Bailouts Will Push US into Depression: Manager

By CNBC.com | 11 Sep 2008 | 09:11 AM ET
Font size:

The end result of the global economic slowdown may be the U.S. announcing national bankruptcy as the government cannot afford the bailouts that it promised and the market will not bail out the government, Martin Hennecke, senior manager of private clients at Tyche, told CNBC on Thursday.

"We expect a depression in the United States. We expect a depression, very possibly, also in Europe," Hennecke said on "Worldwide Exchange."

The estimated $300 billion cost of the Fannie/Freddie bailout will probably be considered as a loss that the government will have to take, therefore passing it on to taxpayers, he explained.

"We already have $3 trillion of debt, as far as the U.S. government is concerned. These debt figures across the U.S. economy are rising very sharply."

When the government can no longer pass the United States' "immense debt" on to taxpayers, it will turn to the holders of U.S. dollars, leading to the eventual downfall of the currency, Hennecke said.

"Definitely, it (the dollar) is not a safe place to be invested in, as real inflation is closer to 10 or 11 percent than the actual inflation numbers given by the U.S. government," Hennecke said on "Worldwide Exchange".


Investors should avoid exposure to debt and stay away from leveraging on any investment or asset, including property, Hennecke advised, adding that "banks have been too highly leveraged in the past, private households, everybody."

Hennecke's stock allocations are mainly Asian-based, especially in the Chinese market as the country's government has a large amount of cash and the macroeconomics are fundamentally strong.

He also suggested investing in gold, despite the recent fall in price.
© 2008 CNBC.com

It is the economy, stupid. And, the Obama campaign should make every day between now and November 4th about the economy.

Did someone move this here or did this dumbfuck put it in the wrong forum on purpose?

If so, can someone move it to my forum so I can make him say terribly gay stuff?

I sense a great disturbance in the force.



Why do you want to make me say gay things BTW?

Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight
by Jon Hilsenrath, Serena Ng and Damian Paletta
Wednesday, September 17, 2008provided byWSJ

The financial crisis that began 13 months ago has entered a new, far more serious phase.

Lingering hopes that the damage could be contained to a handful of financial institutions that made bad bets on mortgages have evaporated. New fault lines are emerging beyond the original problem -- troubled subprime mortgages -- in areas like credit-default swaps, the credit insurance contracts sold by American International Group Inc. and others firms. There's also a growing sense of wariness about the health of trading partners.

The consequences for companies and chief executives who tarry -- hoping for better times in which to raise capital, sell assets or acknowledge losses -- are now clear and brutal, as falling share prices and fearful lenders send troubled companies into ever-deeper holes. This weekend, such a realization led John Thain to sell the century-old Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp. Each episode seems to bring intervention by the government that is more extensive and expensive than the previous one, and carries greater risk of unintended consequences.

Expectations for a quick end to the crisis are fading fast. "I think it's going to last a lot longer than perhaps we would have anticipated," Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox Corp., said Wednesday.

Here, let your next President explain it to you:

WASHINGTON — Former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines and two other top executives have agreed to a $31.4 million settlement with the government announced today over their roles in a 2004 accounting scandal.

Raines, former Fannie chief financial officer Timothy Howard and former controller Leanne Spencer were accused in a civil lawsuit in December 2006 with manipulating earnings over a six-year period at the company, the largest U.S. financer and guarantor of home mortgages.

Raines, a Seattle native and prominent Washington figure who was President Clinton's budget director, is relinquishing company stock options, proceeds from stock sales and other benefits. His part of the settlement is worth $24.7 million,

The stock options were valued at $15.6 million at the time they were issued to Raines, allowing him to buy shares at $77.10 and higher. Fannie Mae shares have been battered by the turbulence in the housing market — making the options that Raines was returning of negligible value, people familiar with the settlement said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not publicly wish to criticize the accord.

Proceeds from Raines' sale of his company stock, valued at $1.8 million, will be donated to programs that help homeowners facing foreclosure or other initiatives designed to boost homeownership. For Howard, stock sale proceeds of $200,000 will go to such programs.

"While I long ago accepted managerial accountability for any errors committed by subordinates while I was CEO, it is a very different matter to suggest that I was legally culpable in any way," Raines said in a statement. "I was not. This settlement is not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on my part, because I did not break any laws or rules while leading Fannie Mae. At most, this is an agreement to disagree."

Howard is settling for a total $6.4 million, including stock options valued at $5.2 million when issued, and Spencer $275,000.

The deal was announced by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big government-sponsored mortgage finance companies.

"OFHEO's mission is to ensure that (Fannie and Freddie) operate in a safe and sound manner," the agency's director, James Lockhart, said in a statement. "That cannot occur without corporate management providing prudent and responsible leadership and setting the appropriate ethical and overall 'tone at the top'."

Fannie and Freddie both had multibillion-dollar accounting scandals that stunned Wall Street and brought record civil fines against them in settlements with the government.

The amounts that Raines, Howard and Spencer are paying under the settlement are far less than what the government was seeking when it sued them in December 2006. OFHEO sought fines of around $100 million against the three and restitution totaling more than $115 million in bonus money tied to an improper accounting scheme.

The regulators alleged an accounting fraud at Washington-based Fannie Mae that included manipulations to reach quarterly earnings targets so that Raines, Howard, Spencer and other company executives could pocket hundreds of millions in bonuses from 1998 to 2004.

The three executives had disputed the charges and pegged them as politically motivated. Raines' attorney called Lockhart "a fatally biased regulator" and asked a federal appeals court to remove him from the case.

Spencer "was recognized as an outstanding controller for Fannie Mae where she conducted her duties with the highest integrity," her attorney, David Krakoff, said in a statement. "Ms. Spencer maintained throughout this action that the OFHEO reports and allegations had no merit."

Raines and Howard were swept out of office in December 2004 in the accounting fiasco at Fannie Mae. Two years later, the company announced a restatement for 2001 through June 30, 2004, that erased $6.3 billion in previously reported profit.

www.freerepublic.com




The daily koz of the right.

