[Washington Examiner] Multiple directors or former directors of the Federal Reserve banks who played a key role in the 2008 bailouts had an apparent conflict of interest, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. These directors had business relationships with companies and banks that received large infusions of government money.
The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., ...The only openly Socialist member of the U.S. Senate. Sanders was Representative-for-Life from Vermont until moving to the Senate for the rest of his life in 2006, assuming the seat vacated by Jim Jeffords... who caucuses with the Democrats, noted that the report did not name any names, "but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest." The group of 18 people connected to both the Federal Reserve and a bailed out company included: the CEO of General Electric ...contributed $529,855 to the 2008 Obama campaign... , Jeffrey Immelt (who is now President B.O.'s jobs czar); Stephen Friedman of Goldman Sachs ...Malefactors of Great Wealth, the second most generous contributor to the 2008 Obama campaign, with a total of $1,013,091... Group Inc.; and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan ...where we keep our plutocrats, contributed $808,799 to the 2008 Obama campaign... Chase.
Friedman chaired the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2008, when the New York Federal Reserve approved Goldman Sachs as a bank holding company, which Sanders' office explains "[gave] it access to cheap Fed loans." Friedman received a waiver from the Federal Reserve to keep his chairmanship, even though he was "a current board member and shareholder of Goldman Sachs Group Inc." When Friedman received this waiver, "the Federal Reserve Board was unaware that the then-FRBNY chairman had purchased additional shares in Goldman Sachs via an automatic stock purchase program," according to the full report (here).
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also consulted with General Electric about creating an "emergency program to assist with the commercial paper market" while Immelt served as a New York Fed director, the report indicates. Sanders' office adds that "the Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program" even while Immelt held his position with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and GE.
Dimon served as director for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when JP Morgan received $29 billion through the Federal Reserve in order to pruchase Bear Stearns. Sanders' analysis of the larger GAO report says that "Dimon also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 04:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
[CNBC] Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.
Bottom line: The average individual now has $1,315 less in disposable income than he or she did three years ago at the onset of the Great Recession -- even though the recession ended, technically speaking, in mid-2009. That means less money to spend at the spa or the movies, less for vacations, new carpeting for the house, or dinner at a restaurant.
In short, it means a less vibrant economy, with more Americans spending primarily on necessities. The diminished standard of living, moreover, is squeezing the middle class, whose restlessness and discontent are evident in grass-roots movements such as the tea party and "Occupy Wall Street" and who may take out their frustrations on incumbent politicians in next year's election.
What has led to the most dramatic drop in the US standard of living since at least 1960? One factor is stagnant incomes: Real median income is down 9.8 percent since the start of the recession through this June, according to Sentier Research in Annapolis, Md., citing census bureau data. Another is falling net worth -- think about the value of your home and, if you have one, your retirement portfolio. A third is rising consumer prices, with inflation eroding people's buying power by 3.25 percent since mid-2008.
"In a dynamic economy, one would expect Americans' disposable income to be growing, but it has flattened out at a low level," says economist Bob Brusca of Fact & Opinion Economics in New York.
To be sure, the recession has hit unevenly, with lower-skilled and less-educated Americans feeling the pinch the most, says Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com based in West Chester, Pa. Many found their jobs gone for good as companies moved production offshore or bought equipment that replaced manpower.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 03:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"What has led to the most dramatic drop in the US standard of living since at least 1960?"
The rebuilding of the rest of the world's industrial/engineering base, and the education and training of workers there who could make and design things and don't have ridiculous lifestyle expectations in exchange for their labor.
Can I get my cookie now and leave, please?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/20/2011 5:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That's BS. The rebuilding of the rest of the world's industrial/engineering base would not affect the advancement of America's industrial/engineering base. If the US had kept it's industrial base, the amount of goods produced would have increased with the advancement of technology and the standard of living increased at about 2%/year.
Instead the systematic dismantling of the American industrial base and the flood of imports has resulted in a standard of living stagnation for over 40 years as wealth has been drained from the economy. While the cheap imports acted at first like a snort of cocaine, the nation's stored wealth has been exhausted. We are reduced to printing ever more dollars to pay for imports we should be making ourselves. In the end, we only consume the value we produce.
At any rate, this discussion had been had here on this forum several times. Once, I had my family threatened with violence for my opinion on this subject by people with opinions identical to your own.
A later discussion proved to be less paranoid, more mature and productive, and is in the "best of" archives, I would refer you to that, since I'm off to work and don't have the time.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/20/2011 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Systematic dismantling by enacting trade lopsided unfavorable trade laws. See Bill Clinton, China WTA entry and illegal campaign contributions funneled through Chinese Buddhist temples. The Republicans are just as much to blame with their ill-considered push free trade like NAFTA (deficits w/ Mexico). They just pushed through FTAs w/ 3 more lower cost countries last week.
Like the illegal alien invasion, the flood of imports has benefited a small clique of importers, investment banks and politicians. The costs have been borne by the millions who have seen their jobs shipped overseas and citizens who have borne the increased costs of unemployment, welfare, increased crime, wasted lives and the coarsening of everyday relations.
