Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts

Obama Asks Bush To Notify Congress To Show Him The Money.

1/13/2009 03:38:00 AM

(0) Comments

19_baracksmassivecash_lg2 First, remember that Obama CONSTANTLY says that there is only one President, and only one Administration at a time.  He’s used that line many times recently to duck hard questions.

Obama has asked Bush to notify Congress “on his behalf” that he wants to access the second half of the $700 billion fund, according to White House press secretary Dana Perino.

The idea is to make the money available to the new administration shortly after Obama takes office Jan. 20th.

So if there is only one President at a time, or one Administration at a time, then why did Obama ask Bush to notify Congress that he wants the money?  I mean seriously… I’m REALLY starting to HATE Obama’s morals and ethics, or rather, lack of.

Via FOX.

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , , ,

The UAW Has Blood On Their Hands While We, The US Taxpayers Have Dirt In Our Faces. [Bailout]

12/19/2008 02:49:00 PM

(0) Comments

JCPenny catalog2Your own little Detroit, just in time for Christmas!   And again I state, if the UAW is so good, then why is Detroit in trouble?  Why don’t the import auto makers have problems?  Why aren’t they screaming for a bailout?  The difference between the two?  The UAW.

This morning President Bush announced that his Administration, acting unilaterally after Congress declined to intervene, due to the UAW refusing to make concessions, will bail out the auto industry to the tune of $13.4 billon now, and possibly another $4 billion in February.  “The time to make hard decisions to become viable is now, or the only option will be bankruptcy,” Bush said.  “The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake and make hard decisions necessary to reform.”

The White House admits that it consulted with Obama on the loan package.  They briefed the Obama transition team over the last several days and options under consideration, according to a transition aide not authorized to speak publicly.  White House spokesman Joel Kaplan confirmed that there had been “consultations ongoing” between the two sides but he declined to go into specifics.  The financing will be drawn from the $700 billion TARP, the fund set aside in October to bailout Wall Street firms and banks.

Obama issued a statement on the bailout loan to Detroit:

Today’s actions are a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.  With the short-term assistance provided by this package, the auto companies must bring all their stakeholders together – including labor, dealers, creditors and suppliers – to make the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability.  The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restricting that is absolutely required to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it.

DETAILS ON THE “LOAN”

Here’s a sneak peek of the plan, as released by the White House:

  • Amount:  Auto manufacturers will be provided with $13.4 billion in a short-term financing from the TARP, with an additional $4 billion available in February, contingent upon drawing down the second batch of TARP funds.
  • Viability Requirement:  The firms must use these funds to become financially viable.  Taxpayers will not be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable.  If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.
  • Definition of Viability:  A firm will only be deeded viable if it has a positive net present value, taking into account all current and future costs, and can fully repay the government loan.
  • Binding Terms and Conditions:  The binding terms and conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress, including:
    • Firms must provide warrants for non-voting stock.
    • Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. [The companies must show the White House they are “taking all reasonable steps” to sell aircraft or interest in aircraft.  And they must provide plans to control their expenses that would include details about spending on holiday parties, travel and new real estate.]
    • Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law.
    • Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records.
    • Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 million).
    • Firms must comply with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements.
    • Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt.
  • Targets:  The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:
    • Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange. [The companies would need to provide the government with restructuring plans by Feb 17.  Those plans would need to show the companies and their subsidiaries have used their best efforts to reduce outstanding unsecured public debt, with the exception of pension and employment benefits obligations, by two-thirds.]
    • Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.  [The White House has called for the automakers to make 1/2 of the approximate $21 billion owned to UAW retiree health-care trust in stock instead of cash.]
    • Eliminate the jobs bank. [The bank provides nearly full pay to union workers on long-term layoff.  The workers receive normal unemployment benefits however, the jobs bank provides compensation that would make the workers benefits, while on layoff, equal to about 95% of their weekly income.]
    • Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufactures by 12/31/09. [Meaning equal to that of Nissan, Toyota or Honda however, the U.S. Treasury has changed its stance, saying it had identified an error it wanted to correct to make terms of the package consistent with its intent.]
    • Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
    In addition, the firm will be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stake holders, including dealers and suppliers, by March 31, 2009.


    These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and make the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.

    Interest on the loans is currently set at 5% for three years.  In the event of a default, interest rates could rise to 800 basis points above either Libor or 2%, whichever is greater and is payable immediately.

    The companies would need to provide the government with weekly status reports, beginning this week.  The reports would need to detail companies’ 13—week rolling cash forecasts.  The companies also are required to provide biweekly liquidity status reports after loan disbursements and monthly certifications of expense policy and compensation compliance.

    WHO GETS WHAT, MAYBE

    GM     - $17.4 billion.  GM is set to draw $4 billion on Dec. 29, followed by another $5.4 billion on Jan. 16.  Should Congress release a second set of TARP funding, GM would get an additional $4 billion on Feb. 17.

    Chrysler - $4 billion on Dec. 29.

    Ford – Ford is not seeking any assistance.  “As we told Congress, Ford is in a different position.  We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally said.  “But all of us at Ford appreciate the prudent step the administration has taken to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler.”

    MEANWHILE THE UAW IS NOT HAPPY ABOUT PAY AND BENEFIT CONCESSION

    If you remember, because the UAW would not make concession, that was the reason that the Republicans said no to the Detroit bailout.  Well, Bush added in that concession, and the UAW is not a happy camper.

    House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D) is calling the wage stipulation “an unfair assault on working men and women” that could force them to accept “a disproportionately large reduction in what is currently legally owed to them.”  The provision, Frank said, “could give foreign auto companies in effect the ability to dictate wages for all American auto workers,” and “it’s outrageous to be giving foreign companies the right to set wages for American workers.”  He is already pushing for Obama to change that portion of the emergency loan package, something the U.S. Treasury said the incoming Administration will have the power to do. 

    House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) said the White House package “unfortunately singles out workers and clearly put them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun.”

    “All stakeholders – management, directors, bondholders, suppliers, dealers, workers – will have to participate in shared sacrifices to help the industry move forward,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said, noting that the UAW members have already made more substantial sacrifices to help make the domestic auto companies more competitive.  [Those concessions were over a year ago, in an totally different economy.]

    ”We are disappointed that,” President Bush, “has added unfair conditions signaling out workers,” Gettlefinger said.  “We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed, as we join in the coming months with all stakeholders to create a viable future for the U.S. auto industry.”

    “Because these provisions are unnecessary to achieve our goal and because they were unilaterally inserted by the President into what was otherwise a negotiated agreement, I believe that the incoming administration and the Congress should take whatever step are necessary to remove them,” he said. 

