Rebane's Ruminations
December 2011
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

On the surface it just looks like more congressional bickering.  But the two current versions of the payroll tax bills have written in things which go beyond the 'kick the can' capers that the Dems are promoting and the Repubs are fighting.  Our congressman Tom McClintock peeled back a bit of the sleaze to quietly re-fund Fannie and Freddie through these pieces of legislative legerdemain.  (Some useful idiots still argue that Fannie and Freddie are not government departments.)  He made the following speech on the House floor today.

The Problem with Both Payroll Bills
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

In all this debate, I fear both parties have missed a critical point.  

Both versions of this bill impose a permanent new tax on every mortgage backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

To pay for an additional two months of tax relief under the Senate version or 12 months under the House version, more than $3,000 of new taxes will be imposed on every $150,000 mortgage backed by Fannie or Freddie.

A family taking out a $250,000 mortgage will pay $5,000 more in taxes – directly and solely because of this bill – hidden in their future mortgage payments.

This is atrocious public policy.  It shifts the burden for this bill to future homebuyers, kicks the housing market when it’s already down, makes it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter that market, and adds to the pressures that have chronically depressed everyone’s home values.

That’s the reason that both the Senate and the House versions need to go back for major revision.

Posted in , , ,

108 responses to “Both payroll tax bills stink”

  1. Gregory Avatar

    “Of course anything is considered legal unless you’re prosecuted and convicted.” – Paul 9:32PM
    Paul, that is perhaps the silliest thing you’ve ever written.
    The #1 cause of someone not even being indicted is a lack of any crime being committed.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    You know that’s not true. Are you contending that despite the fact that there have been no indictments or arrests in the mortgage scams that led to our current situation there were no crimes committed? White collar crime is seldom pursued or indicted because they can afford the big bucks for legal defense. It’s these same special interests that buy favorable legislation which was the beginning or this discussion. I suggest you follow this link for my perspective.
    http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/09/william-black-why-nobody-went-to-jail.html
    here’s a teaser
    “All right so you have massive fraud driving this crisis, hyperinflating the bubble, an FBI warning and how many criminal referrals did the same agency do, in this crisis. Remember it did well over 10,000 in the prior crisis. Well the answer is zero. They completely shut down making criminal referrals and whichever administration you hate the most, you can hate because while most of this certainly occurred in the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has obviously not changed it. Obviously did not see it as a priority to prosecute these elite criminals who caused this devastating injury.”

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, along with changing the subject (a fine thing to try to do, although you’re just digging your hole deeper) what you have manufactured is a recipe for accusing anyone of a crime you think they could have the opportunity to have committed.
    When the Koch subsidiary in Europe was selling equipment into Iran for use in a methanol plant, it was legal for subsidiaries of US companies to do so. When it stopped being legal, the sales stopped.
    One disgruntled ex-employee of the subsidiary was quoted saying “Every single chance they had to do business with Iran, or anyone else, they did”. Sounds like most companies, and given that the Iran business was legal at the time, less than damning.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar

    Can you reconcile the fact that Koch themselves admitted wrongdoing and violations of the law.
    “Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The letter was made public in a civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media.”

    Like

  5. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, that had NOTHING to do with any real or imagined violation of the Iran trade sanctions. That was Koch Industries declaration to a French court regarding “improper payments authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France” that Koch Industries found by an internal investigation. An age old problem… how do you do business with 3rd world kleptocracies that expect money under the table? Lose the sale, or figure how to do what other countries’ vendors are allowed to do to clinch a sale?
    What you have figured out how to do, Paul, is conflate two different issues covered in one story. Criminal payoffs authorized by one named French executive to corrupt officials of their customers was one, intimations of possibly improper sales to Iraq was another.
    Keep it straight. I know that’s hard to do when you just know the Koch’s are into all sorts of nefarious deeds, but I need more than wild accusations to take you seriously.

