You Tube
The Bilderberg group and their secret and not so secret meetings have all had one main objective - how to reduce the number of people on the planet. These New World Order elitists are dictating who has the right to live and who doesn't.
ELITIST QUOTES:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
~ Bill Gates
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
~ Ted Turner (Founder of CNN, United Nations Foundation Chairman)
"World population needs to be decreased by 50%"
~ Henry Kissinger (Former Secretary of State & NSA, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient)
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
~ Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh)
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
~ David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it."
~ J. Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier
"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
~ Mikhail Gorbachev
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Biggest Bank Robbery In History? More Quantitative Easing = Backdoor Bailouts For The Big Banks Without Having To Go Through Congress
theeconomiccollapseblog.com
The U.S. Federal Reserve is getting ready to conduct another gigantic bailout of the big banks, but this time virtually nobody in the mainstream media will use the term "bailout" and the American people are going to get a lot less upset about it. You see, one lesson that was learned during the last round of bank bailouts was that the American people really, really do not like it when the U.S. Congress votes to give money to the big banks. So this time, the financial "powers that be" have figured out a way around that. Instead of going through the massive headache of dealing with the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve is simply going to print money and give it directly to the banks. To be more precise, the Federal Reserve is going to use a procedure known as "quantitative easing" to print money out of thin air in order to purchase large quantities of "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities) from the biggest U.S. banks at well above market price. Some are already openly wondering if this next round of quantitative easing is going to be the biggest bank robbery in history. Most Americans won't understand these "backdoor bailouts" well enough to get upset about them, but that doesn't mean that they won't be just as bad (or even worse) than the last round of bailouts. In the end, all of the inflation that this new round of quantitative easing is going to cause is going to be a "hidden tax" on all of us.
These new backdoor bailouts are going to work something like this....
1) The big U.S. banks have massive quantities of junk mortgage-backed securities that are worth little to nothing that they desperately want to get rid of.
2) They convince the Federal Reserve (which the big banks are part-owners of) to buy up these "toxic assets" at way above market price.
3) The Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy up all of these troubled assets. The public is told that all of this "quantitative easing" is necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy.
4) The big banks are re-capitalized and have gotten massive amounts of bad mortgage securities off their hands, the Federal Reserve has found a way to pump hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars into the economy, and most of the American people are none the wiser.
During a recent appearance on MSNBC, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone did a great job of explaining how this all works....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhMVB0XzPU&feature=player_embedded
But this isn't the only way that the Federal Reserve forks over massive amounts of cash to the big U.S. banks. In a previous article, I described how the U.S. Federal Reserve lends huge quantities of nearly interest-free money to big U.S. banks which they turn around and invest in U.S. Treasuries which bring in a return of three percent or so. In essence, it is a legalized way for the big U.S. banks to make mountains and mountains of free money.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve does whatever it can to ensure that the big U.S. banks stay fat and happy.
So what about the small banks? What happens to them?
Well, the vast majority of the small banks are considered "not big enough for bailouts" and they are allowed to die like dogs.
Don't let anyone ever fool you into thinking that the U.S. banking system has a level playing field.
For weeks, Federal Reserve officials have been coming out and have been dropping hints about how important it is for them to take "action" and implement another round of quantitative easing in order to help stimulate the U.S. economy.
In fact, during his speech on Friday, you could almost hear Ben Bernanke salivating at the thought of printing more money.
But nobody ever really asks who is going to be the first to get their hands on all this money that the Fed is going to pump into the economy.
The answer, of course, is obvious.
It is going to be the big banks - the same banks that are part-owners of the Federal Reserve and that have tremendous influence over Fed policies.
But even though this is all more than a little shady, is it such a bad thing for the rest of us if the Federal Reserve bails out the big banks and brings some much needed stability back to the U.S. financial system?
After all, if "Foreclosure-Gate" could potentially cause a nightmarish financial meltdown, isn't it better for the Federal Reserve to step in and soak up large amounts of these toxic assets?
Those are legitimate questions.
Certainly the Federal Reserve has the power to step in and smooth over all sorts of short-term problems by papering them with money, but in the end printing more money will just make our long-term problems even worse.
Whenever a new dollar is introduced into the system, every other dollar in existence loses a little bit of value.
When trillions of new dollars get introduced into the system, it has the potential to create an inflationary nightmare.
Already, a number of top Fed officials are publicly saying that inflation is "too low" and that we need to purposely generate more inflation in order to "stimulate" the U.S. economy.
Yes, that is just as insane as it sounds, but that is what they are actually proposing.
Apparently many top Federal Reserve officials honestly believe that they can pump trillions into the economy, jack up inflation significantly, and little harm will be done.
But even before "QE2" has begun, we are already starting to see all kinds of little bubbles beginning to develop in the financial system. For example, commodity prices are skyrocketing right now, and that will soon be affecting the price we pay for food at the supermarket.
We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?
Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.
But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.
An economic nightmare is coming, and you had better get ready.
View Article With Links HERE
The U.S. Federal Reserve is getting ready to conduct another gigantic bailout of the big banks, but this time virtually nobody in the mainstream media will use the term "bailout" and the American people are going to get a lot less upset about it. You see, one lesson that was learned during the last round of bank bailouts was that the American people really, really do not like it when the U.S. Congress votes to give money to the big banks. So this time, the financial "powers that be" have figured out a way around that. Instead of going through the massive headache of dealing with the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve is simply going to print money and give it directly to the banks. To be more precise, the Federal Reserve is going to use a procedure known as "quantitative easing" to print money out of thin air in order to purchase large quantities of "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities) from the biggest U.S. banks at well above market price. Some are already openly wondering if this next round of quantitative easing is going to be the biggest bank robbery in history. Most Americans won't understand these "backdoor bailouts" well enough to get upset about them, but that doesn't mean that they won't be just as bad (or even worse) than the last round of bailouts. In the end, all of the inflation that this new round of quantitative easing is going to cause is going to be a "hidden tax" on all of us.
These new backdoor bailouts are going to work something like this....
1) The big U.S. banks have massive quantities of junk mortgage-backed securities that are worth little to nothing that they desperately want to get rid of.
2) They convince the Federal Reserve (which the big banks are part-owners of) to buy up these "toxic assets" at way above market price.
3) The Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy up all of these troubled assets. The public is told that all of this "quantitative easing" is necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy.
4) The big banks are re-capitalized and have gotten massive amounts of bad mortgage securities off their hands, the Federal Reserve has found a way to pump hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars into the economy, and most of the American people are none the wiser.
During a recent appearance on MSNBC, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone did a great job of explaining how this all works....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhMVB0XzPU&feature=player_embedded
But this isn't the only way that the Federal Reserve forks over massive amounts of cash to the big U.S. banks. In a previous article, I described how the U.S. Federal Reserve lends huge quantities of nearly interest-free money to big U.S. banks which they turn around and invest in U.S. Treasuries which bring in a return of three percent or so. In essence, it is a legalized way for the big U.S. banks to make mountains and mountains of free money.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve does whatever it can to ensure that the big U.S. banks stay fat and happy.
So what about the small banks? What happens to them?
Well, the vast majority of the small banks are considered "not big enough for bailouts" and they are allowed to die like dogs.
Don't let anyone ever fool you into thinking that the U.S. banking system has a level playing field.
For weeks, Federal Reserve officials have been coming out and have been dropping hints about how important it is for them to take "action" and implement another round of quantitative easing in order to help stimulate the U.S. economy.
In fact, during his speech on Friday, you could almost hear Ben Bernanke salivating at the thought of printing more money.
But nobody ever really asks who is going to be the first to get their hands on all this money that the Fed is going to pump into the economy.
The answer, of course, is obvious.
It is going to be the big banks - the same banks that are part-owners of the Federal Reserve and that have tremendous influence over Fed policies.
But even though this is all more than a little shady, is it such a bad thing for the rest of us if the Federal Reserve bails out the big banks and brings some much needed stability back to the U.S. financial system?
After all, if "Foreclosure-Gate" could potentially cause a nightmarish financial meltdown, isn't it better for the Federal Reserve to step in and soak up large amounts of these toxic assets?
Those are legitimate questions.
Certainly the Federal Reserve has the power to step in and smooth over all sorts of short-term problems by papering them with money, but in the end printing more money will just make our long-term problems even worse.
Whenever a new dollar is introduced into the system, every other dollar in existence loses a little bit of value.
When trillions of new dollars get introduced into the system, it has the potential to create an inflationary nightmare.
Already, a number of top Fed officials are publicly saying that inflation is "too low" and that we need to purposely generate more inflation in order to "stimulate" the U.S. economy.
Yes, that is just as insane as it sounds, but that is what they are actually proposing.
Apparently many top Federal Reserve officials honestly believe that they can pump trillions into the economy, jack up inflation significantly, and little harm will be done.
But even before "QE2" has begun, we are already starting to see all kinds of little bubbles beginning to develop in the financial system. For example, commodity prices are skyrocketing right now, and that will soon be affecting the price we pay for food at the supermarket.
We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?
Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.
But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.
An economic nightmare is coming, and you had better get ready.
View Article With Links HERE
Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
By ANNE FLAHERTY and JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO – The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation's history, even as it tries in the courts to slow the movement to abolish its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's Tuesday announcement.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in California who overturned the 17-year policy last week was likely to reject the government's latest effort to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law.
The Justice Department will likely appeal if she does not suspend her order.
The Defense Department has said it would comply with U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' order and had frozen any discharge cases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.
Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.
Gay rights groups were continuing to tell service members to avoid revealing that they are gay, fearing they could find themselves in trouble should the law be reinstated.
"What people aren't really getting is that the discretion and caution that gay troops are showing now is exactly the same standard of conduct that they will adhere to when the ban is lifted permanently," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Yes, a few will try to become celebrities."
An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said financial considerations are playing a big role in gay service members staying quiet.
"The military has financially trapped us," he said, noting that he could owe the military about $200,000 if he were to be dismissed.
The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being discharged, said he's hearing increasingly about heterosexual service members approaching gay colleagues and telling them they can come out now.
He also said more gay service members are coming out to their peers who are friends, while keeping their orientation secret from leadership. He said he has come out to two peers in the last few days.
"People are coming out informally in their units," the officer said. "Discussions are happening right now."
An opponent of the judge's ruling said confusion that has come up is exactly what Pentagon officials feared and shows the need for her to immediately freeze her order while the government appeals.
"It's only logical that a stay should be granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring with reports that the Pentagon is telling recruiters to begin accepting homosexual applicants," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington that supports the policy.
The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays.
Before the 1993 law, the military banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service. There have been instances in which gays have served, with the knowledge of their colleagues.
Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.
The Pentagon guidance to recruiters comes after Dan Woods, the group's attorney, sent a letter last week warning the Justice Department that Army recruiters who turned away Omar Lopez in Austin, Texas may have caused the government to violate Phillips' injunction. Woods wrote that the government could be subject to a citation for contempt.
The White House has insisted their actions in court do not diminish President Barack Obama's efforts to repeal the ban.
In their stay request, government lawyers argue Phillips' order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war. They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.
Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures.
Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.
"If they were to self-admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change," Smith said.
He said the enlistment process takes time and recruiters have been told to inform those who are openly gay that they could be declared ineligible if the law is upheld on appeal.
"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is," he said.
The message, however, had not reached some recruiting stations.
In Pensacola, Marine Sgt. Timothy Chandler said he had been given no direction. "As far as we are concerned everything is the same. The policy hasn't changed," he said, as others in the office nodded.
Chandler said no one had come to the small office questioning the policy or asking about being openly gay and serving.
Recruiters at the Navy office next door referred all media questions to the Pentagon. Air Force recruiters said they were not authorized to talk to the media. Army recruiters referred questions to another office in Mobile, Ala.
In New York's Times Square, Dan Choi, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran who was discharged for being gay, began the process to enlist in the Army. In San Diego, recruiters took an application from Will Rodriguez, a former Marine who was discharged under the policy in 2008.
Phillips said at a hearing Monday that she was learning toward denying the Obama administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
After Phillips' ruling last week, Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting his gay status to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist.
He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers. But they told him he couldn't re-enlist because they had not gotten word from the Pentagon to allow openly gay recruits.
Smith was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.
On Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes to recruiting, Lopez said, "Oh, my God! I've been waiting for this for four years."
Lopez said he'll try again Friday and will go to a Navy recruiting office in Austin to see if he can enroll in ROTC as an officer. He is currently studying hospitality services at Austin Community College.
"I'm hoping they'll let me in because I was able to switch over from an enlistment to an officer. I'm really hoping they can accept me," he said.
View Original Article HERE
SAN DIEGO – The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation's history, even as it tries in the courts to slow the movement to abolish its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's Tuesday announcement.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in California who overturned the 17-year policy last week was likely to reject the government's latest effort to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law.
The Justice Department will likely appeal if she does not suspend her order.
The Defense Department has said it would comply with U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' order and had frozen any discharge cases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.
Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.
Gay rights groups were continuing to tell service members to avoid revealing that they are gay, fearing they could find themselves in trouble should the law be reinstated.
"What people aren't really getting is that the discretion and caution that gay troops are showing now is exactly the same standard of conduct that they will adhere to when the ban is lifted permanently," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Yes, a few will try to become celebrities."
An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said financial considerations are playing a big role in gay service members staying quiet.
"The military has financially trapped us," he said, noting that he could owe the military about $200,000 if he were to be dismissed.
The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being discharged, said he's hearing increasingly about heterosexual service members approaching gay colleagues and telling them they can come out now.
He also said more gay service members are coming out to their peers who are friends, while keeping their orientation secret from leadership. He said he has come out to two peers in the last few days.
"People are coming out informally in their units," the officer said. "Discussions are happening right now."
An opponent of the judge's ruling said confusion that has come up is exactly what Pentagon officials feared and shows the need for her to immediately freeze her order while the government appeals.
"It's only logical that a stay should be granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring with reports that the Pentagon is telling recruiters to begin accepting homosexual applicants," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington that supports the policy.
The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays.
Before the 1993 law, the military banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service. There have been instances in which gays have served, with the knowledge of their colleagues.
Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.
The Pentagon guidance to recruiters comes after Dan Woods, the group's attorney, sent a letter last week warning the Justice Department that Army recruiters who turned away Omar Lopez in Austin, Texas may have caused the government to violate Phillips' injunction. Woods wrote that the government could be subject to a citation for contempt.
The White House has insisted their actions in court do not diminish President Barack Obama's efforts to repeal the ban.
In their stay request, government lawyers argue Phillips' order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war. They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.
Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures.
Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.
"If they were to self-admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change," Smith said.
He said the enlistment process takes time and recruiters have been told to inform those who are openly gay that they could be declared ineligible if the law is upheld on appeal.
"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is," he said.
The message, however, had not reached some recruiting stations.
In Pensacola, Marine Sgt. Timothy Chandler said he had been given no direction. "As far as we are concerned everything is the same. The policy hasn't changed," he said, as others in the office nodded.
Chandler said no one had come to the small office questioning the policy or asking about being openly gay and serving.
Recruiters at the Navy office next door referred all media questions to the Pentagon. Air Force recruiters said they were not authorized to talk to the media. Army recruiters referred questions to another office in Mobile, Ala.
In New York's Times Square, Dan Choi, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran who was discharged for being gay, began the process to enlist in the Army. In San Diego, recruiters took an application from Will Rodriguez, a former Marine who was discharged under the policy in 2008.
Phillips said at a hearing Monday that she was learning toward denying the Obama administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
After Phillips' ruling last week, Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting his gay status to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist.
He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers. But they told him he couldn't re-enlist because they had not gotten word from the Pentagon to allow openly gay recruits.
Smith was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.
On Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes to recruiting, Lopez said, "Oh, my God! I've been waiting for this for four years."
Lopez said he'll try again Friday and will go to a Navy recruiting office in Austin to see if he can enroll in ROTC as an officer. He is currently studying hospitality services at Austin Community College.
"I'm hoping they'll let me in because I was able to switch over from an enlistment to an officer. I'm really hoping they can accept me," he said.
View Original Article HERE
Obama Administration Uses Taxpayer Funding to Encourage ‘Sustainable Communities’
By Susan Jones
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. government is stepping in with millions of taxpayer dollars to create affordable places for Americans to work and live.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week announced nearly $100 million in new grants "to support more livable and sustainable communities across the country."
Forty-five regions will receive various amounts of the funding through the new initiative, which aims to connect housing with jobs, schools and transportation.
“Regions that embrace sustainable communities will have a built-in competitive edge in attracting jobs and private investment,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in an Oct. 14 news release announcing the 45 grant recipients.
“Planning our communities smarter means parents will spend less time driving and more time with their children; more families will live in safe, stable communities near good schools and jobs; and more businesses will have access to the capital and talent they need to grow and prosper.”
Rather than dictate how communities can spend the grant money, HUD encouraged “creative, locally focused thinking,” Donovan added.
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program -- funded for the first time this year -- is part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration that brings HUD, the Transportation Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency together to help communities across the country “create more housing choices, make transportation more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support the kinds of neighborhoods that attract businesses.”
One category of grants will assist regional planning for sustainable development where such plans do not currently exist. A second category of funding will support the implementation of existing sustainability plans.
The 45 organizations that received grants (see list) were competitively selected from more than 1,000 applicants from across the country. The grants were judged by a team drawn from eight federal agencies and from partners in philanthropy.
Land-use choices
One of the largest grants, $5 million, is going to the Metropolitan Council of St. Paul, Minn., to support planning along the region's five “transit corridors.”"
The goal, said Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell, is to make transit more successful, promote housing and transportation affordability and availability, and make communities more vital.
“Increasingly we recognize that transit isn’t just about moving people from one place to another,” said Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough. “Transit and transit corridors pose unlimited opportunities to mold and shape our communities, our environment and our economic circumstances. Ultimately, the land use choices we make as we develop our network of transit corridors will shape our destiny as a region.”
When people can live in housing they can afford, near transportation they can afford and have community amenities available in the same area, "it’s a platform for success,” said Minnesota Housing Commissioner Dan Bartholomay.
Another $4.9 million is going to Washington State's Puget Sound Regional Council "to support regional planning for more livable, prosperous and sustainable communities in the Puget Sound area," a press release said.
"This funding is about creating economic opportunities for communities throughout the Puget Sound and Thurston County," said Sen. Pat Murray, chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee. Murray, a Democrat, is in a tight race for re-election.
"This funding will bring transit closer to commuters and commuters closer to their jobs and families. I funded this program because we need to think comprehensively about how we plan our communities. This funding will help Washington families have an affordable place to work and live."
“We’re very grateful to the Obama Administration for its leadership and its role in securing these grant funds,” said Ray Stephanson, President of the Puget Sound Regional Council and Mayor of Everett.
“Here in the Puget Sound region, we’re leading the way when it comes to growing our economy. This grant award will help shape the future of our region in ways that create a more livable and prosperous future for all of us. We’re taking a big picture approach to creating job opportunities closer to where people live, while promoting a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”
In the Fiscal 2010 budget, Congress provided a total of $150 million to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts involving housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning, HUD says on its Web site.
View Article With Links HERE
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. government is stepping in with millions of taxpayer dollars to create affordable places for Americans to work and live.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week announced nearly $100 million in new grants "to support more livable and sustainable communities across the country."
Forty-five regions will receive various amounts of the funding through the new initiative, which aims to connect housing with jobs, schools and transportation.
“Regions that embrace sustainable communities will have a built-in competitive edge in attracting jobs and private investment,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in an Oct. 14 news release announcing the 45 grant recipients.
“Planning our communities smarter means parents will spend less time driving and more time with their children; more families will live in safe, stable communities near good schools and jobs; and more businesses will have access to the capital and talent they need to grow and prosper.”
Rather than dictate how communities can spend the grant money, HUD encouraged “creative, locally focused thinking,” Donovan added.
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program -- funded for the first time this year -- is part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration that brings HUD, the Transportation Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency together to help communities across the country “create more housing choices, make transportation more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support the kinds of neighborhoods that attract businesses.”
One category of grants will assist regional planning for sustainable development where such plans do not currently exist. A second category of funding will support the implementation of existing sustainability plans.
The 45 organizations that received grants (see list) were competitively selected from more than 1,000 applicants from across the country. The grants were judged by a team drawn from eight federal agencies and from partners in philanthropy.
Land-use choices
One of the largest grants, $5 million, is going to the Metropolitan Council of St. Paul, Minn., to support planning along the region's five “transit corridors.”"
The goal, said Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell, is to make transit more successful, promote housing and transportation affordability and availability, and make communities more vital.
“Increasingly we recognize that transit isn’t just about moving people from one place to another,” said Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough. “Transit and transit corridors pose unlimited opportunities to mold and shape our communities, our environment and our economic circumstances. Ultimately, the land use choices we make as we develop our network of transit corridors will shape our destiny as a region.”
When people can live in housing they can afford, near transportation they can afford and have community amenities available in the same area, "it’s a platform for success,” said Minnesota Housing Commissioner Dan Bartholomay.
Another $4.9 million is going to Washington State's Puget Sound Regional Council "to support regional planning for more livable, prosperous and sustainable communities in the Puget Sound area," a press release said.
"This funding is about creating economic opportunities for communities throughout the Puget Sound and Thurston County," said Sen. Pat Murray, chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee. Murray, a Democrat, is in a tight race for re-election.
"This funding will bring transit closer to commuters and commuters closer to their jobs and families. I funded this program because we need to think comprehensively about how we plan our communities. This funding will help Washington families have an affordable place to work and live."
“We’re very grateful to the Obama Administration for its leadership and its role in securing these grant funds,” said Ray Stephanson, President of the Puget Sound Regional Council and Mayor of Everett.
“Here in the Puget Sound region, we’re leading the way when it comes to growing our economy. This grant award will help shape the future of our region in ways that create a more livable and prosperous future for all of us. We’re taking a big picture approach to creating job opportunities closer to where people live, while promoting a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”
In the Fiscal 2010 budget, Congress provided a total of $150 million to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts involving housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning, HUD says on its Web site.
View Article With Links HERE
Grand Isle Authorities Bury Dead Fish On Public Beach
You Tube
The consequences of the BP oil spill and the subsequent toxic Corexit used to disperse it are far more devastating than the Obama administration will admit. While this real environmental disaster unfolds, phony environmentalists are obsessed with global warming, carbon taxes, and polar bears.
View Daily Updated Articles HERE
The consequences of the BP oil spill and the subsequent toxic Corexit used to disperse it are far more devastating than the Obama administration will admit. While this real environmental disaster unfolds, phony environmentalists are obsessed with global warming, carbon taxes, and polar bears.
View Daily Updated Articles HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)