Today the Senate voted for Ben Bernanke to remain as the Fed boss. The president saw this as a victory, and called Bernanke, "a critical leader in the nation’s recovery from recession." That's interesting. Did he lead our recovery from recession? Let's take a look.
In January 2009, before the announcement of Obama's stimulus package, the Congressional Budget Office released its projections for the US economy in the 10 year future. Within these predictions were the following; the unemployment rate with reach slightly over 9% in the beginning of 2010, and the total deficit will reach $1.2 trillion. Since the stimulus package was created to retard these negative projections, we should now be proud to present true figures that are better than the projections. Right?
Currently the unemployment rate is 9.7%, and the total US deficit has reached $1.41 trillion. Now let's get this straight. Bernanke is apparently leading the recovery from recession, yet the fraudulent stimulus package bailout has lead to pseudo-criminal proceedings, and the economy has actually performed worse than was predicted without a stimulus package? Why is he keeping his job again?
If it's any consolation, at a vote of 70-30, he received the worst approval of any Federal Reserve chairman in US history.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union
Before I vivisect tonight's presidential address, let me start by saying that Obama seems genuinely concerned for the future of the nation and troubled by recent congressional behavior. I think that some of the proposals spoken of this evening, if enacted, could easily improve the quality of living for millions of people.
With that being said, I'd like to start with a direct quote from Obama. "Let's try some common sense." Indeed, let's; for instance, how should the viewers react to the issue of education. As a current applicant to graduate schools, my mouth was watering at the proposals in the middle of the address. Some of these include abolishing taxes on student loans, issuing $10,000 tax credits to families with children in 4 year programs, increasing the value and volume of Pell grants (I have 2 right now), and allowing over one million alumni to limit their yearly loan payments to 10% of their total salaries for a maximum of 20 years after graduation. It would be an understatement to call this a vast improvement to the affordability of higher education.
There is a problem though, the president went on to explain the 3-year freeze that had been widely publicized earlier in the week. Such legislation would cut or freeze budget allocations to domestic programs. The only areas that will be not be frozen are national defense, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How are we supposed to expect such great changes in education if educational spending is to be frozen? Say it ain't so.
On a lighter note, Obama sent a challenge to congressional filibusterers on the topic of health care reform stating, "if anyone has a better plan for lowering premiums and bringing down the deficit, let me know." This seems to go hand in hand with the Congressional Budget Office's recently announced projections of the future economic deficit. Additionally, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a projected budget deficit in the event of passing or denying health care legislation. The consensus seems to be that the republican response to the challenge of health care reform is either misinformed or, more likely, just plain wrong. Health care, in addition to improving the lives of millions of uninsured Americans, would reduce the severity of the current recession. I honestly hope that the republican congressmen can produce the "better plan" that Obama asked for, since the current plan looks pretty convincing.
Now I'd like to address my favorite portion of tonight's speech. The president called for a internet source that would, "publish all earmark requests on a single website, so that we can see where our money is being spent." If this legislation is enacted, without the obvious ability to be destroyed by political nomenclature chaotics, it would save me and other bloggers a huge amount of time digging up the dirt on politicians.
My final comment is the least pragmatic of my current concerns with tonight's announcements. The concern is with Obama's statement with respect to our defense policies; specifically that we should, "do what we can to ensure a better future for our citizens and for the world." I think that any forward thinking American citizens, who take this statement as seriously as I do, would first demand that we remove the United States exemption to UN Security Council article 51. This would hold the US government responsible for pre-emptive military aggression that is deemed illegal to every other participatory member of the United Nations. This will virtually never happen, but everyone needs to be aware of why the international community condemns the current US presence in Iraq.
With that being said, I'd like to start with a direct quote from Obama. "Let's try some common sense." Indeed, let's; for instance, how should the viewers react to the issue of education. As a current applicant to graduate schools, my mouth was watering at the proposals in the middle of the address. Some of these include abolishing taxes on student loans, issuing $10,000 tax credits to families with children in 4 year programs, increasing the value and volume of Pell grants (I have 2 right now), and allowing over one million alumni to limit their yearly loan payments to 10% of their total salaries for a maximum of 20 years after graduation. It would be an understatement to call this a vast improvement to the affordability of higher education.
There is a problem though, the president went on to explain the 3-year freeze that had been widely publicized earlier in the week. Such legislation would cut or freeze budget allocations to domestic programs. The only areas that will be not be frozen are national defense, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How are we supposed to expect such great changes in education if educational spending is to be frozen? Say it ain't so.
