Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Snark in Pictures - Thanksgiving, Pope Francis, Filibusters and Obamacare

photo Wal-Mart-Donations.jpg

Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers!

photo bce5c9f6-ac9d-47d9-97b8-0d4fddfed4a2.jpg

photo Cheney-Family-Thanksgiving.jpg

photo 5f4c52e4-f08c-4214-8da2-85be115676a5.jpg

photo BZ3lwCdCUAAbywV.jpg

photo BZtq6NHCQAAA75F.jpg

photo b675f0ad-04d3-41b6-850f-f36ea3116e47.jpg

photo BaaGu5oCUAAKmHD.jpg

photo BaVAjgdCYAERYtb.jpg

photo BaVMH6WCYAAf18P.jpg

photo Stossel.png

photo BaaAxqYCQAAtt_k.jpg

photo Obamacare-Loading.jpg

photo Obamacare-Down.jpg

photo proxy-1.jpg
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 8, 2013

J.P. Morgan Bank Faces Criminal Charges

photo bank5.jpg

I've been covering JP Morgan Chase Bank for a long time, and there is just so much wrong with the way they do business! But because CEO Jamie Dimon is slippery and charismatic, they have drifted along without legal consequences even while making shady deals (The London Whale) and losing tons of money for their investors.

Let's face it - we need accountability to have closure for what happened in 2008 when the stock market crashed. And these Wall Street banks are still playing fast and loose with OUR money! As Elizabeth Warren said, "Too big to fail has become too big for trial."

Previous Posts:
May 12, 2012: The London Whale
May 18, 2012: JP Morgan Fall-Out Continues
June 14, 2012: Dimon Cozies Up to Senate Banking Committee
March 17, 2013: Senate Grills JP Morgan Bank

Now JP Morgan is under criminal investigation from both Federal and State Officials:

From Huffington Post
The Justice Department told JPMorgan in May that prosecutors had “preliminarily concluded” that the bank violated civil securities laws related to mortgage securities it packaged and sold from 2005 to 2007, the bank disclosed in a quarterly securities filing. JPMorgan has already been sued over similar practices by Eric Schneiderman, New York attorney general, and has settled similar cases brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
. . . JPMorgan -- once a darling in Washington -- on Wednesday disclosed a raft of expected enforcement actions that have been broadly mentioned by the bank and its chief executive and chairman, Jamie Dimon, but never before in such detail. Once finalized, the enforcement orders may further damage the bank’s already-battered reputation and lead to heightened scrutiny of its practices.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is investigating JPMorgan's collection and sale of delinquent consumer credit card debt, including its use of sworn documents to pursue bad debts. Kamala Harris, California attorney general, has sued the bank over similar practices.

From Reuters
One of the major criticisms by homeowners, investors and politicians is that federal and state investigators have failed to bring criminal charges against high-level executives over lending and securitization activities that contributed to the housing and financial crises. No top executives at large Wall Street or commercial banks have been convicted of criminal charges related to the crises.
"Criminal probes of banks over MBS have been exceedingly rare," said Adam Levitin, a professor at Georgetown Law.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 1, 2013

President Obama in Chattanooga

photo 4688558.jpg

MY President came to MY hometown of Chattanooga! It was a great day with people lining Lee Highway and Bonny Oaks Drive with welcome signs hoping to catch a glimpse of the great man.

The Tea Party staged their own rally with "Impeach Obama" signs, but were restricted to the old Target Parking Lot for "security reasons" far away from Bonny Oaks and Amazon where the President made his speech. Ha - was it something they said, perhaps?

The Tennessee GOP made a silly video talking about how the President should "learn something" from the "Real Muricans" in our state - a state that gets plenty of government money, farm subsidies, etc. Luckily, Obama for America (OFA) had their own video welcoming video. The good definitely cancelled out the bad on this day.

































































~~~~~~~~~~

Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke Describes Limo Ride with Obama
After being one of the first people to welcome President Barack Obama to Chattanooga, Mayor Andy Berke described his ride from the airport to the Amazon fulfillment center in the presidential limousine, known as "the beast."

"No big deal," Berke joked.
But although the ride may have been brief, Berke said the face time with the president was invaluable for the city. Berke said that during their transit from the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport to Amazon, he shared stories of the city's success with Obama.

"The opportunity to spend a few minutes with the president of the United States comes only once in a lifetime," Berke said. "I certainly wanted to make sure that I portrayed Chattanooga in the best possible light because I think the president was genuinely curious about what we're doing here. It was a fantastic opportunity."

Berke said he and the president discussed items such as the city's record Internet speeds, efforts to reform education in the state and Chattanooga in general.

~~~~~~~~~~













































Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Senator Elizabeth Warren Explains It All ~ Updated

photo imagesqtbnANd9GcRKklndv-pN1sA31s3la.jpg

Elizabeth Warren has had a great week!

Harry Reid broke the filibuster deadlock with Mitch McConnell so that Obama's nominees for various posts can finally be confirmed. One of those is Richard Cordray who will direct that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Warren's . She has tirelessly pushed for this vacancy to be filled and at last it is!








Next, Warren has banded together with Republican Sen. John McCain and Independent Sen. Angus King to come up with a new-improved version of the Glass-Steagall Bill which kept our banks from failing for 50 years after the Great Depression. Here she is on Morning Joe:



And last but not least, here is Senator Warren on CNBC, telling off some of the smarmy talking heads on a network famous as a mouthpiece for big business. When they ask with a cynical sneer "Why Try?" to resurrect Glass-Steagall what they are really expressing is fear that someone like Senator Warren has the guts to stand up to both them and the unfair top-heavy financial system. And she doesn't take any prisoners!

Give 'em Hell, Senator Warren!

UPDATE: MSNBC asked YouTube to remove the CNBC smackdown due to copyright - or was it? Many thought they were going after the viral video because it made the anchors of CNBC appear stupid or at least stubbornly ignorant. Jim Cramer of CNBC also tweeted about it, pointing out that clip is still available on their website, and I have replaced it below.

But the fact remains that Elizabeth Warren isn't going to play pattycake with CNBC when they try to shrug her off or say she will never get anything done. Heck, CNBC pretty much cheered when Warren dropped out of the running for Consumer Protection. They thought they had seen the last of her. Ha! Then they didn't believe she would run for Senate - wrong. And horrors! She certainly wouldn't win against Scott Brown . . . oh wait . . .



More from Policy Mic
In the video clip removed by CNBC, Warren effectively defends the merits of reviving the Glass-Steagall Act and taking steps to prevent something like the Great Recession of 2008 from happening again. Her main point was that banking regulation does in fact keep the financial system "steady and secure" and was crucial in eradicating the banking boom-and-bust cycle from 1933 to 1980s. She even went as far to professorially correct the anchors' knowledge of banking regulations since the Great Depression. In response to anchor Brian Sullivan's comment that "We should tell the American consumer that no matter what we do, there will be bank boom and bust cycles" Warren said "no, that is just wrong … look at the history."

Even though CNBC claimed to take down the video for copyright infringements, they did not take down other YouTube videos that use CNBC footage. It seems like CNBC got embarrassed because this specific video went viral and showed its anchors being schooled by Warren. And bad news for CNBC, there is a phenomenon called the Streisand effect whereby attempts to hide or remove information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, especially on the internet. Just like Beyoncé and her Super Bowl pictures, CNBC should expect even more people see Warren educate its anchors on banking regulation history.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Senator Warren: The Minimum Wage Should be $22/hour

photo imagesqtbnANd9GcQ95Lo1kvIpRkFcr8X1J.jpg

When I first started seeing this headline the other day, I thought whoa, that's not possible. Doesn't Elizabeth Warren know that many people work for 20 years and never make $22 per hour? There are people who have never made more than $10 per hour in their entire lives!

Yes - yes, she knows. And she is making the case that asking Congress to raise the minimum wage to $10 and hour is perfectly reasonable, given inflation and the fact that it should actually be double that much if we lived in a fair society.

Will it happen? Maybe or maybe not, but at least Warren is there raising the right questions and using the right data.

Huffington Post:
"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

And here she grills a restaurant owner who objects to any raise in the minimum wage, saying it would hurt sales. She points out that he would only have to raise prices on his menu 4-8 cents to make up the difference.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Senate Grills JP Morgan Bank

photo crumbling-bank1.jpg

The saga of the JP Morgan Bank "London Whale" disaster continued last week with the release of a major Senate report and public hearings on Capital Hill.

Previous Related Posts:
Economic News Round-Up ~ The London Whale
JP Morgan Fall-Out Continues
Dimon Cozies Up to Senate Banking Committee
Economic News Round-Up ~ London Whale Leaving JP Morgan

Cnn Money
During a press briefing Thursday, Levin said the investigation of 90,000 documents, and more than 200 phone conversation and instant messages, showed how the bank "ignored limits on risk taking, dodged oversight and misinformed the public."
But the report also criticized regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for not following up on red flags.

photo JPMorganLosses.jpg

From AFP, via Google
Senator Carl Levin, at a hearing on JPMorgan's ill-fated "whale" trades, slammed the bank's trading operation that lost $6.2 billion over just a few months in 2012 as a "runaway train barreling through every risk limit."

"Derivative values that can't be trusted are a serious risk to our financial system," said Levin, the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on investigations.

The incident is a "reminder you just can't rely on a major bank... without a strong regulator looking over," Levin added.

A 300-page report by the subcommittee said that JPMorgan kept adding risky bets on top of earlier ones, hid losses, disregarded its own rules for risk limits, avoided oversight by its regulator and "misinformed" investors, regulators and the public.

Former and current JPMorgan executives testifying at the Senate hearing painted a picture of confusion and disbelief over the scale of the losses, which blindsided the Wall Street powerhouse in the first quarter of last year.

Ina Drew, JPMorgan's chief investment officer at the time with responsibility for the London trading operation which racked up the losses, admitted errors even as she pointed the finger at others.

"I was, and I remain, deeply disappointed and saddened that such significant losses occurred in the business unit I oversaw," said Drew, who resigned last year to take responsibility for the debacle, according to her prepared testimony.

But Drew also pointed a finger at London employees that she said misled her on the scale of the problem and "let me, and the company, down."






Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Bill Moyers Makes Democracy So Simple a Four-Year-Old Can Understand

Photobucket


Link to Bill Moyers Website



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 15, 2013

Elizabeth Warren Shames Bank Regulators

Photobucket

Senator Elizabeth Warren hit the ground running in her first Banking Committee Hearing. She wasted no time lambasting the spineless regulators who are letting off the big banks with fines and slaps on the wrist instead of taking them to trial. Her goal was to expose the weakness of regulators who see fines as enough penalty for the crimes committed, and she pointed out that when these cases aren't taken to trial then no testimony of wrongdoing is ever put down on the record. So in effect, the bankers get off scott-free without any new information that congress could use to improve the banking system.

Marketwatch
“I want to note that there are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are out there everyday squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial to ‘make an example,’ as they put it,” she told bank regulators testifying at a Senate Banking Committee hearing. “I am really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial.”

. . . Warren acknowledged that trials are expensive but she insisted that if an agency is unwilling to go to trial it is because they are “too timid” or lack resources. She said that the consequence is that if large financial institutions can break the law and “drag in billions” in profits and settle, then they don’t have much incentive to follow the law.

“Every time there is a settlement and not a trial, it means we didn’t have the days and days and days of testimony about what those financial institutions were up to,” Warren said.



Senator Elizabeth Warren at the Feb. 14, 2013 Banking Committee Hearing titled "Wall Street Reform: Oversight of Financial Stability and Consumer and Investor Protections." The witnesses were: The Honorable Mary Miller, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury; The Honorable Daniel Tarullo, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; The Honorable Martin Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; The Honorable Tom Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; The Honorable Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; The Honorable Elisse Walter, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and The Honorable Gary Gensler, Chairman, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama Presser on Debt Ceiling: "Not a Deadbeat Nation"

Photobucket



So I want to be clear about this: The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.

These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them. So, while I'm willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.

We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.

It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."

So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial wellbeing of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.

The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.

So it shouldn't be surprising, given all this talk, that the American people think that Washington is hurting rather than helping the country at the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan brinkmanship over paying our bills while they overwhelmingly want us to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.

So let's finish this debate. Let's give our businesses and the world the certainty that our economy and our reputation are still second to none. We pay our bills, we handle our business, and then we can move on because America has a lot to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Todd, NBC: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?

OBAMA: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there's a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills. Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don't have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I'm happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I'm happy to accept it.

But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such-and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and -- because they have the spending power.

And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.

Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can't do is tell me to spend X and then say, "But we're not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills."

And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren't following all -- all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.

And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the -- you know the -- the notion that Republicans in -- in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.

That's now how I think most Americans think our democracy should work. You know they've got a point of view. Democrats in Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down, and -- and work out a compromise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Major Garrett: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated. You yourselves as a member of the Senate voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself four times have done that; three times those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.

What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn't that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?

OBAMA: Well, no, Major. I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.

And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn't happened.

Now, as I indicated before, I'm happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way, although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There's a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that's important, as well.

But what you've never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts, that we will raise the deficit - or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. And so what we're not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we've already incurred, that our two options are; we're either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we're going to blow up the economy. We're not going to do that.

(OFF-MIKE)

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) three-month extension for this? What ever Congress sends you, you're OK with?

OBAMA: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They're going to have to send me something that's sensible. And we shouldn't be doing this...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...then we should -- and we shouldn't be doing this on a one to three month time frame. Why would we do that? This is the United States of America, Major. Why -- what -- we can't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills? And we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? Look I -- I don't - I don't think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. The -- I have...

(CROSSTALK)

(OFF-MIKE) REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) talk about this on a daily basis (INAUDIBLE.)

OBAMA: Major, the -- I am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. Because that, in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate.

If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.

And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that's been taken, on the part of some House Republicans, is that, "Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills."

Well, you know, that -- that can't be -- that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.

Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican's president. And yet, you -- you -- but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 7, 2013

PEW Poll ~ GOP was Big Loser in Fiscal Cliff Battle

Photobucket

PEW Research has found that a majority of Americans approve of Obama's handling and resolution of the Fiscal Cliff crisis.

That doesn't surprise me. I think that most well-informed people understand that the bitter and vindictive GOP wants Obama to fail and enjoys holding America hostage. But the Tea Party members of Congress have no intention of compromising, and John Boehner cannot control his own caucus.

The poll numbers give me hope that in spite of the scary predictions from the media and doomsayers from both side, Obama will win the next battle over the so-called "Debt Ceiling" as well.

Even Republicans in this Poll saw Obama as the winner, and gave their own Party dreadful marks.

Americans Approve Obama, Disapprove Congress
Overall, 48% approve of how Obama handled the negotiations over the tax legislation, while just 19% approve of the job GOP leaders did hammering out the legislation. While Republicans broadly disapprove of how Obama handled the tax measure (77% disapprove), they give GOP leaders only mixed approval ratings – 40% approve while 45% disapprove.

Just 14% of independents approve of the way Republican leaders handled the fiscal cliff talks while 69% disapprove. Independents are divided over how Obama handled the negotiations (41% approve, 42% disapprove). Democrats overwhelmingly approve of Obama’s handling of the negotiations (81% approve) and disapprove of GOP leaders (79% disapprove).
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 30, 2012

President Obama: Don't Blame "Both Sides" for Fiscal Cliff

Photobucket
source: RawStory

Here's the President on Meet the Press today schooling David Gregory on why the press needs to give up the false equivalency meme. And I really loved that Obama used the phrase "country first" to describe his plans, since that was the McCain/Palin slogan in 2008. Ha.

The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic Party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.

And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy [that] grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic Party still have some knee-jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic Party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party.

But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.

More of the Transcript Here on PolicyMic

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 10, 2012

Bill Moyers on Grover Norquist - It's About the Money

Photobucket

Bill Moyers tells the truth about Grover Norquist. It's not "conservative principles" or some pledge he invented when he was 12 years old. At this point, Norquist wants to save his gravy train with biscuit wheels, aka, his alliance with the Koch Brothers, He's a bought-and-paid-for puppet who harrasses other puppets in the Tea Party.

For. The. Money. That is all.

Bill Moyers writing on Daily Kos
Norquist's efforts: Keep taxes low for his donor base -- billionaires like the Koch brothers and the plutocrats secretly clustered around Norquist's comrade, Karl Rove.

This past election, Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent nearly $16 million to support his favored candidates; that's according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy? Back in the 1990's, it was the tobacco industry backing Norquist's fight against cigarette taxes; now it's pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How about that for tax reform!

Check it out yourself in the documentary Capitol Crimes on our website BillMoyers.com. You'll see the story of how the man who has the Republican Party under his thumb came to Washington to start a revolution and wound up running a racket. Now he's the proxy for the powerful interest groups that finance him.

So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher Caldwell wrote. It isn't even about principle or ideology. Conservatism, my foot. It's all about the money.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

More on the Fiscal Cliff, Medicare and Retirement Age

Photobucket


Over the weekend, Progressives were trying to come to terms with rumors reported by Ezra Klein and others of a deal involving raising retirement and therefore Medicare eligibility to age 67.

Here's my previous post for background:
Snark Lane: To President Obama and All the Smarmy Wonks in Washington

And here is my collection of quotes to give you an idea of the backlash towards Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait over the weekend on Twitter and elsewhere:
Snark Amendment: Dems Pop Trial Balloon on Raising Retirement Age

I think my title on the second one is probably wishful thinking, since we don't really know whether this monstrosity is a fake trial balloon floated to make the "real" changes seem better to the base, or if it is nearly a done deal, as Klein and others seem to think. The course of action outlined by Jonathan Chait would be to raise the age, then move those under 67 to Obamacare to bolster the program. But why? To most people, Obamacare just took effect and isn't a tried and true program like Medicare. Life is confusing enough for the elderly new retirees without even more stress heaped on them by bureaucrats in Washington, and done just to make political points with a party that basically doesn't care . . . sorry, I seem to be ranting again - I'll stop.

There is some reason this bad idea keeps getting floated around. Most Democrats just hate the idea that we have to capitulate to the demands of the Republicans and the Tea Party after such a hard-fought campaign, especially to give them something they seem to desperately want in a sadistic way - to punish the elderly and the poor and the sick who need government assistance. *stops ranting again*

Here is a petition you can sign, if nothing else, to make you feel better:
Tell President Obama and Congressional Leadership: Don't accept any deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age or cuts benefits.

Joan Walsh has a great column summing up the whole mess:

Salon: Fiscal Cliff Cruelty
. . . it’s not just Chait who believes the deal is possible. Obama-doubting progressives like my friend Glenn Greenwald point to multiple reports that the president was willing to raise the Medicare eligibility age in order to reach a debt-ceiling “grand bargain” in 2011. And facing suggestions on Twitter (including from me) that the supposed Medicare proposal wasn’t genuine, Ezra Klein tweeted at me and Greenwald: “yes, given how widely reported that was, I’m baffled by the disbelief that age is in the negotiations.” He followed up, when people blamed the messenger (him) for the bad idea, by saying: “I don’t want to raise the Medicare age. I’m reporting that it may happen.”

There are so many things wrong with raising the eligibility age that I still can’t believe it’s under consideration. That’s not doubting Klein; it’s just a failure on my part to imagine that data-driven leaders — Republican or Democrat — would propose it. It doesn’t save money; it’s a shell game that just pushes costs around.

. . . Post-election polls find that two thirds of voters oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age. Should this deal become reality, it would reinforce the cynicism Americans harbor about government – and about Democrats. Deservedly.
The truth is, Obama should be pushing to lower the Medicare eligibility age, to let those 55 and over opt to buy into the program with their own money. The premiums paid by a younger, healthier cohort would help stabilize the program, while the benefits of getting that population insured earlier would keep costs down later. That’ll never happen, you say? Well, we can make sure it’ll never happen if progressives never ask for it.
Honestly, the only real reason to throw seniors into the Obamacare pool is to put more people at the mercy of private insurance, and weaken both the economic and political basis for Medicare.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Simpson's Mr. Burns Explains Fiscal Cliff


FiscalCliff-MrBurns


LOL - Check out the signs in front of Republican Party Headquarters, too, LOL.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 30, 2012

Going Down the "Fiscal Slope" in January

Photobucket

What is the Fiscal Cliff?  Or is it more of a Gentle Slope?

Source: San Francisco Chronicle
The term refers to the tax cuts that would expire and the automatic spending cuts that would take effect if Congress fails to act by year's end.

Why the deadline? Congress created it to compel action if a so-called supercommittee failed to find common ground on deficit reduction. It failed.

Tax increases: Expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with a scheduled increase in the payroll tax, would raise taxes on all Americans by several percentage points.

Spending cuts: Federal spending would be trimmed by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. The few exempted areas include Social Security, Medicaid, military pay and veterans benefits.

Unemployment: About 2 million Americans will lose jobless benefits if the extended safety net program expires on Dec. 29.

Photobucket
Source: The Economist


What has Obama offered the Republicans so far? 
He sent Tim Geitner to Capitol Hill with this plan:

From Huff Post
Geithner's offer would delay the sequester -- automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon and social programs -- for a year, and effectively eliminates the congressional requirement to lift the debt ceiling in perpetuity. The offer included an extension of unemployment insurance, the payroll tax and even money to help homeowners modify mortgages and invest in infrastructure. "I think there was a leprechaun in there somewhere, too," quipped one GOP aide.
The proposal is based on a two-step plan that would decouple the high-end tax and capital gains rates from the middle-class rates, extending only those for the middle class. It would revert estate taxes to their higher 2009 level, and raise an additional $600 billion in taxes elsewhere, according to the GOP summary. It then proposes tax reform required to raise at least as much as the tax hikes, and entitlement reform that would trim $400 billion from the programs.

Are Republicans really going to reject all offers to deal with Obama?
Will they remain loyal to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist?
Most sources behind the scenes say the smart people among them know taxes have to go up and they have to deal. Speaker Boehner seems to be holding to the Tea Party talking points, but interestingly his back-up team are getting the word out, so we can assume he is probably posturing for the camera.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Cole on NPR's All Things Considered:
SIEGEL: . . . a surprise from one of the top Republicans in the House. He broke ranks with his GOP colleagues. While they are holding out for an extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole told members of the leadership team yesterday that they should hurry up and extend tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers.

BLOCK: As for the top 2 percent, Cole argues, Congress can worry about them later. NPR's David Welna caught up with Cole today and has this report.

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole just got re-elected to a sixth term in the House. He serves there as the GOP majority's deputy whip, and he's a close friend of Speaker John Boehner, which is why a lot of his colleagues were surprised when Politico first reported that Cole urged his colleagues in a closed-door meeting to approve an extension this year of all the expiring tax cuts except those that affect only the top 2 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS JEFFERY COLE: We have an opportunity to make sure that the tax rates for 98 percent of the American people don't go up. I think we should do that sooner rather than later.

WELNA: That's Cole this afternoon.

COLE: I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I was asked: In my opinion, what's the best position for us to take? You know, what's in the best interest of the American people? What's in the best interest politically? I think that position that I outlined - that is, making sure that 98 percent of the American people have tax security, so to speak, and then continuing to fight on the other issues, and it doesn't mean giving in to rate increases. I don't believe in that. That's the right thing to do.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) on Fox News via ThinkProgress
MARTHA MAcCALLUM (HOST): What I’m asking you is are Republicans willing to hold the line, to say to the President, I am sorry, we will never agree to a deal that involves an increase in taxes? Are they?

THUNE: I think any deal that passes up here that raises taxes and raises taxes as I mentioned earlier on small businesses, Martha, is not going to enjoy Republican support. Now, there may be enough Republicans who would vote for something like that to pass it in the House of Representatives, they need to get to 218 votes.

MAcCALLUM: Then it would be done, right?

THUNE: We’ll see about that. We don’t know what that. We don’t know what the contours of a final deal might look at this point. Everybody right now is sort of in their corners and doing the posturing.

What happens if Congress does nothing? 
This article has a good explanation of what would probably happen:

Guardian UK
. . . all this discussion about a fiscal cliff is a bit of a misnomer – a cliff suggests a precipitous fall to a likely demise. But in reality, this cliff is more of a slope, or a slow but steady decline, down the road of fiscal austerity. Yes, tax and spending policies will shift after 1 January: taxes will go up and spending cuts mandated by law will begin to go in effect. But these are changes that will unfold over many months, and even years. Indeed, the immediate impact of the "fiscal cliff" will be relatively minor. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted recently:

"A relatively brief implementation of the tax and spending changes required by current law should cause little short-term damage to the economy as a whole."

This isn't to say that markets won't have a collective freakout or that confidence in Congress to actually do its job will decline further, but those are manageable issues, particularly because, once Washington goes over the cliff, it becomes much easier to quickly reach a deal between Republicans and Democrats.

. . . Let the tax cuts expire on 1 January, with taxes going up on every American. Then, Congress can quickly pass a massive tax cut for those making less than $250,000, retroactive to 1 January. Neither side will want to wait long and force Americans to pay higher taxes, but especially Republicans won't – as they will likely be blamed if no deal is swiftly reached. To do so would mean that all sides are politically satisfied: President Obama can say he stuck to his word about raising taxes on rich Americans, and taxes will have gone up without Republicans having to cast a vote; and both parties can reap the political benefit and claim credit for having cut taxes for the middle class.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Google Has a Terrible Horrible No-Good Very Bad Day

Photobucket

Today Google "accidentally" released some type of earnings report that wasn't even edited, and the market responded in a such a bad way that Google trading was halted for at while, plus it pulled the total tech stock market into the dumps. What is going on here? 

From Bloomberg
Trading in Google’s stock was halted at about 12:50 p.m. New York time, and resumed at 3:20 p.m. after the company released a finalized version of its earnings document. The company said R.R. Donnelley (RRD) & Sons Co. released a draft of the quarterly results without permission. Google tumbled 8.1 percent to $694.01.

The company’s profit and sales missed analysts’ estimates, a sign that Google’s tools are becoming less valuable to advertisers while costs associated with expansion into new businesses are chipping away at profitability. The average amount advertisers paid each time a user clicks on a promotion declined about 15 percent from a year earlier, and was 3 percent less than the prior period.


From BuzFeed
Google makes virtually all of its money from contextual advertising in its own products, such as search and Gmail, and through partners that use its ad product, AdWords. That entire business model is based on the value of user clicks. (I click an ad in Gmail, Google gets a penny. I click on ad on a website that uses Adwords, the site owner and Google each get a half a penny. Repeat billions of times.)

The value of those clicks is going down, and there's no reason to believe it will go back up: this type of unintelligently targeted advertising is not popular on social networks, which are luring away advertisers, and AdWords specifically has no place on social networks that Google doesn't own.

This is a startling reminder that no tech company's position, no matter how towering, is permanent. And a clear illustration of why Google has been so, so insistent on making Google+ work, even to the detriment of its current, non-social users.

CNBC Story: Google Earnings, Revenue Miss Wall Street Forecasts
Following the earnings release surprise, the company issued a statement blaming its financial printer for the early release.

"Earlier this morning RR Donnelley, the financial printer, informed us that they had filed our draft 8K earnings statement without authorization. We have ceased trading on NASDAQ while we work to finalize the document. Once it's finalized we will release our earnings, resume trading on NASDAQ and hold our earnings call as normal at 1:30 PM PT," the company said.

A spokesman for RR Donnelley said: "We are fully engaged in an investigation to determine how this event took place and are pursuing our first obligation – which is to serve our valued customer."

Google posted third-quarter earnings excluding items of $9.03 per share, down from $9.72 a share in the year-earlier period.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Bainport Sensata Tragedy in Illinois

Photobucket

pic via bainport.com

This tragedy in Illinois has been going on since back in the spring, actually, because the announcement was made then that a car parts plant in Freeport, Illinois, was going under, thanks to Bain Capital. When stories of Romney's connection to Bain came out during the Republican Primaries, many wondered if Mitt Romney would visit the workers at the Sensata car sensor plant. But of course he brushed them off and now is ignoring their continuing protests.

I'm sure he would say that they need to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" or some kind of nonsensical old-fashioned phrase. I'm sure he thinks it is easy to watch your small town fall apart when a large business closes down. I think people like Romney forget that even the loss of a few jobs has a ripple effect as restaurants and stores close down, and schools suffer lack of tax funding (which is important, Mr. Romney, whether you care or not).

Many people might say that lots of folks in this economy have lost their jobs, what is so special about the people in Freeport? Well, not only are they victims of Bain, but they have the outrageous task of training their Chinese counterparts as Bain outsources their jobs to Asia, leaving them on unemployment. This sorry situation is what Romney wants to do to the whole economy in a nutshell - let venture capitalists sell it off piece by piece to the highest bidder, stash the money offshore in tax havens, and damn the consequences for the 47% or the 99%.

So tomorrow night in the debate when Romney points at Obama and talks about our debt held by China, I hope the President won't forget the workers in "Bainport."

From The Ed Show tonight on MSNBC:

Ed Schultz: So where does this leave all of these families? What's going to happen to Freeport, Illinois?

Worker Mary Jo Kerr: It's going to become a ghost town. That's one major company in Freeport. We really only have a few big companies and that's Honeywell, Sensata, and Titan Tires. And once Sensata goes down, it's going to be hard for anybody to find a job because there's nothing around there.

Ed: Normally when a company's not doing very well, the employees know it. Was it record profits for Sensata? Was it good, and that makes it hard to understand why this is happening?

Mary Jo Kerr: Yeah, we don't understand why this is happening. From my understanding, they liked Freeport. They liked the location. But it was 'we need more money.'

From the Freeport Rock River Times
FREEPORT, Ill. — U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., will visit “Bainport” in Freeport, Ill., at 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, Oct. 16.

Bainport is an encampment set up at Stephenson County Fairgrounds, 2250 S. Walnut Road, Freeport, by workers facing outsourcing at the Bain Capital-owned Sensata Technologies plant. Created in 2006, Sensata develops, manufactures, and sells sensors and controls for major auto manufacturers such as Ford and General Motors.

Workers at the plant have been training their Chinese replacements, who have been flown to Illinois by the company. The final layoffs are expected to be made in November. The plant employs 170.

Workers began to camp outside the plant to protest Bain’s decision to ship their jobs to China and increase the pressure on Republican presidential candidate and former Bain co-founder/CEO Mitt Romney — who still profits directly from Sensata — to help save their jobs. The workers plan to stay at the encampment until Romney agrees to help save their jobs, or, as stated in a release from the group, “until middle-class voters nationwide understand the dangers of a Romney economy for our country.”
From the Freeport Journal-Standard
Also visiting Freeport this week will be activist Reverend Al Sharpton. He is scheduled to appear at the Sensata camp on Saturday at 4 p.m. to speak to the employees. The appearances this week follow an active summer of rallies that saw the arrival of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond to Freeport.

The Sensata workers have also been involved in other acts of protest that include appearing at the Republican National Convention, a march at a fundraising event for Rep. Bobby Schilling that was attended by House Speaker John Boehner, and the attempted submission of petitions to both their employer and Romney, among other things.

Last weekend, 15 French workers from Samsonite, who lost their jobs to Bain Capital outsourcing in 2007, visited “Bainport” to show their support to the picketing workers. Sensata develops, manufactures, and sells sensors and controls for auto manufacturers. The closure of the plant will cost Freeport 170 jobs.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Paul Ryan Has no Time for Tax Questions

Photobucket


Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan wouldn't even tell Fox News today what the Romney/Ryan tax plan is all about. But ... but ... I thought Ryan was a numbers guy? Isn't that what they said back when he was nominated?

Not today, though. Mum's the word. And I wonder how this bodes for Romney in the debates? If his boy Paul can't explain the tax loophole situation on friendly Fox News, then how is Daddy Warbucks going to manage on stage in front of millions of voters who are already hostile to him as a candidate? Good luck with that, Mitt.

Maybe Ryan knew he couldn't do it without bringing up the 47% of moochers and parasites, or conjuring up the ghost of Ayn Rand. So, tick a lock.

Via Huffington Post
The Obama campaign has blasted the Romney-Ryan ticket for not providing details on how it would give Americans such large tax breaks without growing the deficit. Ryan reiterated in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that the plan would drop taxpayers' bills by 20 percent without costing a dime, due to closed tax loopholes, but he was short on specifics when pressed by host Chris Wallace.

“You haven’t given me the math,” Wallace said in one exchange.

“I don’t have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan responded.

“But let me say it this way,” he went on. “You can lower tax rates 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, home purchases, for health care. What we’re saying is people are going to get lower tax rates and therefore they will not send as much money to Washington.”

What was he going to say? "I don't have the permission?" or "I don't have the magic calculator with me?" or "I don't have the stomach to see the comments from the Left if I really told you what our plans are like?"

David Axelrod of the Obama Administration tweeted:



I think he and Romney really meant it when they said to ask AFTER the election.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)