New Developments III

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

An amusing song about the current financial implosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYAuk809fY
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Memo to AIG employees: For your safety, do not wear any AIG apparel.

Remember the term we used to describe what got us in this trouble in the first place? It was called Irrational Exuberance.

It looks like we've swung headlong into the other end of the spectrum.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

He finally does something for gay rights...

Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 43 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I have a better idea. Grassley and his fellow Republicans in Congress commit mass hari-kari, or if they prefer, hara-kiri.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1237316791
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Conservative talk-show host and former Republican Florida U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough has called for nationalizing AIG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qvwIBjnBo
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Heksagon »

Greg wrote:A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Support Nationalizing Banks
I'm not sure what this fuss about bank nationalization is about; it looks a lot like the Democratic party is just trying to pass the buck to the banks. The blunt fact is that those banks like Citigroup which would be bankrupt without goverment money, are de facto under govermental control, regardless of whether they are formally nationalized or not.

So far the only definite policy that the Democratic party have given the banks is TARP (see Magilla's post), which speaks volumes of the shallowness of their economic policy. Democrats are pretty good at throwing money around, but beyond that there isn't much content in their policy (And by saying that, I am not implying that the Republican party's policy is any better, on the contrary, Republicans are even worse). It is true that the banks have been passive in restructuring, but the reason to that is that their de facto owner, the goverment of the United States, has not given them the leadership which they have been expecting; just look at the (very disappointed) market reaction when the Geithner Plan was announced. A lot of money, not much content.

It would be short-sighted of the Democratic party to formally nationalize the banks. The situation with the banks is not going to get any better any time soon, and the Democratic party does not have the means to change that. It is therefore not wise to take full political responsibility for the banks; it is better to have the private bank managers around to take the blame when the economic situation does not suddenly improve. Furthermore, if the Democrats feel that they need the short-term popularity boost that they would get from formally nationalizing the banks, it's better to save that until election year.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

So-called is right. The guy is a total jerk. I want to throw something at the TV every time I see his stupid face.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

John Stewart bitch slaps so-called financial expert Jim Cramer on his show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/videos.jhtml
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

OscarGuy wrote:Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.
It's not so cut-and-dried. When the Federal government gives money to fund unemployment insurance, that money is expected to be paid back. It's a loan. Once the state accepts it, it's expected to pay the federal government back in full, and with interest. And unlike the federal government, state governments are expected to balance their yearly budgets. Theoretically, a state can be in such dire economic straits that accepting the money for unemployment could financially hurt a state over the long run. I assume Perry would be against this so-called "redefining unemployment" issue anyway. It's an issue that empowers unions, and I'm sure he wouldn't want that. But if this recession goes on much longer, don't be suprised to find some Democratic governors rejecting bailout money to extend unemployment benefits.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.




Texas gov. rejects stimulus money for unemployment
By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer Monica Rhor, Associated Press Writer – 52 mins ago

HOUSTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out.

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan.

But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.

"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations."

Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.

To receive the full amount of stimulus money available, lawmakers would need to adjust the time period used to determine whether people are eligible for benefits.

Texas also is being asked to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage workers. Lawmakers have said the change would help part-time employees like single mothers, college students and senior citizens.

Perry's decision comes despite warnings from Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken that the state's unemployment compensation trust fund could be operating at a deficit by October. Pauken told lawmakers recently that insolvency might not be not far behind.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

From Page 6:

D.C. Party Pooper

NEW York's party planners aren't dancing over legislation Sen. John Kerry is trying to push through Congress.

Last week, the Massachusetts lawmaker introduced the TARP Taxpayer Protection & Corporate Responsibility Act, which would prevent all 421 institutions that received federal bailout money from "hosting, sponsoring, or paying for conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events."

Kerry introduced the bill after learning the Northern Trust Corp. of Chicago, a profitable bank that received $1.6 billion in government cash, had sponsored a golf tournament in Los Angeles with special outings for clients featuring performances by Earth, Wind and Fire and Sheryl Crow.

