Barack Obama's Background

THE BUSH LEGACY: HYPERINFLATION?

admin — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:21:00 +0000

Here is a look at the Federal Reserve balance sheet, essentially a measure of how much money is being printed, since 1996. See that huge vertical line at the end? That’s the last two weeks.

In the words of Lance Lewis, one of the terrific market commentators over at Minyanville, “If that’s not what hyperinflation looks like, then I’m a leprechaun.”

CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’: SCHWARZENEGGER TELLS PAULSON HE NEEDS $7 BILLION!

admin — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:57:00 +0000

The LA Times obtained a letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, requesting $7 billion in emergency funds from the federal treasury to sustain day to day operations in California.

Schwarzenegger Seeks $7 Billion for CA - Upload a Document to Scribd

MAVERICK HE IS NOT!

admin — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:47:00 +0000

REGISTER SOMEONE!

admin — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:16:00 +0000

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

BAILOUT: HOUSE SAYS NO!

admin — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:04:00 +0000

I never thought I would write these words: Thank you, Republicans.

The House defeated the proposed economic rescue package today, a bill that would have authorized unprecedented government intervention in the marketplace. While I agree that the U.S. needs a comprehensive plan to avert an economic disaster, common sense tells us that attempting to redesign U.S. capitalism in a little over a week–during an election season, no less–is absolute lunacy.

While the Democrats delivered their promised votes in favor of the bill, stalwart Republicans from across the country actually listened to their constituents, and defeated the bill. We are in uncharted territory in the financial markets, but rest assured, Democracy, at least, is still breathing.

The following choice statements from the House debate are courtesy of WWJ News Radio, Detroit.

Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., said, “I wish we had a president that had enough communication skills and enough credibility with the American people to convince them there is a real problem. Unfortunately that burden hasn’t been carried sufficiently by the administration. But I’m convinced that the odds are bad enough that if we don’t do something today we will regret it for a long, long time.”

Standing in opposition to the bill, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., said the government intrusion into the free market marked would, like the Bolshevik slogan of “Peace, Land, and Bread,” promise short-term prosperity at the sacrifice of liberty. “The people on Main Street have said they prefer their freedom, and I stand with them,” McCotter said.

Likewise, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said the bill failed to address the root causes of the financial crisis by neglecting to provide, among other factors, foreclosure relief. “Stability should come from the bottom up,” she said.

“Why isn’t Wall Street paying for the mess they created?” Woolsey asked, suggesting a surcharge on stock trades. “We can raise $150 billion a year from those who caused this mess and profited from it.”

She also questioned the wisdom of giving discretion over the use of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the outgoing administration.

“Why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to this administration? Bush and Paulson have been wrong from the start on just about everything. If you think they will be responsible with this money, think again.”

“Like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and hinges on haste,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Tex., who noted the bill does not require Wall Street to pay even a dime in recompense. “All of us want to avoid further economic deterioration, but action or inaction today is a false choice.

“The vultures have now come home to roost,” Doggett said.

Meanwhile, his fellow Texan, Republican John Culberson, blasted the legal protections impinging oversight of the Treasury Secretary’s discretionary use of the funds. He suggested other means (including reducing the capital gains tax to zero) would work better.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who is opposed, said, “Just because this bill is unpopular doesn’t mean we have to pass it immediately.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who called the current crisis “the financial equivalent of a heart attack,” said the bill is not popular but is necessary.

“I know we’re tempted to see this as just another train wreck of the Bush administration,” said Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., who said the crisis actually threatens constituents’ 401(k)s, pension funds, the ability to borrow and establish businesses, and the security of community banks.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., decried the bailout of “Wall Street moneygrabbers,” and wondered why it is that, the bigger the business, the more government feels it should “swoop in and save them,” whereas mom-and-pop business that make bad financial decisions just fail.

“They expect Joe Six-Pack to buck it up and reward this nonsense,” he said. “It’s sad time to be an American taxpayer.

“Wall Street should pay for Wall Street’s mistakes,” said Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., who said she was reluctantly opposed to the bill.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. denounced the “trickle-down” economics behind the bill, and called the mammoth funds involved “sort of like the financial surge strategy, and just like the surge going into Iraq we know it’s not sustainable.”

He also said the golden parachutes for executives were merely switched for “camouflaged parachutes.”

“If we vote for this bill it is the end of the Reagan era,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who called the bill a gift to Secretary Paulson’s “friends,” said it was merely a stop-gap measure that did nothing to prevent further economic catastrophe.

