The Great Swindle

• A new economy where people don't go their jobs - they become entrepreneurs and their jobs come to them - via the Internet.  All one needed to do was to join a supply chain and to sell or provide services to the billions of buyers that would become accessible via the Internet. 
   
• Because the economy was to be net-centric with people working out of their homes, we didn't need energy as we did for that dirty, old industrial economy.  We could become self-sufficient in energy production with windmills and solar panels - all so very clean and 21st century.  Remember the Jetson's?     In this 21st century vision, we could even have a doctor's visit via the Internet.
   
• And there would be no need for money - we could just walk into stores and walk out with what we want because the chips in our arms and on the goods could automatically record the purchases and debit our virtual bank account.   No need to handle that dirty money - it's all so clean. 
   
• The new 21st century net-centric economy meant redesigning cities. The idea for cities was to create "communities" - small town environments with neighbor helping neighbor; sharing and caring.  The social engineers figured that life for a net-worker would be a lonely life so they planned communities to have a social aspect to them. 
   
• The new 21st century net-centric economy also meant redesigning transportation systems to deliver the goods that originate from all over the world - right to the doorstep of the community.  Transportation hubs accommodating all modes of transportation were designed to speed those goods to market.  

The basis for the 21st century delusion of the New Economy was that multinational corporations could become emissaries for U.S. foreign policy and that business - money - could be the guiding light for world peace.  It's laughable but that's what brought us to this critical juncture.  And this plan was formulated by the allegedly best and brightest minds in America - and now they are asking us to turn over a $700 billion blank check to one of their leaders - Henry Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs.   They need the $700 billion to keep the con going because there is still a sizable middle class in America that has yet to be fleeced. 

The $700 Billion Takeover

First of all, we don't have $700 billion.  It's just more red ink added to the sea of red ink on the U.S. ledgers so what we should really be looking at is the power that would be given over to the Secretary of the Treasury - no matter who that person might be.   As you'll see below, the sub-prime mortgage problem was engineered.   People who lend money for a living don't just all of a sudden get stupid about loaning it.   Do you loan money to your bum brother-in-law who hasn't held an honest job in his entire life?  No.   And neither do bankers.   

A year ago at Georgetown University - the center cell of Communitarianism - which is newspeak for Communism, Treasury Secretary Paulson participated in a conference with the financial movers and shakers regarding U.S. competitiveness in the global economy.  The focus of the conference was to talk about a speech that Secretary Paulson had given to the New York Economic Club months earlier.  Notice how he speaks in glowing terms about the U.S. financial markets - and it's not as if he didn't know what was going on with the derivatives, hedge funds and sub prime mortgages.  After all, he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. 

It's important to look at this speech because this is the real thinking and objectives behind the $700 billion bailout scam.  

[Paulson - November 20, 2006] We are experiencing sustained growth and low unemployment. The economy has added more than 6.8 million new jobs since August 2003. Productivity, an indicator of future growth, has grown at an annual rate of 3 percent since the first quarter of 2001. And, very importantly, this productivity is now translating into higher wages, so more Americans are sharing in our economic success. The U.S. economy is the envy of the world, and we must keep it that way.

Capital markets are the lifeblood of our economy. They connect those who need capital with those who invest or lend capital. They play a vital role in helping entrepreneurs implement new ideas and businesses expand operations, creating new jobs. They give our citizens the confidence to invest, earn higher returns on their savings, and reduce the cost of borrowing for student loans, mortgages, and consumer credit.

The Treasury Department plans to host a Conference on Capital Markets and Economic Competitiveness early next year. We will invite participants with a wide range of perspectives, particularly the investor perspective. The Conference will cover the three primary areas I have discussed today – our regulatory structure, our accounting system, and our legal system – all of which impact our capital markets and are critical to the overall economic competitiveness of our nation. Our objective will be to stimulate bipartisan discussion and to lay the groundwork for a long-term strategic examination of these issues."

Then Paulson discusses the regulatory structure, accounting and legal system.  It's in this discussion that you can know what Paulson is really proposing in this sham bailout.        

