The Dow Jones average took a leap that hasn't been seen in quite some time. Wall Street literally got high, on the news of the Treasury secretary's plan to buy up bad bank assets. Here are excerpts from the CNN Money article about the Dow increase:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks surged Monday, recharging the rally, after Treasury's plan to buy up billions in bad bank assets and a better-than-expected existing home sales report raised hopes that the economy is stabilizing.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) gained 497 points, seeing its biggest one-day point gain since Nov. 21. The gain was equivalent to 6.8%, which was the biggest one-day percentage gain since Oct. 28.
The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 54 points, its best one-day point gain since Nov. 13. The percentage gain of 7.1% was the best since Oct. 28.
The Nasdaq composite (COMP) added 99 points or 6.8% for the best one-day point and percentage gain since Oct. 28.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: consumer confidence is still in the crapper, but it is a good sign when wall street can begin to see light at the end of the tunnel. with the Obama administration's plan to buy close to $1 trillion in bad bank assets and housing starts up for the first time in close to a year, there are hopes that a recovery is in the offing.
unfortunately, wall street will reap the rewards of a recovery long before main street begins to feel it.
in other good news, it appears that a majority (15 of the 20 top executives) of the bonus money will be returned to a.i.g. coffers... the outstanding bonus money went to overseas executives.
CNN.com reports that President Barack Obama is outraged by the $163 million in bonus money that is earmarked for distribution to AIG executives as bonus money:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama said Monday he will attempt to block bonuses to executives at ailing insurance giant AIG, payments he described as an "outrage."
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Obama told politicians and reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were unveiling a package to aid the nation's small businesses.
The president expressed dismay and anger over the bonuses to executives at AIG, which has received $173 billion in U.S. government bailouts over the past six months.
"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Obama was referring to the bonuses paid to traders in AIG's financial products division, the tiny group of people who crafted complicated deals that wound up shaking the world's economic foundations.
The president said he has asked Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."
Obama spared AIG's new CEO, Edward Liddy, from criticism, saying he got the job "after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year."
But he said the impropriety of the bonuses goes beyond economics. "It's about our fundamental values," he said.
"All across the country, there are people who are working hard and meeting their responsibilities every single day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. You've got a bunch of small-business people here who are struggling just to keep their credit line open," Obama said.
"And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic that we have to demand."
Obama said he would work with Congress to change the laws so that such a situation cannot happen again.
Then, coughing, he added in jest, "I'm choked up with anger here."
Under pressure from the Treasury, AIG scaled back the bonus plans and pledged to reduce 2009 bonuses -- or "retention payments" -- by at least 30 percent. That has did little to temper outrage over the initial plan, however.
Obama received support from fellow Democrats, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. "This is another outrageous example of executives -- including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG's collapse -- enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers," the Democrat from Connecticut said.
He noted in a written statement that executives at other companies that received bailout funds have volunteered to forgo bonuses. "There's no reason why those at AIG shouldn't do the same," he said.
Later, Dodd told CNN he is considering an unusual approach to get the bonus money back.
"One idea we're kind of thinking about is a tax provision," the Connecticut Democrat said. "We have a right to tax. You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses. That's a way maybe to deal with it."
Dodd said the notion is in the "earliest of thinking" and has not been settled on as a way to resolve the issue that has set off outrage in Washington and across the country.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: while taking taking taxpayer money with one hand, these guys are enriching their pockets with the other... this type of behavior is reprehensible.
if AIG is in such horrible shape financially, then how in the heck is anyone there eligible for a bonus? every bonus plan i have been involved with has been tied to individual and company performance. the company performance obviously trumps any individual gains by $173 billion!!!
Excerpts for the Forbes.com article about the world's billionaires:
The richest people in the world have gotten poorer, just like the rest of us. This year the world's billionaires have an average net worth of $3 billion, down 23% in 12 months. The world now has 793 billionaires, down from 1,125 a year ago.
After slipping in recent years, the U.S. is regaining its dominance as a repository of wealth. Americans account for 44% of the money and 45% of the list's slots, up seven and three percentage points from last year, respectively. Bill Gates lost $18 billion but regained his title as the world's richest man. Warren Buffett, last year's No. 1, saw his fortune decline $25 billion as shares of Berkshire Hathaway fell nearly 50% in 12 months. Mexican telecom titan Carlos Slim Helú maintains his spot in the top three but lost $25 billion.
The world has become a wealth wasteland. Like the rest of us, the richest people in the world have endured a financial disaster over the past year. Today there are 793 people on our list of the World's Billionaires, a 30% decline from a year ago.
Of the 1,125 billionaires who made last year's ranking, 373 fell off the list--355 from declining fortunes and 18 who died. There are 38 newcomers, plus three moguls who returned to the list after regaining their 10-figure fortunes. It is the first time since 2003 that the world has had a net loss in the number of billionaires.
Bill Gates lost $18 billion but regained his title as the world's richest man. Warren Buffett, last year's No. 1, saw his fortune decline $25 billion as shares of Berkshire Hathaway (nyse: BRK.A - news - people ) fell nearly 50% in 12 months, but he still managed to slip just one spot to No. 2. Mexican telecom titan Carlos Slim Helú also lost $25 billion and dropped one spot to No. 3.
It was hard to avoid the carnage, whether you were in stocks, commodities, real estate or technology. Even people running profitable businesses were hammered by frozen credit markets, weak consumer spending or declining currencies.
The biggest loser in the world this year, by dollars, was last year's biggest gainer. India's Anil Ambani lost $32 billion--76% of his fortune--as shares of his Reliance Communications, Reliance Power and Reliance Capital all collapsed.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: the rich get richer... but i ain't drinking the haterade. one of these days, you might see ole plezWorld on the list!
In a move that appears to run counter to the way things are going in the economy, the CEO of IBM issued an optimistic, forward looking statement about IBM's plans for the future. They plan to engage in with governments in those areas that are soon to be enriched by President Obama's stimulus package.
What follows is the entire New York Times article:
By now, much of corporate America is humbled and hunkered down, hoping to survive an economic crisis that seems to get worse day by day. That is certainly not the posture at I.B.M.’s headquarters in Armonk, N.Y.