    The UAW has criticized the idea of cutting employment compensation.  “While we appreciate that President Bush has taken the emergency action needed to help America’s auto companies weather the current financial crisis, we are disappointed that he has added unfair conditions singling out workers,” UAW President Ron Gellelfinger said in a statement.

    What the UAW needs to remember, is that this money is a loan to GM and Chrysler, a bailout for the auto makers, the company itself, NOT to the workers.  Because if the company doesn’t exist, then the workers don’t have a job.  If the UAW needs money to continue giving their members the same lifestyle they are use to in pay and benefits, then they should solicit Congress for money and take a loan out themselves.

    TARP

    Then there is the entire issue of the second part of the TARP funds.  Currently of the first $350 billion allocated to the Treasury, the department has committed:

        ■  $315 billion to inject capital into banks and AIG
        ■  $20 billion to unfreeze consumer credit markets
        ■  $13.4 billion for GM and Chrysler

    This leaves the Treasury will less than $2 billion at its disposal.  Treasury Secretary Paulson said that Congress must release the second half of the $700 billion TARP, stating he would meet with lawmakers and Obama’s transition team to discuss when to ask for the rest of the rescue money. 

    But some administration officials suggested that the final decision to request the funds might not come until after Obama takes office.  Treasury officials have grown increasing concerned in recent weeks that they could be left without enough cash to stem another financial crisis, such as the collapse of a bank or other major institution.  But on the other side of the coin, many in Congress have been critical of how the US Treasury has handled the first part of the $350 billion in funding.

    In order for the Treasury to access the second half of TARP, the White House must send Congress a plan detailing how the money would be spent.  Congressional Democrats say they don’t expect a request to come before Jan. 4, when the new Congress is scheduled to convene.

    Once that submission is made to Congress, they have a 15 day window on voting to pass a measure to block release of the money.  If Congress passes a bill to not release the money, then the White House could veto and overrule the congressional vote, but then Congress could also overturn that veto.

    The reason Paulson is talking to the OBama team, is that the timeline for all of this, puts the passage into the first days of Obama’s presidency.  It is unlikely, and I would be very surprised, if Bush petitions Congress to release the money.

    Congressional Democrats say they don’t expect a request to come before Jan. 6, when the new Congress is scheduled to convene.  Once a request is made from the White House, Congress has 15 days to pass a measure that would block release of the money.  Six plus fifteen equals 21, meaning Obama is in office.  Or if Congress passed immediately, Bush could veto the funds which would mean that Obama would have to make the request to Congress, thus adding additional responsibility on Obama’s Administration. 

    OBAMA

    ”Today’s actions are a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers,” Obama said.  “With the short-term assistance provided by this package, the auto companies must bring all their stakeholders together including labor, dealers, creditors and suppliers to make the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability.”

    Obama has also said that “the American people’s patience is running out.”  He says the automakers should “seize the opportunity” to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

    Obama also said a final restructuring package shouldn’t just include concessions from the workers.  He said they shouldn’t be the ones “taking all the hits”.  Obama says everyone involved with the auto industry has to be “part of the process.” 

    Obama wouldn’t say if he had any specific changes to the plan laid out by Bush this morning because he had yet not examined the exact details.

    Bush however, has handed off to Obama his probable first and major difficult decision when he becomes President regarding our economy.  Then his administration must politically and economically judge whether GM and Chrysler have become financially viable at the end of March.  If his new team concludes that the automakers have not become financially viable, it means bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler and widespread layoffs far beyond the automakers.  Meanwhile, Bush has insured that the automakers do not fall on his presidential watch, while it will be up to Obama and his administration to determine if GM and Chrysler are viable, and possibly fall.

    CERBERUS

    Cerberus owns 80 percent in Chrysler.  The White House package strips away the requirement that Cerebrus be held liable for any losses experienced by the taxpayers.  Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, have expressed outrage that Cerebrus, which is profitable, had refused to put up any more cash aid to Chrysler. 

    In an emailed statement, Cerberus said that it will hand over equity in the company’s automotive operations to labor and creditors as part of the loan agreement.  “Concessions by all relevant constituencies” are needed to restructure Chrysler.  The fund agreed today to put up another $2 billion into Chrysler.  Administration officials said the investment effectively put Cerberus on the hook for far more than just the government loan, and that taxpayers were being protected through tough restrictions imposed in the loan agreements – including provisions that would give the government an equity stake in GM and Chrysler.

    RANT ON

    First of all, this is a bailout plan, plain and simple.  Sure, the White House will point to a long list of requirement in the deal’s terms as proof that this isn’t just another bailout.  But that’s bogus:  this is a politically-driven plan and none of the important concessions listed by the White House are binding or likely to happen.  That’s because, unlike in bankruptcy court, this bailout offers no accountability.  There is a zero chance that the government will require GM or Chrysler to pay back these loans if they are unable to right themselves by March. 

    Second, the “deal” is non-binding.  Detroit could come back and simply say they haven’t obtained “viability” because no one is buying cars.  That’s their ticket out.

    Third, it’s an end-run around our representative democracy.  Congress spent over one month debating whether and how to support the automakers and, in the end, decided to put no taxpayer money on the line.  The White House’s action today nullifies that congressional decision, violating the constitutional command that the legislative branch makes law and the executive branch enforces it.

    Forth, it’s just a downpayment.  According to industry analysts and economists (e.g., Mark Zandi) future bailouts, or even bankruptcy, are inevitable.  How much will it cost?  Zandi says up to $150 billion.

    Fifth, according to the terms, if the auto makers have “not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.”  What if they auto makers haven’t attained viability, and they don’t have any money to pay it back immediately?

    Sixth, there nothing in the loan terms to keep Detroit from continuing layoffs and sending jobs to Mexico.

    Seventh, is another small problem:  this bailout is ILLEGAL.  The administration does not have the legal authority to use funds from the bank bailout in this way.  Congress earmarked that money for “financial institutions,” which the UAW automakers clearly are not.  The funds were to be used to restore liquidity and stability in the overall financial system, not to help nonfinancial corporate companies in distress because of  the UAW.

    And finally, the fact is that this bailout probably isn’t going to work.  Put simply, if the goal is turning the automakers around to achieve long-term profitability, this bailout is clearly inferior to a straightforward reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, which so many large corporations have relied upon to escape dire financial straights and return to profitability.  A bailout actually makes achieving this goal less likely.

    And then there is the fact that auto sales have been SLASHED at record lows.  Detroit can continue to make cars however, who is going to be buying them? 

    And where is the “car czar” in all of this?  Oh yea, its the U.S. Treasury secretary, and we all know how good he’s been with that, right?

    SIDE RANT

    Why aren’t the same type of restrictions or concessions given to the “too big to fail” banks, who are still laying off workers, paying stockholders, paying bonuses, buying other banks, increasing interest rates on current balances on credit cards, and not making any credit available to consumers and businesses?