First, let me say unequivocally, the development of competitive capital markets overseas is a positive. Efficient capital markets lower the cost of capital, creating more growth, more jobs, and higher living standards. And economic growth abroad creates markets for our products and jobs here at home.

In three weeks, I will travel to Beijing for the first session of our recently initiated Strategic Economic Dialogue with China. We will encourage China to open up their financial markets to competition in order to accelerate the development of those markets and support sustainable economic growth – growth that will bring benefits to both our nations.

A number of foreign markets have developed excellent standards and protocols. In some parts of the world, particularly Europe, public companies adhere to the International Financial Reporting Standards – an accounting system that differs from ours.

One important feature of the IFRS accounting system is that it is principles-based, rather than rules-based. By "principles-based," I mean that the system is organized around a relatively small number of ideas or concepts that provide a framework for thinking about specific issues. The advantage of a principles-based system is that it is flexible and sensible in dealing with new or special situations. A rules-based system typically gives more specific guidance than a principles-based system, but it can be too rigid and may lead to a "tick-the-box" approach. I will be talking about the difference between principles-based and rules-based systems in a number of contexts today.

International companies that list in the United States must reconcile their IFRS statements with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP. We should recognize that the time and cost that go into reconciling and restating IFRS statements may not be a worthwhile expense for a foreign company considering the U.S. market. Because of progress being made in converging accounting standards, the U.S. and EU have developed a "roadmap," with the goal of allowing listings in the U.S. market on the basis of statements prepared using IFRS, and likewise continuing to permit listings in the EU on the basis of statements prepared according to GAAP. These efforts are encouraging.

A number of foreign exchanges have also aggressively embraced technology and developed innovative business models that increase efficiencies and reduce costs to investors in their markets. These competitive forces have spurred responses in our country. In the most recent example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade announced plans to merge and offer investors a broader range of exchange-traded derivatives, with the goal of creating efficiencies in technology and operations.

Let's begin with one challenge that will take a concerted effort over the long term to correct – the need for reform of our legal system. My own 32-year experience in the private sector – working in the capital markets with U.S. and foreign companies alike – has convinced me that legal reform is crucial to the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

A sophisticated legal structure – with property rights, contract law, mechanisms to resolve disputes, and a system for compensating injured parties – is necessary to protect investors, businesses, and consumers. But our legal system has gone beyond protection. In 2004, U.S. tort costs reached a record quarter-trillion dollars, which is approximately 2.2 percent of our GDP. This is twice the relative cost in Germany and Japan, and three times the level in the UK. The consulting firm Towers-Perrin found that the tort system is highly inefficient, with only 42 cents of every tort dollar going to compensate injured plaintiffs. The balance goes to administration, attorney's fees, and defense costs. Inefficient tort costs are effectively a tax paid by shareholders, employees, and consumers. Simply put, the broken tort system is an Achilles heel for our economy. This is not a political issue, it is a competitiveness issue and it must be addressed in a bipartisan fashion.

Another issue to consider in assessing the competitiveness of our financial markets is regulation. Over the course of our nation's history, we have added multiple regulators to respond to the issues of the day. Our regulatory system has adapted to the changing market by expanding, but perhaps not always by focusing on the broader objective of regulatory efficiency.

For example, while the business of banking has converged over time, we still have four separate banking regulators. We have a similar dynamic with the securities and commodities markets, and their related self-regulatory structures. Each of these organizations has different statutory responsibilities and a number have different regulatory philosophies. We also have a dual federal-state regulatory system in the banking and securities markets – and the degree of federal preemption over state law in these areas varies greatly. Another large and important part of our financial sector, insurance, is regulated solely at the state level.

A consequence of our regulatory structure is an ever-expanding rulebook in which multiple regulators impose rule upon rule upon rule. Unless we carefully consider the cost/benefit tradeoff implicit in these rules, there is a danger of creating a thicket of regulation that impedes competitiveness.

Our rules-based regulatory system is prescriptive, and leads to a greater focus on compliance with specific rules. We should move toward a structure that gives regulators more flexibility to work with entities on compliance within the spirit of regulatory principles.

The interesting thing about this $700 billion bailout is that it is the Democrats who are in panic mode - not Republicans.  Is it that they care so much more about the American people than the Republicans?  I don't think so.  After all, they supported the  2005 Bankruptcy Reform bill that made it more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy - even for debt incurred due to medical bills.