“This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it and I’m not going to eat that cow patty.”

“I have no matching metaphor,” Rep. Barney Frank responded.

Rep. Maxine Waters D-Calif. said she was voting for the bill, but called for the prosecution of financial titans who violate the law and ignore their fiduciary responsibility. “We will tighten the screws on Wall Street.”

Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. said, “This is no longer about bailing out anyone; it is about trying to put together a plan that will do less harm than we would do otherwise by our inaction to every American’s financial security.”

Rep, Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. said, “We cannot continue to bail out with borrowed money.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex. was angered that management of the assets purchased from failing banks would be outsourced “to the people who caused this problem.

“Let’s save America from Congress.”

Many complained of the speed of the process, and the fact that hearings and committee deliberations were not held on the legislation. “We need to take out time on this,” said Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who noted that the Senate will not be taking up the bill until later this week. “There is a better process. I hope that we can slow down this train. I urge a ‘no’ vote.”

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he was offended when Paulson offered a three-page proposal asking for a bank account with $700 billion in it for him. “So what happened since then, we added 107 pages of taxpayer protection to this bill.

“This bill offends my principles but I’m going to vote for it in order to preserve my principles, to preserve our financial system.” He urged others to vote for it, even though, “We’re one month away from an election &30151; we’re all worried about losing out jobs.”

“The White House brought this to a crescendo, to a crisis, so that all eyes of the world are on Congress. It’s a heavy load to bear. We have to deal with this panic, we need to deal with this fear … and if we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us. If we fail to pass this, I fear the worst is yet to come.”

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., said taxpayers had a gun pointed to their heads. “This isn’t legislation, this is extortion.

“Do you like ten trillion dollars of debt? With one stroke of the pen Congress will have extended that an additional trillion.

“Make no mistake: a vote for this bailout is a vote to ratify business as usual in Washington.”

Like many speaking today, Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, praised Rep. Frank (the key House member in demanding alterations to the administration proposal) for his “noble work in being handed a pile of garbage and making it better.”

But LaTourette said the taxpayer should pay for it. He also called for the repatriation of offshore funds.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the “staggering” cost of the $700 billion package was “only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country.

“They claim to be free market advocates when it is an ‘anything goes’ mentality,” she said, saying the administration’s budget recklessness turned around the budget surpluses of the Clinton administration, and if a crisis got so bad, “you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out.

“Those days are over. The party is over in that respect.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said $700 billion spent trying to save home could really stimulate the economy, “but that’s not what this bill is about,” as the Treasury secretary would not have power to stop foreclosures and keep people in their homes.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., called the legislation “the biggest corporate welfare bill in history,” and said fear was driving members away from reason.

Rep. Joseph Crowley, R-N.Y., confessed, “Everyone is angry,” but said companies and families will suffer from a lack of credit - and said financial executives should be given metal ankle bracelets and not golden parachutes.

Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., said she “simply cannot stomach” transferring wealth from Colorado families to the benefit of Wall Street figures “whose avarice and greed put us in this situation in the first place.”

She also castigated Congress for failing to take seriously the crisis of gas prices this past summer, “and yet when Wall Street faced the consequences of its actions we worked around the clock” to bail them out.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said he was confident that the protections put in during negotiations would mean that taxpayers stand to get their money back.

Bachus said he was not willing to take no action. “I’m not willing to put that bullet in the revolver and spin it. I’m not willing to take that gamble. I’m not willing to pull that trigger because I’m not willing to subject the American people to the worst-case scenario.

“I will take the political risk but I will not take the risk on the American people and their future and their prosperity and their children and grandchildren.”

Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn. said, with the prospect of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, “I have a responsibility to avert it.”

Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, “If anything we may have overdone the oversight, but none of us want to have underdone the oversight.”

“When the markets go up, Wall Street cleans up; when the markets go down, Main Street gets cleaned out,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. “We must protect Main Street across this country: Vote ‘yes.’”

In confronting the opposition to the bill, particularly from the left, and the compromise needed to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, “Meeting a national crisis does not give us the luxury of doing everything we want.

“You have got to accept reality. I wish this was a bill that more reflected my priorities. I wish I could eat more and not gain weight.

“The poor people will get nothing if we don’t compromise,” he said. “This bill can put in the president’s hands the power to do good; please don’t throw it out.”

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio., admitted the unpopularity of the bill: “No one wants to be anywhere around it. I don’t want to be around it.

“These are the votes that we have to look into our soul and understand and ask, ‘What is in the best interest of our country?’

“While imperfect, while not having everything everybody wants, I believe we have to vote for this bill and keep ourselves from the brink of an economic disaster that would harm all of our constituents.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D- Md., called it “a day of consequence for the American people. This is a day of consequence to our country. This is a day when the Democratic leader, myself, rises to follow the Republican leader and they speak with one voice as America faces crisis. That’s what Americans want us to do.

“Why should taxpayers loan out their own money to solve a crisis brought on by someone else’s greed? Because when it comes to our economy, none of us is an island; we’re all bound together, in boom or bust.”

“Inaction will result in greater pain for our people and our country,” he said.

BETTER BAILOUT? A SUMMARY OF DRAFT PROPOSAL

admin — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:52:00 +0000

What follows is the draft of the rescue agreement reached after hours of bipartisan negotiation this weekend. While it’s certainly an improvement over the initial proposal, the devil, you could say, is still in the details.

All emphasis in the following document is from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — Sept. 28, 2008

REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM

IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections

Reinvest in the troubled financial markets â€¦ to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street
Reimburse the taxpayer â€¦ through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets
Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street â€¦ strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN

Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review
Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies
Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails
Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit
Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives

New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:

No multi-million dollar golden parachutes
Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking
Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate

Strong independent oversight and transparency

Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer

A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress
A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions
Transparency — requiring posting of transactions online — to help jumpstart private sector demand

Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions

Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy

The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year
Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures
Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisisâ€”allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

What follows is the draft of the rescue agreement reached after hours of bipartisan negotiation this weekend. While it's certainly an improvement over the initial proposal, the devil, you could say, is still in the details.

All emphasis in the following document is from the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- Sept. 28, 2008

REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM

IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets -- including cutting in half the Administration's initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers' funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections

Reinvest in the troubled financial markets â€¦ to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street
Reimburse the taxpayer â€¦ through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets
Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street â€¦ strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN

Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable -- protecting American taxpayers and Main Street -- and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review
Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies
Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails
Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full -- if other protections have not actually produced a profit
Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives

New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:

No multi-million dollar golden parachutes
Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking
Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate

Strong independent oversight and transparency

Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer

A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress
A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary's decisions
Transparency -- requiring posting of transactions online -- to help jumpstart private sector demand

Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary's actions

Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy

The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year
Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures
Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisisâ€”allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

DARK DAYS: LEADERSHIP VACUUM AT FIRST DEBATE

admin — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:39:00 +0000

It was a simple question: What do you think of this bailout plan?

Although the official subject of this first presidential debate was foreign policy and national security, let’s not kid ourselves–Americans tuned in to hear at least one of the presidential candidates deliver a straight answer about how they intend lead this country–both Wall Street and Main Street–through the economic crisis.

It could have been a defining moment for either candidate–a chance to demonstrate that they are indeed an Agent of Change, a Maverick, or whatever else they might claim to be. McCain could have proven that he does have mastery over basic economics. Barack Obama could have proven that he is indeed a Washington outsider committed to reform.

Instead, both McCain and Obama acted like dime-a-dozen, poll chasing politicians, afraid of making enemies or losing votes. They resorted to sacharine rhetoric and empty promises. Vote for me! I can lower taxes, improve and expand government programs, and save the economy!

So what’s next: All of the drinking fountains will pour chocolate milk?

Safe to say I am not the only Obama supporter who was sorely disappointed tonight. This was the moment he had been waiting for, a moment when his leadership was sorely needed, but instead, he took the safe bet. He leads in the polls–in particular on economic issues, and so he chose to take a soft stance on the bailout plan and hope for McCain to make a critical mistake.

Well, here’s a news flash–McCain didn’t make a mistake. He may not have scored a touchdown, but he didn’t fumble the ball, either. In a race this close, a draw is a win for McCain, and Barack Obama may have squandered one of his opportunities to break away in this race.

As for the remainder of the debate, did either candidate say anything they haven’t said a dozen times already?

Tonight, the burden of proof was on John McCain. Millions of Americans tuned in expecting him to implode, expecting Barack Obama to demonstrate that he can indeed be the leader America needs. The contrast between the two candidates should have been crystal clear. Instead, what we saw was a stubborn but experienced old man, and a young, overly confident upstart content to ride the polls. As different as they may be, both were a disappointment.

The real loser tonight was the American voter.

HAS HE DONE HIS HOMEWORK? 4 QUESTIONS FOR JOHN MCCAIN

admin — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:53:00 +0000

Finished with his political theater, John McCain is now ready to resume his campaign. He will travel to Oxford, Mississippi to debate Barack Obama tonight at 9 p.m. EST.

McCain’s decision earlier this week to “suspend” his campaign to address the financial crisis may prove to the largest misstep of his campaign thus far. I understand his intentions–and perhaps he was actually acting in good faith–but the notion that he had to be present to contribute to the talks in Washington is absurd, and only seemed to complicate matters.

In trying to seem above politics, McCain ended up looking desperate and unprepared. If he suffers in tonight’s debate, look for his campaign to justify his performance by claiming that he was “focused on what matters–the economy,” or other such nonsense.

If McCain was so integral to these talks, I’d like to see him answer these four questions tonight:

What is the number one risk of the proposed bailout plan?
What is the number one risk of not passing the proposed bailout plan?
What specific types of assets should the treasury purchase and why?
What is your plan for protecting the long term strength of the U.S. dollar?

If John McCain can speak specifically to these sorts of questions, then we will know that he was actually doing his homework this week. If not, then we know that the “suspension” of his campaign was a total sham.

Barack Obama will be ready with the answers, guaranteed.

TAXPAYERS, OPEN YOUR WALLETS!

admin — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

NOW IS THE TIME: OBAMA MUST PROVE ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP

admin — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 03:01:00 +0000

Barack Obama’s economic game plan is sound, but in the coming days he faces the most important vote of his Senate career–choosing whether to support or to oppose the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street banks.

Obama has widened his lead in the polls recently, as voters have increasingly placed their trust with him on economic issues. Understandably so. The GOP is profoundly out of touch with the Main Street economy. Even in recent days, as the U.S. economy teetered on the brink, the White House announced its opposition to “The Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights,” a house bill that would limit the ability of credit card companies to raise interest rates on consumers.

But the danger here is that Senator Obama will take advantage of his lead to take a soft stance on the massive, unprecedented bailout plan that not only adds a trillion dollars to the national deficit, but also undermines the very principles of free market capitalism.

Contact the Obama campaign, toll-free, at (866) 675-2008. Demand that these three common sense provisions be added to the bailout plan.

Executives of companies who seek government assistance should forfeit performance bonuses and “golden parachute” severance packages until the companies are stable enough to repurchase the “toxic” assets.
Asset purchases by the U.S. Treasury must absolutely be subject to review by the courts.
Government assistance should be limited only to those companies headquartered in the U.S.

Forward this to any other supporters you know. Obama may have a comfortable lead over McCain on economic issues, but this is an opportunity for him to demonstrate true economic stewardship. The stakes could not be higher. Every one of Obama’s ambitious policy plans, from tax relief to health care to public education, is contingent on a healthy federal budget. A $700 billion bailout for Wall Street would be the sort of budget buster that could cripple the Obama administration well into his second term.

Click below for Barack Obama’s blueprint for changing the economy. It’s a good start, but now is the time for more than tough rhetoric.

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election

Barack Obama's economic game plan is sound, but in the coming days he faces the most important vote of his Senate career--choosing whether to support or to oppose the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street banks.

Obama has widened his lead in the polls recently, as voters have increasingly placed their trust with him on economic issues. Understandably so. The GOP is profoundly out of touch with the Main Street economy. Even in recent days, as the U.S. economy teetered on the brink, the White House announced its opposition to "The Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights," a house bill that would limit the ability of credit card companies to raise interest rates on consumers.

But the danger here is that Senator Obama will take advantage of his lead to take a soft stance on the massive, unprecedented bailout plan that not only adds a trillion dollars to the national deficit, but also undermines the very principles of free market capitalism.

Contact the Obama campaign, toll-free, at (866) 675-2008. Demand that these three common sense provisions be added to the bailout plan.

Executives of companies who seek government assistance should forfeit performance bonuses and "golden parachute" severance packages until the companies are stable enough to repurchase the "toxic" assets.
Asset purchases by the U.S. Treasury must absolutely be subject to review by the courts.
Government assistance should be limited only to those companies headquartered in the U.S.

Forward this to any other supporters you know. Obama may have a comfortable lead over McCain on economic issues, but this is an opportunity for him to demonstrate true economic stewardship. The stakes could not be higher. Every one of Obama's ambitious policy plans, from tax relief to health care to public education, is contingent on a healthy federal budget. A $700 billion bailout for Wall Street would be the sort of budget buster that could cripple the Obama administration well into his second term.

Click below for Barack Obama's blueprint for changing the economy. It's a good start, but now is the time for more than tough rhetoric.

Related Blogs

Related Blogs on election