EU Citizenship Goes On Sale, Price War Breaks Out

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

The huddled masses yearning to breathe free in the European Union drown by the boatload in the Mediterranean. They languish behind bars in detention centers in Greece and elsewhere. They’re maligned, hounded, deported if possible, and sometimes killed. But it’s getting cheaper and easier for the rich.

The path to residency and eventual citizenship has always been paved with money. The more money, the smoother the path. But now in the EU, citizenship (and a passport, one of the most prized in the world) is moving into the realm of not only the super-rich but the run-of-the-mill well-off. EU citizenship has become just another product that strung-out debt-crisis countries can sell in a competitive market by undercutting each other. And Malta just started a price war.

The tiny EU member with a population of 417,000 spread over three islands lies 50 miles south of Sicily, 175 miles east of Tunisia, and a little over 200 miles north of Libya. It’s convenient for foreigners, with English being one of the two official languages.

If you’re from Russia or China or Venezuela or Mali and become a citizen of one of the 28 EU countries, you’ll get a country-specific EU passport, which allows you to establish residency and do business anywhere in the EU. Large international money transfers are less of a hassle. There are all sorts of offshore benefits. And travel around the world is a breeze.

But EU citizenship, though a hot product for those who don’t have it, is not normally considered for sale. You have to invest lots of money in your chosen country. Every country has its own priorities: in Hungary, iffy government bonds; in Ireland, public projects such as education; in Portugal, property. These investments will make you eligible for residency, after which you may or may not be able to get citizenship, similar to programs available in the US.

In Austria, where citizenship is almost impossible to get for normal foreigners, the super-rich are sought after. The government, through paragraph 10, section 6 of the Citizenship Act, can confer citizenship “because of the services already provided by the foreigner and the extraordinary achievements still to be expected of him in the special interest of the Republic.” A Saudi hotel investor and the Russian singer Anna Netrebko reportedly received Austrian citizenship (and passport) in this manner. Few succeed: none in 2012 and only 23 in 2011.

But nowhere in the EU could you actually just go and buy citizenship off the shelf.

Cyprus got close. In 2012, as it was veering toward bankruptcy, it offered citizenship through a “fast-track” scheme to anyone willing to plow at least €10 million in direct investment into the country, which is a lot of money for the average rich guy, just to get a travel document and EU residency. There were also some other onerous criteria, and it wasn’t seen as a good deal.

By April 2013, Cyprus was desperate. Depositors in its collapsed banks were treated to high and tight haircuts. Its offshore financial industry, the mainstay breadwinner, had cratered. Cyprus needed money badly. So President Nikos Anastasiades, in office for only a couple of months, announced that the price of citizenship would be slashed to €3 million, but it would still be tied to investment in Cyprus. It was in part an olive branch he held out to Russians who’d stashed their money in the cesspools of corruption that were the Cypriot banks: they too would be eligible for citizenship if they’d lost at least €3 million.

But that era of tying citizenship to investment and residency is now over in the EU. Malta put it up for sale at 78% off! And you can buy it off the shelf and leave.

The Parliament of Malta passed legislation that set the price for Maltese citizenship at €650,000 for any non-EU applicant. It’s not linked to any residency or investment requirements. People can just come by, jump through some minor hoops, pay, get their citizenship and passport, and then settle in Germany or wherever. Simon Busuttil, leader of the opposition Nationalist Party, warned that Malta could end up being compared to shady tax havens in the Caribbean.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat admitted that the deal was designed to sell the product. Malta is struggling. It needs the money. He claimed that about 45 people would end up buying citizenship during the first year, for about €30 million in revenues.

No big deal?  Henley and Partners, an international consulting group, was awarded the contract to run the program. The firm specializes “in residence and citizenship planning,” for “wealthy individuals and families, as well as their advisors worldwide.” CEO Eric Major claimed that the program would be transparent. But unlike the Prime Minister, Mr. Major estimated that Malta would sell between 200 and 300 citizenships per year. Hence, at the upper range, nearly €200 million in annual revenues – not bad for a little bit of paperwork. And a lot of money for such a small place.

