit Citigroup with an enforcement action on Tuesday over breakdowns in money laundering controls that threatened to allow tainted money to move through the United States."

According to the Times, the Federal Reserve "took aim at Citigroup and its subsidiary Banamex USA over failure to monitor cash transactions for potentially suspicious activity."

The Fed's Consent Order charged that Citigroup and Banamex USA "lacked effective systems of governance and internal controls to adequately oversee the activities of the Banks with respect to legal, compliance, and reputational risk related to the Banks' respective BSA/AML [Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering] compliance programs."

An unnamed bank spokeswoman told the Times, "Citi has made substantial progress in a comprehensive manner across products, business lines and geographies," and will continue "to take the appropriate steps to address remaining requirements and build a strong and sustainable program."

Nothing to see here, right?

Tellingly however, neither Citigroup nor Banamex USA admitted wrongdoing. In what is standard boilerplate in such agreements, the Fed meekly submitted that their "enforcement action" was issued "without this Order constituting an admission or denial by Citigroup of any allegation made or implied by the Board of Governors." Nor did the Fed "give specific examples of problems" at either bank, Reuters reported.

During Senate Banking Committee hearings last month, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled federal banking regulators over their non-prosecution of Wall Street drug banks.

Referencing penalties levied against HSBC after the British banking giant was caught red-handed laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, Warren demanded: "What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords" before a criminal prosecution?

Judging by the actions of Obama's Justice Department, apparently the sky's the limit.

But if history is any guide to current Citigroup "lapses," you can bet that the bank's balance sheet is awash with dirty money.

As a prelude to the Federal Reserve's Consent Order, last April the Office of the Currency (OCC) issued a cease-and-desist order charging Citigroup with "deficiencies in its BSA/AML compliance program."

OCC regulators stated that the bank had "failed to adopt and implement a compliance program that adequately covers the required BSA/AML program elements due to an inadequate system of internal controls and ineffective independent testing."

According to OCC, Citigroup "did not develop adequate due diligence on foreign correspondent bank customers and failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports ('SARs') related to its remote deposit capture/international cash letter instrument activity in a timely manner."

In their infinite wisdom, the Federal Reserve did not include fines against the bank, but the Board of Governors hastened to assure Citigroup's masters (their future employers?) that the Consent Order was issued "solely for the purpose of settling this matter without a formal proceeding being filed and without the necessity for protracted or extended hearings or testimony."

You bet it was!

Citigroup and Banamex: The Salinas Affair

If all this sounds familiar, it should.

One of the more infamous cases involving taxpayer bailed-out Citigroup's ties to money laundering drug cartels emerged in the late 1990s when Raúl Salinas de Gortari, the brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, was arrested after his wife, Paulina Castañón, attempted to withdraw $84 million from a Swiss account controlled by Raúl under an alias.

Salinas, who spent ten years in prison over the murder of his brother-in-law, political rival José Francisco Ruiz, was released in 2005 when a Mexican appeals court overturned that conviction.

After nearly 13 years of legal proceedings into the origins of the Salinas fortune, SwissInfo reported that "Switzerland will hand over $74 million (SFr77.3 million) to Mexico from bank accounts linked to the brother of a former Mexican president."

"The funds--more than $110 million in bank accounts linked to Raúl Salinas--were originally frozen after the Swiss authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Salinas in 1995 for money laundering."

But as Narco News investigative journalist Al Giordano reported back in 2000, "The Chief Operating Officers of drug trafficking are not Mexicans, nor Colombians: they are US and European bankers, those who launder the illicit proceeds of drug trafficking. Institutions like Citibank of New York--as this report documents--are the true beneficiaries of the prohibition on drugs and its illegal profits."

Are you starting to understand?  You're worried about crackheads, while Citigroup (and HSBC, and Wells Fargo, and many others) are getting rich off the drug trade itself, not getting prosecuted for it, and then getting government handouts.

Incidentally, a piss test at the offices of any of the one above banks in New York itself would probably show greater levels of cocaine and amphetamine use that entire inner city areas of the US.  And that's just going by the insider stories.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But those are hard targets, Cain.

The poor generally criticize those who are even poorer than themselves.  It's not only easy, but it gives them a sense that at least they're not on the absolute bottom, which seems to be Von Z's primary concern.

Much in the way that criminals tend to prey on the poor.

That would, of course, include the bankers you mention.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation.

And how much of that taxation is due to poor people, as opposed to TARP and the military industrial complex?

It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.

Getting rid of them would make your purchasing power drop, not rise.

I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.

No, you are merely so spoiled that you can no longer even see the benefits you gain.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A child. Fine. That explains a lot.

Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:

"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."

Wait.  Hold on just a moment.

Are you suggesting that corporatism in today's world isn't statism?  REALLY?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?

Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month.  That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.

Which do you think is most likely?  If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree.  If you picked B, then your question is answered.

Also, who stands to gain from that provision?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".

I hear Somalia doesn't have all these horrible taxes on people.

You should give it a try.  You can be just as sociopathic as you like.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A child. Fine. That explains a lot.

Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:

"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."

Ooh! 


I'm enjoying this discussion very much. 

Figured you would.

Anything for payback, right?  Anything at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.

Unless you're suggesting that 7 people make up the entire population of non-White America, this is crap.

I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...

Wow.  That's some high-quality whining. 

Sorry, kid, it's not illegal to be a white male racist.  Nor, however, is it illegal to laugh at white male racists.  Or any kind of racist.

[Junkenstein]

I wonder when he's going to get up the balls  to reply again instead of obsessively reading the thread.

[navkat]

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?

Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month.  That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.

Which do you think is most likely?  If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree.  If you picked B, then your question is answered.

Also, who stands to gain from that provision?

To add to this, the answer is B with a little A thrown in.

This is how the manufacture of a new cash-cow happens. Testing recipients isn't about morality or preventing addicts from using "handouts" to maintain their addictions. That's a lie. If that were true, we wouldn't have cities all over the country going forward, trying to push TANF drug-testing programs despite the numbers that prove less than 2% are popping positive.

This is about Quest Diagnostics getting a big check made up of your taxes. This is about local governments getting a thumb in the pie and the associated favors. Push the legislation, get it passed and the NEW taxes will follow.

They're taking more and more from you to pour it into a negative-sum game. If you can't see that, you aren't looking very hard.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?

Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month.  That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.

Which do you think is most likely?  If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree.  If you picked B, then your question is answered.

Also, who stands to gain from that provision?

To add to this, the answer is B with a little A thrown in.

This is how the manufacture of a new cash-cow happens. Testing recipients isn't about morality or preventing addicts from using "handouts" to maintain their addictions. That's a lie. If that were true, we wouldn't have cities all over the country going forward, trying to push TANF drug-testing programs despite the numbers that prove less than 2% are popping positive.

This is about Quest Diagnostics getting a big check made up of your taxes. This is about local governments getting a thumb in the pie and the associated favors. Push the legislation, get it passed and the NEW taxes will follow.

They're taking more and more from you to pour it into a negative-sum game. If you can't see that, you aren't looking very hard.

Naw.  The cow is there, it's just a question of who gets the prime rib.  New taxes aren't popular.  Fucking poor people is.

So the assistance money gets "diverted" (I love that word) from the people who need it, to the manufacturers of the drug testing kits.

[navkat]

And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.

I think you're seriously underestimating the level of evil involved here.