    And do I feel sorry for current employees and retirees who benefits may end up being cut 60% in the end?  Nope.  Why should they be any different from any other American who is suffering right now?  Join the recession with the rest of the country where you must choose between housing, food and health care.  And if you say the UAW has acquired rights to those items, then why doesn’t the rest of the country have the same?

    As for those who paid into the pension fund, and may not get those funds?  Well, what about all the millions of people who have paid into FICA, and come to find out, those funds are probably going to be gone and thus then what?   I paid in enough funds within a 10 year period to acquire enough points to be eligible to retire and eligible for disability.  Why do I have to wait at least 32 years AFTER that to be eligible for 70% of my retirement benefits, and wait a total of 37 years AFTER I’ve paid in enough to be eligible for 100% of my measly $1000 a month.  Can I have interest on all that money over the years?  Nope.

    There is the option of the 401(k) however, the Democrats in Congress want to seize those funds.

    And why do average US workers, making $10 to $15 a hour, if not less, have to pay taxes to support the UAW for workers who make two or three times those hourly wages, not including all their benefits?

    The UAW has blood on their hands while we, the US taxpayers have dirt in our faces.

    MEANWHILE

    A bailout for Wall Street was done in days in Congress.  A bailout for the auto makers was done in a few weeks.  Why is it taking MONTHS to do a bailout for US taxpayers?  In the meantime, the US taxpayer, who is suffering from record high foreclosures and unemployment get to move into their new digs while the UAW wants to make sure that their workers have everything they have had in the past.  A box under an interstate, or bridge. Are you going to choose a refrigerator box or build one from wooden skids?

    If Unions are so good for the economy, then why are automakers in trouble?  If the auto workers are so good, then why are the US made cars mostly sub-standard compared to foreign autos?  And if UAW made cars are so good, then why isn’t the import car industry in trouble?  Why aren’t the import companies screaming for bailouts?  Why is Detroit in so much trouble, but the import auto companies not?  What is their difference?  The UAW.

    Let the auto workers know what it’s like to have to sleep in one of their own cars in the middle of winter as a home or they can take pay cuts and come back to Earth with the rest of the United States and suffer along with everyone else.   Settle with something, and not nothing.  The UAW’s greed will be the downfall of at least GM.  Greed and Vanity are two of my favorite sins.

    FINAL NOTE

    I never thought I would say this, but Bush is a smart man.  If you don’t understand that statement on the “loans”, then you are obviously not getting the ‘whole picture” and /or are an Obama supporter.

    SOURCES:

    •  Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    The Shoe Heard Round The World. [Zaidi]

    12/15/2008 11:27:00 PM

    (0) Comments

    450_al_zeidi_081215A day after the shoe throwing, reaction of the incident ranges from enthusiastic support, with thousands of Iraqis have taken to the streets, demanding his release to those who view the incident as unprofessional and no way to treat a guest.

    In Baghdad’s Sadr City, protestors burned U.S. flags, waved shoes attached to long poles and called for al-Zaidi to be released.  “Bush, Bush, listen well:  Two shoes on your head,” the Shiite protesters chanted in union.  In Najaf, a Shiite holy city, an American patrol was pelted with shoes by protestors.  Zaidi’s new followers are demanding that a statue be erected in his honor.  “The Shoe Man should have a statue built for him.  Thousands of Iraqis have been martyred by the Americans.  He avenged them.”

    Demonstrators waved black banners with antiUS slogans and held up pictures of Hojatoleslam Moqtadr al-Sadr, the militant Shia cleric, while hundreds of passing cars honked their horns.  One demonstrator told The Times:  “We are here to congratulate the hero Muntazer for throwing his hoes at that low man, Bush.  We want to tell Bush to leave Iraq before he kills more people.”

    081215_shoe2 Meanwhile, the National Media Center, an arm of the Iraqi government that deals with the news media, condemned al-Zaidi’s behavior as barbaric and harmful to “Iraqi journalists and journalism in general,” demanding an apology from his employer.

    One journalist disagrees with the National Media center saying “It’s the talk of the city.”  Ibrahim Mousawi, a Beruit journalist and political analyst affiliated with Hezbollah added, “Everyone is proud of this man, and they’re saying he did it in our name.”

    Baghdadiya TV hasn’t apologized and is demanding for al-Zaidi’s release “in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people … any measures taken against Muntazer will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime.”  The network posted an image of Zaidi in the corner of the screen for much of the day.  Viewers were invited to phone in their opinions, and the vast majority said they approved of his actions.  Muzhir al-Khafaji, the programming director for the TV channel said that Zaidi “has no ties with the former regime.  His family was arrested under Saddam’s regime.  We fear for his safety.”

    081215_shoe3 A geography teacher at Baghdad elementary school asked her students if they had seen the footage of the shoe-throwing.  “All Iraqis should be proud of this Iraqi brave man, Muntadhar.  History will remember him forever,” she said.

    Today, Zaidi’s three brothers and one sister said they were bewildered but proud of their brother’s defiance towards President Bush as they gathered in al-Zaidi’s one-bedroom apartment in west Baghdad.  The home was decorated with a poster of Latin American revolutionary leader Che Guevara. 

    “I swear to Allah, he is a hero,” his sister Um Sa’aad, who goes by the nickname Umm Firas, told the AP while watching a replay of her brother throwing his shoes.  “May Allah protect him.”   Zaidi’s sister can be seen below.

    UmSaaad-sister Al-Zaidi’s brother, Dhirgham said, “He hates the American physical occupation as much as he hates the Iranian moral occupation.” “He considers the regime [in Iran] to be the other side of the American coin.”  Zaidi is known to sign off his televised reports from “occupied Baghdad.”

    Another of Zaidi’s brothers said “Thanks be to God, Muntazer’s act fills Iraqi hearts with pride.” Udai al-Zaidi added, “I’m sure many Iraqis want to do what Muntazer did.”

    Colleagues of Zaidi told Agence France-Presse that he “detested America” and had been plotting such attack for months.  Zaidi’s family contested this statement saying his actions were spontaneous. 

    ALeqM5h1TVjVo9p1eYlWHrMtn00kKjMo7g A day after the shoe throwing incident, Zaidi is still being detained by the Iraqi Government.   Officials in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office refused to comment on his condition or on whether he’s be criminally charged.  Iraqi officials said he faces up to seven years in prison – some account said two years – for committing an act of aggression against a visiting head of state.  Zaidi’s  family said they had not heard from Zaidi since his arrest and that a police officer who picked up Zaidi’s cell phone at midnight Sunday had threatened the family.