Yesterday, information began surfacing about the Community Reinvestment Act and how that legislation - along with changes in law made during the Clinton Administration might have something to do with the alleged banking crisis.

Administrative Sabotage

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks. It also supervises the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the OCC has four district offices plus an office in London to supervise the international activities of national banks.

The OCC was established in 1863 as a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The OCC is headed by the Comptroller , who is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a five-year term. The Comptroller also serves as a director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and a director of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

The OCC's nationwide staff of examiners conducts on-site reviews of national banks and provides sustained supervision of bank operations. The agency issues rules, legal interpretations, and corporate decisions concerning banking, bank investments, bank community development activities, and other aspects of bank operations.

National bank examiners supervise domestic and international activities of national banks and perform corporate analyses. Examiners analyze a bank's loan and investment portfolios, funds management, capital, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and compliance with consumer banking laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act. They review the bank's internal controls, internal and external audit, and compliance with law. They also evaluate bank management's ability to identify and control risk.

History

In 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase recommended the establishment of a system of federally chartered national banks, each of which would have the power to issue standardized national bank notes based on United States bonds held by the bank. In the National Currency Act of 1863, the administration of the new national banking system was vested in the newly created OCC and its chief administrator, the Comptroller of the Currency.

The law was completely rewritten and re-enacted as the National Bank Act. That act authorized the Comptroller of the Currency to hire a staff of national bank examiners to supervise and periodically examine national banks. The act also gave the Comptroller authority to regulate lending and investment activities of national banks.

One of the reasons Congress created a banking system that issued national currency was to finance the Civil War. Although national banks no longer issue currency, they continue to play a prominent role in the nation's economic life. The OCC regulates and supervises about 1,700 national banks and about 50 federal branches of foreign banks in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds of the total assets of all U.S. commercial banks (as of June 30, 2008).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now meet Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency from 1993 to 1998. 

Eugene Ludwig

"...following Clinton's 1992 election, the president-elect invited Ludwig, an old friend and banking industry specialist at Washington's Convington and Burling, to guide the banking policy components of the presidential transition team. (The pair's relationship stretched back to their days as Rhodes Scholars at Oxford and as classmates in Yale Law School's class of 1973.) From there, it was a short step to the OCC."

The following are excerpts from articles written about the OCC and Eugene Ludwig:

Comptroller of the Currency 1993-1998

Haverford Alumni Profile: 

"How Eugene Ludwig turned an obscure Treasury bureau into a bully-pulpit for banking reform."

As comptroller, Ludwig served as the chief federal supervisor and regulator for the country's 3000 national banks....The goal (per the OCC's stated mission): to ensure the "safety and soundness of the national banking system" by reigning in and disciplining wayward banks whose policies might expose them to the risk of failure.

Although Ludwig's lack of experience in policy circles only increased the scrutiny directed at the OCC, the new comptroller didn't let the pressure intimidate him. To the contrary, he returned to the source of his authority - the National Banking Act - and sketched out an aggressive plan to reassert the office's chartered powers in the name of seismic industry transformation. "For a variety of different reasons, partly timidity, comptrollers had not used their authority to allow the banking system to develop fully," Ludwig explains. "It was clear to me that I had the power to make these changes. We didn't need legislation. It was also clear to me that it would create a political ruckus."

Ludwig's ruckus-raising changes included not only a successful 11-point program to address the credit crunch, but the dramatic liberalization of laws limiting banks to basic loan and deposit activity - an effort intended to stem the steady defection of top corporate customers to competitors with direct access to bond and equity markets. "We could Band-Aid the [credit] problem," Ludwig explains, "but people failed to realized it was a systemic problem, and what we needed was a paradigm shift." With the president's mandate, the OCC moved to allow banks to begin offering products and fee-based services in insurance and securities historically (thanks to 1934's Glass-Steagall Act) beyond their purview. He also simplified the OCC's bulky regulatory apparatus by "rewriting every rule in the book," and improved banking safety and soundness by implementing computer-based risk-prediction models and a system of "risk-based supervision" which focuses attention on volatile investments like derivatives. Ludwig proudly points out that in his final two-and-a-half years, not a single national bank failed.

