We'll always have Paris
Patrice Lewis
Oct 11, 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php
?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77633
No doubt you've heard that the House of Representatives passed the $700-plus billion bailout of the U.S. financial system, thus shackling American citizens into an abyss of debt unprecedented in history. Unfortunately, it hasn't helped the stock market, which continues to fluctuate to an alarming degree. Americans are bracing for an unknown economic future.
But on the bright side, you'll be happy to know that Britney Spears is planning to launch a new line of fitness videos capitalizing on her amazing physical recovery after having kids.
European markets are being impacted by the widening economic spiral. (Iceland is close to bankruptcy.) Stocks worldwide are free-falling. Investors are taking an understandably bleak view of the future because no one sees an end to the crisis.
But all this fades in importance when we consider that Kim Kardashian got booted off "Dancing with the Stars." I consider this much more shocking than the potential for another Great Depression.
The Bush administration is considering taking part ownership of certain U.S. banks as an option for dealing with the global credit crisis (socialism, anyone?), but I'm relieved to learn that Beyonce's marriage to Jay-Z is real. "It's not about interviews or getting the right photo-op," she assured Essence Magazine. "It's real." Phew.
Honestly, it's the most incredible disconnect imaginable. I'll log onto the Internet, concerned about the state of the economy or the presidential election ... only to be faced with screaming headlines about some Hollywood twit's latest personal meltdown, scandal, serial marriage or wardrobe malfunction.
What is with us, anyway? Why do any of us really give a rat's rear end about Brangelina or Madonna or Britney or Lindsey or whomever?
Now, I realize that nothing but a constant diet of sobering domestic and international bad news could result in a serious case of mental depression, but on the other hand Americans seem obsessed with the fluff and blather of celebrities to the exclusion of serious issues.
If you stop someone on the street and ask them about Barney Frank's role in the stock dives of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, they'll probably reply "Barney who?" But if you ask them about Ashlee Simpson-Wentz's white-trash birthday bash, you'll probably get a diatribe worthy of Bill O'Reilly.
If I wanted to enter the realm of deep, dark conspiracy theory, I would say that our obsession with celebrities to the exclusion of serious concerns is encouraged. It's so handy, after all, when the American sheeple are anesthetized into complaisance by the latest news of Ellen DeGeneres' love life or Amy Winehouse's sobriety issues. That way we're too preoccupied to object when the government fetters our great-grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt and sells our American souls to terrorists. By filling our brains with Jennifer Lopez and Tom Cruise, we don't notice Wall Street bailouts or congressional peccadilloes.
Even schools encourage (or at least surrender to) celebrity obsession by assigning essays based on sitcom viewing rather than, say, classic literature. Wonderful.
So, while the government (once again) ignores the wishes of 70 percent of the population and unconstitutionally grabs more power than at any time since the Great Depression, at least our school kids can sharpen their rhetorical skills by discussing Heather Locklear's DUI.
Showing posts with label $700 billion bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label $700 billion bailout. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Paulson's Reasons for Delaying Day of Reckoning
Paulson's Reasons for Delaying Day of Reckoning
Jonathan Weil
Oct 02, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&
refer=columnist_weil&sid=aMaWyNFImi4o
If you think this bailout is expensive, just wait until you see the next one.
The $700 billion rescue plan approved by the U.S. Senate won't fix the core problem with the nation's ailing financial institutions. And it almost guarantees that you and I will have to pony up for an even costlier bailout someday, maybe soon, if the House of Representatives passes it tomorrow.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has correctly identified the quandary: Lots of shaky banks and insurance companies are showing strangely high values for assets that aren't worth squat in the market. Many need more capital and can't raise it. And he's right in saying the outlook is grim if we don't get this fixed.
What's stunning is how little the taxpayers would get in return for their money under Paulson's package, and how illusory much of the banks' newly minted capital would be.
Under the plan, Treasury would buy some companies' troubled assets at above-market values. To boost their capital, Paulson would have to pay the companies more than what their balance sheets say the assets are worth. Then other companies would use the rigged prices to write up, or avoid writing down, the values of similar holdings on their own books.
So, the taxpayers get hosed on the asset purchases. Other banks use the trumped-up prices to cook their books. And investor confidence supposedly is restored.
That brings us to this question: Why would a smart guy like Hank Paulson -- the former boss of Goldman Sachs -- advance such a dumb, shady plan? Let us count the reasons:
No. 1: It delays our national reckoning until after the presidential election.
No. 2: The reckoning will be worse than you can imagine.
No. 3: He's helping his friends.
No. 4: There's an excellent chance the Congress will pass it. Leave someone else to figure out the costs another day.
Jonathan Weil
Oct 02, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&
refer=columnist_weil&sid=aMaWyNFImi4o
If you think this bailout is expensive, just wait until you see the next one.
The $700 billion rescue plan approved by the U.S. Senate won't fix the core problem with the nation's ailing financial institutions. And it almost guarantees that you and I will have to pony up for an even costlier bailout someday, maybe soon, if the House of Representatives passes it tomorrow.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has correctly identified the quandary: Lots of shaky banks and insurance companies are showing strangely high values for assets that aren't worth squat in the market. Many need more capital and can't raise it. And he's right in saying the outlook is grim if we don't get this fixed.
What's stunning is how little the taxpayers would get in return for their money under Paulson's package, and how illusory much of the banks' newly minted capital would be.
Under the plan, Treasury would buy some companies' troubled assets at above-market values. To boost their capital, Paulson would have to pay the companies more than what their balance sheets say the assets are worth. Then other companies would use the rigged prices to write up, or avoid writing down, the values of similar holdings on their own books.
So, the taxpayers get hosed on the asset purchases. Other banks use the trumped-up prices to cook their books. And investor confidence supposedly is restored.
That brings us to this question: Why would a smart guy like Hank Paulson -- the former boss of Goldman Sachs -- advance such a dumb, shady plan? Let us count the reasons:
No. 1: It delays our national reckoning until after the presidential election.
No. 2: The reckoning will be worse than you can imagine.
No. 3: He's helping his friends.
No. 4: There's an excellent chance the Congress will pass it. Leave someone else to figure out the costs another day.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Fed Pumps Further $630 Billion Into Financial System
Fed Pumps Further $630 Billion Into Financial System
Scott Lanman and Craig Torres
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601087&sid=ahwz_k5JvuB8
The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.
The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.
European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.
The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.
Scott Lanman and Craig Torres
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601087&sid=ahwz_k5JvuB8
The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.
The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.
European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.
The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
White House Claims Bailout Will Pay For Itself
White House Claims Bailout Will Pay For Itself
Ali Frick
Sep 25, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/25/bailout-payback/
To justify the exorbitant cost of the bailout for the financial industry, Bush administration officials have been repeating the dubious claim that American taxpayers should expect to recover much, if not all, of the proposed $700 billion:
PAULSON: This is not an expenditure. … Money will come back in.
BERNANKE: What’s clear is that the $700 billion is not an expenditure. There’s going to be a substantial amount of recovery.
BUSH: Money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold, and we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.
White House spokesmen Ed Gillespie and Tony Fratto appeared on Fox News, repeating that “a lot of that money, and maybe all of it, will come back.”
As Paul Krugman writes, “The premise of the Paulson plan — though never stated bluntly — is that these assets are hugely underpriced, so that Uncle Sam can buy them at prices that help the financial industry a lot, without big losses for taxpayers. Are you prepared to bet $700 billion on that premise?”
Krugman concludes, “The whole premise of the bailout push has been ‘We’re the grownups, we know what we’re doing, just trust us.’ Sorry, but that’s how Colin Powell sold the Iraq war. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice … you shouldn’t get fooled.”
Ali Frick
Sep 25, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/25/bailout-payback/
To justify the exorbitant cost of the bailout for the financial industry, Bush administration officials have been repeating the dubious claim that American taxpayers should expect to recover much, if not all, of the proposed $700 billion:
PAULSON: This is not an expenditure. … Money will come back in.
BERNANKE: What’s clear is that the $700 billion is not an expenditure. There’s going to be a substantial amount of recovery.
BUSH: Money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold, and we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.
White House spokesmen Ed Gillespie and Tony Fratto appeared on Fox News, repeating that “a lot of that money, and maybe all of it, will come back.”
As Paul Krugman writes, “The premise of the Paulson plan — though never stated bluntly — is that these assets are hugely underpriced, so that Uncle Sam can buy them at prices that help the financial industry a lot, without big losses for taxpayers. Are you prepared to bet $700 billion on that premise?”