In a spirited message in the annual report sent to shareholders on Monday, Samuel J. Palmisano, I.B.M.’s chief executive, writes, “We entered this turbulent period strong, and we expect to exit it stronger.” Later, Mr. Palmisano adds, “We will simply not ride out the storm. Rather, we will take a long-term view, and go on offense.”
Mr. Palmisano struck a similar tone when the company reported its strong quarterly results in late January. And certainly history could prove Big Blue’s against-the-grain confidence to be short-lived and misplaced. But in his lengthy “letter from the chairman,” Mr. Palmisano presents a detailed case for I.B.M.’s comparative optimism. It centers in good part on the assumption that countries — and large corporations — around the world are going to make investments in so-called smart infrastructure projects in transportation, electrical grids, health care information technology, telecommunications, food distribution and water systems.
And, in I.B.M.’s view, its portfolio of technology services, software and research make it ideally positioned to be the general contract of choice for such projects.
Two things lend support to the I.B.M. strategy. First, governments around the world are putting such projects in their stimulus packages as they try to stabilize their economies. In the United States, the Obama administration included big investments in smart electric grids and health technology, for example.
Second, we do appear to be entering a corporatist era in which big government and the big corporations who are still healthy are looked to as engines of recovery. Large corporations and governments are I.B.M.’s prime clients.
In this environment, the strong, big corporations seem to be positioned to be the consolidators in their industries. Wal-Mart, which raised its dividend last week, amid the carnage in the retailing sector, is one. And in technology, I.B.M. clearly hopes to be another.
“The coming era will not be kind to enterprises or institutions that have failed to step up to unresolved issues in their core models, strategies or operations,” Mr. Palmisano writes. “In our view, this is not simply a cyclical downturn, but a major shift in the global economy and society.”
~ ~ ~
plez sez: IBM had a strong january despite estimates, but they've also gone through massive layoffs and have exported tens of thousands of jobs overseas (the day after the january earnings report, they laid off 1,400 workers around the country). if there are no "american-only jobs" provision in the stimulus package, then the stimulus package will turn out to be a big mistake.
i used to work for big blue as a consultant, they will squeeze profits from government contracts and send jobs overseas without blinking!
The Dow slipped to near 7,100 points... it hasn't been this low since mid-1997!
Excerpts from CNN Money story:
The Dow and S&P 500 tumbled to levels not seen in nearly 12 years Monday, as investors continue to worry that the government's efforts to slow the recession won't be sufficient.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 250 points, or 3.4%, ending at the lowest point since May 7, 1997.
The S&P 500 (SPX) index lost 26 points, or 3.5%, ending at the lowest point since April 11, 1997.
The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 53 points, or 3.7%. The tech-fueled index has held up better than the rest of the market so far this year, closing at the lowest points since Nov. 20, 2008.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: the remnants of my 401(k) are just that: remnants. my wife's 401(k) losses were in the 5-digit range... yeah, that bad!
i can't even imagine what has happened with people who are on fixed incomes or living off of 401(k) money that loses value by the hour.
The Sunday morning political talk shows were littered with GOP governors, some of whom made a show of turning down stimulus money. Well, in reality, appearing to turn down stimulus money for the cameras.
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said, "The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would have actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would have been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared."
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi said, "If we were to take the unemployment reform package that they have, it would cause us to raise taxes on employment when the money runs out -- and the money will run out in a couple of years."
Even Georgia's red state governor, Sonny Perdue, made a point of saying that he may not accept all of the stimulus money, saying that "it might not be in the state’s long-term interest to accept it."
The Republican governors of Idaho, Alaska, Texas, South Carolina and Louisiana expressed similar concerns... except ALL of them plan to accept a bulk of the stimulus package money that comes to their states. The amount that Jindal is "turning down" amounts to about 2 percent of the stimulus money that is slated to go to Louisiana. And similarly with Mississippi, that governor isn't turning down all of the money coming to his state.
And California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said his state is almost broke, so he's going to take whatever is offered.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: petty politics, as usual. those governors found the area with the least amount of money and then acted like they were doing something big, by turning it down.
On Tuesday afternoon, President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law. And it was a hefty, too! The Stimulus Package became the law of the land with the stroke of his pen and over $787 billion is now ready to stimulate our lagging economy back to life.
There is a little problem, though, how will we know that the stimulus is working?
Mr. Obama didn't go as far to guarantee a win with this thing, as I'm sure he knows that there'll probably be a request for more stimulus money in the coming months. He said, "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles. But it does mark the beginning of the end - the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs; to provide relief for families worried they won't be able to pay next month's bills; and to set our economy on a firmer foundation."
The signing ceremony was held at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in Colorado.
~ ~ ~
The request for more billions didn't take long. General Motors Corp (GM) and Chrysler LLC requested nearly $22 billion in additional U.S. government loans and said they had reached tentative deals with the United Auto Workers union to reduce labour costs. It is estimated that they will trim close to 50,000 jobs... in exchange for the money. They claim that they need the funds to stave off bankruptcy.
The two automakers, which have so far received $17.4 billion in loans from the U.S. Treasury, also detailed plans to cut jobs and idle plants as part of sweeping restructuring plans submitted under the terms of their federal bailout.
GM is seeking an additional $16.6 billion from the U.S. Treasury -- for a total of up to $30 billion in loans -- and said it would run out of cash as soon as March without new federal funding. In addition, GM said it expected to be able to borrow up to $6 billion from foreign governments and nearly $8 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy. It warned that without $1.5 billion from asset sales in 2009 it would need even more cash.
GM also accelerated its job cut plans, saying that it would eliminate 47,000 jobs over the course of 2009. The company said it would cut about 20,000 jobs in the United States, or about 22% of its remaining U.S. staff. Previously, GM called for U.S. job cuts of between 20,000 to 30,000 workers, but it had stretched out those reductions through 2012. The company said it plans to close five additional U.S. plants by 2012 --in addition to the 12 planned closings announced in December.
GM added it plans to phase out the Saturn brand by the middle of 2011 if it is unable to sell or spin-off the brand. GM is also looking to sell its Saab brand, and will look for help from the Swedish government to support Saab until a buyer is found. There will be fewer Pontiac models, with a plan to reduce GM to four brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC (trucks).