On a lighter note, Obama sent a challenge to congressional filibusterers on the topic of health care reform stating, "if anyone has a better plan for lowering premiums and bringing down the deficit, let me know." This seems to go hand in hand with the Congressional Budget Office's recently announced projections of the future economic deficit. Additionally, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a projected budget deficit in the event of passing or denying health care legislation. The consensus seems to be that the republican response to the challenge of health care reform is either misinformed or, more likely, just plain wrong. Health care, in addition to improving the lives of millions of uninsured Americans, would reduce the severity of the current recession. I honestly hope that the republican congressmen can produce the "better plan" that Obama asked for, since the current plan looks pretty convincing.
Now I'd like to address my favorite portion of tonight's speech. The president called for a internet source that would, "publish all earmark requests on a single website, so that we can see where our money is being spent." If this legislation is enacted, without the obvious ability to be destroyed by political nomenclature chaotics, it would save me and other bloggers a huge amount of time digging up the dirt on politicians.
My final comment is the least pragmatic of my current concerns with tonight's announcements. The concern is with Obama's statement with respect to our defense policies; specifically that we should, "do what we can to ensure a better future for our citizens and for the world." I think that any forward thinking American citizens, who take this statement as seriously as I do, would first demand that we remove the United States exemption to UN Security Council article 51. This would hold the US government responsible for pre-emptive military aggression that is deemed illegal to every other participatory member of the United Nations. This will virtually never happen, but everyone needs to be aware of why the international community condemns the current US presence in Iraq.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
New Kids on the Block
With all the recent economic whirlwinding, the Obama administration decided to invite some new faces to the party. Timothy Geithner replaced Henry Paulson as the Secretary of the Treasury, while Geithner's previous mentor Lawrence Summers sits as the Director of the White House' National Economic Council. And thus the student becomes the teacher.
If the supposed revival of Glass-Steagall has a chance of seeing the light of day, we are going to need some seriously bright minds behind our economic policies. So are Geithner and Summers the right choices for tackling our fiscal demise? Let's take a look.
Tim Geithner
During the 2006 tax year, the IRS discovered Geithner had failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years, even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. But there's a cherry on top that's even funnier. As President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner annually completed an ethics statement noting any taxes due or unpaid, along with any other obligations.
Not convinced that he can run the US economy yet?
Under Geithner's direct endorsement, AIG received more that $170 billion in bailouts. AIG then provided $165 million in executive bonuses. Upon receiving this information, the Senate voted against legislation passed last March by the House of Representativs that would levy a 90% tax on the executive payments.
But, apparently, Geithner's corporate generosity has limits. In 2009, Geithner conspired alongside Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, in a successful attempt to block government provision of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. This resulted in their bankruptcy and is conceded as one of the major factors leading to our current economic state. Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics offers his opinion in a statement he gave the NY Times in November 2008:
All of these ‘rescues’ are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion.
Lawrence Summers
During the holiday season in 1991, Summers wrote a memo to his fellow World Bank employees. In the memo he encouraged the dumping of toxic waste in third world countries to increase profits.
In possibly the worst infraction of economic policy in our lifetimes, Lawrence Summers assisted in the deregulation of banking investment contracts. He argued that current restrictions on investments made by large financial institution are "overly regulated" and that banks can take it upon themselves to reduce fraud within their companies.
Excuse me? Did I hear that correctly? He thinks bank will regulate themselves? Here is Summers' testimony word-for-word.
Well, remember Geithner's old friend AIG? In an interview with Newsweek, a group of economists put it quite nicely when they stated that, "The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury."
Both Geithner and Summers teamed up in a scandal involving Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd, who was appointed to his position under the Bush administration and holds an extensive record of economic fraud, spearheaded a legislation in 2008 that would limit the amount of executive bonus payments allowed by financial institutions. Shortly after this announcement became public, Dodd was contacted by both Geithner and Summers and subsequently ammended the legislation to exclude the cap on executive pay. It was then resolved that Dodd, Summers, and Geithner were lobbied by AIG while ammending the pay cap. Dodd received over $220,000 in compensation from AIG employees after the controversy.
Sooooo
In essence, the Obama administration seems to think it's a good idea to head the economic front, which is responsible for re-stabilizing the US financial system, with the same people who brought about its demise in the first place. What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On?
If the supposed revival of Glass-Steagall has a chance of seeing the light of day, we are going to need some seriously bright minds behind our economic policies. So are Geithner and Summers the right choices for tackling our fiscal demise? Let's take a look.