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    We do know the Koch boys knowingly circumvented the desire of this nation to impose a boycott of business with Iran by using loopholes to do their bidding. I grant that may not be technically illegal but in your opinion do you consider them to be “patriots” as Todd does? This was as late as 2007. Do you believe that they were in essence aiding the enemy legally or illegally? The result is the same.

    Like

  7. Gregory Avatar

    Golly, Paul, “technically legal” really IS the equivalent of legal. You are making progress. Weren’t you capable of reading the article without having to have your nose rubbed into your misrepresentations?
    I’ve known too many Iranians to think of them as “the enemy”, and being a minor supplier for a methanol plant isn’t the same as selling them guns and explosives. While trade embargoes have limited effectiveness (how’s that working with Cuba? On their knees yet?) I’ve no particular problem with either the limited embargo before 2007 or the more complete one since.

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar

    The hypocrisy from the right is startling in this matter.
    Here is a good summary:
    “Texas Gov. Rick Perry rails against Iran’s “extremist, repressive ideology.” He condemns any company who does business with “a terrorist state like Iran” for aiding a country that wants to kill American troops. And as governor he told his state’s biggest investment funds to divest from all companies with Iran ties; continuing such investments, he explained, was “investing in terrorism.”
    But now Perry, a top contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has an Iran problem: One of his most high-profile donors, Koch Industries, for years did business with Iran, helping to grow the Iranian energy industry. Which means that at the same time he was slamming companies profiting off of business with Iran, Perry was pocketing campaign cash from a company doing just that.”
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/rick-perry-koch-iran

    Like

  9. Gregory Avatar

    You’re just repeating yourself, Paul, since MJ is just doing about as bad a job of repeating the “Bloomberg Markets” hit piece that you did. No new reporting at all besides repeating some activists using the piece to bash Perry, as if one needs some trumped up dare to come up with something.
    Mother Jones, now there’s a paragon of journalistic integrity. I was a subscriber for years but they were just too wrong most of the time to keep sending them money. And in this case, they got it completely wrong, since “Koch Industries” didn’t actually do any business with Iran.

    Like

  10. Paul Emery Avatar

    Of of course. It was just their wholly owned subsidiaries sending home the profits to the Brothers who distribute millions to Right Wing causes.

    Like

  11. Gregory Avatar

    It’s one subsidiary, not the plural you’re claiming, and just the one methanol project in Iran, which no one seems to be claiming was more than a few million dollars in sales, is not likely to have generated millions in profits personally returned to the Kochs.
    You’re the gang that can’t shoot straight on this one, Paul. It kind of reminds me of my two separate sets of friends in high school… my musician friends were kind of stupid in an academic sense, with logic and musical ability being inversely correlated. Then there was the college prep set who were scrambling for good grades and their place in the academic pecking order. I suspect you’d have been one of my music friends 😉

    Like

  12. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Just how well in the hypocrisy dept are Perry and Ron Paul doing in Texas on the “anti-socialism and railroads” front. You’d think the two of them would be up in arms and very vocal in opposition to this [roject, and certainly capable of getting enough swing to block the project. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/02/1012916/-Tea-party-Republicans-cheer-federal-investment-in-Texas-rail-project

    Like

  13. Paul Emery Avatar

    I see you are in full retreat from discussing core principals of integrity. My logic is clear on this one. Koch as sugar daddies to right wing causes get a pass from you on the ethics of their business practices as long as they pay up.
    I am opposed to special interest bribery of all persuasions. You don’t think for a minute the bucks would keep flowing if they didn’t produce results. That brings up back to the question of the Keystone pipeline which Koch has a major financial interest in seeing constructed. No doubt the Dems are getting big bucks as well. That’s why I call them Republicrats. Different arms of the same body.

    Like

  14. Gregory Avatar

    “I see you are in full retreat from discussing core principals of integrity.”
    I suspect the word you’re searching for is “principles”. Can’t get through your misquoting and misrepresentations to get to the issues of principles, which you apparently (and mistakenly) think requires oilmen not to try to produce oil. We’d be up to our collective asses with fossil fuels at the moment were it not so fashionable to block production in North America.
    You’ve misquoted and misinterpreted time after time, and always in the direction of demonizing the Kochs.
    An interesting aside that was apparently hidden by the authors of the Bloomberg Markets piece… the disgruntled former employee that brought suit against the european subsidiary and generated all that good copy actually lost in court and had to pay the Koch subsidiary the cost of their legal defense. In short, they might not be as believable as the Paul Emerys of the world might want them to be.

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    Yes, principles
    What gives you the idea that I’m trying to prevent oilmen from producing oil? That came out of nowhere.
    The Koch’s were dealing directly with the Iranian government for their own profit at the same time the Iranians were producing bombs they exported to Iraq that were specifically designed to kill our troops. They then would kick back to conservative causes with not a word of concern from the Repubs in charge. The NPC was their client.
    http://www.icis.com/Articles/2010/04/14/9350527/irans-npc-runs-zagros-methanol-plants-at-low-operating-rates.html
    “The National Petrochemical Company (NPC) , a subsidiary to the Iranian Petroleum Ministry,is owned by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran . It is responsible for the development and operation of the country’s petrochemical sector.Founded in 1964,NPC began its activities by operating a small fertilizer plant.Today,NPC is the second largest producer and exporter of petrochemicals in the Middle East .Over these years,it has not only expanded the range and volume of its products, but it has also taken steps in areas such as Research and Technology to achieve more self-sufficiency. Read more…”
    This is documentation about the Iranian bombs
    “A sophisticated type of roadside bomb that U.S. officials have linked to Iran has been used increasingly against U.S. troops in Iraq.
    The device is called an explosively formed projectile (EFP). It is usually made from a pipe filled with explosives and capped by a copper disk. When the explosives detonate, they transform the disk into a molten jet of metal capable of penetrating armor. They perform in the same way that U.S. anti-tank missiles do.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-01-30-ied-iran_x.htm

    Like

  16. Gregory Avatar

    “Koch’s were dealing directly with the Iranian government”
    The Koch brothers were dealing directly with the Iranian government? Without any evidence I have to call Absolute Bullsh*t, and you know it. They had a european subsidiary that, by all accounts, kept the lawful arms length required by law and you knew that. And you’re doing your best to conflate a methanol plant with explosives production.
    Shame on you, Paul. The number one principle is don’t make up stuff in order to defame others.

    Like

  17. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Paul was very clearly making the case for the fact that Iran was killing USA troops in Iraq, and that helping them do ANYTHING, including making methanol for whatever purpose (explosives have long since passed on the Molotov cocktail) is still helping a known enemy of the USA, that does their best to help others kill American troops. How come the “Patriots” on this blog aren’t all over Greg for this?

    Like

  18. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Methanol messes with our cars’ performances, hardly a chemical designed to transform a disk into a molten jet of metal capable of capable of penetrating armor, inside of a couple of microseconds. C4 or PETN would be my guess, but I’m no expert. Is there a chemist in the house?

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar

    To me owning a subsidiary means they are representing the owner therefore yes the Koch’s were directly dealing with the Iranian government through their business representatives.

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    The client of the Koch brothers was the Iranian government which was known to be producing bombs to kill our troops. This was well known and publicized yet the Koch’s continued to deal with them.
    I never said Methanol was directly used in making bombs.

    Like

  21. Gregory Avatar

    “To me owning a subsidiary means they are representing the owner therefore yes the Koch’s were directly dealing with the Iranian government through their business representatives.”
    Paul, you can’t shred the dictionary at will like the Queen of Hearts, making words mean just what you want them to mean. If an intermediary is used, it is by definition “indirect”. The antonym of direct.
    Koch Industries has something like 70,000 employees; an action taken by any one of them is not a “direct” action by Charles or David Koch, and the only reason this is being done by the left is character assassination, to try to taint a major campaign donor or two.

    Like

  22. Paul Emery Avatar

    So in your opinion the owner of a business assumes no responsibility for the actions and decisions of his employees? This was a major controversial event worth millions of dollars and surely must have had the approval of the “higher ups”

    Like

  23. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, no need for hypotheticals; it was “legal”. So far as we know, no law was broken. The Federal Government had not declared Iran so toxic so as to bar even non-military sales from US subsidiaries keeping US personnel at arms length (which would include top management). When it did, in 2007, from all accounts the Koch subsidiaries shut down sales to Iran.
    There’s no there there. Nothing to get all foamy at the mouth over. No crime. Not even any real evidence Iran prospered with the deal; from what I can tell that huge methanol plant is not operating at anything close to full capacity and so Iran may well have been losers in the end.
    All we have is the left screaming and shouting at a non event. Legal sales of non military equipment by a subsidiary of a US parent corporation whose majority owners are hated by the left because they donate to politicians and non-profits that the left hates.

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    For consideration. Our dealings with Iran, especially as it involves sanctions, are very nuanced. Both Bush2 and Obama could have said at any time that no American company deals with any company owned by Iran or with any company that deals with Iran, and we could have essentially shut down their central bank by using the same strictures in the banking industry. The fact that we didn’t and still don’t means that it is the policy of the US to allow such trading with no prejudice.
    Therefore, all discussions as to who is the bigger patriot are moot with regard to the official policy of the United States. Anyone who has a gripe with such policy should contact their members of Congress of their President.

    Like

  25. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    Quite frankly I’m surprised you’re threshold of American patriotic behavior includes accepting money from individuals who profited by doing business with governments that were at the same time manufacturing and distributing bombs specifically designed to kill our boys in Iraq. This activity was specifically illegal for US companies at the time but the Koch’s took advantage or loopholes that always seem to be available to those who have no scruples and are able to pay off the politicos appropriately.

    Like

  26. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    The reason many of us don’t keep debating PaulE is right in te post above. After all the discussions PaulE writes as if no one has responded to his thesis. Blinders are really tight.

    Like

  27. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1259pm – By your logic, is it then time to start impeachment proceedings against President Obama and Eric Holder? And, perhaps, even criminal proceedings against Bush2 given appropriate statutes of limitation? I ask since both men were aware of the procedures and ‘loopholes’ they put in place and condoned. To this day there has been no congressional, let alone national outcry against such practices supported by both chief executives.
    And as ToddJ has pointed out, you do sail right over his and Gregory’s responses in (re)posing your charges.

    Like

  28. Gregory Avatar

    Perhaps Paul and Keach can point me to their writings prior to October that makes it clear how toxic Iran is to the US body politic.

    Like

  29. Paul Emery Avatar

    That’s not the question. I’ve already conceded the matter appears to be legal. My interest was in the question of the patriotism of the Koch bros in this specific issue and how it applied to special interest investing in preferential governmental actions. I keep trying to get some kind of response based on moral turpitude with no interest from all of you about the question.
    To make it simple I’ve included the defmation of Moral Turpiude
    “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”[

    Like

  30. Gregory Avatar

    Can you point to some other example of moral turpitude that does not involve any violations of civil or criminal law?
    Really, Paul, you’re not getting anywhere. There’s no smoke, no fire. Even now it appears, for example, that Boeing is allowed to sell parts to Iran needed for civilian aviation safety. Should that be stopped? Should anyone connected with Boeing be shunned?

    Like

  31. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    We are a nation of laws and if no law was broken then your point is not valid. Using your “moral turpitude” philosophy leads into a huge quagmire that liberals cannot win. They have sold our secrets to China for campaign cash yet that seems not to bother a liberal as long as it was a liberal practicing the “moral turpitude”.

    Like

  32. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 205pm – to the extent you consider our Executive and Legislative branches to be patriotic and without moral turpitude, to that extent are also the Koch brothers and others who openly follow deliberately made laws. And to the same extent there is no differential ‘moral turpitude’ involved among these three categories of participants. It is hard to see how one group (Koch brothers) can be cherry picked while leaving the other two innocent of the same charges.

    Like

  33. We Can Work Together Avatar

    I would like to discuss the moral turpitude of sending AIM-9 Sidewinders (hello Contras!) and a lovely cake, delivered by one Oliver North, to the Iranians during a very different time and place.
    Perhaps this is what’s driving Paul’s jihad against the Koch bros.

    Like

  34. Paul Emery Avatar

    Todd, Gregory
    Actually moral turpitude has nothing to do with laws. Laws which uses government enforcement to insure behavior. It has to do with our codes of conduct that are generally accepted by the community as moral behavior. Certainly that includes hypocrisy which I contend is evident in this situation. It’s not hard to find equivalent examples on both sides. Al Gores flying in private jets and living in 10,000 sg foot mansions while preaching against global warming is an example. George Bush lying about the true reasons for for the war in Iraq and Bill Clinton redefining what is sex are others. If you believe the actions of the Koch bros is acceptable behavior then that’s your privilege. I will remind you of that threshold in later discussions for sure.

    Like

  35. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1228am – Excellent turn of argument, and one definitely worthy of an examination on its own merits. Moral behavior, as I have noted in these pages, is both a function of and an expression of a specific culture. In a multi-cultural society, morals in the public round must therefore give way to a universal set of laws enforced by the almighty state as the common template for its citizens.
    For a review of the topic, I offer
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/10/the-morass-of-morals-and-morality.html

    Like

  36. Gregory Avatar

    Paul’s evangelical fervor against any trade whatsoever with Iran seems to date not from their ‘axis of evil’ days but rather the very recent past when he discovered its use as a cudgel against all things Koch.
    It was legal and stopped 4 years ago. The left only discovered their outrage a couple months ago.

    Like

  37. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    PaulE cherry picks with great aplomb. I you are no an outraged evangelical PaulE I ould expect a condemnation of liberals favorites like prostitution, drug use and abortion (against). Moral turpitude in my view is in the eye of the beholder and that is why we are not a country run by Mullahs. So, which is it, PaulE, are we a nation of laws or a nation governed by the “moral turpitude” of the temporary outraged?

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    The use of a loophole by the Kochs bros was only discovered and made public two months ago. Please advise me if you know otherwise.
    Todd
    If you were to poll Americans about whether it was OK to use loopholes to trade with a government that is manufacturing and providing bombs that were activity used against our soldiers in combat I’m sure they would overwhelmingly condemn such behavior.
    \

    Like

  39. George Rebane Avatar

    China and Russia (nee USSR) have both supplied Iran with the electronics technology to allow it to make sophisticated radio controlled IED fuses (these screw into regular high explosive artillery shells in plentiful supply). We have been trading partners with both countries since their inception (sometimes going through obvious intermediaries like Taiwan and Hong Kong). During these times both China and the USSR always supplied weapons used against American GIs – most notably in Korea and Vietnam – during which we traded copious amounts of ‘non-military’ goods with both.
    Such legal trading with Iran is now characterized by the Left as being done through unpatriotic loopholes even though it is/was carried out with full government knowledge. No criminality was involved, and only some sensitivities about violating universal morality have been bruised.
    Difficult as it is to pursue such an illogical debate, it is apparently easier to change the subject (PaulE 926am) to one of public opinion about this matter. And what would be the public’s opinion about such an issue? Well, it all depends on who informs them of what in the historical context of such commercial transactions, i.e. how you spin the subject.
    This comment thread has borne some most peculiar fruit.

    Like

  40. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, it was only recently discovered by the Kochophobes thanks to a failed lawsuit by a disgruntled employee or two (they had to pay the company’s legal bill) and its delayed sensational reporting, but the “loophole” was a feature of the legislation, not an oversight.
    There’s no there there. A non issue.
    Compare the orders of magnitude of this legal and open methanol plant involvement with the billion$ of busine$$ over the years with the Soviet Union arranged by Armand Hammer, which continue even while there was a hot war with their largest client state in Southeast Asia with thousands of American lives lost.

    Like

  41. Gregory Avatar

    Here’s a blog with a fairly interesting take on the Iran issue:
    “[T]he list of American companies whose foreign subsidiaries have sold products or provided services in Iran is an impressive one. It includes Alcatel-Lucent, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG and Tyson Foods, to name just a few. These companies aren’t “flouting the law” any more than Koch Industries is; they are following it. But one wonders; why, exactly, did Bloomberg choose to single out Koch? Has it done a similar “expose” on any of the other companies, numbering in the hundreds, that have legally done business in Iran?”
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/bloomberg-whiffs-part-1.php

    Like

  42. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    The way I worded the question is 100% accurate. They used carefully crafted loopholes for their own profit.
    The question of public opinion on the matter was raised when I raised the question of moral “moral turpitude” on the matter.
    “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”
    The same question can be raised about those who knowingly gamed the mortgage crisis by making loans that they knew would fail. Illegal? Who cares. They got away with it.

    Like

  43. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 753pm – Your “crafting” the questions here has never been the issue. Since you have neither answered any of the points raised by GregG (legality, common practice, and singling out of Koch) and me (historical pactice, baseless morality), it is curious as to what is really the nature of your allegations beyond your personal grievance against the Koch brothers.

    Like

  44. Gregory Avatar

    George, I think Paul just doesn’t want to admit he’s been played for a fool by the folks wanting to drum up some faux outrage against the Kochs.
    The very silly part of that was that the initial target, that horrible Perry who actually got some indirect Koch money (28 December 2011 at 04:14 PM), is going nowhere in the polls after a brief flash.

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar

    Yes, the Koch bros have been singled out as an example of hypocrisy. Are there other examples? Sure. My interest in this conversation began with the influence of big money on national policy particularly on the Keystone project.
    I conceded the legality of their actions so that question has been resolved.
    Common practice? Sure. Look at Haliberton for example. They’re making money on both sides of the battle lines. Baseless morality? No I stand by the questions I raise. I have the right to determine what that is as do you to disagree. Historical practice? Sure. It’s well known that papa Koch built refineries for the USSR in the late 20’s and early 30’s.
    More to follow.

    Like

  46. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    If a company does business utilizing a loophole is that a legal issue? Since America is a land of laws not men I would like PaulE to tell us what a loophole is. I guess I am confused. Did GE use PaulE’s so called loopholes to pay no fed tax or did they use the laws to determine they did not have to pay a tax. PaulE, is that a moral or legal issue that GE paid no taxes? I believe the Kochs paid a gazllion bucks in taxes, so what is the real issue here PaulE. The Kochs support conservatives and the GE/Immenlt’s support the Obamas?

    Like

  47. Gregory Avatar

    GE is one of Obama’s favored companies. Their motives are obviously pure despite their involvement in Iran and not worthy of Paul’s ire.

    Like

  48. Gregory Avatar

    Paul doesn’t even know if either Brothers Koch even knew about the Iran deals; given the size of the Iraq methanol job compared to the entire Koch Industries deal, and the arms-length separation between the parent and the subsiiary the company legal department had for any Iraq issue, it is quite possible no one outside of France and Germany knew the details.
    This is witch hunting, pure and simple.

    Like

  49. Gregory Avatar

    “More to follow.”
    Like maybe telling us why Alcatel-Lucent, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG and Tyson Foods get a pass?
    Tyson Foods, ringing a bell, was at one time the biggest polluter in Arkansas; might still be. Tyson, you might remember, was associated with the same trader, “Red” Bone, as Hillary Clinton used during her one year where she showed some remarkable beginners luck in cattle futures trading, using all those articles in the Wall Street Journal as a guide despite the WSJ claiming there were no articles on cattle futures. A beautiful job laundering a $100K Welcome to Arkansas gift/bribe from Tyson to the Clintons through a shady securities broker.

    Like

  50. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Gregory, I think you have driven PaulE into speechlessness.

    Like

Leave a comment