Chrysler said it plans to cut about 3,000 jobs, or 6% of its workforce, and reduce capacity by another 100,000 vehicles this year as it tries to adjust to reduced demand. It also said it has won the concessions from the United Auto Workers union and its creditors that were demanded under terms of the loan from the Treasury Department.
~ ~ ~
Obama's pen could not keep world markets from continuing their downward spiral... this economic crisis is global and it ain't getting better: Japan is suffering its worst downturn in 35 years, England has had its worst decline in 30 years, Germany's decline is the worst in 20 years! And the US job market is the worst in over 20 years. The Dow Jones industrial average declined nearly 300 points on Tuesday to finish close to its lowest level of the financial crisis. Even China is feeling the pinch with unemployment growing over there.
Japan's economy, the world's second-biggest, after only the United States, shrank at an annual rate of 12.7 percent during the last three months of 2008 -- the biggest contraction since the oil crisis of the mid-1970s. The British economy, damaged by the credit crisis, will contract at 3.3 percent, almost twice as much as predicted three months ago, according to the country's biggest business lobbying organization. Those two pieces of data, released Monday, came on the heels of a report Friday showing that the German economy, Europe's largest, shrank by 2.1 percent, the steepest drop since the country's reunification in 1990. Some economists had argued that countries like Japan and Germany were better equipped to weather the downturn. Germany has little consumer debt, and Japan's banks are in better shape after the banking crisis of the 1990s. But their economies rely heavily on exports, and global demand for items such as Japanese and German cars has evaporated.
And emerging markets, the world's fastest-growing economies, whose demand for goods and services is considered key to a global recovery, showed signs of intensifying weakness. Russia's state-owned news agency said Tuesday that lower commodity prices and the financial crisis are expected to cause the economy to shrink by more than 2 percent this year. In Brazil, where commodity exports have fallen sharply, retail sales in December fell for the third straight month, marking the longest period of declines in six years. Taiwan said exports plunged by record levels. In Mexico, the government was forced to intervene in the foreign exchange market after the peso reached an all-time low against the dollar. In China, slumping demand for exports has trimmed the growth of its powerful economy to nearly half its 13 percent pace in 2007.
Good news on the economic front is nowhere to be found!
~ ~ ~
plez sez: i held out such hope that this stimulus package would actually make a difference, but something tells me that the global economy is so eff'd up, that $787 billion will be like "spit in the wind!" i'm not sure the US mint will be able to print enough $100's to keep this ship afloat. consumer confidence is so low, orders for goods are at record lows, global markets continue to fall... i don't know if the US economy (which has been mortgaged to china and saudi arabia) has enough gas in the tank to save the rest of the world.
i said it before... i think we're going to have to witness one of the automaker's demise before anything substantial will change. i am not sure what propping them up with cash while they are slashing payroll will do... when NO ONE is buying the product!
plezWorld believes the answer lies in the mortgage crisis and the credit crunch. maybe things would loosen up a bit if ALL of those risky loans heading to foreclosure were renegotiated at bargain basement rates, and then if credit card companies would be compensated for working to drastically lower (or even eliminate) the interest rate or balances on outstanding accounts that are headed toward default. to my way of thinking, both of those acts would serve as a necessary catalyst to get consumers back into the malls, realtor offices, and auto showrooms.
and since our economy is such a leading market for the global economy, US companies should be incented to begin bringing the jobs that have been offshored to china and india BACK to the US. put americans back to work... and the rest of the world will soon follow. put money and credit back in the pockets of americans... and we will start buying the world's goods.
President Obama was tight-lipped about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bailout plan during last night's press conference, deferring to Tuesday's unveiling of a plan that would resurrect the failing U.S. financial markets. Well, Wall Street took one whiff of Geithner's plan and then covered their noses... it was that bad! By the end of the day, the Dow Jones Average had tumbled more than $380 and the Nasdaq lost over 4 percent.
Geithner outlined the administration's plan to restart frozen credit markets and bolster the health of troubled banks. He said the economy will recover from its swoon only with the help of healthy financial institutions. But critics said the Obama administration's plan is neither well-funded enough to recapitalize troubled banks, nor detailed enough to assure investors that the government can solve the toxic asset problem plaguing banks. They say a key a key shortcoming of the Geithner plan is that it lacks the funding necessary to fully recapitalize troubled banks. The Treasury has $320 billion available under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but the administration said it won't ask Congress for additional money at the current time.
What's more, the four-point plan Geithner rolled out Tuesday earmarks $50 billion for foreclosure relief, $50 billion for a private-public toxic asset-removal partnership and grants as much as $100 billion to a plan to restart markets for securities backed by consumer loans.
That leaves around $120 billion in the Treasury kitty for bolstering the capital of banks - which, observers say, would barely be enough to recapitalize one troubled giant institution, let alone a roomful.
One chief economist said, "$120 billion isn't even walking-around money in a financial crisis."
He said the government should be prepared to spend at least $1 trillion to recapitalize troubled financial institutions - and that it should demand that the recipients take appropriate action in return, such as changing management, reconstituting their boards and selling assets. The Paulson Treasury didn't exact any action from the banks, and the Geithner Plan doesn't include any either... it's like the bankers are untouchable.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: this isn't a good showing from the Obama Administration. everyday people are not going to feel better about the bailouts and the stimulus packages until those who are responsible for this mess are held accountable. the TARP fund needs to be increased and access to those funds must come with serious strings attached.
we are watching as wall street slowly pisses away one trillion dollars while snubbing its collective noses at Obama... he inherited a mess and unfortunately, it's his responsibility to fix it!
"I’ve got to own up to my mistake, which is that ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes." - President Barack Obama explaining how he "screwed up" the handling of the nomination of Tom Daschle as the Health and Human Services secretary in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper
President Barack Obama on Tuesday admitted he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary, saying Daschle's tax problems sent a message that the politically powerful are treated differently from average people.
Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, withdrew earlier Tuesday as news that he failed to pay some taxes in the past continued to stir opposition on Capitol Hill.
In an interview with CNN newsman Anderson Cooper, Mr. Obama said, "...I screwed up. And I take responsibility for it and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again."
Daschle had apologized Monday for what he said were honest mistakes, calling them an embarrassment. The series of errors included improperly reporting $15,000 in charitable donations, failing to list $80,000 in lobbying income due to what Daschle said was a paperwork error, and not reporting as income a car and driver loaned to him by a friend and business associate.
Later in the interview, Mr. Obama said, "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. And I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards -- one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."
Daschle was the second Obama appointee to resign due to income tax-related issues. Earlier in the day, Nancy Killefer, who was Mr. Obama’s nominee for chief White House performance officer, withdrew her name from consideration after it was revealed that she had a nanny tax problem. And even though he was confirmed for the Treasury post, Tim Geithner also had his share of income tax woes.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: daschle's tax problem was more egregious than the other nominees and i personally feel that President Obama took too long to remove his name from consideration.
i love the fact that the president is confident enough to admit to his mistake and take responsibility for his error (george bush and hillary clinton are you listening?), instead of going into spin mode and rationalizing his decision to stick with daschle.
Washington, DC returned to partisan politics as the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package Wednesday on a party-line vote, despite President Obama's efforts to achieve bipartisan support for the bill. The final vote was 244 to 188; no Republicans voted for the bill, while only 11 Democrats voted against it. The Senate is likely to take up the bill next week.
One week ago, President Obama spoke of moving forward in a bipartisan manner, especially in healing the ailing economy, but the Republicans balked at signing on to the bill because they claim it lacks enough tax relief. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R - OH) said, "The underlying bill, while it has some good provisions, has a lot of wasteful provisions and slow-moving spending in it. We have to act -- we have to heal the ailing economy. The question is how to do it best; we think that fast-acting tax relief is the way to get it done."
President Obama has not given up on garnering more support before the Senate passes the bill, "I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do."
~ ~ ~
The bill has five main components:
Infrastructure Fund the rebuilding of crumbling roads and bridges, water and sewer initiatives, and mass transit systems ($90 billion); rebuild and modernize public schools ($142 billion); weatherize low-income homes, modernize federal buildings, update the nation's electrical grid to a "smart" grid, and double production of alternative energy sources ($54 billion); modernize the health care system ($20 billion); and invest in upgraded science facilities and expand broadband Internet access in rural and underserved areas ($16 billion).
plez sez: This was probably the area of biggest of concern to Republicans, as it may lead to large deficits and there is little or no tax benefit to businesses in this area. My concern is the length of time for these initiatives to actually begin to spur job growth around the country.
Relief to States Increase Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage so states don't have to cut Medicaid due to budget shortfalls ($87 billion); and provide funding for law enforcement to states and municipalities ($4 billion).
plez sez: With the number of Americans unemployed or underemployed, it is a good idea to address healthcare for them. This provision of the bill doesn't do much to spur job growth.
A Safety Net Temporary programs to help the majority of Americans who will be devastated by the ongoing effects of the recession with an increase in unemployment insurance assistance to the states ($43 billion); Cobra tax credit to help pay for discounted health care ($39 billion); and an increase in food stamp benefits, and support for food banks, school lunch programs and WIC ($20 billion).
plez sez: Very few people get laid off with golden parachutes and large caches of savings, this will help stem the tide of rising healthcare costs and put food on the table for millions.
Tax Cuts for Individuals Middle-class tax cut of $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples ($145 billion); low-income tax cut in the form of expanded Earned Income Tax Credit provisions ($5 billion); and an increase in the child tax credit ($18 billion).
plez sez: For some strange reason, plezWorld never gets to take advantage of these tax cuts! I would love it if this tax cut went higher up the wage scale and increased the amount of the tax cut. And honestly, $1,000 ain't gonna go far in this economy!
Tax Cuts for Businesses Increased small business write-offs from $125,000 to $250,000 and up to $17 billion in tax cuts (over 10 years) for businesses that lose money.
plez sez: There isn't much in this stimulus package for businesses (only 2.7 percent of total package is allocated to business). The size of this package needs to be increased significantly to provide relief to struggling businesses. I would love to see the issue of the credit crunch and the mortgage companies addressed, as well... until the banking industry is righted (i.e., they start loaning money to individuals and businesses) this economy will continue to falter.
~ ~ ~
In Other News: Girl Scout cookies are dealing with the fallout of the recession. It won't be your imagination that it was easier to go through a box of Girl Scout cookies at one setting. The Girl Scouts of the USA confirmed Wednesday that it has reduced the number of cookies per box to save money because of rising transportation and baking costs.
The combined cost increase prompted the organization to "lower the net weight of our cookie boxes slightly rather than ask our customers to pay a higher per-package price during these difficult times," Michelle Tompkins, a national Girl Scout spokeswoman said in a written statement.
There will be two to four fewer cookies in boxes of Thin Mints, Peanut Butter Sandwiches, Shortbread Cookies, DoSiDos and Trefoils. The Girl Scouts also reduced the size of some cookies, but Thin Mint lovers shouldn't worry that their sweet snacks will get any slimmer: Only the Lemon Chalet Cremes will change shape.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: i agree that something must be done quickly, but the bank bailout hasn't done much for the economy, i'm skeptical about the effectiveness of an infrastructure and roads program to jumpstart the economy.
this recession may have to run its course and congress will only be able to soften the effects of the bad economy.
~ ~ ~
i had hoped that the republicans would get on-board to make this a more bipartisan effort. the democrats will have to be very careful going forward about moving their agenda, any big gaffes will make it relatively easy for the republicans to re-take both houses in mid-term elections in two years.
As the day continued on Monday, more and more U.S. companies announced job cuts. On the heels of their acquisition of Wyeth, Pfizer announced that 20,000 jobs will be shed in the deal (in yesterday's post about the acquisition, plezWorld predicted job cuts).
Last Friday, I was speaking with one of my fraternity brothers who works for Home Depot. He spoke of the axe falling on them on Monday morning. Well, as he predicted, Home Depot announced the loss of 7,000 jobs, mainly with the closure of their EXPO Design Centers - high-end decor stores. Home Depot's losses are a direct result of the catastrophic mortgage mess and depressed housing market - no new homes means no shopping for home improvement.
All told, over 70,000 job cuts were announced on Monday, with over 200,000 jobs lost in the first month of 2009.