And if the product really takes off? The price point is advantageous, given what Cyprus charges, and there are hundreds of millions of well-to-do but not super-rich Chinese, Indians, and others who would like to establish an escape route. This could be Europe’s next big thing. It could be HUGE! 

But it’s competitive out there, as Cyprus found out. The Maltese government said that other EU countries were also considering the outright sale of citizenship. This can mean only one thing: downward pressure on prices.

Will Greece offer citizenship for €599,000 each? Perhaps, no questions asked, to be even more competitive? It’s going to be what the bailout Troika and everyone else have been looking for: a phenomenally profitable export product with minuscule input costs and unlimited potential. If it sold 1 million citizenships over the next three years at this price, it would be able to pay off all its debts, bail out its banks properly, allow politicians and tycoons to syphon off €100 billion for personal gain, and still have some cash left to buy some German tanks and frigates. Debt crisis solved!

Unless Slovakia jumps in and cuts the price to €399,000 a piece….

Despite a miraculous economic “recovery,” EU-wide youth unemployment hit 24%. New records were set in Spain (56.5%), Greece (57.3%), and other countries. The warnings from history are clear: governments that allow youth unemployment to escalate, do so at their own peril. Read….  No Country For Young Men


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/pF2WizEz3Kk/story01.htm testosteronepit

Guest Post: Will The Dollar Lose Its Reserve Currency Status To An SDR Currency?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Since the SDR is just an aggregate of fiat currencies, it cannot really change the fundamentals of the current status quo.

Many observers believe the U.S. dollar (USD) will lose its status as the world's reserve currency sooner rather than later. Proponents of this view often mention China's agreements with various trading partners to settle trade in their own currencies rather than the dollar as evidence of this trend.

More substantial evidence can be found in the diversification of reserves held by many nations. The euro now makes up about a fourth of all currency reserves:

Here is the IMF (international Monetary Fund) page on voluntarily reported currency reserves: Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER). Note the large amount of reserves that are not "allocated," i.e. the currency being held is not specified.

Some see the replacement of the U.S. dollar by some other currency as a welcome development, not just for the world economy but for the U.S., as the reserve currency has substantial burdens. Regardless of whether such a replacement would be positive or negative, many analysts see no plausible alternative to the USD as the primary reserve currency for a host of reasons.

Another camp sees China's purchases of gold as paving the way for China's currency (renminbi a.k.a. yuan) to replace the dollar as the global reserve currency. Those who have studied China's policy makers doubt this is the goal; rather, they see China as most likely pursuing a multi-polar world in which no one nation issues the reserve currency.

One set of observers has long held that the ideal replacement for the dollar is a hybrid currency issued by the IMF called SDRs (Special Drawing Rights). The IMF describes the SDR thusly:

"The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries' official reserves. Its value is based on a basket of four key international currencies, and SDRs can be exchanged for freely usable currencies."

The four currencies are the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound. China is widely seen as working toward floating the renminbi (that is, no longer pegging it to the dollar) so it could be included in the SDR currency.

The SDR seems to many to be the ideal replacement of the USD as the reserve currency, especially if China's currency joins the basket of currencies that make up the SDR.

Though the advantages of a multi-currency basket are fairly self-evident, questions remain if the SDRs are a realistic or practical option. These questions come to mind:

1. Since the SDR is just a basket of currencies, doesn't it simply aggregate the weaknesses of all fiat currencies? In other words, what happens to the value of the SDR when priced in gold, oil or other commodity if every nation in the basket prints its currency with abandon? The SDR will lose value just like any any fiat currency, because it is simply a composite fiat currency.

2. Couldn't a nation simply hold all currencies in the SDR in the same percentages as in the SDR basket? Clearly, this is possible: a nation could acquire the same basket of currencies held by the SDR and in the same weighting. In that case, what is the purpose of the SDR?