Tim Geithner
During the 2006 tax year, the IRS discovered Geithner had failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years, even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. But there's a cherry on top that's even funnier. As President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geithner annually completed an ethics statement noting any taxes due or unpaid, along with any other obligations.
Not convinced that he can run the US economy yet?
Under Geithner's direct endorsement, AIG received more that $170 billion in bailouts. AIG then provided $165 million in executive bonuses. Upon receiving this information, the Senate voted against legislation passed last March by the House of Representativs that would levy a 90% tax on the executive payments.
But, apparently, Geithner's corporate generosity has limits. In 2009, Geithner conspired alongside Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, in a successful attempt to block government provision of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. This resulted in their bankruptcy and is conceded as one of the major factors leading to our current economic state. Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics offers his opinion in a statement he gave the NY Times in November 2008:
All of these ‘rescues’ are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion.
Lawrence Summers
During the holiday season in 1991, Summers wrote a memo to his fellow World Bank employees. In the memo he encouraged the dumping of toxic waste in third world countries to increase profits.
In possibly the worst infraction of economic policy in our lifetimes, Lawrence Summers assisted in the deregulation of banking investment contracts. He argued that current restrictions on investments made by large financial institution are "overly regulated" and that banks can take it upon themselves to reduce fraud within their companies.
Excuse me? Did I hear that correctly? He thinks bank will regulate themselves? Here is Summers' testimony word-for-word.
Well, remember Geithner's old friend AIG? In an interview with Newsweek, a group of economists put it quite nicely when they stated that, "The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury."
Both Geithner and Summers teamed up in a scandal involving Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Dodd, who was appointed to his position under the Bush administration and holds an extensive record of economic fraud, spearheaded a legislation in 2008 that would limit the amount of executive bonus payments allowed by financial institutions. Shortly after this announcement became public, Dodd was contacted by both Geithner and Summers and subsequently ammended the legislation to exclude the cap on executive pay. It was then resolved that Dodd, Summers, and Geithner were lobbied by AIG while ammending the pay cap. Dodd received over $220,000 in compensation from AIG employees after the controversy.
Sooooo
In essence, the Obama administration seems to think it's a good idea to head the economic front, which is responsible for re-stabilizing the US financial system, with the same people who brought about its demise in the first place. What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
In the Beginning...
I'd like to start this freshly made blog with an inspiration from a Noam Chomsky's lecture entitled "Philosophies of Language and Politics." In this piece, prof. Chomsky discusses, along with a variety of other topics, the economics of political agendas and how such policies are manifested in presidential elections.
With this lecture in mind, I read the NY Times front page article entitled "Obama Moves to Limit Reckless Risks of Banks." Link here
Obama's declaration seems to contradict the past year of Wall Street behavior and the apparent precursors to current economic policy in his campaign contribution archives. According to Open Secrets, Goldman Sachs topped the list of contributors (second only to the University of California) with a substantial donation of ~$1,000,000.
It seems less than suprising, given the provided information, that Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of slightly over $12 billion in bailout allocations. hmmm... This includes further complication with yesterdays newly reported findings that Goldman Sachs executive bonuses are likely to exceed $20 bil, with an average payout of over $600,000 per employee.
I wonder if the previously mentioned White House reaction to "limit reckless risks" will involve stopping the, virtually riskless, pocket stuffing endorsed directly by the Obama administration? That being said, I find it strikingly convenient that none of the US mainstream media(feel free to provide feedback) have yet to connect the dots on the proportionality of campaign contributions to bailout provisions. Hopefully some brave journalist, who has dreams of unemployment, with offer this to the public eye.
With this lecture in mind, I read the NY Times front page article entitled "Obama Moves to Limit Reckless Risks of Banks." Link here
Obama's declaration seems to contradict the past year of Wall Street behavior and the apparent precursors to current economic policy in his campaign contribution archives. According to Open Secrets, Goldman Sachs topped the list of contributors (second only to the University of California) with a substantial donation of ~$1,000,000.
It seems less than suprising, given the provided information, that Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of slightly over $12 billion in bailout allocations. hmmm... This includes further complication with yesterdays newly reported findings that Goldman Sachs executive bonuses are likely to exceed $20 bil, with an average payout of over $600,000 per employee.
I wonder if the previously mentioned White House reaction to "limit reckless risks" will involve stopping the, virtually riskless, pocket stuffing endorsed directly by the Obama administration? That being said, I find it strikingly convenient that none of the US mainstream media(feel free to provide feedback) have yet to connect the dots on the proportionality of campaign contributions to bailout provisions. Hopefully some brave journalist, who has dreams of unemployment, with offer this to the public eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