Fixed it for you to reflect reality...

the completion of Promod is at hand.

It's from City Journal, not Free Republic.

They failed to mention that 'mr. prepeared to be President'; John McCain doesn't even understand that Bush can't fire the chairman of the SEC. He doesn't serve at his pleasure.

and from the partisan (that's right wing partisan) Wall Street Journal: :"John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. ....

Republican presidential nominee John McCain sparked a furious exchange of campaign attacks Thursday night with the release of a television ad linking Democratic nominee Barack Obama to a former Fannie Mae chief who was forced out by an accounting scandal.

The ad accuses Obama of using Franklin Raines as an adviser, a claim based on a July Washington Post profile of Raines that reported he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

The Obama campaign disputes that Raines ever advised Obama or the campaign.

Raines, who served as head of the White House Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton, left Fannie Mae in late December 2004 amid allegations of accounting irregularities, saying he was holding himself accountable by taking an early retirement. Fannie Mae agreed to pay $400 million in fines in the wake of the scandal.

Earlier this year, Raines settled with federal regulators who had been after him to try to recover hundreds of millions of dollars that he and other executives made while Fannie was misstating its earnings. None of the $25 million he agreed to pay came out of his pocket, according to the Post.

In addition to the accounting scandal, McCain's ad ties Raines to the recent crisis facing the giant of the secondary-mortgage giant, which was taken over by the federal government earlier this month.

"Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers stuck with the bill," the announcer in the ad says.

While Fannie Mae was certainly weakened by the accounting scandal earlier this decade, it is highly questionable whether that had any bearing on its inability to survive the national home foreclosure tide on its own.

But the potential political fallout of Obama's ties to the company is clear.

Despite his short tenure on the national stage, Obama is the second-leading recipient of campaign contributions from the political action committees and employees of Fannie Mae and sister government-sponsored enterprise Freddie Mac since 1989 -- $165,400 in all -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the financing of congressional and presidential campaigns.

McCain's total is $21,550, according to CRP.

Obama has an even stronger link to the former leadership of Fannie Mae: He tapped another former Fannie CEO, Jim Johnson, to head his vice presidential selection committee. But Johnson was forced aside when it was revealed that he had been the beneficiary of a low-interest loan from Countrywide Financial Corp.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/cq/politics2955173;_ylt=AiDHsl3me3Wi1A4MhvfAElfMWM0F




i hope whomod doesn't smack his wife again for this!

September 18, 2008

Obama denies Raines ties, accuses McCain of throwing stones from his "seven glasshouses"

The campaign puts out a statement from former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines, disowning ties to Obama, after a McCain ad attacked him for the ties.

The Washington Post reported -- with the kind of blind sourcing that suggests the source was Raines -- that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Raines said in the statement through the campaign, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton added an attack:

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything -- ever. And by the way, someone whose campaign manager and top advisor worked and lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't be throwing stones from his seven glass houses.

UPDATE: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers notes that Obama didn't contradict the claim when it first appeared in the Post.

Damn dude, you just made me smack my bitch up!

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers notes that Obama didn't contradict the claim when it first appeared in the Post.

In other words, Obama didn't see the need to throw Raines under the bus (with Wright and all the others) until now.

NY Times:

Senator John McCain gave a few new details of his economic proposals at a speech here Friday morning, but the address seemed as much a political shot at Senator Barack Obama as a policy prescription.

Washington Post:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain offered few new details this morning on how he would respond to the crisis in the nation's financial markets, instead renewing his criticism of Democratic rival Barack Obama's ties to former heads of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The campaign yesterday had promised more information about McCain's economic plan. But McCain, in a speech to a hastily assembled meeting of the local chamber of commerce, mostly repeated his call for a new government trust that would identify and help rescue failing financial institutions and a set of principles to guide future regulation and legislation.

As it turns out, greed is not good
9 commentsSept. 20, 2008 12:00 AM

There is no doubt in my mind that unfettered, free-market capitalism is the best economic system on this planet. It encourages and rewards entrepreneurship, vision and innovation.

And if only this Eden-like society truly existed, we would all be in paradise. The only problem is that there are too many lying, cheating, greedy crooks in business who are aided and abetted by selfish elected officials.

The Gar-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 deregulated the savings and loan industry. Given a free rein, the S&L industry proceeded to destroy itself at taxpayers' expense.
In December 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It was touted as "protecting the financial institutions from overregulation." It certainly succeeded.

The act even contained a provision totally exempting energy trading from regulation. Remember Enron?

The act allowed "credit default swaps."

These are basically insurance policies covering losses on securities in event of default. The practice was utterly unregulated with no one to determine whether banks or hedge funds had assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

Shaky mortgages were packaged as securities and sold with default guarantees.

Remember Bear Stearns? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? And now Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and American International Group? Eleven closed banks so far, and more than 100 on the Fed's watch list.

In both instances, the deregulation legislation was initiated and passed by Congress during Republican administrations . . . but not without some Democratic help.

Until we have business executives, professionals and elected officials who are honest, trustworthy and satisfied to earn a decent living without engaging in fraud and greedy excesses, we must have laws, regulations and diligent oversight to protect us from ourselves.

What party and which candidates will bring us this protection in November? - Bill Hogan,

This is really good. And I can just see McCain's head exploding:



McCain is a notorious gambler, as in gambles with real money. So this is a cute jab that.

Okay, MEM, what regulations do you propose and how will they fix the problem?

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: September 21, 2008

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say....

Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.

“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.

Whomod, no offense but you have serious issues.

....they paid $2m to the man who is now John McCain's campaign manager in order to buy influence with John McCain as Senator and as possible president (they also paid him to derail legislation that would have increased federal regulation of the banking industry). There should be a campaign to demand that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, give ever penny back to the American people. ...

Poll: Americans rate Obama over McCain on economy
Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:48pm EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More Americans think Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama would do a better job handling an economic crisis than his Republican opponent John McCain, according to a CNN public opinion poll released on Monday.