But small business owners who help produce such events say Kerry's rules could have an unintended deadly impact. Noah Tepperberg, owner of Manhattan nightclub Marquee, told Page Six's Neel Shah, "Conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events are often business drivers and can be important factors in helping drive bottom-line profits. I think it's absurd that the government stereotypes all such activities."

Matt Levine, owner of The Eldridge on the Lower East Side, agrees. "Just because John Kerry didn't get into the White House, and probably wouldn't get into The Eldridge either, he should really be focusing on creating more jobs, not taking them away."

"At the end of the day, we are an industry of valets, caterers, florists, groomers and the like," said Shawn Sedlacek, whose VOX Group handled technical and marketing aspects of the Northern Trust event. "For every $100,000 that's spent on an event, $90,000 of that goes to human power. This backlash of 'don't do events' is going to hurt a lot of working-class people."

A rep for the National Business Travel Association said, "In this economy, businesses wouldn't be throwing money around if they didn't expect a return. This bill could really hurt a lot of the people the government is trying to help."
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Support Nationalizing Banks
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 3, 2009

MIAMI BEACH — The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s executive council will call on the Obama administration on Wednesday to speed the nationalization of problem banks to stimulate lending and lift the sagging economy.

The labor federation, a lobbying powerhouse that represents 10 million workers, will thus become one of the first groups — and certainly the most powerful — to call for moving more aggressively on nationalization, both to counter Republican and business cries against it and to press the Obama administration not to vacillate over such a move.

A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials asserted that the administration’s practice of giving billions of dollars in dribs and drabs to distressed banks had failed to restore their solvency, leaving them as zombie banks that largely refrain from lending, thereby contributing to the economy’s decline.

The executive council is scheduled to approve a statement that criticizes the Obama administration for indulging shareholders of distressed banks by not nationalizing the banks to speed the cleanup of their balance sheets.

“We believe the debate over nationalization is delaying the inevitable bank restructuring, which is something our economy cannot afford,” a draft of the council’s statement said.

The labor leaders also asserted that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, had failed to obtain fair value for the tens of billions it had invested in distressed banks.

“By feeding the banks public money in fits and starts, and asking little or nothing in the way of sacrifice, we are going down the path Japan took in the 1990s — a path that leads to ‘zombie banks’ and long-term economic stagnation,” the draft statement said.

The statement makes clear that the group wants to add its political and lobbying muscle to calls by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini and other economists in favor of nationalization.

Labor leaders said the administration appeared to be vacillating on nationalization partly out of fear of Republican attacks that it was adopting socialist policies.

Banking executives have spoken out against nationalization, saying it would hurt shareholders and insisting they can nurse their banks back to health.

Some Obama officials voice fears that it will be hard to manage nationalized banks and that nationalization could drive down the shares of other financial institutions by generating fears that additional banks will be taken over.

A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders said they did not favor long-term nationalization of banks, but rather temporary trusteeships in which the government would take a controlling stake in a bank, clean up its balance sheet, then spin it off.

“The result should be banks that can either be turned over to bondholders in exchange for bondholder concessions or sold back into the public markets,” the executive council’s draft said.

James A. Baker, the Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in The Financial Times on Tuesday that temporary nationalization might be necessary to inject public funds into problem banks.

“I abhor the idea of government ownership — either partial or full — even if only temporary,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, we may have no choice. But we must be very careful. The government should hold equity no longer than necessary to restructure the banks, resume normal lending and recoup at least a portion of taxpayer investment.”

The labor leaders said that 43 percent of the nation’s bank assets were held by four institutions — Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase. One A.F.L.-C.I.O. financial expert said Citigroup and Bank of America were insolvent and candidates for quick nationalization.

“When these institutions are paralyzed, our whole economy suffers,” the labor statement said, adding, “However, government interventions must be structured to protect the public interest, and not merely rescue executives or wealthy investors.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04private.html
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”