First the Dems themselves (smart peoples, eh?) fell in love with the mysterious, shape-shifting Mr Obama. Now they are just trying to get enough of the rest of the electorate to put down their guns and grudges and jump into that same pool of moist happiness with them!
It reminds me of when the vegetarians took over the kitchen at college and thought a week on bean sprouts and unsugared apple pie and suchlike would turn the rest of us into grazers too! Cue biiig disappointments but at least they tried.
My crystal ball shows many, many grinning fat cats come November. Is this just a fata morgana or have I truly seen the future?
Seems like the most pressing issue right now is whether or not to allow the proposed bail out of wall street.
A couple of questions spring to mind, like where will this 700 billion come from and assuming as I do it's from the magic printing room at the fed, what will 700 billion bucks worth of more credit do to the value of the dollar?
what will 700 billion bucks worth of more credit do to the value of the dollar?
The money is going to investment and merchant banks (Bear and Lehmann gave out $30B in bonuses to its execs last year while the poo was flying at the fan). Its to prop up Paulson's mates.
The retail banks that deal with you and will see very little. Its the new millenium, when a banker now jumps out of the building due to guilt over his greed he falls into a huge tub filled with cash.
I watched Bernanke being grilled by reps from both sides for three hours - he is a smarmy, slimy piece of work. Firing squad?
Location: FR | IC luftballons | Page 20 - photo thread: there be PPRuNe's most beautiful woman...
Posts: 297
So far as I'm concerned, both Presidential candidates have utterly failed when it comes to their responses to the proposed Wall St. bailout...
Admittedly, it was McCain who first blithely attempted to capture the limelight with his unconvincing gravitas impersonation of an FDR or Churchill or someone attempting to pull the nation together in face of a deadly enemy...?!
Not that Obama is any less ambigious than his rival. I mean, what is there about this proposed US$800 billion handout (well over US$1.1 trillion if you count what's already been forked over by the taxpayer) that is not be against?
In the 6 years between 2002 and 2007, according to New York's Office of the State Deputy Comptroller, NY's securities firms alone shared out a total of US$137 billion in bonuses (and that doesn't take into account non-exercised stock options)...
The proposed US$800 billion bailout that US taxpayers are expected to digest should be of little comfort to those taxpayers in other countries whose own financial firms have apparently taken at least a severe hit on their own balance sheets (at least so far as instruments based on US home mortgages are concerned) - correct me if I'm wrong, but they won't necessarily benefit from the US taxpayers' (forth-coming) largesse...? So the US$800 billion bailout will inevitably be followed by a multitude of other countries in Europe and elsewhere announcing their own 'mini-bailouts'...?!
We all know what Republicans ostensibly stand for: lower taxes, less state intervention and regulation, free enterprise, individual freedoms etc. blah blah blah.
What disappoints me about Obama is that neither he, nor his closest economic advisers have yet understood that the obvious and fairest solution to Wall Street's woes is: a plan which would generally be based on the US taxpayer matching dollar for dollar, all privately-sourced funding also invested in any general bailout...?! I mean, who's bull-shitting who here? If Wall Street flounders and the stock-markets dissolve into nothing tomorrow, it's not the average American, European or anyone else who'll feel the true effects of capital becoming worthless. It's the 5% or better off amongst us who ought to be trembling and getting their wallets and checkbooks out now to save whatever they have left that need to really worry about a complete breakdown...
And why not insist that at least some of that US$137 billion comes back in to help? If those who earned those bonuses don't have any faith remaining in Wall Street, then perhaps, there should be no bailout...? Perhaps the USA and the rest of the World would instead be better off using the US$800 billion plus whatever everyone else can cough up to provide the capital foundation of a completely renewed financial system and participants instead of throwing good money after bad...?!
Warren Buffett may have attracted a lot of media attention for his US$5 billion purchase of Goldman Sachs shares as if this was some sort of God-like action. So if you want US$800 billion, well there's £5 billion from Buffett plus the taxpayer's $5 billion = $10 billion. Wall Street, GWB, Bernanke, Paulson, McCain and Obama just have another $790 billion to justify...?! How many days left...?!
Whatever, if Obama issued a statement tonight, insisting that any bailout would have to consist of a plan involving 'dollar for dollar' investment by the taxpayer and the private sector, I believe that he'd walk away with the votes of not only somewhat disenchanted Democrats across the nation, but the votes of all the decidedly 'sick to the teeth' Republicans in Texas and Louisiana etc. who're fed up that the USA can't find a few more $billions to help out fast enough in the wake of Ike, but can magically improvise $800 billion for Wall Street...
Maybe Wall St. ought to feel the effects of a Cat. 2/3/4 hurricane once in a while, if only to keep them honest (I realise, that's asking for a lot...)
I think the proposed 'bail out' is very much part of the US Presidental election discussion.
Is it just me, or it this a smoke and mirrors exercise where the members of the 'Old Boy's Club' are setting out to convince the Great Unwashed (that's us) that it's simply imperative that they be allowed to maintain their current incomes (or very near it) and lifestyle at the Great Unwashed's expense?
I'm reminded of a smaller scale financial debacle in the UK in 2001 when the Equitable mandarins lost tens of millions of "Mum and Dad investors'" money - but then went ahead and paid themselves and many of their staff substantial bonuses "because they would lose their best staff if they didn't".
And they got away with it!
My suggestion to Mr Bush, (and Mr Cain or Mr Obama) would be to a put a moritarium on bonuses for everyone in the financial industry and a salary cap for CEOs of (say) what a Congressman receives until everything's back to whatever will pass for 'normal' again. No exceptions.
... and if anyone among the current crop of executives finds a Congressman's salary (or a percentage of a Congressman's salary for lesser excutives) unacceptable, they may feel free to tender their resignations effective immediately and someone will be found who is willing to work for that (to most of us) not insubstantial wage.
I'm sure most of them could survive for some time - if not decades - on the ridiculous bonuses they've received over the last few years.
Anyone who says you can't attract the right kind of CEO at such a low wage might ask himself how well the current crop of CEOs have handled the situation on their mega incomes - and where they're going to find such incomes in the currrent mess they've made of things.
"The Bush administration sought regulatory reform", hear that GTF.
They keep calling the Imposed Work Rules for air traffic controllers a "contract" too. Sort of like "The Patriot Act" and a few other things that were passed by a Republican Congress and King George.
Prattle on. Meanwhile, the polls keep going towards Obama, Palin is still an empty skirt, McCain still bows his head to read his reform message off his teleprompter and King George still looks lost anytime the nation looks for leadership.
"We gave you a simple, three-page legislative outline and I thought it would have been presumptuous for us on that outline to come up with an oversight mechanism. That’s the role of Congress, that’s something we’re going to work on together. So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight: I believe we need oversight. We need oversight."
What the proposal actually did, of course, was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review:
Sec. 8. Review.
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.
I’m not playing gotcha here. This is telling: if Paulson can’t be honest about what he himself sent to Congress — if he not only made an incredible power grab, but is now engaged in black-is-white claims that he didn’t — there is no reason to trust him on anything related to his bailout plan.
(Emphasis added)
That would be a $700 billion dollar lie. Brought to you by your friendly Republican Party.
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.
In point of fact, Congress is not "any administrative agency", Congressional oversight was legitimately not placed in the draft, he never proposed "no Congressional oversight". Paulson could NOT write for Congress what kind of oversight he wanted. You, certainly, would have bridled, if he had proposed specific Congressional oversight provisions. "HE IS TELLING CONGRESS HOW TO OVERSEE TREASURY", would be the Democrat cry. True, only Congress could have made the "non-reviewable" by a court of law. And, probably not even then. BTW, he doesn't write the law, fortunately for all of us.
The record, as recorded by NYT, is clear-Congress rejected any efforts to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Read NYT and WSJ articles to track the story, not political press releases.
OK, I'll consider a Democrat when one successfully kills the bailout plan. It is nothing but a political bailout for a guilty Congress, esp, Barney and friends. By passing this bailout, they are just letting themselves off the hook.
It wasn't just the Bush administration that sought, it was the Republican-led Senate Banking Committee under Richard Shelby (R-AL). His bill prohibited the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) from holding portfolios and gave their regulator authority equivalent of a banking regulator. All the Republicans voted for and the Democrats against. Click WP article
Democrats, as usual, for Government irresponsibility!!
Let's see, some of BHO's proposals on his website are union-related.
One, would allow check-off voting for union representation, so there would no longer be secret ballots. That's nice, those in a union representation election could now worry about physical violence after not voting union. I was in ALPA and am well acquainted with strong arm tactics, after all, some of their members were put in jail for trying to bomb a pilot's home.
Next up, replacement workers, which he presumably dislikes at the behest of the AFL-CIO. Reviewing your bio, do you consider yourself a "replacement worker" after the PATCO strike? If so, how do you reconcile being one? Do you owe the PATCO guys your retirement?
I quit Eastern Airlines when the IAM struck and pursued other career opportunities. Never considered going back or crossing the line.
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 26th September 2008 at 02:47.
I don't know who this guy is. But it kind of makes you think......
The Birk Economic Recovery Plan
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 bon-a-fide
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 million adults 18+ into $85 billon 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 Citizen 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 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
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a
laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85
Billion!!
Nice thought, but the primary point is how inflationary any of these silly bailout ideas would be. Just throwing $1000 bills around the country will do NOTHING? We could just as easily make them $500 million dollar bills and call ourselves Zimbabwe.
Reviewing your bio, do you consider yourself a "replacement worker" after the PATCO strike? If so, how do you reconcile being one? Do you owe the PATCO guys your retirement?
GF,
If you've read my bio then you have time to read the rest of the story should you care to. I've told the story many times, in many forums. This isn't about me and it isn't going to be.
I did like that little bit about you telling me to read the dreaded throne of liberlism -- the New York Times.
You might not like Hot Air, but the links to NYT, LA Times are the real story-those august tribunes of liberalism pretty clearly link Bush with regulatory reform on the GSEs. Once someone admits government, specifically Democrats in Congress and Clinton in the White House, caused the the problem, then we can move to a government solution. Call it a Truth and Reconciliation Board.
It isn't about you, but if you want to talk the talk, better walk the walk.
If you want to blame somebody for this meltdown, blame Phil Gramm. His sleight of hand legislation in 1999 was the beginning of this end.
Senator Gramm stripped a key part of a wisely crafted bill from the 1930s that has been protecting our mainline banking system for nearly 3/4 of a century.
I hope John McCain understands this and gets himself as far away as possible from the cancerous ideas of Gramm.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Repeal of Glass-Stegall is saving many banks right now. The merger of Merrill, Lynch and BoA, Goldman, Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the relative survival of Citigroup, all of those actions, could not have occurred under Glass-Stegall.
The bill was passed by large majorities in both houses of Congress, 90-8 in the Senate and signed by Clinton-bipartisanship at its finest.
Review WSJ, NYT, WashPost, LATimes articles and you will see the truth-Congressional liberals (Frank, Dodd, especially) combined with Andrew Cuomo, as Clinton's HUD chief, pushed the GSEs hard to finance ever more risky mortgages. Mortgages, that at the time, were recognized as dangerous. But, they refused any efforts at restricting the GSEs efforts at "affordability" and imposing regulation. The record shows that the Bush administration tried under the Senate Banking Committee chair Shelby to regulate the GSEs. But they were demogoged the issue, saying the Bushies were anti-minority. They gave up, to their discredit.
GF
See my links above, then think about it.
GTF NYT-I flew for them, when Punch ran the show-much more thoughtful and successful paper.
No sir, not the whole act, just a little 262 page amendment that was slipped in at the last minute by the Enron enabler, Phil Gramm. Had the entire act been as rotten as that little Gramm chestnut, it would have never received that much bipartisan support.
Linear Mode