    Saddam Hussein’s former lawyer today said he was forming a team to defend al-Zaidi.  “So far, around 200 Iraqi and other lawyers, including Americans, have expressed willingness to defend the journalist for free,” the Amman-based Khalil al-Dulaimi said.  “Our defense will be based on the fact that the US is occupying Iraq, and resistance is legitimate by all means, including shoes,” Dulaimi added.

    capt.cps.onb31.151208134016.photo02.photo.default-512x336 A Libyan charity group, Wa Attassimou, chaired by leader Muammar Gaddafi’s daughter, has given him a bravery award.  “Waatassimou group has taken the decision to give Muntazer al-Zaidi the courage award … because what he did represents a victory for human rights across the world,” the group said.

    RANT

    One thing to remember in all of this, no matter where you stand on the war in Iraq, Zaidi could not have thrown his shoes at Bush, much less survived doing this silly act, without the freedom of democracy.  And what many people also need to remember, is that if any one of us here in the United States threw a shoe at a head of state, we’d end up on criminal charges too.  So Zaidi’s employer needs to realize this.  It’s called, you commit a crime, you go to trial and if found guilty or plead guilty, possibly jail.

    capt.cb25aa5b459c4814bfb18692223820ad.iraq_bush__bag108 But things to ponder in all of this.  If the US are really wanted there to help, then why do the people of Iran want us out, and are holding such major demonstrations about the “good” side of the shoe throwing?  Do these pictures represent a country or citizens that is thankful for what we, the United States, have supposedly done for them? 

    I mean, would you believe that a Saudi citizen has offered $10 million to buy Zaidi’s shoes?

    Exactly how much has the media “manipulated” or “censored” what we here in the United States see or exactly what we see?  Because it seems to me the opinion of the Iraqi government and what the opinion of the Iraqi people is are at completely different extremes.  Or are all these protestors terrorists?  Have we, or will we really “win the war”?  Should we leave, and let terrorism take over again?  Or should we leave and let the people overthrow the government?  The thing to also remember in all of this is that the Middle East has been in a war with itself, neighboring nations, under the guise of a religious war since the beginning of time.  Can we, the U.S., Bush or Obama really stop that?  Or should we focus on homeland security and immigration and let the rest of the world fight their own battles that don’t involve us?

    BTW, didn’t this war on “terrorism” start with hunting down Osama?  Have we really “won the war” on terrorism?

    081215_shoe6ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

    Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote on the newspaper’s website that the incident was “a proper goodbye for a war criminal.”

    “This journalist should be elected president of Iraq for what he has done,” Ghazi Abu Baker, a shopkeeper in the West Bank.

    “The shoes should be exhibited in a museum as they resemble a rocket that talks on behalf of all Iraqis.” – Zahraa, posting on website of Arabian Business magazine.

    “The flying shoe speaks more for Arab public opinion than all the despots/puppets Bush meets during his travels in the Middle East.” – Asad Abu Khalil, professor at Stanislaus University in California.

    “Throwing shoes at Bush was the best goodbye kiss ever.  It expresses how Iraqis … hate Bush.” – Musa Barhoumeh, editor of Jordan’s independent Al-Gahd newspaper.

    Bush “got what he deserves,” Jordanian businessman, Raed Mansi, in Amman.  “I hope he got the message loud and clear:  that he’s loathed for his wrongdoing, for killing Muslim women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.”

    “Bush wanted to end his bloody term hearing compliments and welcoming words from his collaborators in the Arab and Islamic world.  But a shoe from a real Arab man summed up Bush’s black history and told the entire world that the Arabs hold their head high.” – Abdel-Sattar Qassem, Palestinian political science professor at the West Bank’s An Najah University.

    “I’ve watched the video over a dozen times on YouTube and was excited every time I see him standing up and calling Bush a dog.  But I felt so bitter when he missed.” – Tamer Ismail, art student in Cairo.

    “This wonderful shoe has gone down in history.  It’s the most important and boldest shoe in the world.  I wish I were a shoe.” – a comment left on a Jordanian news website.

    SOURCES:

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , , ,

    A Really Big Shoe For Bush In Iraq….

    12/14/2008 06:22:00 PM

    (0) Comments

    bush-shoes-01“T his is a goodbye kiss, you dog!” shouted a man in Arabic just before he threw two shoes at President Bush today in Iraq.  What?  Iraq you say?  Bush is in Iraq?  Well, the President took a James Bond-esque ultra-secret trip to Iraq that was not reported until Sunday morning eastern time. 

    With little advance notice, White House officials told 13 members of the President’s press corps about the hush-hush trip to Baghdad, instructed them to pack their bags and swore them to secrecy. 

    To keep other reporters out of the loop, the White House put out false schedules detailing activities planned for Bush in Washington on Sunday.  The White House stated that he would attend the taping of Turner Network Television’s annual “Christmas in Washington” benefit concert at the National Building Museum.

    While the press corps embarked, Air Force One remained hidden inside it’s hanger.  Bush arrived through an unmarked entrance at Andrews Air Force Base sporting his signature attempt at a disguise – a tan Windbreaker, casual black pants and a baseball cap marked with “43”.  The number signifies that his the nation’s 43rd president. 

    Air Force One had left the Washington area on Saturday night.  The window shades were drawn for the entire flight.

    The trip to Iraq was to hail “progress in the unpopular war that defines his presidency” and to sign and celebrate the recent U.S.-Iraq security agreement calling for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011 and to meet with Iraqui Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  The document, known in Iraq as the U.S. troops withdrawal agreement, was passed at the Iraqi parliament last month.

    “There is still more work to be done,” Bush said after the meeting, adding that the agreement puts Iraq on solid footing.  “The war is not over,” Bush said, adding that “It is decisively on it’s way to being won.”

    bush-shoes-02 At that point a man stood up and yelled “This is a gift from the Iraqis.  This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” and threw his shoe.  Bush ducked, smiling the entire time.  The man then yelled, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq,” throwing a second shoe, which like the first, ended up hitting the wall behind Bush.

    The man was grabbed first by an Iraqi reporter before Iraqi Security and Secret Service could drag the man to the floor.  The infamous Secret Service that is suppose to guard the President, was a little slow today however, showing up around Bush after the man threw both shoes and was already dragged to the floor.  While pinned on the floor, the man screamed:  “You killed the Iraqis!”  The man was then dragged away, and could be heard screaming in another room.  Two other Iraqi journalists were briefly detained after one of them called the man’s actions “courageous.”

    bush-shoes-03 Among Muslims, shoe throwing at someone, or sitting so that the bottom of a shoe faces another person, is considered an insult, according to CNN.  “In traditional Middle Eastern societies, it’s very rude to show someone the bottom of your feet.  So throwing a shoe at someone is very much a way of saying, ‘You’re beneath me. … I hold you in contempt,” says Daniel Byman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  “In Arab parlance, the height of insult is to call somebody a dog and throw a shoe at them.  It sends a poserful cultural message,” says Fawas Gerges, chairman of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence Colelge in Bronxville, NY. 