Krugman concludes, “The whole premise of the bailout push has been ‘We’re the grownups, we know what we’re doing, just trust us.’ Sorry, but that’s how Colin Powell sold the Iraq war. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice … you shouldn’t get fooled.”
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Mark Cuban on the Financial Crisis
Mark Cuban on the Financial Crisis
Greta Van Susteren
Sep 25, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427644,00.html
Self-made billionaire and entrepreneur Mark Cuban went "On the Record" about the economic crisis facing the nation.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Mark, I want to start at the end and work backwards. What happens after the bail out?
MARK CUBAN, DALLAS MAVERICKS OWNER: Boy, that's a good question.
Let's just say we put $700 billion into the economy, we increase liquidity, and it all goes according to plan--except there's one problem. The people who will do the lending after the money is injected were the ones that were doing the lending before. These were guys who don't know how to bank the right way.
Related
So my guess is that they are going to be afraid to lend money. You're not going to see the effect of anybody being able to walk in, even with good credit, to borrow money for a house, to borrow money for a car.
VAN SUSTEREN: Does this financial crisis, for lack of a better word, that we're in--I know how it affects people who are lower income and middle income, but how about the rich guys? Does this have really any impact on you?
CUBAN: Oh, of course it has an impact, but we can rebound a lot more quickly. I had money in Lehman, and it's just gone.
VAN SUSTEREN: One of the things that sort of bothers people is it seems like the people that have a lot of responsibility in this are getting the bailout. Is there any other alternative that see instead of a bailout?
CUBAN: No. You're going to have to bailout, you're going to have to inject liquidity, you're going to have to take the bad loans and all the bad instruments off people's balance sheets.
All the social networking we talk about--we need to make sure that every transaction that takes place, wherever there is money injected, wherever there is a purchase made, all that is made available for all the citizens of the country to see.
Because it's not going to be an oversight board that catches problems. It's going to be the citizens of this country that go online and on a second by second basis that catch problems.
Because, I have to tell you, Wall Street is too smart. They can stay ahead of any board that any political entity appoints, but you are not going to be able to stay ahead of pure transparency, because the people of this country will get involved, pay attention, will realize $700 billion is at stake. And they'll also want to see if they're making money, because I think the second part of the fear is, yes, we may make money, but just like we don't know exactly where our tax money goes today, this money will go right in to the Treasury and somebody will earmark it, and it will be gone.
Greta Van Susteren
Sep 25, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427644,00.html
Self-made billionaire and entrepreneur Mark Cuban went "On the Record" about the economic crisis facing the nation.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Mark, I want to start at the end and work backwards. What happens after the bail out?
MARK CUBAN, DALLAS MAVERICKS OWNER: Boy, that's a good question.
Let's just say we put $700 billion into the economy, we increase liquidity, and it all goes according to plan--except there's one problem. The people who will do the lending after the money is injected were the ones that were doing the lending before. These were guys who don't know how to bank the right way.
Related
So my guess is that they are going to be afraid to lend money. You're not going to see the effect of anybody being able to walk in, even with good credit, to borrow money for a house, to borrow money for a car.
VAN SUSTEREN: Does this financial crisis, for lack of a better word, that we're in--I know how it affects people who are lower income and middle income, but how about the rich guys? Does this have really any impact on you?
CUBAN: Oh, of course it has an impact, but we can rebound a lot more quickly. I had money in Lehman, and it's just gone.
VAN SUSTEREN: One of the things that sort of bothers people is it seems like the people that have a lot of responsibility in this are getting the bailout. Is there any other alternative that see instead of a bailout?
CUBAN: No. You're going to have to bailout, you're going to have to inject liquidity, you're going to have to take the bad loans and all the bad instruments off people's balance sheets.
All the social networking we talk about--we need to make sure that every transaction that takes place, wherever there is money injected, wherever there is a purchase made, all that is made available for all the citizens of the country to see.
Because it's not going to be an oversight board that catches problems. It's going to be the citizens of this country that go online and on a second by second basis that catch problems.
Because, I have to tell you, Wall Street is too smart. They can stay ahead of any board that any political entity appoints, but you are not going to be able to stay ahead of pure transparency, because the people of this country will get involved, pay attention, will realize $700 billion is at stake. And they'll also want to see if they're making money, because I think the second part of the fear is, yes, we may make money, but just like we don't know exactly where our tax money goes today, this money will go right in to the Treasury and somebody will earmark it, and it will be gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)