#5
The graph proves nothing. Trade deficit went up -- wages went up. Trade deficit went up some more -- wages went down. You'd conclude that the two weren't connected.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/20/2011 7:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The graph shows wages stagnated or decreased since 1968 when the trade balance went negative. The late 90's in that wage graph show the effect of the dotcom bubble when speculation created many instant millionaires and lots of reckless spending by people and businesses. We all know the economic (and wage) beating the US has taken since the dotcom bubble burst in 2000 and all those instant riches evaporated.
In the mean time, the trade deficit peaked at -5% of GDP before the Financial Crash of 2008 and is near -4% and growing again.
2008: The China trade toll: Widespread wage suppression, 2 million jobs lost in the U.S.
Between 2001 and 2007 2.3 million jobs were lost or displaced, including 366,000 in 2007 alone. New demographic research shows that, even when re-employed in non-traded industries, the 2.3 million workers displaced by the increase in China trade deficits in this period have lost an average $8,146 per worker/year. In 2007, these losses totalled $19.4 billion.1
The impacts of the China trade deficit are not limited to its direct effects on the jobs and wages of those displaced. It is also critical to recognize that the indirect impact of trade on other workers is significant as well. Trade with less-developed countries has reduced the bargaining power of all workers in the U.S. economy who resemble the import-displaced in terms of education, credentials, and skills. Annual earnings for all workers without a four-year college degree are roughly $1,400 lower today because of this competition, and this group constitutes a large majority of the entire U.S. workforce (roughly 100 million workers or about 70% of all workers, Bivens (2008a)).
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/20/2011 8:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It was totally self inflicted (and going American-Juche would have made it worse).
Taxes on income (Sales, income, employment) harm comparative advantage.
In order to simulate economic growth, governments turned to (exponential) debt and inflation to pay it off.
Inflation causes unemployment and erodes the standard of living.
#10
Whatever the causes, the US standard of living will continue to drop & will stay low for many years into the future, no matter what is done. I've been studying this for years & IMHO haven't found proposals from anyone that promise to reverse the trend, just wishful thinking and recycled talking points. I know post #9 had a typo in it, but the mistake had a grain of truth -- much reported US economic growth over the last 30 years WAS 'simulated' not 'stimulated.' Maybe a huge meteorite with a 24 kt solid gold crust and a creamy nougat center of light sweet crude will impact federal land and yet save us from this fate. We'll be lucky to avoid a catastrophic economic collapse at the rate we're going.
#13
In the last few years there has been a drop, high unemployment and a recession/depression/whatever are likely to do that but anyone arguing that this is some long term trend should also explain how a modern American can have a couple of cars, a number of televisions and other conveniences that the wealthier folks in the 60s never dreamed of owning. Perhaps the problem is we buy crap with our money instead of saving it but the standard of living seems higher despite the three year drop.
#14
explain how a modern American can have a couple of cars, a number of televisions and other conveniences that the wealthier folks in the 60s never dreamed of owning. I doubt most of them own much of anything, particularly not their cars or their houses, most of which will have loan liens on them.
[disclaimer] I have a couple of paid-off rusted pickups, and a house I theoretically 'own', but in reality rent from my county & state governments.
#16
That was kinda the whole point of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The fakery extended far beyond the borders of the GSE's. This is not a left vs. right issue.
H/T Gatewaypundit
Someone affiliated with the Department of Energy has been going back to make changes to press releases posted on the Internet weeks and months ago, CNBC has found.
The changes occurred in two press releases from the MiniTru Department of Energy's loan guarantee program -- the same program that has been the center of controversy surrounding the failed solar company Solyndra.
Both were changed to remove the name of a company that has received negative press attention in recent days, SunPower, and replace it with the name of Comrade Ogilvy another company, NRG Energy. Under the bus Down the memory hole wit yez!
Generally, it is not considered correct procedure to revise old press releases retroactively on the Web. More commonly, government agencies will issue a new press release with a current date explaining any changes that have occurred. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
Vice President Joe Biden now says he didn't make a reference to rape, and got testy with HUMAN EVENTS when we asked if he would like to retract his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if Republicans don't sign on to Barack Obama's latest "jobs" proposal.
"I didn't use, no no no...Let's get it straight, guy. Don't screw around with me," Biden lashed out at HUMAN EVENTS. Then Biden confirmed that he indeed did talk about rape in terms of the President's spending measure. "Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise," if the Democrats agenda isn't passed, he added.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 03:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
In these days of ubiquitous recording devices, a politician has to be VERY careful about what he/she says. They cannot deny that they didn't say something that they actually said, because someone can always say "Let's go to the videotape". Then they look like even more of a fool.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/20/2011 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Biden et al. thinks he can dazzle 'em with BS, AH. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
10/20/2011 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I guess this proves that you can have (according to Biden himself) a high IQ and still be a flaming idiot.
[Politico.com] After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
Malefactors of Great Wealth Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.
"They were livid," said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.
The execs asked the politicians: "What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they've called for?" said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.
Democrats' friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can't have it both ways. Sure you can, as long as your mouth and your hands work independently of each other.