    An examples of said action include Iraquis slapping their shoes on a topped statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square shortly after the city fell to coalition troops in April 2003.  One other example was in 2004, after four American contractors were ambushed and killed in Fallujah, insurgents hanged two corpses from a bridge as people flailed at them with shoes.  And after the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein installed a tile mosaic floor depicting George H.W. Bush in the lobby of Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel where everyone had no choice but to walk over the 41st president’s image.

    bush-shoes-04 Although President Bush was not injured during the shoe throwing, somehow White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was “slightly bruised” in the aftermath of the shoe-throwing incident.  Journalists at the scene said she suffered a black eye, with NBC reporting she was hit in the face with a microphone as security wrestled with the man.

    The man was later identified as Muthathar al Zaidi, a journalist/reporter for Al-Baghadadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.  Prior he drew attention in November 2007 when he was kidnapped while on his way to work in central Baghdad.  He was released three days later.

    Al-Baghdadia issued a statement later demanding their reporter be released.  “Any action taken against Muntathar will remind us of the actions and behavior taken by the reign of the dictator and the violence, the random arrests, the mass graves and confiscations of freedom from the people,” the board of Baghdadiyah TV said.

    Bush’s comment on the matter?  “And if you want some – if you want the facts, it’s a size 10 shoe that he threw.”  He was also reported to have stated, “So what if a guy threw his shoe at me?”  “Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe.  It’s one way to gain attention.  It’s like going to a political rally and having people yell at you.  It’s like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers….”

    On a side note, it was unclear whether the journalist used “odor eaters” in his shoes or tried just a “smelly shoe attack” on the President….

    Bush is now in Afghanistan after leaving Iraq, with his plane landing at Baghram Air Base outside Kabul.  He is there to hold talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and address U.S. troops during the visit.

    SOURCES:

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , ,

    White House Bailing Out Big 3 Using TARP Is Illegal And Possibly Unconstitutional.

    12/12/2008 11:36:00 AM

    (0) Comments

    the_week_9202_27If Unions are so good, then why doesn’t it reflect on the condition of our Economy?

    I’m doing part of my rant at the beginning…..  First Congress bailed out the banks against what the taxpayers of the United States wanted, in other words, they didn’t listen to their constituents.  A perfect example of taxation without representation.  We spoke, they didn’t represent what we the taxpayers wanted.  And that $700 billion bailout has been nothing but a comedy of errors since, considering that the bailout was suppose to only be for banks.  Since then insurance companies have had the money to buy out a bank and gain access to the funds, even a Dutch bank asked for TARP funds, among other “Stooge” moments.

    Now, most people don’t want the Big 3 bailed out, unless they are actually an employee of the Big 3, a retiree of the Big 3, or have a business that is directly influenced by the Big 3.  And the Democrats in the House didn’t listen and attempted to pass law.  The Senate, with their Republicans, said forget it.. ain’t gonna happen.  But obviously, there are those who again don’t seem to listen to what the taxpayers want.  Bush, going against his own party, says bail em out with his spokespeople saying because Congress  “failed”.

    And how is he planning on doing this?  By using the funds from the $700 billion previously mentioned.  There’s only one small problem… it’s illegal according to the wording in the bill.

    THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE UAW

    The Senate failed to pass the $14 billion bailout and the head of the UAW,  Ron Gettelfinger, blamed the Senate Republicans stating, “This was just simply subterfuge on the part of the minority in the Republican Party who wanted to tear down any agreement that we came up with, the auto industry around the world is in peril.”

    “The current weakened state of the economy is such that it could not withstand a body blow like a disorderly bankruptcy in the auto industry,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said today.

    Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said, “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry.”

    Obama said he was disappointed that the Senate failed to act.  “My hope is that the administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term-restructuring that is absolutely required,” he said in a statement.  Yet on this Sunday’s past “Meet the Press” Obama stated, “We don’t want government to run companies.  Generally, government historically hasn’t done that very well.”  Is this “change” your mind, or another instance of “double speak”?

    According to Congress, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which created the $700 billion fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, could be used for the $14 billion bridge loan to the Big 3.

    In recent weeks however, Paulson has resisted the idea of using TARP funds for the Big 3 since it was created to provide liquidity to the financial sector, not the auto industry.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would never support an auto bailout that used money originally set aside to help the Big 3 develop fuel-efficient vehicles.  Then Pelosi “changed” her mind and clamed she wouldn’t support a bailout bill unless the Big 3 promised to drop their lawsuit against California’s emissions requirements.  Then Pelosi “changed” her mind again, this time saying she is willing to support the bailout without the Big 3 dropping the lawsuit, but only if Republican lawmakers support the bill. 

    SORRY, ITS ILLEGAL

    About $15 billion from the first half of the $700 billion remains uncommitted since about $335 billion has already been used for banks and insurance companies.  To begin tapping the second half of the bailout, the administration would first have to notify Congress, which could block it or put new conditions on how the money is used.

    The Treasury lacks the statutory authority to direct TARP dollars to the automakers.  While the statue, passed by Congress in October, grants the secretary extremely broad discretion to decide how to employ the funds, it clearly limits the recipients to “financial institutions.”  And the definition of that term is quite clear:

    FINANCIAL INSTITUTION – The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, saving association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Island, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.

    Now one could say that GMAC qualifies under this, well it doesn’t.  GMAC is not a bank.  Providing customer financing is a function that many non-financial institutions, from department stores to bars, engage in regularly.  In other words, they self finance without being a bank.  If GMAC would offer loans to anyone for any purchase, then that would be a different matter.

    Even The Heritage Foundation says that bailing out the Big 3 is a bad idea and illegal:

    “Even if the Administration were inclined to do so, it simply lacks the power under the statute passed by Congress to tap TARP funds to prop up auto manufacturers.  This makes sense:  why else would have Congress spent the past month taking testimony from auto executives and then crafting politically contentious bailout legislation if the whole thing was unnecessary, because it had already passed the bailout back in October?

    The Administration must reject calls for it to trample the law, and accomplish an end-run around our represented democracy, by moving forward with a bailout.  Giving in would be both unprincipled and, ultimately, illegal.

    Worst of all, it would be counterproductive.  Reorganization in bankruptcy continues to represent the best chance for General Motors and Chrysler to survive and prosper.

