RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The Great Crash of 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fair play!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PJB: Democrats’ New Deal: This is It?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama unveils executive pay cap

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

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

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

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

He should also limit union pay.

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

BBC

President Barack Obama's crackdown on Wall Street pay contains loopholes, and may have limited impact in restraining compensation, the Wall Street Journal said, citing executive-pay consultants and management attorneys.

Some compensation professionals are already pointing out potential holes in the rules, including tactics such as changing executives' titles or rearranging pay packages, the paper said.

Obama set a $500,000 annual cap on executive pay and imposed other restrictions on companies that receive money from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The Journal said just as past attempts by the government to restrict executive pay largely backfired, the new curbs may also have unintended consequences, citing its sources.

Some critics suggested that the restrictions be retroactively applied to companies that already have received federal bailout cash, the paper said.

The critics noted that the most stringent restrictions likely would affect only a few firms and others could avoid some of the curbs by putting extra pay to a shareholder vote.

Others believe the plan does not limit total compensation because it allows companies to boost awards of restricted stock, the paper said.

Some compensation professionals are already pointing out potential holes in the rules, including tactics such as changing executives' titles or rearranging pay packages, the paper said.

...

Criminal penalty hangs over bailed-out bankers if they lie
TARP overseer Neil Barofsky says executives will have to certify their use of bailout money as part of his plan to shed more light on the Treasury program.
By E. Scott Reckard
February 5, 2009
The chief watchdog for the U.S. Treasury's $700-billion bailout will ask bank executives not only to describe how they are using the funds but also to certify their answers under threat of criminal penalties, he said in an interview Wednesday.

Neil J. Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said his intent was to shed more light on the workings of the widely criticized program. He already has lobbied successfully to have all TARP award agreements and vendor contracts posted publicly online.

"We want to bring transparency to areas that previously were dark so the American people, who have invested so much, can see what's going on," Barofsky said.

He was to release a 188-page report today on his efforts since he was appointed two months ago. The report says Barofsky also will require senior bank executives to certify under criminal penalty their plans for complying with the executive pay limits that the Obama administration will impose on TARP recipients.

The plans amount to a rewrite of TARP rules. Certified explanations of the use of TARP funds were not required when the first awards were made last fall, but they were included in a second round of funding, to Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.


Barofsky said he would conduct wide-ranging investigations of the process by which TARP recipients were selected and the uses they made of the money. He said he would announce one audit target today. Any lies or misrepresentations found in applications for TARP funds would also be grounds for criminal prosecution, he said.

another loophole. They will loan out the TARP money and use their existing cash pile for perks. I have hemoroids.

Goldman Sachs Tosses Back Bailout Money
By Morgan Housel
February 5, 2009
Goldman Sachs's (NYSE: GS) CFO announced that the firm wants to repay all $10 billion of the TARP funds injected last October, saying that "Operating our business without the government capital would be an easier thing to do … We'd be under less scrutiny and under less pressure. "
...