Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Happy Birthday!!!!
The Scholar Family would like to acknowledge the birthdays of two absolutely amazing individuals, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, and Charles Darwin, the most famous Naturalist ever. Today, February 12th marks the 200th birthday of both of these incredible men. May they both be remembered and cherished forever!!!!!
Arianna Gives Us the Truth Once Again!!! AMAZING!!!
By Arianna Huffington for the Huffington Post
The battle lines over how to deal with the banking crisis have been drawn. On the one side are those who know what needs to be done. On the other are those who know what needs to be done -- but won't admit it. Because it is against their self-interest.
Unlike the conflict over the stimulus package, this is not an ideological fight. This is a battle between the status quo and the future, between the interests of the financial/lobbying establishment and the public interest.
What needs to be done is hard but straightforward. As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times sums it up: "Admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once."
This tough love for bankers is being promoted by everyone from Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, and Ann Pettifor to Niall Ferguson, the Wall Street Journal, and Milton Friedman's old partner, Anna Schwartz, the co-author of his seminal work, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. "They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down," says Schwartz. "Firms that made wrong decisions should fail."
The plan laid out -- or, more accurately, sketched out -- this week by Tim Geithner makes it very clear that he is on the wrong side of the issue, more worried about the banking industry than the American people. Like Hank Paulson before him, Geithner appears more concerned about saving particular banks than saving the banking system. No real shocker there. As Henry Blodget points out on HuffPost, it's hard to be surprised that Geithner is sticking with the Paulson plan "inasmuch as he was likely the one who created it."
The big problem is Geithner is acting as if the crisis we are facing is a crisis of liquidity when, in fact, it's a crisis of insolvency. As Ann Pettifor puts it on HuffPost: "Much of Wall Street is effectively insolvent. It's not that these banks lack cash or capital -- it's just that they're never going to meet all their financial liabilities -- i.e. repay their debts. Ever."
Trying to prop these zombies up, as Geithner seems intent on doing, will lead to what Roubini calls "a royal rip-off of the taxpayer" and the risk of "turning a U-shaped recession into an L-shaped near-depression."
President Obama has made it unambiguous that he understands what is at stake -- both for the country, and for himself politically. On Tuesday, he said that if his economic plan doesn't work, "a few years from now, you'll have a new president."
And we know that many within his administration -- including senior advisor David Axelrod - favor a strategy that may be harder on Wall Street but will more quickly revive the U.S. economy.
So it's time to take off the kid gloves Geithner and Larry Summers are using to handle Wall Street and pull the plug on Geithner's deeply flawed plan.
And let's not be distracted by the shiny objects of the financial crisis -- corporate jets, redecorated offices, CEO bonuses, etc. -- as happened to the members of the House Financial Services at yesterday's hearing.
These are important issues, to be sure -- worthy of public outrage, Congressional grilling, and presidential action. But the central task at hand is cleaning up the toxic assets -- and the toxic thinking -- that have contaminated America's banking system.
Being diverted from that is like obsessing over the cut on your finger while the Great White shark that has already bitten off your leg is about to finish you off.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
California's Pain Is Onlt Going to Worsen!!!
By Jim Carlton and Bobby White for the Wall Street Journal
As Sacramento squabbles over the state's $42 billion deficit, Californians are getting a bitter taste of what's to come after the steep budget cuts that are inevitable when legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finally hammer out a deal.
Some world-famous parks like Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park may not open this year. After-school programs in low-income areas are being scuttled, putting high-risk teens on the street just as police forces are being cut. Schools are closing classrooms, and some highway projects have ground to a halt. The state may not be able to monitor some sex offenders as required under law.
A budget deal may restore some of the missing funds. But everyone knows that not all monies will flow again after a deal, and Californians increasingly fear they are seeing a hint of their future.
Other states face budget cuts too, but California's budget mess stands out for its size. Its deficit is projected at $42 billion by mid-2010. Since Gov. Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency 14 weeks ago, he and lawmakers have been deadlocked over how to close the gap. Democrats want tax increases and moderate spending cuts; Republicans seek deep cuts and no tax increases; the governor wants a combination.
The governor's office warned Tuesday that if no budget deal is reached by Friday, the state would send layoff warnings to 20,000 workers. Gov. Schwarzenegger also said he intends to cut 10,000 jobs through layoffs and attrition to save $750 million over 17 months.
Meanwhile, the state is raising money in unprecedented ways. The treasurer's office said Tuesday that it is close to selling $200 million in general-obligation bonds to the Bay Area Toll Authority, a municipal agency, to fund public-works projects around the San Francisco Bay area.
While Sacramento talks, money is drying up in places like Contra Costa County, where 40,000 families have applied for 350 available slots for Section 8 vouchers -- a federal subsidy that allows low-income families to rent in the private market. "The level of desperation is just heartbreaking," said Joseph Villareal, executive director of the Contra Costa Housing Authority.
The California State University system -- the nation's largest -- faces new cuts after already seeing reduced class offerings, increased classroom sizes and delays in students being able to graduate after a series of budget cuts in recent years.
Things could get worse as more budget cuts loom. The state may not be able to monitor sex offenders as required under a 2006 law that calls for sex offenders to be on GPS monitoring for life and to live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks. In January, corrections officials said they were monitoring all 6,622 paroled sex offenders with GPS devices, after Gov. Schwarzenegger set aside $106 million in last year's budget for the program. But because the law contained no revenue-raising mechanism, authorities say it is unclear whether they will have funds to continue monitoring.
As Sacramento squabbles over the state's $42 billion deficit, Californians are getting a bitter taste of what's to come after the steep budget cuts that are inevitable when legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finally hammer out a deal.
Some world-famous parks like Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park may not open this year. After-school programs in low-income areas are being scuttled, putting high-risk teens on the street just as police forces are being cut. Schools are closing classrooms, and some highway projects have ground to a halt. The state may not be able to monitor some sex offenders as required under law.
A budget deal may restore some of the missing funds. But everyone knows that not all monies will flow again after a deal, and Californians increasingly fear they are seeing a hint of their future.
Other states face budget cuts too, but California's budget mess stands out for its size. Its deficit is projected at $42 billion by mid-2010. Since Gov. Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency 14 weeks ago, he and lawmakers have been deadlocked over how to close the gap. Democrats want tax increases and moderate spending cuts; Republicans seek deep cuts and no tax increases; the governor wants a combination.
The governor's office warned Tuesday that if no budget deal is reached by Friday, the state would send layoff warnings to 20,000 workers. Gov. Schwarzenegger also said he intends to cut 10,000 jobs through layoffs and attrition to save $750 million over 17 months.
Meanwhile, the state is raising money in unprecedented ways. The treasurer's office said Tuesday that it is close to selling $200 million in general-obligation bonds to the Bay Area Toll Authority, a municipal agency, to fund public-works projects around the San Francisco Bay area.
While Sacramento talks, money is drying up in places like Contra Costa County, where 40,000 families have applied for 350 available slots for Section 8 vouchers -- a federal subsidy that allows low-income families to rent in the private market. "The level of desperation is just heartbreaking," said Joseph Villareal, executive director of the Contra Costa Housing Authority.
The California State University system -- the nation's largest -- faces new cuts after already seeing reduced class offerings, increased classroom sizes and delays in students being able to graduate after a series of budget cuts in recent years.
Things could get worse as more budget cuts loom. The state may not be able to monitor sex offenders as required under a 2006 law that calls for sex offenders to be on GPS monitoring for life and to live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks. In January, corrections officials said they were monitoring all 6,622 paroled sex offenders with GPS devices, after Gov. Schwarzenegger set aside $106 million in last year's budget for the program. But because the law contained no revenue-raising mechanism, authorities say it is unclear whether they will have funds to continue monitoring.
Friday, February 6, 2009
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THEIR SHAREHOLDERS NOW!!!!!
By Ryan Grim for Huffington Post
Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.
President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.
President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Thursday, February 5, 2009
This is the purest example of GREED!!! These Execs Should Work for Nothing!!!
By AFP for Raw Story
Wall Street and the business community gave a lukewarm response Wednesday to the US administration's plan to cap executive pay, fearing it may lead to a talent exodus and delay recovery in the finance sector.
The reaction came after President Barack Obama announced that executives of finance firms taking government bailouts would have their annual salaries limited to 500,000 dollars, a move aimed at protecting taxpayer interests.
The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.
"Also, the order itself strikes us as a disincentive for financial firms to reach out for aid, which will just prolong the recovery for the sector and the economy."
Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.
"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.
Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.
"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.
Still, Lindner said the matter is "a complex issue" and that "just like any other investor, I think the federal government has every reason and responsibility to protect its investment."
But he argued that the move "may have some consequences," such as "not being able to get the kind of leadership the organizations need to recover quickly."
Wall Street and the business community gave a lukewarm response Wednesday to the US administration's plan to cap executive pay, fearing it may lead to a talent exodus and delay recovery in the finance sector.
The reaction came after President Barack Obama announced that executives of finance firms taking government bailouts would have their annual salaries limited to 500,000 dollars, a move aimed at protecting taxpayer interests.
The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.
"Also, the order itself strikes us as a disincentive for financial firms to reach out for aid, which will just prolong the recovery for the sector and the economy."
Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.
"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.
Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.
"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.
Still, Lindner said the matter is "a complex issue" and that "just like any other investor, I think the federal government has every reason and responsibility to protect its investment."
But he argued that the move "may have some consequences," such as "not being able to get the kind of leadership the organizations need to recover quickly."
Joe, Joe, Joe!!! Seriously, Enough Already!!! You are Worse than Pathetic!!! It is not Even Comical Anymore!!!
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
And this guy here. Good old Samuel Wurzelbacher aka "Joe the Plumber". This guy is without a doubt dumber than a box of rocks. Who would really take him seriously??? Oh, I forgot, the Grand Old Party!!! By the way Samuel, you are right!!! We don't deserve you. We don't deserve more conservative individuals holding public service offices whose policies based on a rather stale ideology have failed miserably . We have more than enough!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