    THE CONSTITUTION

    The Wall Street Journal reports that banks and bankruptcy experts were all in a huff over a line in the Monday draft of the bill providing that the government gets its money “senior and prior to all obligations, liabilities, and debts of any such holding company or company that controls a majority stake in the eligible automobile manufacturer.”

    This might be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees just compensation for taking private property, bankruptcy and constitutional law experts told the Journal:

    “It really sounds like a clear violation of the taking cause in the Constitution, to put the government ahead of all the other lenders.  To go this route is a treacherous path riddled with all sorts of constitutional issues,” said Don Workman, head of the restructuring practice at the law firm of Baker Hostetler.

    On the other hand, Congress might argue that the bailout is actually keeping the car companies out of bankruptcy, and if the taxpayers are ponying up, then they should get some guarantees.

    OBAMA’S OPINION

    Obama has also said in the past that even if Congress does not bailout the Big 3, he will push for federal help once he is sworn in.

    RANT ON AGAIN

    Why do we even have Congress, a President and such if no one listens?  And ultimately, if what the highest in power wants, that person gets?  That is Democracy?

    Part One

    Maybe just maybe Mr. Gettelfinger the reason the GOP Senate said no was because they don’t want to pile debt on top of debt.  And maybe just maybe the reason they said no was because they don’t agree that a certain part of our population in the United States should get “special” treatment.  I am referring to not the pay the workers receive, but their benefits, which include health care for retirees.  Why should one industry be given special treatment when so many others have nothing right now, not even a job.  The UAW should be willing to make temporary sacrifices, such as cutting health care benefits to a minimum, in order for reduce costs until the Big 3 can get on their feet again.  But as usual, the UAW thinks they should have their cake and eat it too while the rest of the nation eats dirt.

    And where is all the money going to come from to buy these cars?  Currently all U.S. automakers are seeing the worst sales slump in 26 years.  GM today announced, after the fact of learning they weren’t going to get a bailout, that they were going to temporarily close 20 production plants.  But don’t worry, those who are laid off will get their unemployment benefits, and additional money from the Big 3 to compensate to make sure they get 95% of their weekly income.  Oh, and they still have insurance benefits this whole time.  So basically GM is saying okay, let unemployment support them, yes we still have to pay then according to our UAW contract to make sure they make 95% of their normal income, but hey, it’s less money for us to pay! So, that’s a nice Christmas present for all the UAW workers impacted by the temporary close…….  Did you get a paid month off of work for Christmas?

    No one has the money to make a new purchase of a new vehicle.  So millions of new cars are going to be sitting in lots doing nothing but gathering dust all because you think your workers deserve special treatment.  So tell me, where’s the profit in this bailout for me?  Remember, the new mentality is about “sharing the wealth”, so where’s my share in all of this?  Will I get a car at cost?  Will I get a full warranty on everything on that new car for the next 10 years?  Because I as a tax payer will be paying for YOUR bailout, especially if you can’t pay it back, for the next 20 years!  High risk with no high payback is bad business.  Isn’t that how Wall Street collapsed?  Isn’t that how the real estate industry collapsed?  By giving high risk loans to those who they knew couldn’t afford it.

    And since no one is buying new cars, where are the Big 3 going to get the funds to pay back this loan?  And what about them coming back asking for more money?  The Big 3 are going to end up being just like AIG, asking for more and more and more money, turning into a super black hole sucking the life out of our taxpayer funded accounts.

    And why are the big wigs being bailed out?  Banks, investment firms, insurance companies and now possibly the Big 3.  And I’m going to take a Socialist attitude here since that seems to be the “new way”.  When is it time to help those who pay for all this?  Where’s my bailout?  How about not having to pay federal taxes for an entire year?  If the government has all this money to spread around, then why can’t we get a break? 

    Why doesn’t the Big 3 have to go through what everyone else is?  Filing for bankruptcy reorganization and start over again.  In bankruptcy court, the process allows the auto industry to negotiate with creditors, stakeholders and unions.  The auto industry spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress in the first nine months of this year while unions spent hundreds of millions to put Democrats in Washington.

    And maybe, if maybe twenty years ago, there had been a national healthcare system put in place, like every other major country of the world, then the UAW and the Big 3 wouldn’t have this contract for health care benefits.  This is the ONLY point so far that I agree with that Obama should do.

    Ultimately, the Big 3 bailout is nothing more than dividing the classes further and a continuation of destroying our economy. 

    Part Two

    So obviously another law is going to be broken on a bill that the taxpayers never wanted to pass.  But this seems to be the new rage among many these days.  Now you might think, well this is nothing new, all politicians are crooks.  Well, being a crook is one thing, breaking Federal law and ignoring the Constitution is another matter. 

     

    Oh, and one other small newline.  Obama is planning on raising taxes and sending the money to Kuwait.

    And I could always bring up the Obama birth certificate issue……..

    ADDITIONAL SOURCES:

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , , , , , , , ,

    The New Improved Bank Bailout, And It Will Probably Need More Money.

    10/15/2008 02:50:00 AM

    (0) Comments

    ist2_3416170_money_tree BTW, Congress is anticipating that the Treasury will need more money than the $700 billion, just FYI.

    In case you weren't paying attention yesterday, President Bush made an announcement yesterday from the Rose Garden, at what's being called a historic investment in the nation's banks.  The Treasury Department will invest $250-billion of the $700-billion economic rescue plan in financial institutions.  The full text of the announcement is available on The White House's website.

    "This is an essential short-term measure to assure the viability of America's banking system," Bush said.  "These measures are not designed to take over the free market but to preserve it."

    Shortly afterwards, there was a joint statement released by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and the FDIC about the "voluntary" Capital Purchase Program.  This program will be available to qualifying U.S. controlled banks, savings associations, and certain bank and saving and loan holding companies engaged only in financial activities that elect to participate before 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on November 14, 2008.

    The full text of that announcement is available on the Federal Reserve's website.

    The TARP Capital Purchase Program

    PART ONE

    Basically the Feds are using most of the $700-billion to inject capital into banks by purchasing equity shares.  The minimum investment will be 1 percent of risk-weighted assets with the maximum up to $25 billion or 3 percent of risk-weighted assets, whichever is less.  The Treasury will receive preferred shares that pay a 5 percent dividend, rising to 9 percent after five years with a minimum of a three year investment.  After three years, the stock may be paid back at face value.

    It will get warrants to purchase common shares, equivalent to 15 percent of its initial investment.  Dividends will be payable quarterly in arrears on February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15 of each year and dividends on other still  can not be paid until dividends have been paid to the government.  But the Treasury said it would not exercise its right to vote those common shares.  For more explicit details, see a press released on the Treasury's website.