3. What happens to the relative value of one of the constituent currencies in the SDR if the issuing nation experiences a currency crisis or devalues its currency by one means or another? Clearly, the relative weighting of that currency would decline within the SDR basket.

The SDR, then, does nothing to impede currency crises or devaluations; it is simply a risk-management tool that works by diversifying the risk of holding too much of any one currency. But since any nation can pursue the same risk-management strategy directly by diversifying its reserves with multiple currencies, what's the point of holding SDRs as a risk-management tool?

4. Since the SDR is just an aggregate of existing currencies, it is not an independent currency. An independent currency would need to be supported by either enforceable taxation rights or some commodity or basket of commodities: gold, for example, or a "bancor"-type basket of commodities (gold, oil, grain, etc.) owned by the issuing nation/entity.

(Another potential independent currency that could serve as a reserve currency is a non-state issued digital currency such as Bitcoin: Could Bitcoin (or equivalent) Become a Global Reserve Currency? (November 7, 2013). Digital currencies' valuation is based not on taxation or gold but carefully managed scarcity.)

Since the SDR is just an aggregate of fiat currencies, it cannot really change the fundamentals of the current status quo.

Boiled down to its essence, the SDR is presented as a shortcut solution to deeply seated problems. The reserve currency problem cannot be fixed by a basket of fiat currencies, as fiat currencies (and the trade imbalances they generate) are the problem.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VBeJSCC6L54/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Google Can Go Ahead And Keep Scanning Copyrighted Books, It’s Fair Use, Says Court

Capping off a lawsuit running since 2005, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York today
granted summary judgment to Google  to end the case
of Authors Guild v. Google.

Choice excerpt from the decision:

by helping readers and researchers identify books, Google
Books benefits authors and publishers. When a user clicks on a
search result and is directed to an “About the Book” page, the page
will offer links to sellers of the book and/or libraries listing
the book as part of their collections…..The About the Book page
for Ball Four [whose author is one of the parties suing Google
Books], for example,provides links to Amazon.com,
Barnes&Noble.com, Books-A-Million, and
IndieBound….

A user could simply click on any of these links to be
directed to a website where she could purchase the book. Hence,
Google Books will generate new audiences and create new sources of
income. As amici observe: “Thanks to . . . [Google Books],
librarians can identify and efficiently sift through possible
research sources, amateur historians have access to a wealth of
previously obscure material, and everyday readers and researchers
can find books that were once buried in research library
archives.”

The full decision in Author’s Guild v.
Google as a whole gives a pretty good mini history of
Google’s book scanning projects and a good defense of its many uses
to literary and scholarly achievements and culture. But the legal
nub of why Judge Denny Chin decided the authors can go pound sand
and Google triumphs is:

I assume that plaintiffs have established a prima facie
case of copyright infringement against Google…Google has
digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, including the
individual plaintiffs’ books, maintaining copies for itself on its
servers and backup tapes…..Google has made digital copies
available for its Library Project partners to download…..Google
has displayed snippets from the books to the public….Google has
done all of this, with respect to in-copyright books in the Library
Project, without license or permission from the copyright owners.
The sole issue now before the Court is whether Google’s use of the
copyrighted works is “fair use” under the copyright laws. For the
reasons set forth below, I conclude that it is.

The Judge then breaks down the four factors usually
considered in “fair use” determinations and finds Google wins.
(This excerpt doesn’t deal with all four points):

The use of book text to facilitate search through the
display of snippets is transformative….to a broad selection of
books. Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the
sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of
substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new
areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in books
are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google
Books has created something new in the use of book text….Google
Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool
to be used to read books. Instead, it “adds value to the original”
and allows for “the creation of new information, new aesthetics,
new insights and understandings.”…

Google does not sell the scans it has made of books for
Google Books; it does not sell the snippets that it displays; and
it does not run ads on the About the Book pages that contain
snippets. It does not engage in the direct commercialization of
copyrighted works…Accordingly, I conclude that the first factor
[basically, is the use transformative?] strongly favors a finding
of fair use.