Announced Job Loss Count in 2009
Circuit City
30,000
Pfizer
26,000
Caterpillar
20,000
Alcoa
13,500
Sprint Nextel
8,000
TDK Corporation
8,000
Home Depot
7,000
ING
7,000
Intel
6,000
Microsoft
5,000
Boeing
4,500
Motorola
4,500
Hertz
4,000
Texas Instruments
3,400
Barclay's
2,100
Williams-Sonoma
1,400
ConocoPhillips
1,300
Advanced Micro Devices
1,100
Saks Fifth Avenue
1,100
Blue Cross Blue Shield
1,000
Walgreens
1,000
Macy's
900
Google
100
~ ~ ~
plez sez: when will the bloodbath end?!? this recession feels a lot worse than the internet bubble burst in 2000 (i lost my job back then, too, but it didn't seem to be this wide ranging and all-encompassing).
later this week, plezWorld will take a look at the proposed Obama Stimulus Plan to see how he plans to put me back to work! *smile*
In the first weekly address of his administration, President Obama asked for swift action on his economic stimulus plan.
plez sez: unemployment rates have soared to unprecedented levels as the economy has continued to falter. i hate to watch another stimulus plan, as the wall street bailout and the auto bailout and the mortgage bailout has failed to move the needle on the current recession. i am afraid of throwing another trillion dollars on untrackable and unnecessary measures that will never touch everyday americans.
but it appears that by doing nothing, the economy will continue to get worse before it shows any improvement.
President Obama's plan "promises" an investment in job growth that touches many areas of the economy: infrastructure, schools, local government, etc. for that reason, and that reason alone, i will support the Obama Plan and hope that my congressmen (senators and representative) sign on their support.
CNN.com reports that Ty (maker of Beanie Babies) denies that the Obama girls are inspiration for their newly released Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia.
Ty Senior Vice President of Sales Tania Lundeen said, "Sasha and Malia are beautiful names [that] worked very well with the dolls we were making. There's really nothing on either doll that refers to anything else that you may have read in the media today."
~ ~ ~
Michelle Obama has issued a statement through her press secretary that decries the release of these toys:
"We feel it is inappropriate to use young, private citizens for marketing purposes."
~ ~ ~
plez sez: so this toy company is saying that it is a mere coincidence that President Obama's two precocious daughters have the same names as two newly released Black dolls!
how gullible or stupid do you have to be to believe that line?!?
ms. lundeen goes on to say, "[...the] company avoids naming dolls for 'any particular living individual' because it might interfere with how kids use their imaginations to play with them. When children play, they play with the dolls how they wish, and we don't want to impose any preconceived ideas upon them by implying any further connection."
hmmmm... like they used their imagination while dreaming up names of dolls that are identical to those of the daughters of the newly elected President of the United States?
but these are the ONLY TWO Black dolls in their entire 30 doll line! maybe there's some legal issue with using living peoples' names... probably an issue with paying a royalty or such to the person in question. i think Ty should go ahead and pony up some royalties to the Obama girls, because plezWorld ain't buying their coincidence story, since Sasha and Malia aren't even common names for Black girls... yet!
Earlier this week, Apple said that is would remove anticopying restrictions on all songs in the iTunes Store and allow record companies to set a range of prices that consumers pay for the songs. Presently, you cannot copy songs in iTunes from one computer to another... even if you own both computers! And Apple had set the price for all music at 99 cents (last year, they started selling some premium songs for $1.29).
Beginning this week, three of the four major music labels — Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group — will begin selling music through iTunes without digital rights management software, or D.R.M., which controls the copying and use of digital files. The fourth, EMI, was already doing so. And with the copying restrictions removed, people will be able to freely shift the songs they buy on iTunes among computers, phones and other digital devices.
Instead, the majority of songs will drop to 69 cents beginning in April, while the biggest hits and newest songs will go for $1.29. Others that are moderately popular will remain at 99 cents.
The music industry has been in a slump for the past few years, and the on-going recession is not helping. Sales of CDs fell 20 percent last year from 2007. About 2.4 billion songs were bought on iTunes in the last year, aided by Apple’s expansion into international markets. But that was not nearly enough to make up for losses in traditional retail stores.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: ding! dong! the wicked witch is dead!
to my way of thinking, the ONLY drawback to using iTunes (and the iPod) was the lack of portability of the music. in my house, my wife, the SugarPlum, and i each have our own iPods. since i travel, i like having music on my laptop as well as my iPod. now, i'll be able to copy my music library onto my laptop.
i love old soul and funk... i never understood why i had to pay 99 cents for a song whether it had just come out or if it had been out for over 30 years! a tiered pricing approach makes more sense.
In an August 2006 interview Peter Schiff generated much controversy when he repeated his long-held investment thesis: "The United States economy is like the Titanic and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship ...I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States."
On May 16, 2006 in debate on Fox News, Schiff accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon burst. On December 13, 2007 in a Bloomberg interview on the show Open Exchange, Schiff further added that he felt that the crisis would extend to the credit card lending industry.
Following this observation, it was soon reported on December 23, 2007 by the Associated Press that "The value of credit card accounts at least 30 days late jumped 26 percent to $17.3 billion in October from a year earlier at 17 large credit card trusts examined by the AP... At the same time, defaults -- when lenders essentially give up hope of ever being repaid and write off the debt -- rose 18 percent to almost $961 million in October, according to filings made by the trusts with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Peter Schiff in 2006 & 2007:
plez sez: peter schiff was on it:
he called mortgage crisis and meltdown of the subprime market
he called the massive debt and credit crunch
he called the recession will last several years
he called the fundamentals of the economy are not sound
he called the collapse of merril lynch and goldman sachs and jp morgan
The evidence of a recession has been widespread for months: slower production, stagnant wages and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Even plezWorld was downsized earlier this year.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy. The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures. The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.
The recession announcement came on a day when the American stock market fell nearly 9 percent in a single session. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 679.95 points (the fourth worst drop in history) or 7.7 percent. There have only been three days in market history with bigger point losses for the Dow - the Monday after the Sept. 11 attacks, and Sept. 29 and Oct. 15 of this year. Investors have long assumed that the country was in recession, and analysts said that after last week’s gains, including the biggest five-day rally in decades, a sell-off was to be expected.