    What is also in that part are restrictions on executive compensation of the top five executives at banks that receive the capital injections.  These include a ban on the payment of golden parachutes, repayment of any bonus based on earnings that prove to be inaccurate, and a limit of $500,000 on the tax deductibility of salaries.  You can read more about this on the Treasury's website in the above press release or on a Public Term Sheet (PDF), also available from the Treasury's website.

    PART TWO

    The FDIC will temporarily guarantee most new debt issued by insured banks as a part of the FDIC Act that it insures through June 30, 2009.

    PART THREE

    Third, the FDIC will immediately and temporarily expand government insurance to cover all non-interest bearing transaction accounts through December 31, 2009, also as a part of the FDIC Act.  These accounts are primarily used by businesses to meet payroll and other continuing expenses.

    PART FOUR

    And finally, the Federal Reserve will soon finalize work on a new program to serve as a buyer of last resort for commercial paper or the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) program.  Beginning October 27, the CPFF will fund purchases of commercial paper of 3 month maturity from high-quality issuers, who have investment-grade credit ratings.

    "We are pleased to announce that nine major financial institutions have already agreed to participate in both the capital purchase program and the FDIC guarantee program.  We appreciate that these healthy institutions are taking these steps to strengthen their own positions and to enhance the overall performance of the U.S. economy." - Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC Oct 14, 2008

    THE NINE BANKS

    A U.S. Treasury official declined to confirm the names of the nine banks that agreed to this program.  The Wall Street Journal however, reported Monday the following banks and amounts:

    • Bank of America (BAC), $25 billion
    • Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc (MER), $25 billion
    • JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), $25 billion
    • Citigroup Inc. (C), $25 billion
    • Wells Fargo Corp (WFC), between $20 and $25 billion
    • Goldman Sachs Group (GS), $10 billion
    • Morgan Stanley (MS), $10 billion
    • Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK), $3 billion
    • State Street Corp. (STT), $2 billion

    AND BUSH ISN'T DONE

    According to a CNN Money article, Bush towards the end of yesterday, was mulling over whether to tap the second installment of its $700 billion authority to rescue the financial system as it looks set to burn quickly through the first $250 billion with its new bank recapitalization plan.

    Treasury Secretary Paulson and other Bush administration officials were in discussions about whether they will need to access the next $100 billion, a Treasury official said Tuesday.  Doing this would require "merely a transmittal letter from the president to Congress," the official said.

    While the Treasury received $250 billion up front, the administration must notify Congress to access the next $100 billion.  The final $350 billion, which also requires such notification, can be blocked by Congress.

    President Bush sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Tuesday to certify that it's "necessary" for the Treasury secretary to use his authority to "purchase, or commit to purchase, troubled assets up to the limit of $350 billion outstanding at any one time."

    House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank said Congress might need to give the Treasury more money if its multi-pronged approach does not sufficiently quell the financial crisis.  "If it's being well-used and more is needed, then yes," Frank said when asked if the Treasury Department coudl need more than $700 billion.  

    "IT WAS A TAKE IT OR TAKE IT OFFER" FOR THE NINE BANKS

    What the above doesn't state about the nine major financial institutions is that they weren't given a choice by the Feds.  The New York Times in an article dated October 14th states:

    The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. on Monday.  To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Paulson said they must sign it before they left.

    The chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, was receptive, saying he thought the deal looked pretty good once he ran the numbers through his head.  The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard M. Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout, according to people briefed on the meeting.

    But by 6:20, all nine chief executives had signed...

    What happened during those three and a half hours is a story of high drama and brief conflict, followed by acquiescence by the bankers, who felt they had little choice but to go along with the Treasury plan to inject $250 billion of capital into thousands of banks - starting with theirs. [...]

    "It was a take it or take it offer," said one person who was briefed on the meeting, speaking on a condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.  "Everyone knew there was only one answer."

    WALL STREET

    On Monday of this week the Down gained 936.42 points, more than 11 percent, its biggest one-day rally since 1933.  The S&P advanced 104.13, 11.58 percent.  It was the biggest percentage gain for the index since March 15, 1933, when it surged 16.6 percent.  The Nasdaq rose 194.71, or 11.81 percent, its 10th biggest point gain.

    On Tuesday of this week the Dow dropped 76.62, or 0.82 percent.  S&P dropped 65.24 or 3.54 percent.  Nasdaq dropped 65.24 or 3.54 percent.

    Today, the foreign markets are dropping like flies again and as of this posting, the Dow has not opened.

    Does this look normal or good to you? 

    Return as of October 15, 2008

    1 Month -18.48%
    6 Month -24.31%
    YTD -29.81%
    1 Year -33.93%
    3 Year -9.49%
    5 Year -5.12%
    		quote-web.aol.com

     

    Steven Pearlstein, who won a 2008 Pultzer Prize for Commentary, wrote yesterday in the Washington Post:

    "Do not confuse this moment of calm with a stock market bottom or a sign that a serious recession has been avoided.

    "We are in a bear market and will be for some time.  That doesn't mea that you can't have good days or even long strings of good days -- what traders refer to as bear market rallies.  But for a bear market to become a bull market, there needs to be some evidence that corporate profits have bottomed out and are about to take off again in response to a pickup from the economy -- and at this point we're a long way from that." [..]

    "Put it another way, we didn't just have a housing bubble and a corporate takeover bubble and a consumer credit bubble and a commodities bubble.  In time, those asset bubbles led to the creation of a bubble economy, with too many airplanes and restaurant seats and hotel rooms, too many office buildings and shopping centers, too many investment banks and media outlets dependent on advertising revenue from car companies producing too many cars and home builders producing too many houses.  Shrinking all that back to the right size is what the coming recession is all about.

    "Nobody really knows how long or how deep this recession will be.  What we do know is that recessions that follow the collapse of asset bubbles tend to last longer than average -- and that this was the mother of all bubbles.  So it's a fair assumption that this recession will last through 2009 and well into 2010. [..]

    "This thing ain't going away any time soon."

    WILL IT HELP?

    Time will tell, I suppose however, there are still issues that have not been addressed.

    It does not address he systemic problem underlying all of these problems.  Unsustainable mortgages written on artificially high housing prices.  Without household debt relief, this will do nothing except transfer money from Main Street to Wall Street.

    It does not force the financial institutions to be financially responsible.  This program takes huge risks in hopes that the banks can bail themselves out, if they can't, then the taxpayers lose.  If they can, then the Federal Government wins.

    It does not address that people borrowed more than they can repay, and when the foreclose, who is the winner and loser in all of this?

    It does not provide the fiscal stimulus that is necessary to get the economy going again.  Unemployment continues to rise.  Foreclosure rates continue to rise.  Inflation continues to rise.

    It does not provide the change in corporate governance to prevent a repeat of the problems that caused this crisis.