Ludwig remains proudest, however, of his efforts to compel bank compliance with fair-lending laws and his revitalization of the Community Reinvestment act (CRA), a 1977 law requiring banks to invest in poorer neighborhoods and improve lending and service to low- and moderate-income borrowers. Although branded an "activist" for his vigorous support of the act - he enlisted the attorney general and secretary of Housing and Urban Development to help enforce it - he points to the cold, hard facts to justify his tactics. After just one Justice Department referral in the OCC's previous 129 years, Ludwig's tenure witnessed 27 fair-lending cases, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in fines against violators. Lending to low and moderate income Americans increased tenfold, as did national bank investments in community development corporations. "The national banking system as a whole," he asserts, "did more to help low and moderate income Americans, and particularly Americans of color, than at any time in the history of the republic by far. The record speaks for itself, and I'm proud of it."

1993 - Press Briefing

By Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency

[Rubin] The President, as you know, has a broad, comprehensive strategy for dealing with the economic problems of the country for putting the country back on the right track for the long-term. A lot of the legislative and executive actions that have taken place in 1993 have been pursuant to that long-term economic strategy of the President's.

An important component of that strategy is to deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities -- pursuant to his belief that we must make real progress in those areas if this country is going to be successful in the future for all of us. The reform of the Community Reinvestment Act is an essential building block in the efforts I've just mentioned.

In July the President asked the four banking regulators to reform CRA, to reduce paperwork in process and reward performance, and to get that done by January 1, 1994. We're delighted to report that that has been accomplished on schedule. And in conjunction with the President's Community Development Bank and financial institution legislation, which recently passed the House of Representatives, CRA reform will generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities around the country.

Before I turn this over to Secretary Bentsen who, as always, did an extraordinary job in marshalling the resources of the Treasury to deal with this priority of the President's, I would like to thank Chairman Greenspan and Governor Lindsay, of the Fed, Andrew Hove, of the FDIC, and Jonathan Fiechter of the OTS for their substantial contributions to this process. We would also like to give special thanks to Comptroller Gene Ludwig in his efforts to make CRA reform a reality.

[Bentsen] The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live. There are businesses out there that are safe bets for loans. Those businesses are critical to creating jobs and sustaining the growth we're beginning to see. You see the big headlines when IBM or General Motors cuts out 5,000, 10,000 people; but what you're not seeing is the accretion, the outsourcing, the types of things taking place for small business that don't add up in themselves to large numbers, but in the total have seen an amazing change in the increase of jobs in this country.

[Ludwig] During the presidential campaign last year, then Governor Clinton, responding to the complaints of bankers and community leaders, vowed to reform CRA; to make the law work by emphasizing performance over paperwork. Following up on his campaign pledge the President, last July, challenged the federal banking regulators to breathe new life and new purpose into the law. He told us to rethink the entire system of regulation through which we put the CRA into effect and to make the law work.

The proposed reform package we are unveiling today follows the President's directive and fulfills the promise of the law. It will channel billions of dollars a year in new credit into America's distressed communities, while at the same time reducing unnecessary burdens on banks.

By replacing paperwork requirements with performance tests, this package would stimulate bank lending, investment and service in low and moderate income communities. This proposal is not about formulas. Community groups and bankers both emphasized the need for flexibility. So this proposal recognizes the diversity of banks and the markets they serve. It reduces the examination burden, particularly on small banks without reducing their obligation to serve their communities; and it recognizes that regular public participation is critical if we are to achieve the goals of the law.

The 12 current CRA assessment factors would be replaced with three tests -- a lending test, a service test and an investment test. And I have right behind me the 12 current assessment factors which are highly subjective and really don't focus on the target of what we're talking about here which is getting loans and services and investments out to our communities. And the simple three tests we will have under the new reform: a lending test, a service test, an investment test. Are you making loans? Are you providing services? Are you making investments? It's really, in the end, just that simple.

Did you catch that?  

