It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 2011 Bipartisan "Build Act" - Hint: It's not really about "Infrastructure"

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Then there's this little gem:


to provide for an extension of the exemption from the alternative minimum tax treatment for certain tax-exempt bonds, and for other purposes.


Sounds like a sneaky extension on some tax cuts here?
Someone knowledgeable about bonds will hopefully take the time to read and see what this is about.
I suspect this is the blood offering to the Republicans.

I'm bummed that I cannot applaud your post Max.
;:CLAP;CLAP;CLAP;CLAP;CLAP;CLAP;CLAP;;
edit on 24-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Wow Max what a post. I have read about half way and will finish in a bit.

So they want to create another bank to steal more tax dollars and then they want it to go private with tax breaks for all. I think that we all know how that will work out. I can invision exactly what Asktheanimals has said, plenty of toll roads and toll bridges. Huge jumps in the price of water and sewage taxes and overall cost. Plus I'm sure that the estimates for said projects will be inflated in order to get more money out of the taxpayers pockets. I'm sure that eventually the taxpayer will have to bail out this abomonation after the bankers manage to steal all the funds. Just like they did with fanny and freddy.

Just another viehicle for the international theives to take advantage of. Thanks for taking the time to put this out there. Incredible work on your part and most impressive.S&F wish I could give more.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
It seems our Federal government has created a "need" for this bill:


This proposal is the only initiative offered that protects the Highway Trust Fund and ensures its future solvency. This trust fund is maintained by user fees — gas taxes paid by motorists at the pump — dedicated specifically for transportation improvements. The trust fund provides guaranteed long-term funding to states for critical infrastructure planning and projects.

However, in recent years the government has been overspending from the trust fund. Last year, we spent about $50 billion from the trust fund but collected only $35 billion in revenue. Consistent overspending has necessitated the transfer of $35 billion from the general fund into the trust fund over the past three years.


- Rep. John Mica
Source - www.rollcall.com...

Mis-allocation of gas taxes? Whodathunkit?

When Eisenhower left office the US was spending 12% of it's capital outlays on infrastructure, today we're down to 2.5% - former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell
edit on 25-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Yes indeed is'nt that interesting.

Create the problem, then offer themselves as the solution.

Seems that theme is rather familiar Hmmmmm........



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Holy cow bat man.... this is some scary stuff here... thank you for taking the time to write all this up. I am currently about to launch into the 5th section of your OP but had to stop, get another cup of coffee and let what I've read thus far digest a bit. In reading the first 4 sections, several things jumped out at me.

1. The creation of a board of directors and the chairman of the board for said 'bank'. Because this 'bank' will be a government created entity populated by tax payer money in the beginning, obviously these positions will be decided by the goverment. Now because I am stuck in my own quagmire of research for a mega thread I'm writing up, this is a sore subject for me because in my research I am finding the same names cropping up right and left in big business, everyones fingers are in everyone elses pie so to speak. Now, because I firmly believe that our government is not government run but is run instead by big business and big banking interests, I envision short lists of names already in place for board membership and the chairman of the board position. These are not people who will hold the interest of the people to heart but instead will continue on with business as usual.

2. The general feeling I get, much like Asktheanimals thought on this further binding states and counties to the Federal Government, is the further stripping of states rights from the states to the benefit of the Feds. I can see how this could (read: will be) used as a tool to strong arm states into acceptance of Federal mandates. Let me demonstrate what I mean using NDAA and the current move of several states to nullify the NDAA in part or whole:

Feds: "Whats that Washington State? You want to totally nullify the NDAA? Hmm..... and I see here you want a loan to assist in upgrading your power grid.....really? *slaps the handcuffs on Washington state loosely*
State: "Yes, we think the NDAA is unconstitutional on your part and are moving to protect our citizens from your unlawful acts. And yes, our grid is in desperate need of upgrading. The 2 have nothing to do with one another however". *does not flinch at the handcuffs*
Feds: "Odd, we see the 2 as totally interconnected... are you not getting it yet?" *tightens the handcuffs to the point of pain*
State: "We maintain the 2 have nothing to do with one another" *starts to sweat profusely*
Feds: *cocks an eyebrow while tightening the cuffs to the point of cutting off circulation* "Ah, how about now then...getting it now?
State: "OK, what do we have to do in order to get the grid upgrade loan?"
Feds: "Take your nullify the NDAA legislation off the table and this will allll go away and money released for your grid upgrade" *shakes the handcuffs to increase the pain level*
State: "You got it... consider it done" *hangs its head in shame knowing they are now powerless to stop the Feds*

Sounds extreme but, in actuality this tactic in various forms is used today. The example of Arizona's immigration bill comes to mind. The Feds managed to squash it no matter how Arizona fought against them, in the end the Feds won. This new bill will just be another tool for them to use against the states in my opinion coupled with lining their pockets with more tax payer money.