Still, Monday’s losses were striking, and they reminded investors that nothing can be predicted in today’s environment. The major indexes fell by hundreds of points from the start, led by huge declines in shares of financial firms. Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley shares all dropped nearly 20 percent. Most other major Wall Street banks were also in double-digit percentage declines. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was down 8.9 percent, and the Nasdaq fell 8.95 percent. The S.&P. and the Dow are back to their levels of last Monday, erasing nearly four days of gains. Crude oil futures for January delivery settled Monday at $49.34 barrel, down $5.09. in New York trading.
The country entered a recession exactly one year ago, at least according to the Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is made up of seven prominent economists, most from the academic sector. The group made their official announcement on Monday that the economy entered a recession in December 2007.
“A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators,” the members said in a statement. “A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough.”
This is the first official recession since 2001, when the economy suffered after the bursting of the technology bubble. The period of expansion lasted 73 months, from November 2001 to December 2007. The manufacturing industry suffered its worst month since 1982, according to a closely watched index published by the private Institution for Supply Management. The index fell to 36.2 in November from 38.9 in October, on a scale where readings below 50 indicate contraction. That was the worst monthly reading since 1982, and a sign that the worldwide credit crisis was taking a serious toll on American businesses. New orders fell sharply, although export orders held steady from October.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: i didn't need the NBER to tell me that the US is in a recession... i can look at my bank account and whimpering 401(k) to tell me that!
but to hear that we've been wallowing in a recession for over a year before they "announced" it pure bull! based on some past recessions that lasted less than 11 months, we would already be in the recovery phase. but i get the strange feeling that this one is going to cut alittle deeper and last longer than 11 months. there have been no reduction in the number of monthly job losses, the credit crunch hasn't eased, homes are still going into foreclosure, crude oil prices (along with the dow average) are crashing... and the wall street bailout hasn't trickled down to main street, yet.
Look at this picture of Gov. Sarah Palin (in her Alaska governor days); she's loping around Juneau with her hair looking all crazy in that dog-tired brown warmup jacket and a pair of moose-skin boots. Fast forward to her appearances as Sen. John McCain's number two; see the flashy high-end shoes, upgraded and stylish outfits, expensive looking leather jacket. Hmmmm... something happened between then and now... something big... something with a bunch of zeros after it!
It has been reported by Politico.com that the Republican National Committee (RNC) has spent more than $150,000 on fashionable clothes for Sarah Palin since she was named McCain's running mate. Yeah, all those Joe Six-Packs and hockey moms and Joe the Plumbers out there who make a fraction of that in one year, the ones who've been watching their 401(k)'s disappear like water swirling in the bowl after a successful visit by Joe the Plumber have been hootin' and hollerin' for a woman who has spent double or triple their income in clothes over the past seven weeks.
And mind you, she hasn't been shopping in Sears, or Steinmart, or Wal-Mart, or JC Penney, or Belk like the everyday people she claims to represent. No, Ms. Palin has been ringing the registers in places like Saks Fifth Avenue in Manhattan (to the tune of $49,425) and Neiman-Marcus in Minneapolis (at $75,062). Now I'm sure the McCain campaign wanted to spruce her up from her velour jogging suits and ratty house dresses that she wore in Wasilla, AK, but spending $150,000 on someone who would only be campaigning for little more than 10 weeks? That comes out to about $15,000 a week... just for clothes! Just imagine what its costing to fuel that jet that has her jumping from swing state to swing state?
Politico.com goes into detail with the expenditures:
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).
Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.
The entries also show two purchases at Pacifier, a top-notch baby store, suggesting $196 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.
Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment on Monday, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.
Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.
“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said. But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.
Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.
Read the entire Politico.com article about Palin's wardrobe upgrade here.
Read the New York Times article about Palin's clothes here.
Read Campbell Brown's opinion piece on CNN.com that forgives Palin's new wardrobe here.
plez sez: even plezWife - the stylista that she is - has been impressed with the outfits of the "new" sarah palin (but she's not a fan of the red leather jacket). until yesterday, i had argued that she was just a stylish woman who i didn't happen to agree with politically... my wife insisted that they had given palin the "eliza doolittle" treatment after she was picked as mccain's running mate... i guess my wife wins this argument.
the RNC did say that they would give the clothes to charity, but to my way of thinking, stuff from neiman-marcus (or "needless-markup") isn't very functional and may lead to riot conditions at the wasilla salvation army!
plezWorld thinks she should just keep the new and extravagant clothes as payment for being made an ass of as john mccain's running mate, when he knew damn well after 2 minutes of talking to the bimbo that she wasn't qualified to be his (or anyone's) vice president - right, carly fiorina?
i know that if she keeps the clothes, they'll be taxed as income. but like Beyonce', the RNC said, "Sarah baby, let me UPGRADE U!"
...and sarah palin did a marie antoinette, "let those hockey moms eat cake!"
[Palin] let me upgrade U, flip a new page Introduce U to some new things and Upgrade U, I can up, can I up, let me upgrade U [Palin] let me upgrade U
U sure to see stars, this is high level, not eye level My bezel courtesy of Audemars I'll Orders yours tomorrow now, look at the time I saved U Mama let me upgrade U
Just when U think U had it all Big ends, car notes, collectin' cars Picture your life elevated with me Make U my project celebrity I'll keep your name HOT in the streets
[Palin] let me upgrade U, flip a new page Introduce U to some new things and Upgrade U, I can up, can I up, let me upgrade U [Palin] let me upgrade U
Over the past 24 hours, Sen. John McCain finally released his plan, called "the pension and family security plan," which builds on the senator's "American home ownership resurgence plan," which he introduced during last week's debate. His announcement comes on the heels of an Obama announcement on Monday and speculation by his campaign surrogates that something was in the offing.
McCain's "Pension and Family Security Plan":
That home owner proposal that McCain released last week called for using $300 billion of the $700 billion financial bailout package to keep Americans in their homes, stop declining housing values, and stabilize the financial markets. The proposal has the federal government buying all of the mortgages of houses whose property values have declined and then refinance them for the homeowner... projected cost: $300 million.
McCain's new plan includes specific proposals to help seniors, those saving money and homeowners.
The plan will help seniors by lowering taxes on withdrawals from their retirement accounts and suspending tax rules that force them to sell their stocks during the financial crisis, the campaign said.