You see the big headlines when IBM or General Motors cuts out 5,000, 10,000 people; but what you're not seeing is the accretion, the outsourcing, the types of things taking place for small business that don't add up in themselves to large numbers, but in the total have seen an amazing change in the increase of jobs in this country.

They were promoting the idea that all those people who lost their jobs went into business for themselves picking up business from corporations that were outsourcing functions. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. I'll be real brief here, and we get right on to questions.

Basically, as you know, we've got two initiatives announced today. They both fit into one another, and they both fit into as parts of the President's overall economic program. Clearly, the community development banks are intended to be genuine investments. The whole program is designed to foster the growth of institutions that will continue on into the future. This is not just a one-time expenditure, but rather to help develop existing institutions further and promote new institutions that continue on indefinitely to support their communities.

It's designed to have maximum leverage at the private sector so that ultimately the amount of funds that are put up by the federal government can be multiplied substantially in terms of the total amount of credit delivered to the distressed communities. It's targeted particularly for the distressed communities. And it's intended to help build the communities themselves, the businesses in those communities that can then provide jobs, housing in those communities that can then make them more revitalized. This is both inner city and rural, Indian reservation -- it's got a broad potential application. And as the President mentioned, it's a number of different kinds of financial institutions, not just banks.

Again, this fits in with the overall program of the President. It's very important that we get this total economic program, the total budget passed in order for this to fit in as a piece of it. The Community Reinvestment Act is oriented, as the President said, just simply to get performance -- objective measures of how banks are doing in terms of actually delivering credit to the communities in which they operate, particularly credit; other services, too.

And one of the factors which will be taken into consideration in measuring the performance of banks is the degree to which they support, by investment or otherwise, the community development banks that are going to be developed as part of the other program. So again, the pieces fit together.

...

Q Do you have a rough estimate of how many new community development institutions this will create as opposed to helping existing institutions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We don't have a particular bias one way or the other about new or existing institutions. We don't have a -- the question was do we know how many new institutions are going to be created. There's no initial bias one way or the other. If we have an institution -- we're open to applications. The fund is intended to be open to applications from existing entities which are maybe community development banks, maybe community development credit unions, micro-lenders, community development corporations that may be already operating successfully and need more capital in order to expand. If they have a good track record and a good program to present to the board of this fund, they will be eligible for funds that can help them expand. If somebody else comes in with a new idea, they want to form a new institution of any one of these forms in a distressed community and they file an application, they will get equal treatment. There's no particular bias one way or the other.

This does not have a specific homeless initiative in it. However, CD banks are designed to work in tandem with empowerment zones which bring in a comprehensive redevelopment strategy. They bring tax incentives to attract a business. This is -- CD banks would be yet an additional access to capital strategy in the midst of a comprehensive redevelopment plan that has housing together with economic development, together with infrastructure.

So when you put it all together you will be taking care of, at least addressing, the multifaceted needs of the community.

The chief regulator of about one-third of the nation's banks announced this week that he would allow the banks under his control, on a case-by-case basis, to more easily enter securities and insurance markets. Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, has thereby outflanked an antiquated law passed during the financial turmoil of the Depression that serves no modern purpose.

Consumers will reap the benefit of added competition in the market for insurance and investment products. Taxpayers should also applaud. By permitting banks to diversify investments out of local real estate, Mr. Ludwig has made it all the more unlikely that a regional downturn will trigger big bank failures like those that struck the savings and loan industry in the 1980's, forcing taxpayers to put up hundreds of billions to bail out depositors.

The outmoded Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated the securities and banking industries. At the time, some in Congress presumed that the wave of bank failures at the dawn of the Depression had been triggered in part by speculative investments that banks made in stocks and other securities. As Prof. George Benston of Emory University has convincingly shown, the presumption was wrong. Few banks that owned stocks failed. But myths die hard, and besides, after 60 years, the securities and insurance industries have built up a huge interest in preserving Glass-Steagall.

Mr. Ludwig has exploited a statutory loophole to approve the new banking activities. That is not an ideal way to correct the nation's banking laws. But he has proceeded with exemplary caution. Banks would be required to set up separately funded subsidiaries, providing solid protection against a financially plagued subsidiary going after the parent bank's insured deposits.