President Barack B.O. Obama and other top Democrats are parroting the anti-corporate rhetoric running through the Occupy Wall Street protests, trying to tap into the movement's energy but keep the protesters at arms' length.
But many bankers aren't buying the distinction. And some financial services lobbyists and industry insiders say the liberal line will make swing givers think twice before opening their checkbooks this year.
"Most Wall Street guys, they feel like they're going to be burned in effigy," said Anthony Scaramucci, managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, who gave to Obama in 2008 but is now fundraising for Mitt Romney. Some moderate donors, who have given to both parties, "fled from Obama in his support of the Wall Street protests," he said.
In 2008 Obama edged out John Maverick McCain ... the Senator-for-Life from Arizona, former presidential candidate and even more former foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution... in Wall Street fundraising and Democrats overall raised about as much as Republicans. Giving patterns went back to normal in 2010 when the GOP came out back on top.
This cycle Democrats have a particularly tough sell, since they pushed through a financial regulatory reform law last year and Mitt Romney has emerged as a Republican presidential front-runner, whose deep Wall Street ties clash with Obama's recent populist overtures. The lip service to occupiers is only hurting an already rocky relationship.
"You can't have it both ways," said one in-house financial services lobbyist. "It just makes it harder for people who are Democrats in New York, Boston, Chicago to on the one hand be demogagued and then be asked 'Hey, you can get your picture with the president for $30,000.' It doesn't square."
And the rhetoric strikes a nerve.
"In some ways, I think this is worse than [Dodd-Frank] because it is more symbolic," said a Democratic financial services lobbyist. "People from Wall Street can deal with regulation, they deal with it all the time ... I think it's just the bashing that sort of drives them crazy."
Asked last week about Wall Street's reaction to the email, Crowley said, "I haven't spoken to anyone."
Democrats, meanwhile, make no apologies for the email, publicly.
"We stand with Americans across the country who are angry about the Republican policies that led to lower home values and incomes, fewer jobs and weaker retirement savings," said DCCC front man Jesse Ferguson. "They're right to be angry and our priority is fight for those middle income families, not protect K Street lobbyists."
The DCCC hasn't sent another pro-occupier email and its counterpart in the Senate hasn't either.
Obama has tried to walk the fine line of sympathizing with the protesters without vilifying bankers. Speaking at a Martin Luther King tribute on Sunday, Obama said if the civil rights leader were still alive, "I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there."
But the White House has also adopted the rhetoric of the protesters. White House front man Josh Earnest on Sunday echoed the "99 percent" slogan that demonstrators have used to criticize the wealthiest one percent of Americans, noting that Obama would make sure "the interests of the 99 percent of Americans are well-represented" during a three day bus trip to North Carolina and Virginia.
Meanwhile, ...back at the abandoned silver mine, the water was up to Jack's neck and still rising... Obama and other Democrats are still cashing in on Wall Street. Last month, Obama's campaign held a fundraising dinner hosted by Warren Buffett at Manhattan's Four Seasons restaurant, the Los Angeles Times reported. Obama has hauled in $3.9 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But he's been outpaced by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has received $7.5 million from the sector.
Goldman Sachs ...Malefactors of Great Wealth, the second most generous contributor to the 2008 Obama campaign, with a total of $1,013,091... employees -- who contributed more than $1 million to Obama in the 2008 election cycle -- are now spending more on Romney than Obama, according to CRP. Goldman Sachs employees, along with their spouses, have contributed $352,200 to Romney. That's more than seven times the $49,125 they've given to Obama.
Overall, the commercial banking industry spent roughly the same amount in the 2008 election cycle to back congressional Republicans and Democrats, spending about $14.9 million and $14.2 million on the parties, respectively, according to the CRP. But that balance tipped heavily to the GOP's favor in the 2010 cycle, and congressional Democrats are now trailing far behind Republicans so far in the 2012 cycle when it comes to Wall Street support.
Publicly, many Democrats insist that they're not concerned about irking their Wall Street donors.
Sen. John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, the Senate's current foreign policy expert, filling the vacated wingtips of Joe Biden... (D-Mass.) said taking money from a group doesn't equate to supporting them. "It's what you fight for and how you vote, it always has been," Kerry said in a recent interview. "It's hard to run for office and not have somebody in some sector or some industry have contributed to you; but the question is, are you voting commonsense and values and for the interests of the people, broadly?"
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
However, this was in WaPo yesterday:Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.
#3
Not only can the Democrats have it both ways but it has become a protection racket for them
July 22, 2011: Obama campaign attracts Wall Street money, despite tensions About a third of the money his top fundraisers have brought in this year has come from the financial sector, suggesting that strained relations with Wall Street have not hurt the presidentÂ’s ability to attract donations there for his reelection campaign, according to data released Friday by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The numbers represent a notable increase from 2008, when bundlers in the investment and banking arena accounted for about 20 percent of the total brought in by top fundraisers for Obama.
Of course they can. The party of the KKK has demonstrated the skill and ability to blame the evils of slavery and segregation upon the Abolitionist Republicans for generations. Why shouldn't they be able to tar the middle class Republicans as the party of the rich while hauling in a landslide of 1%'ers donations.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.
[Politico.com] After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
John 
