Quoted from mikechristine1

Listen SB aka DV.  it says AVERAGE.   Do you have ANY ability in math??????    

Would you care to explain, then WHY the TOTAL HOUSEHOLD income (all members of a family in total), in the city has generally just $30,000 per year?????    Now, PLEASE explain your math.  Can you explain HOW a total $30,000 household (roughly $15,000 per person) figures out to be that close to $1,000 per week per person?

Yes, before an imagination of your parents, GE was here with it's high paid executives.  Within the county we have Knolls, not sure if that was here before you were born, but it has high paying jobs.  Your buddy dems didn't cause those jobs to be high paid.

These so called "highest" well, remember Stratton's giveaways to his department heads.  And cops get paid so high in Schenectady, that it inflates the average number as well

Please do the math.  What is the average weekly and what is the median weekly of the following group of people based on these annual salaries each "employee"

Employee 1      $  500,000  
Employee 2            30,000
Employee 3            30,000
Employee 4            30,000
Employee 5            30,000
Employee 6            30,000

Quoted from 147

Looks like the Bates Motel is checking in under a new name

Quoted from Smoking Bananas

more crazy BS from the numb-nutts.

Quoted Text

TREASON: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Who and How they Own and Control it All!

by Walter Burien

December 15th 2009





I will note that the most important fact the people need to know is that in collective totals government (thousands of individual government entities) owns by stock ownership; bond participation; and equity participation most of the large public traded companies such as technology; pharmaceuticals; energy; banks; insurance; and war industry groups through collective ownership (in many a case 71% to 83% ownership)

There is no one individual government entity that will call the shots for these companies (even though some carry more clout than others) but there are private associations that network thousands of local and federal government accounts that have been assigned representative proxy vote rights for the thousands they represent and here is where the control rests.

By proxy vote representing the "collective" primary shareholders they can exert pressure for that company to do as told and if not they can remove the board of directors by representative proxy vote. On the other hand they can network millions if not billions of dollars of government investment capital for direction and investment with any company.



So, no matter from which side you look at it, the control factor is there.. Do a search for what financial consulting "private associations" with nice government sounding acronyms your many different local governments belongs to and the patterns of control will start coming into view.



For the CAFR local government's Annual Financial Report, the two primary private associations that call the shots by direction and consult are GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) and GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board). Find the common denominators for your local government pensions (which in collective totals are in the trillions of dollars) and here is where the collective power is exerted.

Local and federal entities are restricted from owning individually more that 5% of any company, but by networking their 5% with hundreds if not thousands of other local and federal investment portfolios through these private associations, they bypass any restrictions per monopoly and exerting undue influence on the companies they collectively own. Understanding this is VERY important to comprehend how the undercurrents of control are exerted.



On another note, most people don't realize the Democratic and Republican parties are 100% "private associations" designed from the get-go to have their people placed for access to the massive capital flow running through government. (Standing at 15 trillion dollars collective gross income generated each years for local and federal as of 2007 from all sources).  

You have to ask yourself "What is the intent of these private associations and our government officials?" Is it to make your life better or to enrich themselves giving the "impression" they are there to make your life better.. Well, it does not take to high of an IQ to see the end result of their intent played out in final result. Easy money has brought us to a point of massive theft. Not just of our property and income but also in our environment to maintain a healthy and good life-style.



It does not matter if 95% of us have good intent, when that 3% factor can steal it all in obscurity maintained, there is a slight tad bit of a problem for us all. The new CAFR1 documentary soon to be released will address this problem and offer definitive remedy that can be applied to correct this circumstance, and improve vastly the economy we are living in. (Worldwide application will apply here also)

Quoted Text

Column by Paul Hein.


Exclusive to STR





It is interesting to read what St. Augustine had to say about what we now call government:


A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renunciation of aggression, but by the attainment of impunity.




One is tempted to paraphrase the poet: When plunder doth succeed, none dare call it plunder.



Indeed, the plunder has become so common, and the plunderers so smug and self-confident, that their predations are taken for granted, and the thieves themselves treated with extraordinary deference! It is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome. You encounter the same mugger at the same spot every day, and eventually establish a sort of bizarre relationship with him----even, eventually, thanking him for not taking more. When you are given the opportunity to replace him with another mugger, you vote for the incumbent---sticking with the devil you know, unless his opponent offers to share more of his loot with you.



What brought these thoughts to mind involves the bailouts and other forms of stimuli now being inflicted upon us. I have not counted the times when some pundit on television has bemoaned these extravagances, saying something like, “And our children and their children will have to pay for all this,” or “pity the poor taxpayer, who must pay for all this,” but they must be legion. Wait a minute!  What do they mean, “HAVE to pay for all this,” or “MUST pay for all this?” If productive Americans accept the idea that they must accept financial responsibility for government largess to its cronies, then what can be the objection to the bailouts?



How refreshing it would be to hear those same pundits who bemoan the absurdity of government bailouts bemoan with equal logic and passion the idea that we, the people who produce this country’s wealth, can be saddled with the debts of strangers!  I assume they fail to notice the injustice of it because it has become so common that, as St. Augustine pointed out, the hapless victims have become subdued and demoralized, and the thieves, now well-established and empowered, have assumed the roles, if not the titles, of nobility.



When you think about it (and wouldn’t it be wonderful if people did!), you can only be struck numb with amazement. Can you go into a store, order thousands of dollars worth of goods, and then tell the clerk to send the bill to assorted strangers? Obviously, you cannot do such a thing, and, in fact, it would probably never even occur to you to attempt such a preposterous act. Yet your elected “representatives” do it regularly, with impunity, spending not thousands, but billions, based upon the power which, we are told, we have delegated to them, although in fact they somehow gave themselves the power they use.



But not to worry! Everything is entirely legal and above-board. Overlook, please, the fact that the plunderers themselves write the “laws” which enable them to plunder! While you’re at it, overlook as well the fact that when existing laws might hamper their activities, those laws are disregarded. Indignant victims could sue, of course, but the issue would be settled in a court owned and operated by your opponent, with one of his gang--with a vested interest in the outcome--on the bench. All entirely legal, of course!



So: what to do? One could learn a lesson from the experience of Prohibition. Massive civil disobedience overwhelmed the rulers, although in that instance, the massive disobedience involved the public doing something it wanted to do--drink alcohol. True, today’s public no doubt wants to hold onto its earnings, but merely being allowed to retain a portion of those earnings, by a government much more powerful than that of Prohibition, satisfies many. It’s that Stockholm syndrome, again.



Perhaps state legislators might be persuaded to question how the states (and the citizens thereof, of course) can be made parties to the debts of the federal government that is, after all, to be the servant of the people and the states. State government is closer to the people, and, perhaps, less intimidating than the federal government. If the states still consider themselves sovereign, how can they stand by while the residents of those states are impoverished by the federal government? Somebody call the sheriff!



Simplest of all, surely, would be the simple “I’ve had enough” uttered by the poor, beleaguered citizens. It wouldn’t take a majority of fed-up victims to put the fear of the voter (they don’t fear the Lord) into the houses of Congress.



A few days ago I saw a TV news program showing thousands of people lined up to get applications for federal housing assistance. What they wanted, of course, was to use the government to obtain your money for their benefit. They didn’t seem at all ashamed of their demands, and the reporters at the scene found nothing remarkable about it except the large numbers at the turnout, which reflected, they said, the sad state of the economy. Unfortunately, they didn’t equate the sad state of the economy with precisely the sort of activity being documented.



If the tax-feeders can congregate in the thousands to demand more benefits from the productive, surely the productive can do the same thing to demand that the plunder cease