Now... on to read the rest......

edit on 25-2-2012 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Once the project is complete the loan can be 'sold' or 'repackaged' as an investment vehicle ("may sell to another entity, or reoffer into the capital markets, a direct loan for the infrastructure project") which is what now, perhaps a “derivative?”


Wait... what???!!!??? Ok, am I the only one that read this part and did NOT think immediately of the mess made by the subprime mortgage scandals?

Maxmars, perhaps you can better answer this as you seem to have a fantastic understanding of this bill.. but what happens when it becomes clear that a loan made for infrastucture upgrades will be defaulted on? With this allowance for the ability of this new bank to sell the loan or repackage it to make it not look like the dud that it is, I can see where we may be looking at the possibility of another sub-prime mortgage mess in our future... or am I reading too much into that? Is this bank going to be seen yet again as "too big to fail"? Will the Fed Reserve come to the rescue of this bank if defaults start coming hot and heavy? Or will there be a deal made between this bank and lets say Bank of America to buy said bad loans and then the Fed Reserve bail BoA out again? Am I going totally off the road here in my thinking??

With who I envision as this banks Board of Directors to possibly be made up of (which is littered liberally with the brain trusts that brought us the mortgage mess to begin with) I do not trust them one bit to be able to tell a good loan from a bad one. So where would that leave us?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It seems our Federal government has created a "need" for this bill:


This proposal is the only initiative offered that protects the Highway Trust Fund and ensures its future solvency. This trust fund is maintained by user fees — gas taxes paid by motorists at the pump — dedicated specifically for transportation improvements. The trust fund provides guaranteed long-term funding to states for critical infrastructure planning and projects.

However, in recent years the government has been overspending from the trust fund. Last year, we spent about $50 billion from the trust fund but collected only $35 billion in revenue. Consistent overspending has necessitated the transfer of $35 billion from the general fund into the trust fund over the past three years.


- Rep. John Mica
Source - www.rollcall.com...


How interesting indeed!

Here we have a hint... an unspoken revelation....


... the only initiative offered that protects the Highway Trust Fund and ensures its future solvency. ...


Note that the only way a bank can ensure the solvency of this fund is by "making" a "loan" to it, unless I am mistaken.

The Mafia used to call it "bankrolling an operation" and it is how a tiny desert town was transformed into the phenomenon we call "Las Vegas" was created.

But of course the 'economic' beauty of the "Build" ACT scenario is that we are borrowing money from ourselves to bankroll companies to create and restore infrastructure while basically giving them all the proceeds from its operation, while 'paying back' the loan (to ourselves) with interest... except by ("ourselves") I mean the supranational banking cartel that has taken root in our government (among many others.)

And along with that glorious repeat of history goes the codified, legislated, and clearly stipulated immunity from liability, freedom from public oversight, and personal sovereignty that is increasingly denied the non-corporate, non-institutionalized, individual human citizen.... go figure...

edit on 25-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Agreed. It is almost laughable that the legislature would take up the mental gymnastics necessary to make this seem like the "bi-partisan" solution to a problem which requires so little 'politics' to resolve.

Recently we have seen an increase in the theatrical friction and media tom-foolery used to portray the differences and "unresolvable problems" between the two pillars of the duopoly that has run this country since decades ago. When I see bills like this marketed as "bi-partisan" I image that it is all a cover so that the bills they really are 'ordered to" support seem that much less threatening to the little people like us who dare take a good long look at what they are up to.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 


Your are spot on in your projections.

This may - and this is only theory - actually be the birth certificate of the next huge bubble.

There are several theoretical scenarios that can play out... and I see that I needn't burden you with examples as you are demonstrating 'clear thinking' on the broad message that can be inferred from this bill. But I cant resist this one example of a 'what if' scenario.

What if there is an effort underway (benign or otherwise) to consolidate governance of the planet under a single overarching authority? Call it what you will. The effort would have to remain covert... simply because none of the existing powers wish to be marginalized, or rendered impotent. The United States stands as a significant distraction, at best, or a roadblock at worst, because we have codified and established a Jurisprudence which favors the sovereignty of the individual over the authority of the state (don't laugh - that is the theory.) America has prospered and her people began to live lives which rapidly exceed the 'norm' across the planet. We needed to be "knocked down a peg or two"... enter the financial cartel.... and willing political celebrities who exchanged their vain ambition for access to powers they simply did not understand - or were willing to rationalize into acceptable.

Depression, recession, inflate, "pop"... it's how the United States sovereignty can be 'marginalized'...

To me this act is one such trap... being set, ready to spring... and in 50 years or so... will play a major role in diminishing the prosperity of the only real competition corporations have.... their consumers. Keep them wanting, teach them to desire, then make them beholden to you for anything they want.

Ugly little scenario, but just one among many......



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes indeed, if we could package the baloney that comes out of that duopoly we could feed the world at least for a while. These days I'm having just a bit of a problem seeing the difference between them.

I always enjoy how they twist the wording in these bills to their advantage. Then they usually attach legislation to it that wouldn't pass otherwise. Of coarse most of them don't actually read what they vote on. To me at least that is treasonous. Their job(I thought at least) is to represent We the People. I fail utterly in understanding how we are being properly represented when they don't even read what they vote on.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

What if there is an effort underway (benign or otherwise) to consolidate governance of the planet under a single overarching authority? Call it what you will. The effort would have to remain covert... simply because none of the existing powers wish to be marginalized, or rendered impotent. The United States stands as a significant distraction, at best, or a roadblock at worst, because we have codified and established a Jurisprudence which favors the sovereignty of the individual over the authority of the state (don't laugh - that is the theory.)


Laugh? Not at all, indeed I found myself nodding in agreement with the scenario you present. It could very well be one that ultimately plays out.

In re-reading some of the information on how this bank will be setup something occured to me, and upon researching this thought, I had one of those AH HA moments that literally made my head swim. This bank is being setup on some of the same principals as the World Bank only on a national scale rather than a global scale. Please hear me out before you go into possible giggles over that statement. I am using this Wiki Source as the basis of these comparisons.

The original purpose of the World Bank was to facilitate the building and maintaining of the infrastructure of other countries. Things like ports, roads and power plants, just like this bank will attempt to do in the US.

Emphasis was shifted to non-European countries and until 1968, loans were earmarked for projects that would enable a borrower country to repay loans (such projects as ports, highway systems, and power plants).



From its conception until 1965 the bank undertook a relatively low level of lending.

Which from the figures in your OP would have to be the case with this bank as well. With the somewhat "limited" seed money that will be provided to the bank from the government compared to the current need it will naturally keep lending low. This low level of lending expanding in the case of World Bank to what we see now as out of control lending and lack of fiscal responsibility from the World Bank. It is not a far stretch to see this happening with this bank as well to be honest.


Fiscal conservatism and careful screening of loan applications was common.
Bold mine
This would link back to the 2 agencies mentioned in your OP that would be created in order to assist any entity during the loan application process.


Bank president John McCloy selected France to be first recipient of World Bank aid; two other applications from Poland and Chile were rejected. The loan was for US$250 million, half the amount requested and came with strict conditions.

And what would those strict conditions be?

The United States State Department told the French government that communist elements within the Cabinet needed to be removed. The French Government complied with this diktat and removed the Communist coalition government. Within hours the loan to France was approved.

Those strict conditions. The same strong arm tactics I mentioned in my first response to your OP. Seems the World Bank found it's teeth early on in the process. I have no reason to believe that seeing the success of this tactic by World Bank, that this new bank would not employ the same tactic expecting the same result. Our states are in such financial straights that this money carrot dangled infront of them would be too much to resist. Using money to be able to affect state legislation in favor of Federal policies, I'm sure, almost has these banker politicians foaming at the mouth at the possibility of implementing this.

Now, using the above info let's look at your scenario again. Robert Zoellick, current head of World Bank has said he will be stepping down from that position in June of 2012. The name bantied about as his replacement is Hilary Clinton, current Secretary of State. If this new bank is allowed to come to fruition, what a feather in the cap it would be to have the former WB head as your Chairman of the Board! And because I did not see any reference in your OP that board members had to be a US citizen, how hard is it to make the leap that he could bring on board some of his foreign high powered financial cronies from WB? These people who would have the means and being devoid of ethics would use that power to influence US policy across the board, thus eliminating the US road block you mention in your response to me, assimilating the US into the plan covertly to:

consolidate governance of the planet under a single overarching authority


See what happens when my mind is allowed to wander down strange roads?
But at any rate, I appreciate your response to me and your thought provoking thread. This kind of thread is what keeps me coming back to ATS!
edit on 25-2-2012 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: No matter how many times I proof read the spelling monster will still bite me in the butt



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join