Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

(List of United States federal legislation, 2001-present)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, enacted July 30, 2008) (commonly referred to as HERA) designed primarily to address the subprime mortgage crisis. It authorized the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed rate mortgages for subprime borrowers if lenders write-down principal loan balances to 90 percent of current appraisal value. It was intended to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by strengthening regulations and injecting capital into the two large U.S. suppliers of mortgage funding. States are authorized to refinance subprime loans using mortgage revenue bonds. Enactment of the Act led to the government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“Fast and Furious,” the ATF Gunwalking Scandal

ATF gunwalking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weapons recovered by Mexican military in Naco, Sonora, Mexico, 20 Nov 2009, including weapons bought two weeks earlier by Operation Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino who would buy 723 guns during the operation.[1]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF) ran a series of “gunwalking” sting operations[2][3]between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] “Gun walking” or “letting guns walk” was a tactic whereby the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders.”[7]

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest “gunwalking” probe, monitored the sale of over 2,000 firearms, of which nearly 700 were recovered as of October 20, 2011.[15] A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[7]

According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, firearms trafficked by smugglers under the watch of the ATF have been found at crime scenes in Mexico, including scenes involving the death or wounding of at least 150 Mexican civilians — a statistic “which could not be independently confirmed” and the official did not say how it was calculated.[16] Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene of the death of at least one U.S. federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The “gunwalking” operations became public in the aftermath of Terry’s murder.[2] Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.[17][18] As investigations have continued, the operations have become increasingly controversial in both countries, and diplomatic relations have been damaged as a result.[2]

In June 2012, a six-month long investigation by Fortune magazine concluded that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.[19] Agents interviewed during the investigation repeatedly asserted that only one isolated incident of “gunwalking” ever occurred, and was performed independently by ATF Agent John Dodson (who later appeared on CBS News as a whistleblower to denounce the gunwalking scandal) as part of an unauthorized solo action outside of the larger Fast and Furious operation.[19]

The Joint Staff Report on Fast and Furious released July 31, 2012, included an appendix pointing out errors in theFortune article.[20] Following publication of the Inspector General Review of Fast and Furious on September 18th, Dodson’s lawyer wrote the managing editor of Fortune stating the article was “demonstrably false” and that a retraction was in order.[21] After Fortune did not retract the article, Dodson sued for libel on October 12, 2012.[22][23]

Sandy Hook Cover-up Continues

Cover-up at Sandy Hook
At least they are checking toxicology results on Adam Lanza’s body, but the results will mean nothing. Some mind-control drugs can disappear from the system after they have done their damage.
The cops said they won’t interview child survivors. Of course not! The cops have a prepared story, and they do not want information that would contradict it.
Where was Adam Lanza for the past three years? Did he have contact with hypnotists, therapists, government agents? Did he read “Catcher in the Rye,” the CIA-MKULTRA trigger book, as John Lennon’s killer did? What hypnotic command was used to trigger Adam Lanza?
Have the cops asked “grieving parents” why they were joking and laughing before their TV interviews? In the interviews, the “grieving parents” acted grieved, when a minute before they had been laughing. What is the card that Robbie Parker was reading from for the TV cameras? Who prepared the wording on the card? Who told the preparer what words to use?
We have only whores for journalist and detectives. We have no journalists or detectives who will investigate the other possible shooters, including the man in camo who was caught by cops in the woods and put in a patrol car in the front seat. Sounds like another John Doe #2 from the OK City bombing and like the RFK killing, where a Kennedy campaign worker witnessed a man and woman rush out of the Ambassador Hotel, one saying, “We killed him!” Then a CIA agent convinced her that Ethel Kennedy needed closure and that the campaign worker never witnesses any such thing. The Sandy Hook cover-up pretends that the man in camo never existed, just as they still pretend that John Doe #2 never existed and was never helping McVeigh, just as they still pretend that Sirhan Sirhan was a lone assassin (when he was not the assassin at all).
Nobody will investigate how “Sandy Hook” became Strike Zone 1 in the Batman movie, “Dark Knight Rises,” just as nobody has investigated the movie / rapper video issues with the Aurora shooting. Suppose a detective asked Director Christopher Nolan how “Sandy Hook” became Strike Zone 1 in the movie. Who changed it from the other name? How did that name get chosen? When you received permission to use Heinz Field for your movie, what conditions were attached? Did anybody from the Heinz family, including John Kerry and his agents, have input into any part of the movie?
Nobody will investigate how Adam Lanza had two hand guns in his possession when he died, and his Bushmaster rifle was in his car trunk, yet the coroner said that the Bushmaster killed all the victims. I would like to know how a Bushmaster in a car trunk killed so many people. But the detectives and journalists would rather fall asleep at the wheel. The AP continues to report that Lanza shot everyone with a Bushmaster. Jesus will return before the AP does any real investigations.
Another strange coincidence is that Suzanne Collins, the author of the “Hunger Games,” a vicious fantasy about kids killing kids, lives in Sandy Hook. Suggested questions: Ms. Collins, have you had any contact with government agencies? If so, which ones? When? What did you tell them? What did they tell you? Did you know that a school massacre was coming? If so, how?
Will the government say they should raze the school? Wouldn’t surprise me. A big red flag that a multiple death scene was Illuminati-orchestrated is the decision to destroy the evidence afterward. They cleaned JFK’s limo the day he was shot, they razed the buildings at Waco after they killed the families there, and they shipped the girders from the Trade Towers overseas before anybody could test them for bomb or dynamite residue.
Is there anybody in Connecticut with the guts to stand up and ask probing questions?
DW
Click here to find out more!

Adam Lanza’s Body Claimed

  • Email
  • print
  •  14K
By DAVE ALTIMARI, daltimari@courant.comThe Hartford Courant8:02 a.m. EST, December 31, 2012

Adam Lanza’s body was claimed several days ago by someone who wanted to remain anonymous, State Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II said Sunday.

Lanza’s burial site also is being kept secret.

Lanza, 20, killed himself inside a classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown on Dec. 14 after a shooting rampage that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 children. Lanza earlier killed his mother, Nancy, at their house.

Carver has ruled Lanza’s death a suicide but he is awaiting results of toxicology tests before completing the case.


Sign Up For Traffic Text Alerts


In addition he has asked geneticists from the University of Connecticut to study Lanza’s DNA for any mutations or other abnormalities that could shed light on his motivation for the shootings.

Nancy Lanza’s body was claimed by a funeral home in New Hampshire and she was buried in a private ceremony earlier this month. She was born in Kingston, N.H. Carver would not comment on whether the same funeral home claimed Adam Lanza’s body.

Peter Lanza, Adam Lanza’s father, lives in Stamford, although sources said he had little contact with his son the past two years. Carver would not comment on whether Peter Lanza or someone representing him claimed the body.

Oliver Stone to RT: “U.S. has become an Orwellian state”

Oliver Stone to RT: ‘US has become an Orwellian state’

Published: 28 December, 2012, 20:19
Edited: 29 December, 2012, 00:14

US director Oliver Stone (AFP Photo / Tizina Fabi)

(116.9Mb)embed video

Americans are living in an Orwellian state argue Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick, as they sit down with RT to discuss US foreign policy and the Obama administration’s disregard for the rule of law.

Both argue that Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and that people have forgiven him a lot because of the “nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him.”

“He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them,” Stone told RT. “It is an Orwellian state. It might not be oppressive on the surface, but there is no place to hide. Some part of you is going to end up in the database somewhere.”

According to Kuznick, American citizens live in a fish tank where their government intercepts more than 1.7 billion messages a day. “That is email, telephone calls, other forms of communication.”

RT’s Abby Martin in the program Breaking the Set discusses the Showtime film series and book titled The Untold History of the United States co-authored by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.

 

“Obama was a great hope for change”

RT: It took both of you almost five years to produce this series. And in it you have a chapter called Obama: Management of a Wounded Empire. You give a harsh critique of the Obama administration. What in your eyes has been the most troubling aspect of his presidency, Oliver?

Oliver Stone: I think under the disguise of sheep’s clothing he has been a wolf. That because of the nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him, people forgave him a lot. He was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them. That is what is sad. So we are going into the second administration that is living outside the law and does not respect the law and foundations of our system and he is a constitutional lawyer, you know. Without the law, it is the law of the jungle.  Nuremburg existed for a reason and there was a reason to have trials, there is a reason for due process – ‘habeas corpus’ as they call it in the United States.

RT: Do you agree Peter?

Peter Kuznick: I agree, if you look at his domestic policy, he did not break with the Bush administration’s policies. If you look at his transparency – he claimed to be the transparency president when he was running for office. There has not been transparency. We have been actually classifying more documents under Obama than we did under Bush. All previous presidents between 1970 and 2008 indicted three people total under Espionage Act. Obama has already indicted six people under the Espionage Act. The surveillance has not stopped, the incarceration without bringing people to trial has not stopped. So those policies have continued.

Then there are war policies, militarization policies. We are maintaining that. We are fighting wars now in Yemen, Afghanistan, we are keeping troops in Afghanistan. We have not cut back the things that we all found so odious about the Bush administration and Obama added some of his own. The drones policy – Obama had more drone attack in the first eight months than Bush had his entire presidency. And these have very dubious international legality.

OS: Peter was hopeful that the in the second term there will be some more flexibility, we hope so. But, there is a system in place, which is enormous – the Pentagon system.

RT: It almost seems that they took the odious CIA policies and just branded them, so it is now acceptable – the assassinations, the extrajudicial executioner without the due process. It is fascinating.

 

“We are all ultimately watching ourselves”

PK: We complained during Bush years that Bush was actually conducting surveillance without judiciary review. Obama is killing people, targeted assassinations without judiciary review. That to us is obviously much more serious.

RT: You also cover Pearl Harbor, which of course led to the internment of Japanese American citizens. I do not think a lot of people acknowledge that once again underreported aspect of really what that meant. When you look at the surveillance grid in America today it almost seems like it is an open-air internment camp, where they do not need to intern people anymore because we have this grid set up in place. What do you guys think about that?

PK: The US government now intercepts more than 1.7 billion messages a day from American citizens. That is email, telephone calls, other forms of communication. Can you imagine: 1.7 billion? We’ve got this apparatus set up now with hundreds of thousands of people, over a million of people with top security clearances in this kind of nightmarish state, this 1984 kind of state.

OS: One million top security clearances. That is a pretty heavy number. In other words, we are living in a fish pond and I think the sad part is that the younger people accept that. They are used to the invasion. And that is true, how can we follow the lives of everybody? But the truth is that we are all ultimately watching ourselves. It is an Orwellian state. It might not be oppressive on the surface, but there is no place to hide. Some part of you is going to end up in the database somewhere.

 Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone (right) and historian Peter Kuznick
Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone (right) and historian Peter Kuznick

 

“US fears things,we fear the rest of the world”

PK: And it can be oppressive on the surface. One of the things we feared after 9/11 was that if there was a second serious attack like 9/11 then the constitution would be gone. The crackdown would be so outrageous at that point. And there is still this obsessive fear. The US fears things, we fear the rest of the world. We spend as much money on our military security intelligence as the rest of the world combined. Do we have enemies that we feel so threatened by? Do we really need this anymore? Is this what our priorities should be? No we think not, we want to turn that around.

RT:
 The evisceration of the rule of law, especially the National Defense Authorization Act, which eradicates due process – our basic fundamental freedom in this country. I wanted to bring up another interesting point that really struck me in the film series, which are the kamikaze pilots. They were brave, that was the bravest act that you could do and then I can’t help but think of suicide bombers today and Bill Maher, he goes out and loses his show for saying these people are brave. And you have people like Ron Paul get up there and talk about blowback as a reality and he is ridiculed. How did we get here, where the discourse is just so tongued down when we can’t even acknowledge the truths such as that?

OS: Primitive of course. There has been a blind worship of the military and patriotism. I strongly believe in the strong military, but to defend our country, not to invade other countries and to conquer the world. I think there is a huge difference that has been forgotten: morality. Once you take the laws away, as Einstein once said famously, the country does not obey its laws, the laws would be disrespected. So it seems that the fundamental morality has been lost on us somewhere on the way recently and now it is what is effective. Can we kill Bin Laden without having to bring him to trial, can we just get it done? And that ‘get it down’ mentality justifies the ends and that is where countries go wrong, and people go wrong. All of our lives are moral equations. Does the end justify the means? No, it never did.

PK: And the other side of what you are asking is about the constraints upon political discourse in this country. Why are people so uninformed? That is what we are to deal with in the series. If people don’t understand their history, then they don’t have any vision of the future and what is possible. If they think what exists now – the tyranny of now – is all that is possible, then they can’t dream about the future. They can’t imagine the future that is different from the present. That is what I am saying – people have to understand the past because if you study the past then you can envision a future that is very different.

We came really close on many occasions to going into very different direction in the future. We came very close in 1944-1945 to avoiding atomic bombing and potentially not having the kind of Cold War that we had. We came very close in 1953 upon Stalin’s death to ending the Cold War. We came close in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated to ending the war in Vietnam, to ending the Cold War, to heading into a very different direction. Then there were the Carter years, again a possibility of a different direction. And at the end of the Cold War in 1989 Gorbachev was reaching out to Bush. Did Bush take that olive branch that Gorbachev was giving him? No, very much different. What did we do instead? We applaud the Soviets for not invading when countries were liberating themselves from the Soviet Union and then we immediately go and invade Panama and then we invade Iraq.

So we are saying that “it is great that you are showing restraint, but we are not going to because we are the hegemon.” As Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under {Bill] Clinton, says “if the US uses force it’s because we are the United States of America; we are the indispensable nation. We see further and stand taller than other nations.” That is the attitude that Oliver and I are challenging. This sense of American exceptionalism that the US is a city on the hill, God’s gift to humanity, if we do it, it is right. And that is not acceptable.

 

“We want the country to begin thinking about the big questions again”

OS: It is very funny because the book has been out a few weeks, series have been playing for the fifth week now. We go to TV shows, we sit in these beautiful sets and they are always rushing and rushing. They got news in Gaza, they got Obama. And they ask us what are you talking about? History? What does it have to do with today? What is your point? We sit there very patiently and it is very bizarre to me that they say the past is prologue, that is all happened before and if we are smart you will see it more calmly and won’t overreact. We also argue that this kind of media is driven by dollars, the greed. You have a show and it is really not a news show, it is about rating and how you can get that – with a lot of speed, a lot of zoom and a lot of fancy sets and people watch. Goal is to keep it moving, don’t think, just keep it moving.

PK: A show like this, we can actually discuss the issues at a little more depth, a little more critically.

RT: If both of you are to make a film about this generation right now, what is one facet that you think is the most underreported or misrepresented?

OS: I don’t know about the younger generation, I have three children. I think it is an eternal story in some degree. People no matter what have a similar morality and consciousness, patterns re-emerge again and again. The young men and young women want to make their way into the world. And it is not that far off from what we went through. So I believe in cyclical history and I think my children are going through what I and my father and mother went through. I always look for those patterns first beyond the superficiality.

PK: I find that my students care very passionately about what is going on in the world. They are all doing lots of volunteer work. But what I find in this generation, like Oliver’s and my generation, is that they treat the symptoms. They are not asking the questions about the root cause of all of these problems. They care, they try to change things, but it is more superficial.

What we are challenging them to do is look at the patterns. Look at what has happened from the 1890s all the way through to today. Look at the consistency of the wars, interventions, the military expenditures, the paranoia, they fear of outsiders, the oppression. And get it to the root, what is making the system as a whole sick in a certain ways and how can we root out those deeper causes.

Now that we understand that, we can begin to change that. The Occupy movement did some of that there have been times in the 1930s, 1970-80s, 1960s when people were challenging on that scale. We want the country to begin thinking about these big questions again. What is our past, how did we get here, what are the possibilities for the future, what have we done wrong and what can we get right?

RT: Do you think these superficialities in the conventional wisdom that we hear are perpetuated to keep us in a perpetual state of war?

PK: I don’t know if it is quite so deliberate, but that seems to be the effect – dumbing down the population to the point where they cannot think critically and then you can pull anything over their eyes. They have a five-minute attention span and a five-minute memory of what happened in the past. We are saying learn your history, study it and think about what the alternatives are, think in utopian ways how different the world could be, how better it could be if we start to organize it rationally in the interest of people, not in the interest of profit, not in the interest of Wall Street, not in the interest of military, in the interest of our common humanity, the six billion of us who occupy this planet.

OS: The model of the series of The World at War, which was made by the BBC in the 1970s about WWII. Ours are 10 feature films, cut with care, an hour each, pure narration, music, and sometimes clips of films that make our point or don’t make our point. Either way we try to keep it flowing like a young person could enjoy it like a movie, I am glad you did.

The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008

(List of United States federal legislation, 2001-present)

 

The Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632, enacted July 29, 2008) is a United States act of Congress, that bars gemstones — specifically rubies and jadeite — from Burma from entering the United States via third party countries.
[edit]Provisions

As of 2008, gemstones are Burma’s third largest source of income.
The bill also bars generals and their families from Burma from acquiring visas to enter the United States and increases financial sanctions against the Burmese government. The ban does not apply to gems imported for personal use nor to exports of Burmese gems from the U.S or prevent U.S. sales of Burmese gems already in the United States.
[edit]Name

The Act was named for the recently deceased Tom Lantos, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
[edit]External links

Kurt Nimmo: Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting; It’s about Tyranny

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.

Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.

Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.

Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?

Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.

 

This article was posted: Friday, July 27, 2012 at 7:54 am

Tags: 

Carol Perry: Kicking the can over the fiscal cliff

Carol Perry: Kicking the can over the fiscal cliff
By Carol Perry
For the Nevada Appeal
Another year is coming to a close and the elections are behind us. Each year the political ads become more underhanded and vicious, but unfortunately that seems to work. I have to wonder how many people actually did their due diligence on any candidate? From the outcomes, I am guessing not very many.

What surprised me most was how many voters made decisions based on individual or personal issues rather than the one issue that must be resolved and soon. That issue is the budget and national debt. Is it because the voter does not care or are they ignorant of these issues? I not really sure. As I watched poll after poll prior to election day, there seemed to be more concern about taxing the rich, women’s rights, immigration and social welfare programs than our lack of a budget and $16 trillion of growing national debt.

By making these smaller issues of primary importance, individual groups became separated into their own microcosm of society. It appears that what is good for some has become more important than what is good for all. When voting this year, the No. 1 issue should have been our out-of-control budget and national debt since so many other issues are intertwined with how we handle these two. Issues like the economy and employment as well as continuing entitlements are literally being crushed under the weight of such a monster but the voter did not make the connection.

President Obama campaigned on higher taxes for the rich. They needed to pay their fair share, but the definition of rich and fair share was not logical. The rich were defined as persons earning more than $250,000 per year but are these really rich people? When I owned my small business here in Carson City, my receipts were over that $250,000 mark, but much of that went to rent, salaries and expenses related to running my business. While it is probably the same for other small business owners, the voter’s vision of rich were the folks actually taking home over $250,000.

The mentality here was not that these people were not paying a fair share, but more that they could afford additional taxes. The other issue of fair share was a bit muddled as well. Campaign ads portrayed a vision of the rich as “old money” or speculators. With money mostly inherited or earned by speculation, these were the folks supposedly using as many tax loopholes as their well paid accountants could find each year.

All of this was effectively conveyed to the voter in ads. The crux of the matter was even if the president got both the standard of rich and fair share defined under his criteria, the amount of actual income this new tax would bring in would be insignificant when compared to the money we really need to close the huge gaps in our budget and start bringing down our debt.

Some of those numbers, not well defined by the Romney campaign are that the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent of wage earners paid 38 and 67 percent respectively of all federal income taxes while earning 20 and 37 percent of all income. Also ,thanks to the financial crisis in 2008, the share of after tax income from the top 1 percent went from 17.3 to 11.3 percent by 2009. This means there were fewer of that 1 percent to tax.

I am in agreement with the President that there are folks like Warren Buffet, who could pay more in tax, but a change in the tax code makes more sense than penalizing the entire demographic.The goal of any administration should be to provide fuel to the engine of growth in order to create jobs. Jobs create tax payers. Taxpayers spend disposable income. Spending means more hiring . More hiring means more workers creating taxable income. Not exactly rocket science.

Here we are, the end of the year looms as does the fiscal cliff. The public wanted bipartisanship and cooperation between Congress and the President, but elected the same power split we have had for the past two years.

With the same politicians, comes the same gridlock, so why re-elect the very same people who did a lousy job of solving our budget and debt problems during the last term? I am not saying that every politician returning in January deserves to go home, but if the voters had done their due diligence on each candidate, instead of being swayed by TV ads, there might have been a better chance at budget resolution and debt reduction. Perhaps I am the crazy one, but is not one definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results?”

Expect the next four years to resemble the last four years and hope that between the cliff and the budget deficit, we can survive fiscally unscathed. Personally, I have serious doubts that we can kick the can of budget and debt resolution for another four years, but the voters have spoken. I’m just not so sure that they all knew what they were saying. Happy New Year to you all.

• Carol Perry is a retired financial adviser and has been a Northern Nevada resident since 1983. She can be reached at Carol_Perry@att.net.