    It does not address the criminal behavior of some financial institutions.

    It does not address any auditors on this deal.

    SOCIALISM

    Again, welcome to Socialism however, is it a lesser evil or a greater evil than letting the banks run free?

    What American's keep screaming is why are they getting help?  Why are they losing their jobs and their homes?  It's become brutally obvious that our Government's priorities are focused solely on the financial institutions of this country, and nothing else, selling it under the guise that this will fix everything. 

    Which brings up the question.  Which is the Government more responsible to?  Fixing the banks and Wall Street, bailing them out, paying their bills, ensuring they continue on intact in hopes that this will 'fix' everything.  Or helping the taxpayers to find jobs, so they don't lose their homes, to stop inflation, to help with medical bills, and to simply put food on the table.

    Bankers, although the top five executives income will drop but no one else, and there are ways around that, will still have their jobs, their homes and food on the table.  They will still have their limo rides, and helicopter rides to work.  They will still have all their little corporate benefits.  They will still have their vacation homes.  They will still have their yachts, mansions, cocktail parties, art collections, etc.  What will you have when this is all over?

    I give it until the end of the year until it all comes crashing down, and that's the best case scenario.

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , ,

    Senate Killed Previous "Main Street" Bailout Plan On Sept. 26, 2008

    10/12/2008 07:02:00 AM

    (0) Comments

    428px-Red_flag_II.svg Late last month, Congress passed another industry bailout, offering $25 billion in federal loans to the nation's ailing automakers to help them develop more fuel-efficient engines.

    While Congress was on it's way to passing the $700-billion Wall Street bailout plan, and push it through Congress in only three days, another economic stimulus measure died a quiet death in the Senate a few days prior. That a $58-billion proposal would have extended unemployment benefits, pumped billions of dollars into local infrastructure projects and increased funding for low-income nutrition and health-care programs.  In other words, rather than bailing out Wall Street, this bill would have helped Main Street America.  It didn't survive long.  Just hours after the Main Street America legislation passed in the House, it was killed in the Senate. 

    Congress, specifically the Senate, has made clear where its priorities rest.  Despite its approval of the $700-billion in unpaid tax benefits - many members claimed the $58-bilion Main Street stimulus was just too expensive.  The Bush administration echoed that sentiment, saying the measure would not work and would cost too much, vowing to veto the bill.  But yet, Americans have lost $2 trillion in retirement benefits forever in the past 15 months.

    In that  bill, there was an extension to unemployment benefits by seven weeks in all states and 13 weeks in states with higher unemployment rates, boost food stamp payments, temporarily increasing federal payments to states to finance Medicaid health care program, and build infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, water and sewer projects and school repairs.  And based upon budgets, with 34 states coming short of their fiscal 2009 budgets, cutting health care benefits, it was needed.

    The House plan seemed more focused on spending that would have an immediate impact on job creation while the Senate wanted a wish-list of items long-sought by members of the Appropriations Committee, including money to provide the U.S. Capitol police with new radios, accelerate NASA's development of a new space vehicle and move the Department of Homeland Security to a new headquarters.

    S. 3604 was titled as "A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for economic recovery for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes."  The vote was  Yea-52, Nay 42, with 6 not voting.

    Those who voted "Nay" on the bill in the Senate are as follows with how they also voted on the Wall Street Bailout bill:

     

    Main Street Bail Out Bill
    Sep. 26, 2008
    S 3604    		 Wall Street Bail Out Bill
    Oct. 1, 2008
    HR 3397
    Alabama

    Sessions (R)

    Shelby (R)

    Alaska

    Murkowski (R)
    Arizona

    Kyl (R)

    Colorado

    Allard (R)
    Florida

    Martinez (R)

    Georgia

    Chambliss (R)

    Isakson (R)
    Idaho

    Craig (R)

    Crapo (R)

    Indiana

    Bayh (D)

    Lugar (R)
    Iowa

    Grassley (R)
    Kansas

    Bunning (R)
    McConnell (R)
    Mississippi

    Cochran (R)

    Wicker (R)
    Missouri

    Bond (R)

    McCaskill (D)
    Nebraska

    Hagel (R)
    Nevada

    Ensign (R)
    New Hampshire

    Gregg (R)

    Sununu (R)
    New Mexico

    Domenici (R)
    North Carolina

    Burr (R)
    Ohio

    Voinovich (R)
    Oklahoma

    Coburn (R)

    Inhofe (R)
    South Carolina

    DeMint (R)
    South Dakota

    Thune (R)
    Tennessee

    Alexander (R)

    Corker (R)
    Texas

    Cornyn (R)

    Hutchison (R)
    Utah

    Bennett (R)

    Hatch (R)
    Virginia

    Warner (R)
    Wyoming

    Barrasso (R)

    Enzi (R)

    In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted down the Main Street bill, and voted for the Wall Street bill, has announced a post-election session beginning Nov. 17 to consider public lands legislation, which is obviously much more important than the current economy, considering his state has the highest forclosure rates, and nearly the highest unemployment rates in the nation.  His spokesman, Jim Manley, issued a written statement that said "recent developments only reinforce the need for additional action to reinvigorate the economy."  He added, "no decisions have yet been made on how to proceed."

    Robert B. Reich, former Labor secretary under President Clinton and now professor public policy at the University of California, Berkely wrote last month;

    "Bailout on Wall Street's bad debts when millions more American's can't pay their bills is like bailing out a rowboat springing more leaks while the ocean is rising."  "Unless Americans on Main Street have more money in their pockets, Wall Street's bad debts will continue to rise."

    By the way, in a survey by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN, 23 percent of respondents approve of the way Congress is performing.  CBS News' survey shows 15 percent approval, and 13 percent in polls by Opionion Dymanics for Fox News and Hart/Newhouse for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  meanwhile, is trying to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would do the same again, but this time including a tax rebate.  The new bill's total could reach $150 billion this time.  However again, this would have to get past the Senate and the President.

    And Bush seems only interested in fixing the markets, and helping the world, ignoring his own country's people.  Bush this week is meeting the G7, Japan, Germany, England, France, Italy and Canada, vowing a world economic fix.

    "We must ensure the actions of one country do not contradict or undermine the actions of another.  In our interconnected world, no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another.  We're in this together.  We will come through it together."

    In a statement release Friday, G7 finance ministers agreed to support important financial institutions and "take all necessary steps to unfreeze credit and money markets."  To that end, Paulson said the US government would do something it hasn't done since the Great Depression -- invest directly in troubled banks in exchange for stock. 

    ..... Can anyone say socialism?  I have a feeling that the "NWO" conspiracy buffs are having a field day with this, between many of the worlds largest banks being "nationalized" by their respective country.

    SOURCES:

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , , ,