Join: Email Updates
Join: Email Updates
He said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.
He also played down any differences in policy between the US and Europe regarding deficit reduction.
Mr Geithner was speaking in Washington ahead of G8 and G20 meetings this weekend in Toronto.
He said all members of the group were "focused on the challenge of [building] growth and confidence", and would be working to this end at the meetings.
The Group of Eight and Group of 20 rich and developing nations are assembling on Friday for three days of talks on emerging from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who has arrived in Canada along with other leaders, said in an article for the Globe And Mail newspaper: "No-one can doubt the biggest promise we have to deliver: fixing the global economy."
"I believe we must each start by setting out plans for getting our national finances under control," he added.
Common goalsMany European governments have implemented severe austerity measures in recent weeks in order to cut debt levels.
In a letter to G20 leaders last week, US President Barack Obama warned against cutting national debts too quickly as it would put economic recovery at risk.
Timothy GeithnerUS Treasury SecretaryWe're in the very good position of being able to deliver relatively strong growth rates [compared] to what we're seeing in other major economies
But Mr Geithner said the US and Europe "have much more in common than we have differences".
"We all agree that we have to restore responsibility to our fiscal positions. Everyone agrees that those deficits have to come down over time to a level that's sustainable," he said.
But he said that the US and Europe would take "different paths, at a different pace" in order to reach the common goal.
"It's going to require different things as we have different strengths and weaknesses," he said.
Mr Geithner said the US was not in a position to work out what were the best policies for European countries to pursue.
'Strong growth'The treasury secretary said the US had laid out "very ambitious plans as well" to cut its deficit.
But he said the US was in a stronger position than many other economies to cut its debt levels.
"We're in the very good position of being able to deliver relatively strong growth rates [compared] to what we're seeing in other major economies," he said.
Some commentators in Europe argue that austerity measures should only be introduced once strong growth has been secured in the wake of the global downturn.
This was a more widely held position until the Greek debt crisis focused policymakers' minds on cutting debt levels.
The Greek crisis showed that governments with high levels of debt find it very difficult to borrow money from international investors, money that they need to service existing debts.
Join: Email Updates
Lonnie Tinsley of El Reno, Oklahoma made a nearly fatal mistake last December 22 when he went to check on his grandma, Lona Vernon.
Concerned that Lona hadn’t taken her medications, Lonnie called 911 in the expectation that an emergency medical technician would be dispatched to the apartment to evaluate the bedridden 86-year-old woman.
Instead, that call for help was answered by nearly a dozen armed tax-feeders employed by the El Reno Police Department.
Understandably alarmed — and probably more than a little disgusted — by the presence of uninvited armed strangers in her home, Lona ordered them to leave. This directive, issued by a fragile female octogenarian confined to a hospital-style bed and tethered to an oxygen tank, was interpreted as “aggressive” behavior by Officer Thomas Duran, who ordered one of his associates : “Taser her!”
“Don’t taze my granny!” exclaimed Tinsley. According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Tinsley’s “obstructive” behavior prompted the police to threatenhim with their tasers. He was then was assaulted, removed from the room, thrown to the floor, handcuffed, and detained in a police car. At this point, the heroes in blue turned their attention to Lona.
The tactical situation was daunting; at this point, the police had only a 10-1 advantage over a subject who — according to Duran’s official report — had taken an “aggressive posture” in her hospital bed. The sacred imperative of “officer safety” dictated that the subject be thoroughly softened up in order to minimize resistance.
Accordingly, one of the officers approached Lona and “stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation,” narrates the complaint, based on Lona’s account. One of the officers then shot her with a taser, but the connection wasn’t solid. A second fired his taser, “striking her to the left of the midline of her upper chest, and applied high voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain,” and unconsciousness. Lona was then handcuffed with sufficient ruthlessness to tear the soft flesh of her forearms, causing her to bleed.
After her wounds were treated at a local hospital, Lona was confined for six days in the psychiatric ward at the insistence of her deranged assailants from the El Reno Police Department.
It has long been established that the worst thing to do in an emergency is to call the police. In this case, Lonnie Tinsley didn’t call the police, yet they barged in anyway and quite nearly “helped” his grandma to death.
Join: Email Updates
promoted from the diaries because duplicity should be publicized
On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.
Join: Email Updates
Sarah Palin called White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a liar on Twitter today, saying his comments on ABC’s “This Week” make him shallow, narrow-minded, political and irresponsible.
The former governor of Alaska is apparently outraged over Emanuel telling ABC’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that Republican Rep. Joe Barton’s apology last week to BP was not a slip of the tongue, but a reflection of the “philosophy” of the Republican Party. (WATCH THE COMMENTS)
“That’s not a political gaffe, those are prepared remarks,” Emanuel said. “That is a philosophy.”
Emanuel added: “They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen and the communities down there affected.”
Palin tweeted Sunday afternoon that, “RahmEmanuel= as shallow/narrowminded/political/irresponsible as they come, to falsely claim Barton’s BP comment is ‘GOP philosophy’ Rahm,u lie.” (READ PALIN’S TWITTER FEED)
Barton retracted his “apology” to BP last week after an outcry from both Republicans and Democrats.
Join: Email Updates
.jpg)
Until this week, the general impression of the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf has been that the explosion took everyone by surprise, and that neither BP nor a dysfunctional MMS had any idea that the well had reached a critical stage. Two days ago, however, Bloomberg reported that both BP and MMS were well aware of the high risk of a blowout at that particular well. BP and its subcontractor Transocean had in fact been fighting against a blowout for over two months, and MMS was well aware of the situation:
BP Plc was struggling to seal cracks in its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to congressional investigators. Cracks in the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft. …
On Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast, drilling documents obtained by Bloomberg show. Investigators are still trying to determine whether the fissures played a role in the disaster. …
BP used three different substances to plug the holes before succeeding, the documents show.
“Most of the time you do a squeeze and then let it dry and you’re done,” said John Wang, an assistant professor of petroleum and natural gas engineering at Penn State in University Park, Pennsylvania. “It dries within a few hours.”
Repeated squeeze attempts are unusual and may indicate rig workers are using the wrong kind of cement, Wang said.
By March, according to these documents, the natural gas surges had gotten so bad that BP warned MMS that it had difficulty controlling them. On March 10th, BP e-mailed the MMS drilling director for New Orleans that they were in the midst of a “well control situation,” a result which led a Berkeley engineer to tell Bloomberg that “they [BP] damn near blew up the rig.” That was just a day under six weeks before the rig actually blew up in the Gulf.
This revelation shows that the disaster was far from unforeseen. In fact, it appears that it had already come close to a catastrophic blowout just six weeks before eleven people died in the subsequent explosion. BP didn’t exactly keep it a secret, either. They informed MMS of the problem, which apparently did nothing to intervene in a situation serious enough that a similar situation caused Exxon to shut down its well in 2006.
This may not change anything in terms of addressing the disaster in the short run, but it’s certainly good context to keep in mind when assessing the long-term consequences of this catastrophe and the potential solutions to prevent a repeat of it.
Join: Email Updates
Blackwater is up for sale and its shadowy owner, Erik Prince, is rumored to be planning to move to the United Arab Emirates as his top deputies face indictment for a range of alleged crimes, yet the company remains a central part of President Obama's Afghanistan war. Now, Blackwater's role is expanding.
The new security contract was awarded to one of Blackwater's alter egos, the United States Training Center, despite theindictments of five senior company officials on bribery, weapons and conspiracy charges. Its operatives in both Afghanistan andIraq have been indicted for killing innocent civilians. The Senate Armed Services Committee has called on the Justice Department to investigate Blackwater's use of a shell company, Paravant, to win training contracts in Afghanistan. Despite these and numerous other scandals, the State Department once again awarded the company a lucrative contract.On Friday, the US State Department awarded Blackwater another "diplomatic security" contract to protect US officials in Afghanistan. CBS News reports that the $120 million deal is for "protective services" at the US consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. Blackwater has another security contract in Afghanistan worth $200 million and trains Afghan forces. The company also works for the CIA and the US military and provides bodyguards for US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as well as US lawmakers and other officials who visit the country. The company has four forward operating bases in Afghanistan and Prince has boasted that Blackwater's counter-narcotics forces have called in NATO airstrikes.
"Under federal acquisition regulations, the prosecution of the specific Blackwater individuals does not preclude the company or its successive companies and subsidiaries from bidding on contracts," a State Department spokesperson told CBS. "On the basis of full and open competition, the department performed a full technical evaluation of all proposals and determined the US Training Center has the best ability and qualifications to meet the contract requirements."
Representative Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, immediately blasted the State Department's awarding of the contract to Blackwater. "This is a company whose cowboy-like behavior has not only resulted in civilian deaths; it has also jeopardized our mission and the safety of U.S. troops and diplomatic personnel worldwide. Instead of punishing Blackwater for its extensive history of serious abuses the State Department is rewarding the company with up to $120 million in taxpayer funds," Schakowsky said. “I strongly believe that the former Blackwater should not be receiving further U.S. contracts, and I have repeatedly urged the U.S. government to no longer do business with this company. Though the name Blackwater has become synonymous with the worst of contractor abuses, the bigger problem is our dangerous reliance on such companies for the business of waging war."
Earlier this year, Schakowsky and Senator Bernie Sanders reintroduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which would phase out the use of private security contractors by the government. Ironically, Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the legislation when she was a senator and running for president. Now, as Secretary of State, she is the US official in charge of most Blackwater contracts. Blackwater is also bidding on a contract potentially worth up to $1 billion to train the Afghan National Police.
Join: Email Updates
(NaturalNews) What's clear about the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is that theindependent journalists are doing a better job of asking the really tough questions than the mainstream media. Sure, CNN, Fox and others are bringing some attention to the matter, and they've done some solid reporting on it, but they haven't yet found a way to ask the deeper questions like why the U.S. government seems to be colluding with BP to cover up the truth about the spill.
Just the other day, I found an article entitled, "16 Burning Questions About The Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill" on the TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com site (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...). It was a really insightful collection of important questions, so I've repeated them below. The author of these questions wasn't mentioned on the page, so I regret I cannot properly attribute the list, but I do think they're worth reviewing, so I've included my own commentary and an extra question below.
Here are the 16 questions:
#1) Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used "as needed" by state governors. So what are all of these National Guard troops going to be doing exactly? Are the troops going to be used to stop the oil or to control the public?
Mike's comment: Good question. Much of the response activity to the spill seems to be about controlling the public's perception and limiting media access to the spill site rather than actually cleaning up the mess.
#2) Barack Obama has also announced the creation of a "Gulf recovery czar" who will be in charge of overseeing the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico region following the oil spill. So is appointing a "czar" Obama's idea of taking charge of a situation?
#3) Because it is so incredibly toxic, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the UK's North Sea, BP would not be able to use it. So why is BP being allowed to use Corexit 9500 in the Gulf of Mexico?
Mike's answer: Because Corexit kills sea animals and makes them sink and disappear rather than allowing them to wash up on shore where the emotional outcry would be even worse than it is already.
#4) It is being reported that 2.61 parts per million of Corexit 9500 (mixed with oil at a ratio of 1:1o) is lethal to 50% of fish exposed to it within 96 hours. That means that 1 gallon of Corexit 9500/oil mixture is capable of rendering 383,141 gallons of water highly toxic to fish. So why was BP allowed to dump 1,021,000 gallons of Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 into the Gulf of Mexico, and why aren't they being stopped from dumping another 805,000 gallons of these dispersants that they have on order into the Gulf?
Mike's answer: Sadly, BP is running the show in the Gulf, not the government! The U.S. government has sold out to private corporations who now think they own the gulf and can run operations there however they see fit.
#5) If these dispersants are so incredibly toxic to fish, what are they going to do to crops? What are they going to do to people?
Mike's answer: They're obviously going to poison the entire Gulf Coast region if hurricanes whip up these chemicals and deposit them on land. We could be looking at a complete wipeout of the Florida citrus industry, for example, if all the worst conditions converge.
#6) If the smell of the oil on some Gulf beaches is already so strong that it burns your nostrils, then what in the world is this oil doing to wildlife that encounter it?
#7) Is it a bad sign that birds from the Gulf region are flocking north by the thousands?
Mike answer: Remember the Tsunami in the Indian ocean a few years back? The animals fled first, while the clueless people stayed behind and got clobbered by the deadly wave. I think a similar thing could be happening in the Gulf. All it takes is one hurricane to turn the entire region into a toxic stew of chemical poison.
#8) Why is BP being allowed to use private security contractors to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites?
Mike's answer: Yes, this is the real question. BP is running security in the Gulf the same way Halliburton runs security in the Middle East. The corporate contractors are now the police force in the area, and they're running the Gulf as if they owned it! This is a clear indication that the corporations have taken over our government.
#9) Why is BP openly attempting to manipulate the search results on sites like Google and Yahoo?
#10) Why has the FAA shut down the airspace above the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? What don't they want the American people to see?
Mike's answer: There are lots of answer to this one: The feds probably don't want people in small airplanes taking aerial photos and posting them online (because the Obama administration is working overtime to cover up the truth here, much like the Bush administration did with the flag-draped coffins coming home from war in the Middle East). It could also be that they are planning something really crazy like a deep ocean nuke to collapse the well, and they don't want civilians falling out of the sky when the mushroom cloud appears.
#11) Senator Bill Nelson of Florida says there are reports that there are additional ruptures in the sea floor from which oil is leaking. If there are quite a few of these additional ruptures, then how in the world does BP expect to completely stop this oil leak?
Mike's answer: BP actually doesn't expect to stop this leak anytime soon. They are clearly in full-on spin mode, just trying to deny the truth and spin the words to buy themselves more time to offload stock shares before the whole thing comes tumbling down.
#12) Why are scientists finding concentrations of methane at up to 10,000 times normal background levels in Gulf waters?
Mike's answer: Because BP broke the ocean floor, and now huge volumes of gas hydrates (which contain methane) are bubbling up from places that were previously trapped safely underground.
#13) At some testing stations in the Gulf of Mexico, levels of benzene have been detected at over 3000 parts per billion, and levels of hydrogen sulfide have been detected as high as 1192 parts per billion. Considering that these levels would be highly toxic to humans, why hasn't the general public been warned?
#14) Why are so many Gulf oil spill disaster workers showing up at local hospitals complaining of a "mysterious illness"?
Mike's answer: This is going to be the Gulf War Syndrome of the Gulf Coast. Or the 9/11 asbestos question affecting firefighters. There will be a wave of toxic side effects from the use of chemicals in the Gulf, and both BP and the federal government will predictably deny any link between the chemicals and the health effects for years to come.
#15) If "70% or 80%" of the protective booms are doing absolutely nothing at all to stop the oil, then what is going to stop the millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf from eventually reaching shore?
Mike's answer: Nothing, of course. The oil is going to reach the shore, and there's nothing BP or the feds can do to stop in. In fact, it seems as if they are trying to interfere with the cleanup by halting the barges that were supposed to be vacuuming oil just off the beaches.
#16) It is being reported that the deep sea oil plumes are creating huge "dead zones" where all creatures are dying as they are deprived of oxygen. If this oil spill continues to grow could the vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico become one gigantic "dead zone"?
Mike's answer: Indeed, that is precisely what looks likely to happen. The Gulf of Mexico could become a massive dead zone, adding to the long list of humanity's crimes against the planet. See my related CounterThink cartoon at: http://www.naturalnews.com/029015_a...
I've also added one more question of my own:
#17) Why is our government colluding with BP to cover up the truth about the spill?
Remember the BP press conferences on cable news? A U.S. Coast Guard representative was standing right there beside the BP spokesperson, almost as if she were a subordinate of BP. This is insane! If anything, the US Coast Guard should be telling BP what to do, not the other way around.
And why is the US Coast Guard restricting reporters' access to the spill areas, threatening them with arrest if they "trespass." Trespass into PUBLIC waters? Doesn't anybody realize thatBP does not own the Gulf of Mexico and if we want to take our boats out into the Gulf to get some video of what's really happening there, that's our right! But the U.S. government is now working for BP, it seems, and they're trying to protect BP's image by restricting the freedoms of ordinary Americans.
Sound familiar? That's why I think this Gulf of Mexico disaster is another 9/11 reactionary freedom squasher in the works. Just wait... you'll see what kind of freedom-destroying ideas are put forth by our lawmakers in response to this catastrophe. When it's all said and done, it won't only be British Petroleum that loses; it will be all of us.The Corporatocracy and government collusion
What we're really witnessing here with the BP disaster is our own government colluding with the powerful corporatocracy to cover up the truth all while making it worse by interfering with legitimate cleanup efforts.
It's almost as if the federal government were actively working to worsen the problem and expand the impact of the disaster. But that brings up the question: Why?
Why would our own government worsen a catastrophe? The answer, of course, is right in front of you. Just visit ground zero in New York City and remind yourself of all the various ways the U.S. government expanded its power following the collapse of the twin towers. "Never waste a good crisis" is the mantra of Big Government today, and the easiest way to steal even more power away from the people is to turn a small disaster into a big disaster, then leap in with a "government solution" that enacts some large, oppressive new act that never would have been possible before the disaster.
So what kind of oppressive new laws does the Obama administration want to put in place in response to this disaster? Perhaps government control over all oceans, or government control over all seafood. Maybe they want to outlaw oil over the next 25 years and force everybody to transition to some other form of energy (which may not actually be a bad idea from an ecological perspective, but at what price to freedom?).
There are a thousand other conspiracy theories that try to guess at what the government's true agenda might be in this moment. While it's hard to say which of them (if any) might be true, one thing is crystal clear: The government does not seem interested in solving the problem in the Gulf of Mexico. It is covering up the truth, threatening mainstream journalists who try to photograph the region, restricting air travel over the well site, restricting boat travel anywhere near the spill, and basically lying to the public on a daily basis about what's really happening there.
That alone should make any thinking person suspicious. If the situation were really under control, why would they have to lie about it?US government poisons its own citizens
There is precedent for believing that the U.S. government might try to poison its own citizens in order to achieve a political goal. During Prohibition, the U.S. government actually released poisoned alcohol in order to harm (or kill) those who were defying the law and drinking liquor.
That story is published today here on NaturalNews.com. Read it to learn more about what our own government may be capable of doing when it wishes to exercise power of the People.
Join: Email Updates
When AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired a year ago, it was the first shot in what eventually became the Obama administration's "War on Watchdogs." After Walpin sued to win back his job, the case was repeatedly delayed until a federal judge dismissed it Thursday:
On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts threw out a lawsuit Walpin brought in an attempt to be restored to his position at the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs Americorps and other programs. Walpin has claimed that his firing was political retaliation for his opposition to wasteful spending by the agency and for his aggressive investigation of a friend of Obama, Sacramento Mayor and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. The White House stridently denied any such motivation.
Roberts said a federal law passed in 2008 with Obama's support, the Inspector General Reform Act, did not allow Walpin the right to sue over what he contends was an improper removal. The judge also said that the requirement in the statute that Obama give Congress his reasons for any such firing was too vague for the courts to assess whether Obama's claim that he'd lost confidence in Walpin was sufficient.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner says, "[I]f the decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts stands, in the future the White House will be able fire other inspectors general as it fired Walpin without fear of legal consequences."
Join: Email Updates