We are truly living in a golden age of homeownership in America. Six years ago, if you had said that America today would have the highest homeownership rate in history, the highest six-year rise in homeownership in history, the highest level of Hispanic and African-American homeownership in history, and the highest rate of new construction jobs since Harry Truman was in the White House -- most people wouldn't have believed you. But then, there aren't many people who believed that we could take the highest budget deficit in history and turn it into the highest budget surplus in history, either.

Together, we knew: that fiscal discipline was the surest path to increased homeownership. Today, I am proud to say that with your help, five days ago, the Clinton Gore Administration submitted another balanced budget -- to help keep interest rates low and housing starts high, well into the 21st Century.

And there is nowhere where that progress is being felt more than America's cities. As a nation, we not only have the highest budget surplus ever -- we now officially have the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history.

Through initiatives like Empowerment Zones and Community Development banks, we are working to get start-up capital into the hands of small businesses that need it most -- and we are especially proud of the fact that of the more than $1 trillion in private sector financial commitments that have been made to distressed communities under the Community Reinvestment Act -- more than 95 percent has been made since 1992.

Through our community policing initiative, we are well on our way to putting 100,000 new police on our streets -- which has helped produce the largest drop in violent crime in more than two decades. Last year, we made our first down payment on 100,000 new teachers for America's schools -- and as part of this year's budget, we are asking Congress to finish the job, and work with us to rebuild and modernize 5,000 schools. We are making new efforts to move people from welfare to work, and we have even proposed new funding to help America's cities build more parks and green spaces where parents can play with their children in safety.

Together, we have built a strong foundation for growth in America's cities, and set the stage for a whole new generation of homeowners. Today, I am proud to announce that we are building on that foundation, and taking the housing partnership that has brought America so much success one step further. Today, I am proud to announce that the National Association of Homebuilders and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are coming together with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit themselves to the goal of building one million new homes in America's central cities over the next ten years. That's on top of the 250,000 new homes that are already being built in America's central cities each year.

As part of this agreement, NAHB will work with its more than 800 state and local home builder associations to encourage them to work with communities to build homes in our inner cities; the Conference of Mayors will encourage its members to work with HUD and NAHB to identify and remove barriers to the private sector for new home production; and HUD will provide community builders to assist mayors and homebuilders in bringing agencies together and identifying new federal resources.

I am also proud to announce that this partnership is also working together to create a new "Council on Building Homes in America's Cities." This Council will be based at the U.S. Conference of Mayors and will develop a detailed plan for achieving the goal of a million homes over the next ten years.

By now, the pattern should be obvious to just about everybody.  It's a simple formula:

Deregulate  :    Woe is me... terrible problems   :    Re-Regulate under the international system controlled by the European Comintern.  

We have been victimized by a Great Swindle but we don't have to allow them to continue it.  It can stop here and now by stopping the fraud of this $700 billion bailout (takeover). 

There was never a 'New Economy'.  It was a fiction - a beautiful dream that has become our nightmare.  There were no surpluses during the Clinton-Gore era.  There were only loss leader contracts.  The hard core unemployed that were taken off the welfare rolls were given make-work jobs on the public dole in what is essentially privatized welfare.  The government is still paying them through grants to the non-governmental organizations.  The NGO's then use those people as "success stories" for welfare reform and also as insurgents masquerading as members of public interest groups. 

The flood of funding into depressed areas under the heading of 'Community Reinvestment' was a government created bubble of investment that wasn't sustainable because there is no real economy underlying it besides the government money for building and rebuilding. 

The funding for 100,000 cops on the street and 100,000 teachers in the classroom are really communitarian agents for social change.  They are people who have been trained - in their respective fields to facilitate (delphi method) change in the communities for the 'New Economy' that was a fraud covering up the move to a centrally planned, socialist system aligned with the United Nations Comintern.   

Globalization is the Great Swindle and if we allow the fraud to continue, it will be the end of America as we know it. 

And I just got a link to this article by Jerome Corsi that provides a lot more depth to the treason of internationalization of our legal structure - treason against American sovereignty and we should hang by the neck until dead every last one of these bast*rds. 

 7-year plan aligns U.S.
Rules, regs to be integrated

Vicky Davis,
September 26, 2008