And the Judge thinks Google Books isn’t hurting the book
sales business:

plaintiffs argue that Google Books will negatively impact
the market for books and that Google’s scans will serve as a
“market replacement” for books…..It also argues that users could
put in multiple searches,varying slightly the search terms, to
access an entire book….Neither suggestion makes sense. Google
does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books.
While partner libraries have the ability to download a scan of a
book from their collections, they owned the books already — they
provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that
someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches
to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book. Not only
is that not possible as certain pages and snippets are blacklisted,
the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his
possession already to be able to piece the different snippets
together in coherent fashion….

a reasonable fact finder could only find that Google Books
enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders. An
important factor in the success of an individual title is whether
it is discovered — whether potential readers learn of its
existence….Google Books provides a way for authors’ works to
become noticed, much like traditional in-store book
displays….Indeed, both librarians and their patrons use Google
Books to identify books to purchase…..Many authors have noted
that online browsing in general and Google Books in particular
helps readers find their work, thus increasing their
audiences. Further, Google provides convenient links to
booksellers to make it easy for a reader to order a book. In this
day and age of on-line shopping, there can be no doubt but
that Google Books improves books sales…..

Google Books provides significant public benefits. It
advances the progress of the arts and
sciences, while maintaining respectful
consideration for the rights of authors and other
creative individuals, and without
adversely impacting the rights of copyright
holders. It has become an invaluable research
tool that permits students, teachers, librarians,
and others to more efficiently identify and
locate books. It has given scholars the ability,
for the first time, to conduct full-text searches
of tens of millions of books. It preserves books,
in particular out-of-print and old books
that have been forgotten in the bowels of
libraries, and it gives them new life. It
facilitates access to books for print-disabled
and remote or underserved populations. It
generates new audiences and creates new sources
of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all
society benefits.

It’s a court decision so there are lots of interesting
complications in the whole thing, but that’s the jist. Google Books
as it stands can keep on truckin’ without compensating authors.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/google-can-go-ahead-and-keep-scanning-co
via IFTTT

Google Can Go Ahead And Keep Scanning Copyrighted Books, It's Fair Use, Says Court

Capping off a lawsuit running since 2005, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York today
granted summary judgment to Google  to end the case
of Authors Guild v. Google.

Choice excerpt from the decision:

by helping readers and researchers identify books, Google
Books benefits authors and publishers. When a user clicks on a
search result and is directed to an “About the Book” page, the page
will offer links to sellers of the book and/or libraries listing
the book as part of their collections…..The About the Book page
for Ball Four [whose author is one of the parties suing Google
Books], for example,provides links to Amazon.com,
Barnes&Noble.com, Books-A-Million, and
IndieBound….

A user could simply click on any of these links to be
directed to a website where she could purchase the book. Hence,
Google Books will generate new audiences and create new sources of
income. As amici observe: “Thanks to . . . [Google Books],
librarians can identify and efficiently sift through possible
research sources, amateur historians have access to a wealth of
previously obscure material, and everyday readers and researchers
can find books that were once buried in research library
archives.”

The full decision in Author’s Guild v.
Google as a whole gives a pretty good mini history of
Google’s book scanning projects and a good defense of its many uses
to literary and scholarly achievements and culture. But the legal
nub of why Judge Denny Chin decided the authors can go pound sand
and Google triumphs is:

I assume that plaintiffs have established a prima facie
case of copyright infringement against Google…Google has
digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, including the
individual plaintiffs’ books, maintaining copies for itself on its
servers and backup tapes…..Google has made digital copies
available for its Library Project partners to download…..Google
has displayed snippets from the books to the public….Google has
done all of this, with respect to in-copyright books in the Library
Project, without license or permission from the copyright owners.
The sole issue now before the Court is whether Google’s use of the
copyrighted works is “fair use” under the copyright laws. For the
reasons set forth below, I conclude that it is.