Forty-nine percent of those questioned said Obama, and Illinois senator, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, an Arizona senator.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains

* Story Highlights
* Nearly half of those polled blame Republicans for current financial crisis
* Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday
* Majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues


By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests.


That may be contributing to better poll numbers for Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible.

Twenty percent blame both parties equally and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.

The poll also indicates more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Video Watch Obama blast McCain on the economy »



Forty-nine percent of those questioned said Obama, D-Illinois, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, R-Arizona.

And Obama has a 10-point lead over McCain when it comes to who respondents think would better handle the economy overall.

These numbers seem to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters now say they will back Obama, five points ahead of McCain, at 46 percent.


McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research survey conducted September 5-7.

Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Where did Obama make his gains?

"In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.

When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent. Video Watch McCain blast Obama for not having a plan »

A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama leading McCain -- 49 percent to 44 percent.

"The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles' heel, and the CNN Poll of Polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week -- just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

The poll also expands to include third-party candidates. When included in the results, independent Ralph Nader has the support of 4 percent of those polled, with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney each at 1 percent. Also, Obama has the backing of 48 percent of likely voters, three points ahead of McCain's 45 percent.

A couple of other factors in the survey appear to contribute to Obama's slight rise and McCain's slight drop in the polls. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out the policies of President Bush, who remains extremely unpopular with most Americans. Bush's disapproval rating is up three points from the previous CNN/Opinion Research poll. Video Watch Obama's ad tying McCain to Bush »

The survey also indicates Obama has recaptured the "change" factor. Just after the Republican convention, Obama's lead had shrunk to eight points when voters were asked which candidate would be more likely to bring change. His lead is up to 14 points in the new poll.

The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from a previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into the firing of a state official.

"Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," Holland said. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now."

The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent said they are "frightened" by the crisis, while two-thirds said they are "concerned." Eleven percent said they are "not worried."

Most Americans think the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, but they think those programs will help the economy.

Six in 10 think the federal government should step in and address the financial crisis, and 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent. Given concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it's conceivable that public support for the new government plans could be even lower.

The survey comes out just four days before McCain and Obama face off in the first of three presidential debates. Will the debates make a difference? Probably, since the poll finds that 14 percent of Americans say they haven't made up their minds yet.

The first debate, scheduled for Friday in Oxford, Mississippi, will focus on foreign policy, a topic that may play into what some registered voters see as a strength for McCain. The poll finds 54 percent of them believe McCain would display better judgment in an international crisis; 42 percent believe Obama would.


The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Conducted Friday through Sunday, the CNN/Opinion Research poll questioned 1020 Americans including 909 registered voters and 697

House GOP rises up against Cheney

By DANIEL W. REILLY & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 9/23/08 1:51 PM EDT


There was a time when Dick Cheney could turn back a Republican revolt on Capitol Hill.

That time is gone.

House Republicans rose up en masse against their vice president on Tuesday morning to blast an administration proposal that would grant Treasury historic authority to start buying hundreds of billions of dollars in devalued mortgage-related assets, according to members present.



The lines to speak were long, the questions many and sentiment in the Cannon Caucus Room Tuesday swayed heavily against the Treasury proposal.

Afterward, Texas Rep. Joe Barton took the unusual step of telling reporters that he had politely given Cheney a piece of his mind – the sort of dissent Republicans considered unthinkable during much of the Bush administration's reign.

A full-throated Republican revolt could create huge problems for the administration and congressional Democrats scrambling to assemble a package to reassure jittery markets. It could also preserve the Republicans’ options after the fact – if the bailout doesn’t work or proves deeply unpopular with voters, they can say they opposed it.


Some Republicans at Tuesday’s meeting suggested Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and economic policy adviser Keith Hennessey didn’t help their case.

“They were in worse shape when they left than when they came in,” said one lawmaker who was there. “These were the wrong guys…The problem is that they’ve used up a lot of good will.”

Kind of like the way the Dems turned on the Clintons when the Obamassiah was rising right?

those were 18 million racists that voted for her g-man, try to keep up....

i dont think the opinion of a terrorist sympathizer like yourself carries much weight though.

CBS: Obama May Not Return to D.C. for Bailout Vote.

• Although Barack Obama argues that the financial meltdown is an “emergency situation”, he said today that he may remain on the campaign trail, rather than returning to the Capitol, to vote on the $700 billion plan

Gee, if that happens he won't even be able to vote "present."

Now that CBS gave him the heads up, I'm sure he'll make it.

i dont think the opinion of a terrorist sympathizer like yourself carries much weight though.

G-man, isn't that taking the conspiracy thing a wee bit to far?

Is that a NAZI salute?

Obama is bitching and moaning about mccain putting the economy over the debate on friday. I guess obama needs to tell the nation that he hopes to change the economy instead of actually doing it.

It's to bad McCain had to play things this way. If he had really wanted to work in a bipartisan matter on this issue, he should have tried working something out with Obama instead of putting a show on. McCain just made it harder to get something passed.

That's the exact opposite of what really happened. Your ignorance is mind blowing.

you mean like last Monday when we needed our politicians to keep us calm and say we would figure this out, but Obama kept saying how the world is going to end? They both should have done this a week ago. My dog was right about Obama.

Amuse me & tell me the story of "what really happened".

the fundamentals are strong, the majority of Americans are hard workers, willing to sacrifice to get this country on its feet. i of course wouldn't expect a country hating liberal to understand that.

The exact opposite of what you said. obama wants to go tell everyone his normal hope and change commie bullshit and mccain wants to actually do something about the economy.

Its ok if you still don't get it. I wouldn't expect someone of your intelligence to understand something like that.

Its ok if you still don't get it. I wouldn't expect someone of your intelligence to understand something like that.

It's to bad McCain had to play things this way. If he had really wanted to work in a bipartisan matter on this issue, he should have tried working something out with Obama instead of putting a show on. McCain just made it harder to get something passed.

I think that would be a big mistake on his part if he skips this vote.

Was it that Monday or the one before it where McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Let me know what he settles on eventually.

The McCain campaign is in full panic mode after 2 full weeks of McCain being 2 steps behind this financial crisis. If you want to believe McCain is incapable of debating and single handedly solving a logjam that isn't a logjam and that he's only able to do it from Washington..

Wow.

In all seriousness, sometimes the level of duplicity you display in blind support of the DNC depresses me.

Just (Wednesday), in response to the news that Obama might not go back to DC for this, you posted the following:



Now comes the news that McCain invited him to try and work out a bipartisan deal and, as rex points out, Obama rejected the idea, preferring to remain on the campaign trail.

And, what do you do in response?

You attack McCain and defend Obama in a complete reversal of what you wrote approximately 24 hours ago.

I'm not kidding, MEM. I'm actually, for lack of better term, hurt that you are being so...sorry, but I can't think of a better word...slimey about this.

besides you were getting too serious. Lighten up!

I stand by my earlier comment to you, MEM.



The more about this that comes out, the more it looks like McCain exactly what you said you expected of Obama, yet you attack McCain for it.

I'm not kidding. This really makes me sad to think you'd sink this low.

BREAKING: Washington Mutual seized by feds, biggest bank failure in US history


WSJ:



Reuters:



AP:

Republicans in rebellion against Bush/Paulson plan. Bailout talks break down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown;_ylt=Aq9GvNRHUImnx72p43X0ppqyBhIF

Politico:
Some House Republicans would rather see the market crash



Putting that little bit of horror aside, here's a quote guaranteed to make you chuckle:



Yeah, Republicans caring about the Constitution. Seven years too late, you jerks. They only care about the Constitution when money is involved - their money.

Ok, this is interesting too:



So the top House Republican on finance issues isn't empowered to negotiate for House Republicans on finance issues. Now tell me who is in disarray and mucking up the entire process. It sounds like there's a bit of chaos in Republican-land.



and then get a load of John McCain.........

.....Same as it ever was...

CBS: McCain offered last-minute new proposal with fewer regulations and more corporate tax cuts





On the bright side this should spell the end of the Republican Party and their candidate.

Just as I alluded to this afternoon, McCain has now jeopardized the bailout deal. Nice stunt our hero pulled. Now things are worse. McCain reckless fratboy rashness politicized a deal that was almost done. Compete freaking moron. Don't believe me, read Politico:



"Country first" my ass. We'll be incredibly lucky to escape certain economic disaster now. All because a desperate John McCain wanted to try to inject a new stunt into his quickly collapsing campaign. Asshole.

Now look at this guy:



He reasserts the importance of not injecting presidential politics into this delicate process and is actually acting responsible and more importantly, Presidential.

I dunoo... it's beyond the pale what John McCain has done today. I think the country got a measure of just exactly who John McCain is, today and also of Barack Obama's more responsible approach.

This is how it ends for the GOP but hopefully not for our economy....

KILL WHITEY!

A GOP strategist has just said on CNN that House Republicans are putting party first, to hell with the country


Sam Stein at Huff Post:



Listen, I was all for slowing the process down a bit to make sure we weren't getting snookered by Bush with a ill looked at bill like the Patriot act that he was trying to rush thru Congress. I sure as fuck didn't want to see this degenerate into an ideological battle with the true believers of deregulation and free markets. Not when the stakes are almost inconceivably huge.

These fucks ideology caused this disaster and they're going to see it through to it's bitter full fruition apparently. With McCain all the while trying to position himself politically to whatever end he thinks he can gain some traction.

Total. Fucking. disaster.

So I guess I can look forward to Black Friday again tomorrow?

That sounds so trite and frankly stupid right now on the brink of almost certain economic disaster.

Grow up why don't you?

.....Same as it ever was...

CBS: McCain offered last-minute new proposal with fewer regulations and more corporate tax cuts





On the bright side this should spell the end of the Republican Party and their candidate.

I know!

Yes. I don't know why this is so hard for you to believe, but the House Republicans were never and have never been aboard this bailout plan. The Senate was but not the House. He mnay be able to twist the House's elbow to agree and maybe get the House dems to back off of some things that the House GOP doesn't like. They need somebody in there with a bully pulpit and Bush just doesn't cut it anymore being a lame duck. Obama should be there too he can help too. They should both be working together. Life goes on if they take a few days off from campaigning and actually do their jobs.

Bill Clinton someone you respect and admire MEM agrees that McCain is doing the right thing.

It wasn't going to get passed anyway. McCain being there is showing some leadership to get something done. Thing is that the current plan could wind up taking a huge chunk out of the taxpayers pockets. The plan the House Republicans want puts the financial burden into the private sector and not the everyday taxpayer. The best bet may be a compromised version of both plans.

My point though is he made it a very public show of going to Washington that any good he could have done is out the door now.

Was it him that made a big show of it? I was pretty sure it was the otherside that did that.

Polls are showing that most Americans (45% I believe) are against the bailout plan.

Think what you want about McCain's actions the past few days, but he derailed nothing. House Republicans were already working on another plan before McCain stepped in. They already weren't going to vote for the bailout as it.

This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it won't be given serious consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!

Hi Pals,

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million20adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S C itizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in< br> > >> Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

LA Times, May 31, 1999

Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.

All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.

I think this would work since most Americans would spend through their shit like the blacks who just got their reparations checks in that Dave Chappelle sketch.

McCain was "helpful," Blunt says, because McCain killed the deal - he didn't help get a deal, he helped kill it.

Look up.

The Market is plummeting as Republican prepare to kill bailout bill. The vote is taking place in the House right now, it looks like it's going to lose, and the market is falling through the floor.

You are, in your own words, a "moron." The Democrats control congress. The only way this bill could fail would be if a sizeable portion of Democrats joined with the GOP to vote no.

I'm mixed about the bailout. We need to do something and fast, but doing something isn't enough. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again. All a bailout is going to do is pave the way for history to repeat itself. If you don't believe me, just look back 20 years to the S&L crisis. It's the fucking prequel to what's going on now.

I, too, found it odd that he, in this very thread, stated that that Dems didn't need the House Reps to pass this bill and now is saying that it's the House Reps that are going to keep if from passing.

Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

the fact is the opposition came mostly from the Republican House members to great fanfare BTW.

Hold on to you ass BTW.

Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

the fact is the opposition came mostly from the Republican House members to great fanfare BTW.

Hold on to you ass BTW.

In fact, it turns out that approximately forty percent of Democrats voted against the bill.

I see the Dems are still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

Now, to be fair, Obama was only eight years old when Ayers tried to murder all those people.

Who among us hasn't befriended a famous terrorist from our childhood?

In fact, more Democrats (95) voted against the bill than Republicans (65).

geez, do you suppose whomod will accuse the Dems of playing politics, or was he only saying that because he thought it was Republicans? I'm sure he is upset at the Dems now, he wouldnt change position based on party affiliation would he?

if I ever get into politics I'd hope Theodore Kaczynski would do me the honor of launching my politcal career in his home.....

In fact, more Democrats (95) voted against the bill than Republicans (65).

to clarify, it's "more dems voted against the bill than reps (voted for the bill)"

democrats
140 for the bill
95 against

republicans:
65 for the bill
130 against

still, its silly to blame republicans for voting against when so many dems agreed with them. democrats could have passed the bill themselves if they thought it was worthy. but, obviously, most in the room didn't as shown with over half of the total votes going against.

rework it. make a new one. try again.

From what I gather it was 13 republicans who said they would vote for it changing their mind when it was time to vote. I'm curious why they would yank their support like that.

Besides the fact that their switchboards were flooded with constituents opposed to the bailout?

But let's not obscure the fact that, if 40% of the Democrats hadn't voted no, the question of thirteen Republicans wouldn't be an issue.

This was defeat was bipartisan. Both democrats and republicans opposed it.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama were all supporting the bill. The Democrats who voted for it were supporting those three, not Bush.

Furthermore, even if we assume you are correct-that voting for the bill was sort of act of political courage and voting against it an act of cowardice-then you've just alleged that forty percent of your own party in congress are cowards.

You can twist this any way you like but, logically and factually, it's a bipartisan vote.

Finally, are we really sure that defeat of the bill was so bad? When parties as diverse as Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore all think something's bad for America why should we be so quick to assume it was a good idea in the first place?

Am I the only guy that is actually happy the bailout failed?

Still playing politics in the face of economic disaster.

awwww. so you're mad that he called it like it was.

Boner ..um boehner said himself that they voted the way they did because Pelosi hurt their feelings when she said that the Republican philosophy of unregulated markets caused this meltdown. AAAIIEEE!! The HORROR!!! Having to sit there and listen to what most economics say caused this meltdown!!!

So much for the party of personal responsibility.



So I'd be careful as to who you call douchebags. The market lost over $1 trillion dollars today as a result of the bailout vote fiasco. If you are one of the 62 million Americans who have retirement monies invested in a 401k, for example, you just lost 7% of the total money you had for your retirement. Let me walk you through what that means

- If you had $10,000 in your retirement account this morning, you just lost $700 of it.
- If you had $100,000 this morning, you just lost $7,000 of it.
- And if you had $1,000,000 this morning, you just lost $70,000 of it.

As Charlie Gibson on ABC noted, losing 7% on the market in a year would be a huge story.

What happened today was real. ABC's financial consultant noted the following tonight: "I don't care if you're a big corporation, a small business, an individual trying to send your kid to college, or buy a car or buy a house, it is virtually impossible to get a loan in this country." As a nation, we no longer have loans, for practically anything. I realize people aren't thrilled about the bailout plan - and as someone who didn't buy a house in the past few years because I wasn't willing to gamble with a risky loan, I'm not pleased about bailing out morons who did gamble, and lost - but giving up 7% of your retirement seems like one hell of a bad way to stick it to Wall Street.

But hey it's Barney Frank who's the douchebag. Not the asshole Republicans who caused the meltdown in the 1st place and not the asshole Republicans who voted in a 2/3rds majority to make the bill fail thus make the market react.

And what do you think about the Democrats who didn't vote for it?

I don't think anyone who voted against the bill is going to have to explain anything to the voters as it was the voters who told them to not vote for it. Maybe now they'll actually work on a bill that isn't rushed and will actually accomplish something and not just be a band-aid to make their re-elections run smoother. Weren't you pissed at the Patriot Act because it was rushed through Congress and passed before they had a chance to really delve into it and figure it out? Why would you support another bill being done just as hurriedly and have the same possible effects in an economic fashion?

I don't think anyone who voted against the bill is going to have to explain anything to the voters as it was the voters who told them to not vote for it. Maybe now they'll actually work on a bill that isn't rushed and will actually accomplish something and not just be a band-aid to make their re-elections run smoother. Weren't you pissed at the Patriot Act because it was rushed through Congress and passed before they had a chance to really delve into it and figure it out? Why would you support another bill being done just as hurriedly and have the same possible effects in an economic fashion?

that is a good point and that is why I initially was for the house Republicans slowing it down a bi. Which they did. They gave us an extra week to look at it and amend it greatly. The problem though is that we don't really have a lot of time to try to avert a collapse of the economy. We've already lost one trillion dollars just in one day. I broke it down above.

This is real money to me, you and everyone else. Especially people older than me right now who are watching their savings disappear before their very eyes.

Nancy Pelosi gave permission for 16 democrats who are up for reelection to vote no.....a good leader would have forced them to vote yes and then have been conciliatory to all people about to vote yes and not fault their party for this mess. She is a fucking train wreck. The dems should oust her and Reid when this is over and put new leaders in charge.


even you whomod should realize what she did yesterday was really stupid and really bad leadership.

whomod I agree with a lot of what you are saying I just don't agree with how we got here. I want them to pass a bill but I want them to take their time and make sure everyone is comfortable with it. Another few days won't kill anyone.

this is one youtube clip whomod and dems don't like.....it proves who is at fault for this mess.

You didn't say liberal in that post. Did someone hack your account?

The senate passed the bailout 74-25 and showed how a house of congress should act in front of the cameras afterwards. It was the first time I have ever seen Harry Reid not be a douchebag. I'm happy that it was bi-partisan and they all seemed to get along pretty well.

Obama Makes McCain Very Uncomfortable

By David Nather. Congressional Quarterly
| October 1, 2008 8:40 PM

Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Looking at what the stock market did today it looks like your right PJP. Yesterday I think alot of worst case scenarious were being envisioned but it didn't happen today.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Please, someone, illuminate for me the logic and reason behind this, because I don't see it.

pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

WASHINGTON — Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.

Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that request it. Such a move would quickly strengthen banks’ balance sheets and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks, including healthy ones.

Does this mean you're a bush fan now?

You (through some unfunny) political cartoons said bush was a socialist. I thought you like socialist?

Apparently, you've missed many posts over the years, including recently, where some of we Republicans have criticized Bush for being insufficiently conservative on a number of issues.

I find it interesting that you consistently declare Bush an incompetent moron and/or criminal and, yet, here he is embracing policies you advocate.

Shouldn't that make you question the wisdom of your policies?

Again, you're a fucking moron.

I clearly said in my post that it was good that it was a Republican doing this because then asshats like you who think Democrat= socialist would spend the next 20 years using it against us.

So I guess Republican=socialist now, eh Rex?

BTW, those cartoons were funny. In a dark comedy sort of way. you're probably just pissed that it wasn't a cartoon of Obama in Panamanian dictator fatigues or something...

No curbs on Wall Street pay despite meltdown

Despite the Wall Street meltdown, the nation's biggest banks are preparing to pay their workers as much as last year or more, including bonuses tied to personal and company performance.

So far this year, nine of the largest U.S. banks, including some that have cut thousands of jobs, have seen total costs for salaries, benefits and bonuses grow by an average of 3 percent from a year ago, according to an Associated Press review.

"Taxpayers have lost their life savings, and now they are being asked to bail out corporations," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said of the AP findings. "It's adding insult to injury to continue to pay outsized bonuses and exorbitant compensation."

Banks will decide what to pay out in bonuses in the coming months. Just because they've been accruing money for incentive pay doesn't mean they will pay it out in full....

Pelosi Hints Obama Will Get His $350 Billion TARP Request
Senate Vote Is Expected to Come as Soon as Thursday
By JONATHAN KARL and MARK MOONEY
Jan. 14, 2009

Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi indicated today that Congress would approve President-elect Barack Obama's request for another $350 billion in bailout funds, because this time it would be spent by "a president who'll enforce the law."
(ABC News/Getty Images)Pelosi did not, however, come right out and say that Congress would approve Obama's request for the money, and the vote is expected to be close.

The congressional head count on the vote's prospects are so close that Obama made a personal lobbying trip to Capitol Hill Tuesday, where he issued his first veto threat, before he even takes the Oath of Office.

The force of that threat will be tested as early as Thursday when the Senate is expected to vote on the money. Democrats believe they have a slim margin for approval in the Senate, while the House may reject the request.

To block Obama's request, both the House and Senate must vote to withhold the money. If they force an Obama veto, Congress would need a two-thirds majority vote to prevent him from spending it.
...

Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked so far; but that's hardly a good enough reason to stop, is it?

I take it you didn't like the way the bailout thread was going so you dredged up this thread?

What I posted wasn't about the auta bailout, I used the appropiate thread.

I don't see it as just throwing money at the problem and this isn't a problem that is going to be quickly fixed. It can get quickly worse though and I think that's will happen if the government doesn't act.

Stop thinking the government is some great and righteous thing. Its evil and corrupt. It will never handle money well.

you think the daily ups and downs of the market have improved the economy? it's worse now than when they went up right after the announcement. ?

I don't think it's great or rightous Rex. This could go from a recession to a depression though and yeah I'm guilty of thinking it possible that the government can prevent that. Even with the flawed first part of the bailout the stock market responded positively or negatively depending on if it looked like it was going to get passed or not.

but who else will help the gays feel validated?

President-elect will allow gays to serve openly in the military,

I like cock

Obama plans to wash away the years of the Bush Administration wasting taxpayer dollars with his own era of wasteful spending.

$25B Wasn't Enough: Shares of Bank of America hit 52-week lows after the company negotiated $15 billion more in TARP funds

You know, the funny thing is: MEM posts almost the exact same kind of statements all the time... but he thinks they are somehow pro-Obama.

you can bitch about how Obama stalled the recovery.

Technically, he drinks it. It is a liquid, after all.


Do you think that, when MEM takes it up the ass from whichever anonymous gay he's picked up in the fleshbars of Minnesota on a given night, he still screams "give me the strap on Hillary"? Or has he moved on to crying "slip me the sweet bratwurst Mandingo"?

Yes, it's not about the eeeeviilll Republicans preventing regulation, it's about the Democrats over-regulating, requiring millions of home mortgage and business loans to poor individuals who couldn't afford them, who inevitably defaulted on their financial obligations. In Democrats' costly attempt to use our financial system for social engineering.

And quite a few of the architects of this mess are prominent advisors to the Barack Obama campaign. One of whom was on the committee to select Obama's Vice President.

And incredibly, the Democrats blame their own mess on the Republicans who warned them not to do it.

And I agree, McCain should be pounding these facts to the public in stump speeches and campaign ads.

It scares me that the four men most responsible for the economic meltdown, are still making the economic decisions for this country.

Schumer, Dodd, Barney Frank, and Obama (Obama is the second largest recipient of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac campaign donations, second only to Christopher Dodd, and Dodd took 20 years to accumulate his cash pile from Fannie/Freddie, while Obama accumulated over $110,000 in barely 2 years. And Fannie Mae's CEO was on Obama's Vice Presidential vetting committee )

And despite their clear guilt, these four Dems are even more powerful than they were before the election.

Scary indeed.

Obama calls Wall Street bonuses 'shameful'

President Obama thinks it is "outrageous" that securities firms paid their top executives $18.4 billion in bonuses last year, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this afternoon.

He added that the president will have more to say about this later today.

Though the amount of money paid in bonuses was well below the $33 billion paid in 2007, they were paid in a year when the financial sector's crisis led to a more than $700 billion -- so far -- federal bailout.

Update at 3:45 p.m. ET. "Shameful".

The cable news networks just showed video, taken a few minutes ago, of the president expressing his outrage:

For the firms to pay billions in bonuses last year "is the height of irresponsibility," Obama said. "It is shameful."

Wall Street firms need to "show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility," he added.

They can't be "digging a bigger hole even as (taxpapers are) being asked to fill it up!"


"One point I want to make is that all of us are going to have responsibilities to get this economy moving again. And when I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses -- the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 -- at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads -- that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

"And part of what we're going to need is for folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility. The American people understand that we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of -- but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they're being asked to fill it up.

"And so we're going to be having conversations as this process moves forward directly with these folks on Wall Street to underscore that they have to start acting in a more responsible fashion if we are to together get this economy rolling again. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses -- now is not that time. And that's a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them -- and Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they're receiving TARP money. We shouldn't have to do that because they should know better. And we will continue to send that message loud and clear."

For the firms to pay billions in bonuses last year "is the height of irresponsibility," Obama said. "It is shameful."

We may never know whether the government's $700 billion bailout of the financial industry worked, according to a new report from congressional auditors.

That's because it will be impossible to sort out which of the recent rule changes and spending programs have made a difference, according to the report released Friday by the Government Accountability Office.

The report covers Treasury's administration of the bailout, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, through Jan. 23. Nearly $294 billion had been released by that date — almost $200 billion of it through a program to inject capital directly into financial institutions.

The roughly $200 billion in capital injections doesn't include any of the separate money authorized to guarantee losses for Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., or about $20 billion to stabilize automakers Chrysler and General Motors Corp.

"Even with more time and better data, it will remain difficult to separate the impact of TARP activities from the effect of other economic forces," the report said.

Recent moves to improve oversight of the money hadn't gone far enough, according to the report. Treasury introduced a plan to survey the 20 largest participating firms each month following an earlier GAO report that blasted the program's lack of transparency.

More information about how the money was divided and how recipients spent it was still necessary, the new report said.

"We continue to believe that additional action is needed to better ensure that all participating institutions are accountable for their use of program funds," the GAO said.

The report also said Treasury had "taken important steps" to address nine recommendations from the earlier report, which included calls to improve communication about the bailout and hire staff to oversee it.

But Treasury "has yet to fully address eight" of the recommendations, the report said.

"The lack of a clearly articulated vision has complicated Treasury's ability to effectively communicate to Congress, the financial markets, and the public on the benefits of TARP," the report said.

I'm sure MEM will explain to us how life on the planet Earth would have ended back in Sept. if the bailout had never been passed.

Nope. It's not really important to me that we differ in opinion and on this one I'm not nor wasn't sure what the effects of the bailout would have. The threat of what could have happened though and seeing Bush willing to go against his conservatism was enough for me to support it.

...seeing Bush willing to go against his conservatism was enough for me to support it.

Who you gonna believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?

So... you're now denying your bullshit excuses that the bailout prevented greater financial devastation? Got it.

So you were/are less concerned about what was/is good for the country and more concerned with what makes the other political party look bad.

Got it.


That pretty much sums up MEM up right there.

That and

...

Who you gonna believe? Me or your own lying eyes?

That's not reasonable G-man but it's apparent that it doesn't matter what I say as far as your concerned, you'll just do a fake quote that fits your partisan sensibilities.

It's hardly a case of "partisan sensibility" to point out that your own words continue to trip you up. Why do you think others here have started commenting on it?

People are perfectly capable of reading what you write, and remembering it. Therefore, when you try to claim you didn't say what is clearly preserved in past posts it makes you look like either a liar or a fool.

Then, with all due respect, I think you should look into taking a remedial English class because our words have meanings that are far from what you often claim to intend after the fact.

...The threat of what could have happened though and seeing Bush willing to go against his conservatism was enough for me to support it.

No. You have a problem with taking something someone posted and turning it into something that fits one of your arguements

Yes, MEM. It's all me. That's why people as varied as rex, BSAMS, Sammitch and Doc have all observed the exact same thing about you.

Senator wants pay cap for Wall Street 'idiots'
Diane Sweet
Published: Saturday January 31, 2009

An angry Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, introduced legislation on Friday that would cap compensation for employees of any company that receives federal bailout funds.

The bill introduced by McCaskill -- the Cap Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009 -- would limit employees to no more than the president of the United States earns annually, which is $400,000.

"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."

Most of those same people you listed who are not very happy with anyone who voted for Obama right now, have also complained about you.

That's true. But when it happens I don't try to pretend they're all just you.

Most of those same people you listed who are not very happy with anyone who voted for Obama right now...

fair play!

WASHINGTON — Looking for a job or fear losing your own? President Obama says he can help 3 million to 4 million of you.

That could be optimistic, however. The Congressional Budget Office says Obama's economic stimulus package of spending programs and tax cuts would create 1.2 million to 3.6 million jobs. The economic consulting firm IHS Global Insight puts the number at 2.6 million.

Most of the jobs would only replace those lost to the recession. Even with the stimulus package, the administration estimates that unemployment would be 7% at the end of 2010 — barely below the current 7.2% rate.

As the Senate began debate on the package Monday, much of the focus turned to jobs: How many there would be, how quickly they could be created, how much they would pay and with what benefits, and who would get them.

"The bottom line is this: You've got a piece of legislation that creates jobs," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said after several questions. "The latest statistics based on the economic reports show that 90% of these jobs are private-sector jobs."

Republicans in Congress have criticized elements of the emerging package for not creating enough jobs. House Minority Leader John Boehner and others cite investments that do not immediately create jobs, such as an increase in the size of Pell grants for low-income college students.

Others say investing in education would be an indirect benefit by helping students compete for better jobs in the future. Indirect benefits will be "fairly widely dispersed through the economy … so all kinds of jobs will be created," says Chad Stone, chief economist for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As an example of jobs that could be saved, Gibbs cited 27 police recruits in Columbus, Ohio, who were laid off last week before graduating from the police academy.

The quickest infusion of money into the economy under the two-year, $819 billion House bill or $885 billion Senate version would come from aid to states, help for the unemployed, and tax cuts for consumers and businesses. Those produce jobs indirectly.

Then there are jobs that would be created as a direct result of new spending on education, health care, renewable energy sources and public infrastructure such as highways and bridges. Those could take longer to materialize — well into 2011, the White House says.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, estimates the construction industry would see a 6.6% boost in jobs, by far the largest of any industry. All states would be helped, he says; those hardest hit by losses in housing, financial services and the auto industry — such as Florida, New York and Michigan — would benefit the most.

The administration's estimate comes from a report last month by two of its leading economists. Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's top economic adviser, project that 1.5 million jobs would be created directly and 2.2 million as a result of indirect improvements in the economy. They say the figures are subject to large margins of error.

"The uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual, both in its fundamental causes and its severity," Romer and Bernstein wrote. The largest increases, the report says, would be in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and leisure and hospitality, which employ large numbers of low- and middle-income workers.

Yet others say the legislation needs to help those with the least schooling and job skills. "We know these people are going to take the biggest beating during the downturn," says Harry Holzer, a public policy professor at Georgetown University.

The administration report projects that women would get about 42% of the jobs created or saved, even though they lost only 20% of the jobs in the recession.

Obama has noted the importance of creating "green jobs" in the field of renewable energy. A middle-class task force he created last week will hold its first meeting in Philadelphia later this month on the topic.

A coalition of labor unions will release a report today questioning whether many of them would be low-paying jobs without benefits. "Not all green jobs being created are good jobs," says Noreen Nielsen of the labor group Change to Win.

PJB: Democrats’ New Deal: This is It?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” sayeth Rahm.

Opportunistic and cynical, yes. But also savvy political counsel that transformational presidents have always followed.

FDR exploited the Depression to launch his New Deal, bring an end to a Republican hegemony of seven decades and make Democrats the majority party, until Richard Nixon picked the lock.

While the debate is endless over whether the New Deal ended the Depression or caused it to endure until World War II spending pulled us out of the ditch, few deny that FDR left a monumental legacy.

We see it in the great dams of the West and TVA in the South, in the REA that first brought electricity to America’s farms, in deposit insurance, unemployment benefits and Social Security.

Lyndon Johnson seized on the trauma of JFK’s assassination and racial incidents such as Selma Bridge to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Ronald Reagan seized on the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan and the worst recession since the 1930s to rebuild the military, create a 600-ship Navy, push the Soviet Empire out of Central America and Afghanistan, and cut taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent, creating 20 million jobs in a seven-year boom that inspired the awe, envy and emulation of much of the world.

Not for nothing are the ’80s remembered as the Reagan Decade.

Obama himself has spoken of FDR and Reagan as the kind of “transformational” presidents he wishes to become.

Which brings us to that “stimulus package,” the price of which is $819 billion and rising, 6 percent of gross domestic product, piled on a deficit already projected at $1.2 trillion. As it was being whistled through the House, not one Republican voted aye. A dozen Democrats could not stomach it, either.

Does President Obama really want this Nancy Pelosi New Deal to be his legacy? Because that is exactly what he is inviting. And before he uses force majeure to ram this bill through the Senate, he ought to consider what the honest objections are.

When Sen. John Kyl, at a White House meeting with Obama, said that giving income tax rebates to millions of folks who pay no income taxes seems to be simply welfare, Obama tersely replied, “I won.”

Indisputably. But does it make sense to include in a plan to prepare America for the 21st century borrowing billions from Beijing to mail out in $500 checks to folks who don’t pay income taxes, so they can run down to Wal-Mart and buy more goods made in China?

The New York Times reports Monday in a front-page story about California, “A State With a Wish List,” “More than two-thirds of the states are facing budget shortfalls this year and next … and could use the money to help balance budgets, blunt potential cuts in education and shrink Medicaid obligations.”

Sure, they could. But is this remaking America? Or is it bailing out the same state and local politicians Barack himself castigated in his inaugural as those responsible for “our collective failure to make hard choices”?

Why would Barack wager his presidency on a gamble that, by handing over hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money, to spare governors and mayors the consequences of their own profligacy, he can remake the America economy and ignite a real recovery?

What are the fundamental objections to the Obama-Pelosi plan?

It is three parts social spending to one part stimulus. It takes too long to work. It represents a permanent not temporary expansion of government.

It is too much LBJ, who bet the ranch on spending and failed, and not enough JFK, who bet on tax reductions that succeeded.

Even Bill Clinton would not have ceded so much to the tax-and-spend wing of his party, which he relied on for votes, not advice.

Has Obama no more imaginative ideas for government’s role in reshaping the economy for the 21st century than this? Was it all talk all along, to prepare the way for a return to the days of spend and spend?

Sad, because this is likely to be Obama’s last shot at getting this economy on its feet and running by 2010. For Americans are not as patient as they were in the 1930s, when FDR could try one idea, then another, then another for five years, and continue to roll up massive electoral victories.

If Obama gets this one wrong, and all this pork and welfare fail to generate real growth, his party could face a wipeout in 2010, and his opportunity could be lost forever. Does he really want to bet the farm on the nag Nancy Pelosi just trotted out of the House?

Obama unveils executive pay cap

US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (£355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.

The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.

President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.

He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".
...

He should also limit union pay.

Didn't the auto workers agree to cuts? And if your for limiting union pay then why not go up the list and limit non-union pay for those banks recieving aid.