The plan will help those saving money by accelerating the tax write-offs for those forced to sell stocks at a loss in the current market and reducing capital gains taxes for 2009 and 2010 to raise the incentive to save and invest, according to the campaign.
To provide relief for homeowners, the plan includes a proposal to purchase mortgages directly from the homeowners and mortgage servicers and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages.
To assist workers, the plan would eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits, according to the campaign.
Sen. Barack Obama has called McCain's plan "a day late and 101 million middle-class families short."
On Monday, Obama released his four-part "economic rescue plan" for the middle class.
Obama's "Economic Rescue Plan":
Obama's plan proposes a temporary tax credit of $3,000 for firms that create new jobs in the United States over the next two years, and penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s in 2008 and 2009.
The Democratic candidate called for new legislation that would give families the option of withdrawing as much as 15 percent of their retirement savings --- up to a maximum of $10,000 --- without facing a tax penalty this year or next. He also called for a temporary lifting of taxes on unemployment insurance benefits.
The Illinois senator also proposed a 90-day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners acting in good faith, and a new effort to address the growing credit crisis at the state and local level.
Under the Obama plan, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury would provide much the same kind of backing to state and municipal governments as the recent federal bailout did to the commercial credit market.
"We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now -- who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills," Obama said. "We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class ... and we need to do it right now."
Calculate your household savings with the Obama Plan vs. the McCain Plan:
Read the CNN.com article about McCain's economic plan here.
Read the CNN.com article about Obama's economic plan here.
Read the New York Times article that compares the two plans here.
Read and download the Obama campaign PDF that does a side-by-side comparison of the two plans here.
plez sez: using Obama's calculator, my family will save about $1300 in taxes under the Obama plan and around $220 in taxes under the McCain plan.
later tonight, both candidates will get the opportunity to speak to their plans in more detail in the final presidential debate... where mccain promised to beat Obama's "you-know-what"!
The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s.
Today, we are bailing out financial institutions who are feeling the brunt of their risky investments and unregulated activities of the past decade. Well, back in the late 1980's, Lincoln Savings & Loan was a failed financial institution that went under due to risky investments and unregulated activities. Over 20,000 Americans lost all of their money and the cost of the savings and loan crisis amounted to $120 billion.
Sen. John McCain was one of five US Senators (Alan Cranston of California, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and both Arizona senators, Dennis DeConcini and McCain) who were accused of improperly aiding his political patron, Charles Keating, chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee launched investigations and formally reprimanded Senator McCain for his role in the scandal - the first such Senator to receive a major party nomination for president. At the heart of the scandal was Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which took advantage of deregulation in the 1980s to make risky investments with its depositors' money. McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry -- actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers.
When the savings and loan industry collapsed, Keating's failed company put taxpayers on the hook for $3.4 billion and more than 20,000 Americans lost their savings. John McCain was reprimanded by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, but the ultimate cost of the crisis to American taxpayers reached more than $120 billion.
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has put together a short documentary that brings Sen. McCain's involvement with the Keating 5, his support of the savings and loan scandal, and how his policies have brought our economic chickens home to roost during the current economic challenges.
"Keating Economics - John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis"
The LA Times recently ran a story that connects the dots between the savings and loans scandal of the 1980's, the Wall Street bailout of 2008, and John McCain.
"Keating 5 ring a bell?" By Rosa Brooks, LA Times September 25, 2008
Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.
That politician was John McCain, and his generous friend was Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings & Loan. While he was courting McCain and other senators and urging them to oppose tougher regulation of S&Ls, Keating was also investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keating tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up -- and more than 20,000 Lincoln customers saw their savings vanish.
Keating went to prison, and McCain's Senate career almost ended. Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five -- Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Don Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf -- McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded for "poor judgment."
But the savings and loan crisis mushroomed. Eventually, the government spent about $125 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out hundreds of failed S&Ls that, like Keating's, fell victim to a combination of private-sector greed and the "poor judgment" of politicians like McCain.
The $125 billion seems like small change compared to the $700-billion price tag for the Bush administration's proposed Wall Street bailout. But the root causes of both crises are the same: a lethal mix of deregulation and greed.
Today's meltdown began when unscrupulous mortgage lenders pushed naive borrowers to sign up for loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The original lenders didn't care: They pocketed the upfront fees and quickly sold the loans to others, who sold them to others still. With the government MIA, soon mortgage-backed securities were zipping around the globe. But by the time many ordinary people began to struggle to make their mortgage payments, the numerous "good" loans (held by borrowers able to pay) had gotten hopelessly mixed up with the bad loans. Investors and banks started to panic about being left with the hot potato -- securities backed mainly by worthless loans. And so began the downward spiral of a credit crunch, short-selling, stock sell-offs and bankruptcies.
Could all this have been prevented? Sure. It's not rocket science: A sensible package of regulatory reforms -- like those Barack Obama has been pushing since well before the current meltdown began -- could have kept this most recent crisis from escalating, just as maintaining reasonable regulatory regimes for S&Ls in the '80s could have prevented that crisis (McCain learned this the hard way).
But, despite his political near-death experience as a member of the Keating Five, McCain continued to champion deregulation, voting in 2000, for instance, against federal regulation of the kind of financial derivatives at the heart of today's crisis.
Shades of the Keating Five scandal don't end there. This week, for instance, news broke that until August, the lobbying firm owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac, one of the mortgage giants implicated in the current crisis (now taken over by the government and under investigation by the FBI). Apparently, Freddie Mac's plan was to gain influence with McCain's campaign in hopes that he would help shield it from pesky government regulations. And until very recently, Freddie Mac executives probably figured money paid to Davis' firm was money well spent. "I'm always in favor of less regulation," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March.
These days, McCain is singing a different tune.
"There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week, explaining the sudden mass conversion of so many onetime free marketeers into champions of robust government intervention. Fair enough. But as you try to figure out what and who can get us out of this mess, beware of those who now embrace regulation with the fervor of new converts.
Read the entire LA Times article about John McCain's tie with Charles Keating here.
Read the CNN.com article about increase in US bank failures here.
Read the CNN.com article about the Obama documetary that ties John McCain's involvement with the Keating 5 to today's economic disasters here and here.
plez sez: financial institutions are the stewards of our capitalistic society which in turn in the backbone of our democracy. when these institutions fail in their stewardship of our economic engine, it is a blow to our national security. it is a wonder that the government supports these financial institutions the autonomy to run unregulated as long as they are making money and greasing the skids of the economy, but this same "free market" government is so quick to "rescue" these institutions when their risky investments are the cause of their failed stewardship.
sen. john mccain lacks the honor and authority to be the president of the united states. he was knee deep in the keating 5 scandal, barely escaping with his political life after offering his act of contrition. fast forward 20 years, he is still a flawed character with no moral center and no authority to act in our current (and exceedingly familiar) crisis... only this time, the bill to the american people has grown five-fold.
mccain plays petty politics by calling off his campaign and heading back to washington, where he does NOTHING for 48 hours, only to resume his campaign in time to participate in a debate after his presidential rival calls his bluff. mccain doesn't even have a good poker face!
instead of LEADING (as he claimed), he falls in lockstep with the democratic leadership in congress and pushes for a quick and hastily drafted bill that turns over the keys to a failing wall street. instead of standing on the principles he so proudly crows about, mccain goes ahead and rewards those deregulated financial institutions for taking advantage of deregulation! as is his pattern, john mccain lacks character and moral authority when it comes to regulations and the financial industry.
this wall street bailout is hitting a little to close to home... it is no wonder that mccain wants to change the subject away from the economy!
Do-overs are usually reserved for kids on the playground and a rare mulligan is often offered to a novice golfer, but they are rarely seen at the top tier of American politics. Only 2 days after the Senate passed an updated and bloated version of the Wall Street Bailout Bill, the House of Representatives took up the measure again on Friday afternoon and delivered the "bacon" that President George Bush had sought.
If you recall, this whole mess began last week when Treasury Secretary Paulson presented congressional leaders with a 3-page treatment that Bush wanted enacted with the utmost urgency. That 3 pager turned into a 100-page House version, which was soundly rejected. That 100-page House version was pumped up with earmarks and "sweeteners" to enhance the taste and easily passed the Senate at 451 pages! The Senate version is what passed on Friday.
The "sweeteners" in the updated bill include:
An increase in the amount that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will insure in bank accounts: to $250,000, up from $100,000
A fix that would prevent middle-class taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax
A number of tax extensions favored by either Republicans or Democrats
Tax exemptions for renewable energy
A measure that would require health insurers to treat mental health issues the same way they treat physical illnesses
Even though, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was on board for the bill from the start, House Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) did not follow his lead and voted "no" on Monday. He did make calls to a number of CBC members, which prompted them to change their vote to "aye." Those included Georgia CBC members John Lewis, David Scott, and Sanford Bishop. In a surprising act of gumption, my congressman, Hank Johnson, voted "no" on Monday and on Friday!
The bill passed by a vote of 263-171, with the Republicans (and Hank Johnson) of the Georgia delegation voting "no." President Bush wasted no time - it was about two hours after the vote in the House - in signing the bill into law.
The Georgia Delegation vote:
John Barrow, Democrat, of Savannah: No
Sanford Bishop, Democrat of Albany: Yes
Paul Broun, Republican of Athens: No
Nathan Deal, Republican of Gainesville: No
Phil Gingrey, Republican of Marietta: No
Hank Johnson, Democrat of Lithonia: No (plezWorld's congressman)
Jack Kingston, Republican of Savannah: No
John Lewis, Democrat of Atlanta: Yes
John Linder, Republican of Duluth: No
Jim Marshall, Democrat of Macon: Yes
Tom Price, Republican of Roswell: No
David Scott, Democrat of Atlanta: Yes
Lynn Westmoreland, Republican of Grantville: No
Read and download a summary of the final version of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" PDF LINK
Read and download a section-by-section analysis of the final version of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" PDF LINK
Read and download all 451 pages of the final version of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" PDF LINK
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Read the AJC.com article about how the Georgia Delegation voted here.
Read the CNNMoney.com article about Bush signing the Wall Street Bailout Bill here.
Read the CNN.com articles about the political side of the Wall Street Bailout Law here and here.
Read the New York Times article about the House's vote on the Wall Street Bailout Bill here.
plez sez: well, the House capitulated and passed the legislation. unfortunately, they buckled under the pressure from House and Senate leaders and a lame duck President and too much sizzlin' bacon to pass up the opportunity to lap up the swill from the trough!
the bill (which is now law) was forced down the throats of the Americans who are left holding the bag for the companies that got us into this mess. there is very little in the law that addresses those who have lost their homes to foreclosure, those companies who can't meet the payroll this week, or those folk who've had to file for bankruptcy already.
as plezWorld predicted, politics prevailed and the weasels that were sent to washington to protect the common man couldn't gird their loins against the onslaught of high pressure salesmanship by their leadership. i do applaud my congressman - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) - for standing on principle and voting against this measure!
that $700 billion could've gone to protect the 600,000 Americans who've lost their jobs this year from foreclosure and bankruptcy... instead that money will go to reward the very institutions who abhor the government when they are reaping billions of dollars of profit, yet are lined up at the government teat as soon as their risky schemes go south.
this economy is STILL in shambles and even after being signed into law, the dow jones finished the day with a loss of over 150 points! this law fixes nothing and george bush doesn't repair his god-awful credibility with the US. and mark my words, wall street will be back within 12 months when we have a new president with new cache in congress.
the LAMEST of lame duck presidents suckered an opposition party-led congress into action again... a sad day in america, indeed!
~ husband ~ father ~ son ~ brother ~ mentor ~ subdivision dweller ~ northern by birth ~ southern by choice ~ raised a black baptist, now guided by the spiritual ~ raised a kennedy democrat, now politically dead center (moderate) ~ raised in a Cadillac Coupe Deville, now hooked on an SUV ~ college educated and still a student of life ~ wild college frat boy and now a settled alumnus ~ intellectual yet fun-loving geek ~ technical and leading edge ~ corporate cog ~ consultant ~ college football saturday devotee ~ and a ramblin' gamblin' helluva engineer (GO JACKETS!) ~
This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine; and they are in no way associated with the views of my employer, family, friends, or associates.
Posts