The Judge then breaks down the four factors usually
considered in “fair use” determinations and finds Google wins.
(This excerpt doesn’t deal with all four points):

The use of book text to facilitate search through the
display of snippets is transformative….to a broad selection of
books. Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the
sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of
substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new
areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in books
are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google
Books has created something new in the use of book text….Google
Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool
to be used to read books. Instead, it “adds value to the original”
and allows for “the creation of new information, new aesthetics,
new insights and understandings.”…

Google does not sell the scans it has made of books for
Google Books; it does not sell the snippets that it displays; and
it does not run ads on the About the Book pages that contain
snippets. It does not engage in the direct commercialization of
copyrighted works…Accordingly, I conclude that the first factor
[basically, is the use transformative?] strongly favors a finding
of fair use.


And the Judge thinks Google Books isn’t hurting the book
sales business:

plaintiffs argue that Google Books will negatively impact
the market for books and that Google’s scans will serve as a
“market replacement” for books…..It also argues that users could
put in multiple searches,varying slightly the search terms, to
access an entire book….Neither suggestion makes sense. Google
does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books.
While partner libraries have the ability to download a scan of a
book from their collections, they owned the books already — they
provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that
someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches
to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book. Not only
is that not possible as certain pages and snippets are blacklisted,
the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his
possession already to be able to piece the different snippets
together in coherent fashion….

a reasonable fact finder could only find that Google Books
enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders. An
important factor in the success of an individual title is whether
it is discovered — whether potential readers learn of its
existence….Google Books provides a way for authors’ works to
become noticed, much like traditional in-store book
displays….Indeed, both librarians and their patrons use Google
Books to identify books to purchase…..Many authors have noted
that online browsing in general and Google Books in particular
helps readers find their work, thus increasing their
audiences. Further, Google provides convenient links to
booksellers to make it easy for a reader to order a book. In this
day and age of on-line shopping, there can be no doubt but
that Google Books improves books sales…..

Google Books provides significant public benefits. It
advances the progress of the arts and
sciences, while maintaining respectful
consideration for the rights of authors and other
creative individuals, and without
adversely impacting the rights of copyright
holders. It has become an invaluable research
tool that permits students, teachers, librarians,
and others to more efficiently identify and
locate books. It has given scholars the ability,
for the first time, to conduct full-text searches
of tens of millions of books. It preserves books,
in particular out-of-print and old books
that have been forgotten in the bowels of
libraries, and it gives them new life. It
facilitates access to books for print-disabled
and remote or underserved populations. It
generates new audiences and creates new sources
of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all
society benefits.

It’s a court decision so there are lots of interesting
complications in the whole thing, but that’s the jist. Google Books
as it stands can keep on truckin’ without compensating authors.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/google-can-go-ahead-and-keep-scanning-co
via IFTTT

Calling Out Climate Change Catastrophists for Their Nuclear Power Hypocrisy

Nuclear Power Green Earlier this month, four prominent climate
change activists sent an
open letter to their fellow environmentalists urging them to
drop their opposition to nuclear power as a zero-carbon energy
source. The response was, to say the least, pusillanimous. Ted
Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, founders of the pro-progress*
Breakthrough Institute, have now called out in a great column,
“The
Great Green Meltdown,” the nuclear naysayers among the
“mainstream” environmentalist groups for their casuistical
rejection of this climate-friendly energy source:

Nuclear energy today is broadly recognized by scientists,
scholars, and analysts as an environmentally positive technology
with risks, such as they are, overwhelmingly outweighed by its
environmental benefits. Such is the consensus on this question that
mainstream environmental leaders no longer attempt to contest
it.

And so, in response to the letter from climate scientists, and
the
airing of Pandora’s Promise on CNN, the NRDC and CAP
led a chorus of green spokespersons claiming that their
opposition to nuclear was based not on environmental but rather
economic grounds.

“What’s weird is that the environmental movement is being held
up as an obstacle,” green jobs advocate Van Jones told Wolf
Blitzer. “Don’t blame us! Nuclear power is incredibly
expensive.”
NRDC’s Dale Bryk told a CNN audience that the reason the United
States wasn’t building nuclear was because “the market is not
choosing nuclear.” Her colleagues, Ralph Cavanagh and Tom
Cochran wrote
at CNN.com, “No American utility today would consider
building a new nuclear power plant without massive
government support.”

But rather than obscure the dogmatism that underlies green
opposition to nuclear energy, the economic arguments further
revealed it. Having demanded policies to make energy
more expensive, whether cap and trade or carbon taxes, greens now
complain that nuclear energy is too expensive. Having spent
decades advocating heavy subsidies for renewable energy, greens
claim that we should turn away from nuclear energy because it
requires subsidies. (emphasis added) And having spent the
last decade describing global warming as the greatest market
failure in human history, greens tell us that, in fact, we should
trust the market to decide what kind of energy system we
should have. 

It was hard, at times, to tell whether the claims made about
renewables in particular were purely cynical or just delusional.
The Sierra Club’s
Brune claimed that declining US emissions over the last five
years had been achieved thanks to wind and solar, a claim
that has no plausible basis in fact. US emissions are down
thanks to cheap gas, not renewables. Indeed, since the last US
nuclear plant came on line in 1997, nuclear has avoided more
emissions through simply increasing energy generation
from existing nuclear plants than have been avoided by
wind and solar power combined.

If an environmentlist is not in favor of nuclear power
(preferably liquid thorium reactors), then he or she is simply not
serious about halting any man-made global warming.

The whole column is worth your time.

*Noted because so many modern “progressives” actually oppose
technological progress.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/calling-out-climate-change-catastrophist
via IFTTT

Steve Chapman on How Obamacare Proves the Virtues of Federalism

Sad Big ONo issue in
recent years has polarized Americans as much as Obamacare. It
produced a party-line vote in Congress, a near-fatal court battle,
a revolt by states that refused to run exchanges or expand
Medicaid, dozens of House votes to repeal it and, now, a bungled
launch that could be its undoing. It’s a barroom brawl that never
ends. Steve Chapman says that it didn’t have to be this way,
pointing to examples of other once-controversial issues solved by
federalism.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/steve-chapman-on-how-obamacare-proves-th
via IFTTT

Fed Chairman Yellen and the Coming Dollar Crisis

 

Janet Yellen will be the new Fed Chairman come January 2014.

 

Yellen is the head of the San Francisco Fed. There is a lot of misinformation about her on the web, but the fact of the matter is that she is a career academic with absolutely zero banking experience or business experience.

 

This puts her in the same boat as Greenspan and Bernanke. Indeed, the only Fed Chairman we’ve had in 50 odd years with any banking experience is Paul Volcker.

 

With that in mind, it’s important to note that Yellen has been one of the biggest proponents of QE as a monetary policy. In 2011, she stated that QE 1 and QE 2 would create a total of the million new jobs by the end of 2012. Suffice to say, the woman does not understand monetary policy or economics as they pertain to the real world.

 

And she will likely inherit a US Dollar crisis.

 

The US Dollar is preparing to stage a significant breakdown. The uptrend that has been in place since 2011 has already been broke (blue line) and we has already broken key support (black line) briefly last month.

 

 

The Fed’s $85 billion per month QE 3 and QE 4 programs are very anti-Dollar. However, on the opposite end of the global currency see-saw is the Euro which comprises 56% of the US Dollar index.

 

A lower Dollar means a higher Euro. A higher Euro hurts European exports (over 50% of Germany’s economy is export driven). So QE could very well force the ECB to act to push down the Euro. This dynamic will fuel much of the monetary issues of the Yellen-Fed era.

 

For a FREE Special Report outlining how to protect your portfolio a market collapse, swing by: http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/special-reports.html

 

Best Regards,

 

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/75V9rAPfxnk/story01.htm Phoenix Capital Research

Massive Pipeline Explosion Near Milford, Texas; Entire Town Being Evacuated – Live Choppercam

Every day in the New Normal, it is either a mass shooting or an explosion in some pipeline or crude-carrying train. Moments ago, a pipeline in Texas exploded in a massive fireball and has prompted the evacuation of the nearby town of Milford.

From Breaking911:

Smoke and flames are visible for miles. There is a fear that an additional pipe may explode. Nearby schools have all been evacuated as well. NUmerous rescue teams responding; unknown if there are any injuries at this time.

 

UPDATE 11:30AM EST: According to county officials, a 10-inch pipeline east of U.S. Highway 77 and Farm-to-Market Road 308 was being worked on when it exploded.

 

UPDATE 11:31AM EST: NBC reports that there are no injuries.
– See more at: http://www.breaking911.com/breaking-pipeline-explosion-near-city-of-milf…

 

Live chopper cam from CBS FDW:

CBS Dallas Live Stream


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/fIQqt-nglmI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Obama Folds: You ‘Can’ Keep Your Plan (For Now) – Live Webcast

Between last night’s dismal reality of enrollees in Obamacare, the collapse to record lows of Obama’s approval rating, and the growing disillusionment among the President’s own party have forced the administration to “fix” Obamacare. As Politico reports, the president’s proposal would allow insurers to offer plans in 2014 that were previously slated to sunset this year, but require the companies to let consumers know how — if at all — their policies don’t comply with the minimum benefits of the Affordable Care Act, according to a source briefed on the proposal. Insurance companies are not amused as risk pools will need to be adjusted. We leave to our policy-changer-in-chief to explain the nuances of this fiasco and why this is not a “fold”, not an admission that the law is FUBAR, and not in any way similar to the Tea-Party’s suggestion that Obamacare be delayed by one year…

 

As CNN reports:

As the story of the Obamacare website fiasco unfolds, senior administration aides tell me that the President is “mad, frustrated and angry.“

 

Mad that his signature legislative achievement is stuck at the gate, frustrated that he’s running out of time to fix it and angry that he’s got a second-term agenda now going nowhere. He’s so furious, in fact, that he stepped out of character to vent to an assembled group of top aides. “If I had known (about the website problems),” the steaming President reportedly said, according to The New York Times, “we could have delayed the website.”

Live Feed:

 

 

Can we get a web cam of Ted Cruz’s office?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/_gyfnUcMVTQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Obama Folds: You 'Can' Keep Your Plan (For Now) – Live Webcast

Between last night’s dismal reality of enrollees in Obamacare, the collapse to record lows of Obama’s approval rating, and the growing disillusionment among the President’s own party have forced the administration to “fix” Obamacare. As Politico reports, the president’s proposal would allow insurers to offer plans in 2014 that were previously slated to sunset this year, but require the companies to let consumers know how — if at all — their policies don’t comply with the minimum benefits of the Affordable Care Act, according to a source briefed on the proposal. Insurance companies are not amused as risk pools will need to be adjusted. We leave to our policy-changer-in-chief to explain the nuances of this fiasco and why this is not a “fold”, not an admission that the law is FUBAR, and not in any way similar to the Tea-Party’s suggestion that Obamacare be delayed by one year…

 

As CNN reports:

As the story of the Obamacare website fiasco unfolds, senior administration aides tell me that the President is “mad, frustrated and angry.“

 

Mad that his signature legislative achievement is stuck at the gate, frustrated that he’s running out of time to fix it and angry that he’s got a second-term agenda now going nowhere. He’s so furious, in fact, that he stepped out of character to vent to an assembled group of top aides. “If I had known (about the website problems),” the steaming President reportedly said, according to The New York Times, “we could have delayed the website.”

Live Feed:

 

 

Can we get a web cam of Ted Cruz’s office?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/_gyfnUcMVTQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden