Oct 5, 2008 | 5:11 PM
Category:
News
Many people opposed the bail-out of Wall Street firms for a variety of
reasons. They ranged from the objections of government intrusion into
the private markets and/or private businesses, to a very real concern
about the escalating indebtedness of our country.
And then there were those skeptics or in some cases cynics that don't
trust our government at all. They questioned such things as the
necessity for the bail-out and even the trustworthiness of our
government to administer it honestly and correctly.
Of course, many members of Congress were a little shy at first about voting for the bill because of the public outcry just before elections.
However, as usual enough of them were either bought or otherwise persuaded to support the bill by including enough "pork" to satisfy them. After all, giving race track owners a break is a far stretch from the stated purpose of the bail-out money.
As to the concerns about our government having the integrity to administer the program correctly, it appears as though all fears can be put aside. Secretary Palin is strongly considering avoiding any appearance of impropriety on the part of the government by outsourcing the administration of the program.
To make sure that it is expertly done, he is apparently considering some Wall St. firms to do the job.
So there you have it.........it appears as though some Wall Street firms will be paid your money to pass out your money to other Wall Street firms.
And best of all, there are no "firm" details about who will get the money or what the necessary qualifications will be.
Isn't it great to live in a nation where you can depend on your elected officials to take care of everything ......including your money?
Oct 1, 2008 | 9:08 AM
Category:
News
It seems as though everyone is waiting with "baited breath" for the American taxpayer to bail-out the financial industry and restore stability to the banks and financial markets all over the world. It is truly amazing to see that the American taxpayer has so much influence on our global economy.
But are these American taxpayers the same workers that major corporations have shunned in favor of cheaper labor abroad, or the same people who have been extorted by OPEC and foreign oil interests? How could they suddenly have so much power and influence abroad?
Even in Washington DC, are these the same taxpayers who have seemingly been losing out to lobbyists in terms of having influence on our elected officials?
So how is it that U.S. taxpayers suddenly have so much power and influence all over the world?
Is it really international influence or merely an effort to squeeze the last bit of "blood" out of the American Middle Class?
Sep 30, 2008 | 7:28 PM
Category:
News
Have you tried to email your member of the U.S. House of Representatives today? The email function is not available due to an unusually high number of emails and the notice suggests that you write them a letter.
When the people turn up the heat apparently Congress attempts to go into hiding.
Doesn't that help restore your confidence in our elected officials?
How can they possibly expect people to just hand over more than $700 billion to solve a problem, when they are a part of the problem?
Sep 26, 2008 | 8:54 AM
Category:
Political
The Republicans and Democrats met for sometime and finally arrived at a tentative agreement regarding the bail-out.
Leaders on both sides of the isle confirmed the agreement in front of the cameras on Thursday.
Barney Frank, as one of the people in the meeting said that a satisfactory package had been agreed to and he saw no need for the meeting at the White House later in the day.
In spite of the earlier agreement, the 4PM meeting/photo opportunity was held at the White House complete with the attendance of both Presidential candidates. The next thing that happened was a number of Republicans suggesting that they would no longer support the previous agreement.
What happened? McCain arrived in town and suddenly the bi-partisan agreement was scrapped by the Republicans.
The Democrats see this whole thing as political posturing by the Republicans for the sake of McCain's candidacy. And they have said that they won't bring the agreed upon legislation up for a vote unless it has bi-partisan support.
Is it simply a coincidence that the Republicans suddenly scrapped the package when McCain arrived in Washington?
Are they trying to distance themselves from the Republican administration that called for a bail-out plan?
Why is it so important for McCain to be involved in developing a plan, when he admittedly is a little weak on economic issues?
Sep 25, 2008 | 12:55 PM
Category:
News
The good news is that the bail-out package for the financial industry will not include the billions requested by the auto industry.
The bad new is that the money requested by automakers has been hidden in a $630 billion budget request that includes money for the Pentagon as well as health programs for veterans and a lifting of the off shore drilling ban for oil.
When will it all end? First private businesses send jobs out of the country and lower real median incomes for American workers. And now those same businesses come back to get the tax monies that many of the workers have paid as taxes.
Should the Senate and President allow this requested budget legislation to pass?
Whatever happened to the promised "transparency" in government?
Who is going to bail out the American taxpayers, Social Security, etc.?
Sep 24, 2008 | 1:33 PM
Category:
Political
In his recent Washingtonpost.com article "McCain Loses His Head," George F Will, conservative columnist, compared Obama to McCain by stating:
"Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
The article continues with a scathing review of John McCain's "fact-free slander" and states tha McCain's economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin was "an impediment to conservatives" during his time with the Congressional Budget Office.
When one of the most notable conservatives of the past century suggests that Obama would be a better choice for President, is there any doubt that anyone voting for John McCain is voting for the party rather than for the best candidate?
Sep 24, 2008 | 12:29 PM
Category:
News
There's no doubt that Paulson and Bernanke are in the hot seat and are trying desperately to get at least $750 billion to bail out failing financial institutions. However, they seem to want a blank check with all kinds of built-in legal protection stipulations for themselves and others.
But why?
Why the insistence on such legal protections and why such few answers about how we got into this mess without it being caught sooner?
Perhaps there is more to the situation than meets the eye. Sure the mortgage crisis, housing bubble, etc. has contributed, but is there something that isn't being talked about very much?
According to several sources, Federal Prosecutors are investigating at least one major U.S. bank for money laundering and connections to drug money laundering operations in Mexico. In addition, top executives of several of the financial institutions hoping to receive funds from this bail-out are also being investigated.
Is it possible that organized crime has more of a role in this mess than is being reported? Why such secrecy over the need for almost a trillion dollar bail-out? Is there a hidden reason for Bernanke and Paulson to be so frightened about this situation?
Don't we deserve some answers?
Sep 23, 2008 | 4:29 PM
Category:
News
Financial advisers and accountants are reportedly getting an overwhelming number of telephone calls from people who want to protect their savings. People are very frightened. Many are opting for banks, but there are also concerns about the safety of banks, since so many of them have failed or have come close to failure.
What advice would you give to people who want to protect their savings? Are the banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions good places to keep money? How about the stock market?
And how about the actual dollar? Will it be devalued even more as a result of this financial crisis? Are there foreign countries and currencies that would offer more safety and return on your money? Would gold be the best bet?
What is a good financial plan for these troubling times?
Sep 21, 2008 | 8:18 AM
Category:
News
I can remember a time when people often said "what is good for General
Motors, is good for our Country." The connotation being, that what is good
for big business is good for our Country.
But under closer examination, does that hold any wisdom for us today?
There have been few administrations that have been more responsive to
the demands of American big businesses than the Bush administration. During the economic recovery from 2001 to 2004 corporate profits increased more than 60 percent. Energy
and health care costs have continued to rise tremendously while many of the "American" corporations within those sectors have enjoyed record or near record
profits.
So why are we in a financial mess that rivals the "great depression?"
Is " what is good for big business" also good for the taxpayers of the U.S.?
If so, why are the taxpayers having to bail-out so many American big businesses and having to worry about such things as bank failures and unemployment?
Can't "big business" be trusted anymore?
Sep 20, 2008 | 9:09 AM
Category:
Political
People are concerned about their economic welfare and are feeling betrayed by our government and business leaders!
Many are suggesting that we are taking a big step toward socialism in our bail-out of huge corporations that are failing.
Others have suggested that similar to the Soviet Union, we have allowed spending to get out of control and the cost of two wars in the Middle East has brought us to the tipping point.
But is there more that has led us to this point of an economic disaster that rivals the great depression?
Although the possibility is rarely discussed, has our government been too involved in the business of Empire Building during the past eight years? Have such phrases as "moving toward a global economy" been used to cover empire building activities abroad?
Have our leaders been so intent on controlling governments abroad that they have neglected our own country to the point of disaster?
Who could do such a thing to their own country?
Sep 19, 2008 | 3:06 PM
Category:
News
Although many Americans have been feeling anxious about the economy and the failures of banks and other major financial institutions, there appears to now be a reason for that anxiety to be transformed into pride.
A lot can be said about the abilities of our elected officials when it came to saving our economy from possibly the greatest disaster ever. But after you separate the political posturing and rhetoric that are characteristic of political types, it is plain to see that the real heroes who have saved our country this time around, are mostly average Citizens like you and me.
We have provided the money for all of the business bail-outs which are estimated to possibly reach as much as a trillion dollars in future costs. I'll bet that you didn't think that we had that kind of money with the Iraq war and all. Well you are right, we don't.
But the gamble is that all of you fine folks will keep working and paying those taxes which will be used to pay off those loans from China and elsewhere. Just don't wonder in the future why we don't have enough money to repair roads, fix schools, repair roads, pay and update our military, take care of military veterans, etc. Don't worry though, we will rebuild Iraq.
So be proud and stand up tall, you have helped save our economy at least for a while so that those failing businesses can get on their feet and use your money to make some more money for themselves.
Now, don't you feel better?
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:56 AM
Category:
Political
Once upon a time there were people who took pride in thinking independently even though it often meant not going along with the crowd. Democrats took pride in their individual thinking even if it meant huge disagreements within their party that could eventually cost them elections. Republicans took pride in their independent values with differing views on morality, reliance on government, and the "protestant work ethic."
Much of that has changed. So much so that if a Democrat or Republican differs very much from the talking points of their respective party they find it increasingly necessary to announce themselves as "Independents."
However, the "coming out" is usually done with obvious reluctance and many of the newly stated philosophies and beliefs of these New "Independents" often bear a close resemblance to those of a particular TV personality or talking head.
It makes one wonder about both the sheep and the shepherds.
Some folks are concerned that the people are becoming sheep instead of independent thinkers.
Others seem more concerned about where the shepherds are leading the sheep.
Which is the most important?
Sep 6, 2008 | 10:33 AM
Category:
News
It seemed inevitable when the government decided to provide unlimited
loan to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they were headed toward a
complete government take-over of the two mortgage firms.
A new article by Alan Zibel, an AP business writer, reveals that
indeed the take-over or "conservatorship" is about to happen and is
expected to cost taxpayers about $25 billion.
What is surprising is that the CEOs of each of the troubled firms have
been allowed to remain in their positions drawing at least $7 million each in total annual compensation since the unlimited loans
were provided by the government. Only now are they expected to depart.
Should your tax money be used to bail out troubled businesses while allowing the CEOs and other executives to continue to draw such high compensation packages?
Who, besides the taxpayers are being held accountable for these business failures?
Aren't these the kinds of issues that our presidential candidates should be addressing in detail?
Sep 5, 2008 | 8:07 AM
Category:
News
The financial crisis of our nation is becoming more and more pronounced with the spiraling stockmarket, increased number of banks and financial institutions on "watch lists," and even the need to bolster the assets of the FDIC.
Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government needs to start
using more of its money to support markets to stem a burgeoning
``financial tsunami,'' according to Bill Gross, manager of the
world's biggest bond fund.
The financial crisis is no longer limited to the U.S. but is also having its effect on the world economy. For many years, the U.S. has been viewed as not only a good investment, but a safe investment. However, the corporate scandals and failures, and risky practices of our financial institutions among other things have resulted in a financial crisis of epic proportions.
Our country is not only broke, but is rapidly losing the confidence of the rest of the world, which means that flow of money from China and elsewhere could be cut off or at least tightly controlled in the future.
What should be done to prevent a total collapse of the U.S. economy similar to what occurred in the former Soviet Union?
Will it be necessary to disband our national/federal government in favor of a number of state/countries like those resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Sep 2, 2008 | 6:00 PM
Category:
News
Regardless of political persuasion, most people would agree that a seventeen year old girl who is not married and is five months pregnant is facing tremendous challenges ahead. If the girl gets married, the probability that the marriage will last is not high.
Both the emotional and physical changes ahead pose the greatest challenges and are the longest lasting as far as the effects of the pregnancy. A young unwed mother needs as much understanding and support from those around her as possible. The social stigma of being an unwed mother usually results in horrible shame and embarrassment.
The recent revelation of Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol has made an already difficult situation for the girl even more difficult. She has suddenly been thrust into the international spotlight for all to see and criticize if they so desire. It is not a position that anyone would envy.
Would it have been better for Bristol if Sarah Palin had turned down John McCain's invitation to run for Vice President of the United States?
Should she have put her daughter's feelings and welfare ahead of her own ambitions?
