GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label bailouts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailouts. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

Former FDIC Chair Bair: Bank Bailout Was ‘Overkill’

Moneynews:

The billions of taxpayer dollars spent to bailout big banks was largely unnecessary, according to Sheila Bair, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairwoman.

In an excerpt from her new book “Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street From Itself,” which was published by Fortune, Bair writes “with the exception of Citi, the commercial banks' capital levels seemed to be adequate.”

“Without government aid some of them might have had to forgo bonuses and take losses for several quarters, but still, it seemed to me that they were strong enough to bumble through,” she writes.

That the U.S. government showered Wall Street with cash during the financial crisis as people were losing their homes and jobs continues to be a hot button issue. Many Americans blame the banks for the crisis and argue that Washington could have and should have done more for the people and less for those who created the problem.

Bair seems to agree and this is not a new position for her.

Last October, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Bair spoke at the National Asian American Coalition conference about her disappointment that so little appears to have been done for the millions of homeowners still in distress.

“I wish I could say things have gotten better, but I don't see that they have. The loan programs are not doing what they need to. Part of the problem is a not very well-functioning mortgage services industry. The resources are not there. The training is not there. The commitment is not there,” the Chronicle quoted her as saying.

Consistent with that sentiment, Bair writes in the book, “We used up resources and political capital that could have been spent on other programs to help more Main Street Americans.”

She admits that there was a lot less information available when the bailout decision was made and that that uncertainty played a factor in how the situation was handled.

Still, she writes, “In retrospect the mammoth assistance to those big institutions seemed like overkill. I never saw a good analysis to back it up.”

Related:

Economist Schiff: QE3 is Coming and Will Worsen Our ‘Depression’

The Student Loan Debt Bubble Is Creating Millions Of Modern Day Serfs

Obama Blocking the Economic Recovery… And Stutistics: What the Media Is Not Telling you About Obama’s Unemployment Record

Why We Have No Budget and Why It Can’t Be Balanced

Obama’s Own Statements on His Vision and Beliefs… in Video

EPA Mandates Motorists Buy At Least 4 Gallons of Gas at Ethanol-15 Pumps

Friday, January 13, 2012

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

This gives a new meaning to " gov’t. corruption"!!!!

No wonder they didn't want to be Audited..

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts - unelected.org - Click: The Silver Bear Cafe

The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and super-corporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

Source: unelected.org  - Click: The Silver Bear Cafe

(The Motto of the Silver Bear Cafe is: "Serving up a heaping helping of the Truth, with a generous side of Common Sense")

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America's Next TARP Model
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Video:  America’s Next TARP Model – with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show

What you are about to read should absolutely astound you. During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world, and the Fed fought in court for several years to keep it a secret.

Do you remember the TARP bailout? The American people were absolutely outraged that the federal government spent 700 billion dollars bailing out the "too big to fail" banks. Well, that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did. As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010. So have you heard about this on the nightly news? Probably not. Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture. The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down. The Federal Reserve has been actively picking "winners" and "losers" in the financial system, and it turns out that the "friends" of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the "winners". This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts. Let's take a look at them and see what they mean.

$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement....

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans. On December 5, 2008 the "too big to fail" banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve. Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time. Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.

$7.7 Trillion

Bloomberg is reporting that the Federal Reserve had made a total of $7.77 trillion in financial commitments to the big banks by the end of March 2009....

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

But as mentioned above, a one-time limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act covered an even broader time period and revealed even more bailout loans.

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

The following is an excerpt from a statement about this audit that was taken from the official website of Senator Sanders....

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world"

So where is everyone else?

Why aren't leading Republicans and leading Democrats crying bloody murder over this report?

This scandal should have been front page news for months when it was revealed.

But it wasn't.

And Guess what?

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the "too big to fail" banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in "fees" to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

In addition, it turns out that trillions of dollars of this bailout money actually went overseas. According to the GAO audit, approximately $3.08 trillion went to foreign banks in Europe and in Asia.

So why were our dollars being used to bail out foreign banks while tens of millions of American families were deeply suffering?

That is a very good question.

Also, it is important to remember that many of these bailout loans were made at below market interest rates, and this enabled many of these financial institutions to rake in huge profits.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the big banks brought in an estimated $13 billion by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates....

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The rate was less than a third of the 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make one-month loans on that day. Bank of America and Wachovia Corp. each got $15 billion of the 1.1 percent TAF loans, followed by Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Citizens NA unit with $10 billion, Fed data show.

So once the financial crisis was over, were adjustments made to the financial system to make sure that this type of thing would never happen again?

Of course not.

Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

So now they are more "too big to fail" than ever.

But this is what happens when we allow unelected central bank bureaucrats to run our financial system.

Most Americans do not realize this, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not part of the government. In fact, it is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. The Federal Reserve has admitted that they are a privately owned institution in court many times, and you can see video of a Federal Reserve employee admitting that the Federal Reserve is privately owned right here.

The Federal Reserve is an out of control monster that is throwing around trillions of dollars whenever it wants to. Nobody should be allowed to do this. Nobody should be allowed to give bailouts to banks and corporations without the express permission of the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States.

This is a point that I made in my article yesterday. The Federal Reserve decided this week that it is going to provide "liquidity support" to Europe. If the American people do not like this move, that is just too bad. We do not get a say in the matter.

Are you starting to understand why I keep pushing the idea that it is time to shut down the Federal Reserve?

Please share this information about the secret 16 trillion dollar Federal Reserve bailout with your family and your friends.

If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still time to change the direction that this country is headed.

From the Economic Collapse Blog

Video: The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street?

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve:

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve!
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718844/pg1
Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/01/kucinich-bill-seeks-to-end-the-federal-reserve/

Related:

WHAT THE HELL? The U.S. Secretly loaned 7.7 TRILLION To Banks Without Interest. Then Borrowed Back WITH Interest
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718942/pg1

America's Next TARP Model
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/america-s-next-tarp-model

A Bloomberg report reveals that the U.S. government loaned banks $7.7 trillion in secret bailout funds at no interest and then borrowed the money back at interest.
Bloomberg reports 7.7 trillion in loans to big banks and Wall Street
http://reading-sage.blogspot.com/2011/11/bloomberg-reports-77-trillion-in-loans.html?m=1pg1

h/t to Jean Stoner

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Obama’s Student Loan Plan: Implements Limited Forgiveness and Some Other Changes

Yesterday as part of Obama’s campaign sweep on the taxpayer dime he announced his new student loan plan…

Excerpt:

It is also a part of the plan that monthly payments be capped at a level of 10 percent of the money that left over when all taxes are paid and basic necessities taken care of. This cap has been at 15 percent, which takes a lot more money out of the pockets of citizens and out of the economy.

Understanding Obama Student Loan Forgiveness

President Barack Obama will undoubtedly be remembered for his healthcare reform legislation that was recently passed by Congress. However, there is another program that is much less well known that could affect far more people directly. This is the Obama student loan forgiveness program.

Under the terms of this program, anyone who makes his monthly payments for twenty years after leaving college is eligible to have his/her remaining balance forgiven. At least, this applies to anyone with Federal Direct loans, Stafford loans, and Perkins loans. Those who take out their loans from private lenders such as Sallie Mae are still responsible for repaying their loans in total.

Individuals who spend ten years in public service positions become eligible to have their loans forgiven at that point rather than having to wait the full twenty years. This means that their debt is forgiven in half the time and their debt reduced significantly sooner.

It is also a part of the plan that monthly payments be capped at a level of 10 percent of the money that left over when all taxes are paid and basic necessities taken care of. This cap has been at 15 percent, which takes a lot more money out of the pockets of citizens and out of the economy.

There are also programs in place that allow teachers to work for just five years in elementary or high schools that have been designated as low income schools by the Dept. Of Education. This applies to FFEL loans and to Direct loans.

Military personnel are also able to achieve forgiveness for their student loans if they have a degree. This program works for members of all five branches of service, including the Coast Guard and Reserves.

A final option is to apply for income based repayment terms. While it is probably best to sign up for this early in the life of the loan, older loans may still qualify for this lower payment plan. Of course, the clock starts all over when one signs up for this option. That means that someone who has worked in public service for eight years and signs up for income based repayment must work another ten years in public service instead of the two he/she would have had left.

Student loans are a fact of life for the vast majority of college graduates. This is especially true of those who go beyond a bachelor's degree and take graduate level classes. Sadly, the much higher pay they were promised if they pursued their education to its fullest has not materialized. The economic recession has made this fact even worse for most.

The Obama student loan forgiveness program is intended to help ensure that individuals do not wind up broke because they chose to continue their education. While nobody will see his/her loan just disappear overnight, payments have been lowered and the time shortened that one must pay before the remaining balance is forgiven. Public service workers and teachers are eligible for forgiveness at much faster rates due to the nature of their jobs.

Achieving Student Loan Forgiveness Through One’s Career

For those who wish to get their college degree but are not as financially stable to do so, student loans are definitely a great thing to have. However, the large interest rates of such as well as the length of time it takes to pay for them can make them a financial burden in the long run. This has been the trend until student loan forgiveness programs were introduced.

Some people might not know this fact, but it is actually possible to get a student loan forgiven. An effective way to do so is by getting a job that entitles one to avail of the opportunity to get the loans lessened up to a certain degree.

Here are some of the occupations one can take up and expect the possibility of loan forgiveness.

1. Volunteers - Some of the organizations in the community today can offer a student loan forgiveness opportunity for their volunteers. This is available in exchange for a specified length of time in service.

2. Military personnel - Aside from being able to serve the country, a military man also gets to avail of student loan repayment. However, this is limited to the Army and Air Force as well as their corresponding national guards. The Navy also offers this for its members.

3. Doctor or lawyer - Certified practitioners in both the legal and medical fields can choose from a variety of options to get their student loans forgiven as well. Since it takes up to a six-figure amount for them to finish their degree and be able to practice fully, forgiveness loans are definitely a blessing for them.

4. Teacher - Teaching is a profession greatly honored by the government considering how valuable education is. Because of this, complete loan forgiveness is also offered for those who teach in public elementary, middle and high schools.

Student loans that are set on an income-based repayment plan can take up a maximum of 25 years. This seems like a long time. However, someone who pays dutifully every month without missing a beat might be able to lessen the entire term of the loan.

Knowing all these, a student can take time to assess what college degree to take up and career to build. Of course, it is still very important to take note of what one really enjoys doing, but the financial part of the process is also something to think about in order to reach the ultimate state of financial stability.

White House officials said Obama will provide student loan relief in two ways:

First, he will accelerate a measure approved by Congress that reduces the maximum required payment on future student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. The White House wants it to go into effect in 2012, instead of 2014. In addition, the White House says remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25.

About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.

Second, he will allow borrowers who have a current loan from the Federal Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government to consolidate them into one loan. The consolidated loan would carry an interest rate of up to a half percentage point less than before. This could affect 5.8 million more borrowers.

Washington Posts Wonkblog: There is a Bush-Era Backstory on Obama’s ‘New’ Student Debt Proposal

The student debt relief proposal President Obama rolled out this morning isn’t exactly new. As I mentioned earlier today, it’s more of an adaptation: It lowers some existing caps on how much student borrowers have to pay back on their loans each year. Those caps are pegged to income, hence the name for the policy: Income-based repayment. Or, in education policy terms, IBR.

The Obama administration didn’t create IBR; instead, it inherited the policy from its predecessor. President George W. Bush signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in September 2007. The law allowed, among other things, for student borrowers to cap loan payments at 15 percent of income and for loan forgiveness after 25 years of payments. All those changes came into effect in July 2009.

Today’s proposal uses the same structure, but moves the goalposts: the cap for loan repayments gets dropped to 10 percent of income and loan forgiveness gets moved up to after 20 years of payments.

The nonprofit Project on Student Debt for years now has been an IBR advocate. It drafted much of the policy proposal that Bush signed in 2007 and that the Obama administration has now strengthened. I spoke this afternoon with the Project on Student Debt’s president, Lauren Asher, about the history of income-based repayment, what these new changes mean and why the new publicity push matters for student borrows. What follows is a transcript lightly edited for content and length:

Sarah Kliff: Tell me about the history of income-based loan repayment. How did the proposal come to be law?

Lauren Asher: We’ve been working on these issues since 2005. The idea of income-based repayment evolved out of an analysis we did, that looked at payment options for student loans. Students were really getting mixed messages from borrowers: Sometimes you’re encouraged to borrow because it’s a good investment; but on the other hand you’re warned not to borrow too much.

We came up with this proposal, which was a sliding scale that took into consideration how much the borrower is earning. We originally thought of it as regulatory, but then legislators got involved. Our original recommendation said that the loan forgiveness should be at 20 years.

SK: But it got set at 25 years. How did that happen?

LA: The way the law got written, the education secretary had the authority to set it up to 25 years, so that’s where it’s currently set.

SK: What does today’s announcement mean for the program? How much more expansive does it get?

LA: One of the most important things about this announcement is the administration is committing to help more borrowers find out about IBR. There’s an estimated half million enrolled right now, and millions more could benefit from the program.

There really needs to be more public outreach and education. So we’re really thrilled that the department is going to do that. If you talk to people at the Occupy Wall Street protests, or in your everyday life, you find they owe more than they ever have before.

SK: That’s interesting that you mention the publicity around the program as the key change here. How much do you think it matters that the administration is also lowering the caps for loan payments in the IBR program?

LA: We’re especially excited about the commitment to raise awareness about IBR. In a previous life I’ve worked on other policy issues. And when something is a new policy, it can take awhile to penetrate public consciousness. With student debt, there’s no time to waste.

That being said, the changes to payment will make the program even more affordable for current students. IBR is a light at the end of the tunnel, and the tunnel will be shorter and brighter with these changes.

Side Note from Tea Party Nation:

The Occupy movement has many goals. Many of them inconsistent with each other, but that is what happens when you smoke too much marijuana.

One thing mentioned by almost every one of the group is the demand that student loans be forgiven.

Let’s assume for a moment that could be done. What would it mean? While consistency is not one of the strong points of the Occupy movement, this would be the ultimate form of corporate welfare.

From the Frum Forum:

All colleges are corporate entities. (Harvard University is actually the oldest corporation in the United States.) Unlike most other entities treated as charities or considered government agencies, they derive most of their revenue from the sale of services–education and research–to paying customers. Only a handful of institutions, maybe 400 of the country’s 4,000 or so colleges and universities, have endowments large enough that they don’t have to watch the “bottom line” for every single project they undertake. Even some colleges with big endowments–Johns Hopkins comes to mind–are fixated on growing revenue and surplus (profit). Explicitly for-profit colleges are just a little more honest about their status as businesses.

If all student loans were to be forgiven, they would almost certainly have to be forgiven for those currently enrolled. Forgiveness, furthermore, would create a precedent that tuition for all colleges would be essentially free going forward. This would amount to an open-ended subsidy that would benefit many of America’s largest corporations (the universities themselves) forever.

Tuition costs would almost certainly rise significantly in any case as the individuals consuming education services (few of whom pay “sticker price” right now) would have no reason to even look at the costs assessed.

Interestingly a Rassmussen poll finds that 66% of Americans oppose student loan forgiveness.

To forgive the estimated $1 trillion in student loans would mean the government would have to give banks $1 trillion dollars to cover that loss.

Where would that money come from? The taxpayers, of course. We have a national debt set to hit $16 trillion soon. What are we going to do, borrow another trillion from China?

Forgiving the student loans also sends several terrible messages. First it teaches people that fiscal discipline does not matter. The student who borrowed $100,000 to land a $20,000 social work job and who spent half that money partying and going on spring break to Cancun, is treated the same as the engineering student who worked his way through school with no student loans and sacrificed to get his or her education.

The fiscal cost alone should sink this really bad idea. What make much more sense, as I have indicated in previous blogs on Tea Party Nation is to change the bankruptcy code and make student loans dischargeable under Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The obligor would still have to pay for a number of years and would pay some of the loan back so the taxpayer is not on the hook for the entire loan amount. This is not a perfect solution but it would allow the person who owes student loans the opportunity to begin moving forward without the crushing debt load on their backs. It would also mean they pay for part of the debt they incurred.

The size of student loan debt forgiveness will probably kill the idea. But look for Obama and the Party of Treason to suggest it as part of a desperate reelection bid.

The Entitlement Trap: How to Rescue Your Child with a New Family System of Choosing, Earning, and Ownership

Ask Marion~

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Conquer and Divide… Written By A Mom

I feel very lost, as I am sure many do. What do I do next? Which issue is the most important to me? I hope I am not alone…

There are so many issues that have come about lately that I have problems with. For instance, Cap & Trade Bill, Tarp, Stimulus, GM & Chrysler Bailouts, AIG, School Indoctrination, Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize while giving our tax money to organizations all over the world that perform abortions, the amount of Czars and the power they have, Obama dragging his feet on sending troops to Afghanistan because it may offend his radical left supporters while our children, spouses, grandchildren, etc. are being bombed and shot and wishing they had more support, just to list a few.

I saw some of Obama’s speech on TV today and felt repulsion filling in me while he spoke. I could not believe how arrogant he was. What really scared me was the fact that he so easily and quickly divided our Country; it only took 9 months. I have never seen a President or Leader that joked about and belittled the people in his Country just because they do not have the same vision as he does, ok, maybe Sadam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and other Dictators that Americans used to believe were evil. But never a President of the United States of America while I have been alive, at least not like this one.

I personally did not vote for Obama, but know many who have. I have a very hard time talking with these people mainly because I think they know not what they have done, especially when they think he is taking us down the right path. When he took office my first thought was that “Now, maybe racism will finally come to an end” but it has gotten worse. I am a true American and was ready to support the new President, but it did not take long before I realized how dangerous of a man he was, along with his administration and supporters.

I truly feel that Obama and his administration are purposely creating explosive issue after explosive issue, believing that the average American middle class citizen will become overwhelmed with all of the chaos and eventually give up fighting the changes Obama is trying to make against our Constitutional rights. Then I realized that this is how they plan to change our Government into a Socialistic society. This thought made me realize that I could not lie down and let go, I need to do something (peaceful of course) to stop this movement.

But with all of this energy, I still feel lost, like I do not know what I can do. I have lost a business and a job as of late due to the wonderful economy that our President designed to create dependency. I have no money and am having a very hard time feeding my family. My husband was laid off for 9 months; we are in jeopardy of loosing our home. He finally found work but has to drive for 4 hours per day and works for 10-12 hrs (construction), and is exhausted when he gets home. So I do not feel I can travel around to Tea Parties as this also costs money. I need to do something from home. I want to be a part of any movement that rings true to my beliefs. I have so much time but so little money, how can I help? I would love to go to DC for the rally but just know that it is not financially possible without harming my family.

My wish is that each State group will have a leader that will divide groups up to work on individual issues that As A Mom… approves of. Organize protests, tea parties, post events for all to attend for separate issues, oversee that the groups morals are being upheld, because there are so many we need to be very worried about, but it is exhausting trying to worry about them all at once. We should also be watching for positive actions that are done and support them whole heartedly. If any one else feels the same please let me know that I am not alone! I have so many ideas and would be very glad to share and discuss them with others, and hear others points of view.

Deb F. – As a Mom…Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots – 50.000 strong in less than 3-weeks.
Manitowoc, WI

As a Mom…Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots sponsored Operation... Can You Hear Us Now and will be holding a Mom's March on Washington, D.C.

Conservative Artists are making a difference as well. People are starting to stand up – The New Counter Culture: Liberty

Can Your Hear Us Now? - Video

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: the Daily Thought Pad

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

How about a bailout for student debtors?

If the U.S. can come to the assistance of banks and homeowners, surely it could offer a helping hand in the form of lower interest rates for students.

Like many recent college grads, Los Angeles resident Steven Lee finds himself unemployed in one of the roughest job markets in decades and saddled with a big pile of debt. He owes about $84,000 in student loans for undergrad and grad-school costs.

But what Lee's angry about isn't the slings and arrows of an outrageous economy, and it isn't the idea that he owes a ton of money for all the learning he's received.

It's the interest rates on his government-backed student loans, which range from 6.8% to a whopping 8.5%.

"That's just ridiculous," Lee, 35, told me. "The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%. Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%?"
Well, because a deal's a deal, and that's the rate Lee accepted when he received his loan.

"I disagree," he replied. "The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?"

Good question -- and one that's especially germane as tuition continues to soar at both public and private universities. The University of California is looking to raise its tuition by 32% next year to more than $10,000.

"If I was a student, I'd be outraged too," said Tony Hollin, chief executive of Edamerica, the seventh-largest provider of student loans nationwide, with about $1.6 billion in loans originated last year. "This is an issue that more people need to be aware of."

Edamerica lent $30,000 to Lee so he could get a master's degree in clinical psychology from the Santa Barbara campus of Antioch University. This followed Lee's earning a bachelor's degree in sociology and psychology from UC Berkeley.

Hollin said he'd love to charge market rates for student loans. Problem is, all of Edamerica's loans, and most of those provided by other lenders, fall under the Department of Education's Federal Family Education Loan Program.

The program allows private lenders to offer loans to students at subsidized rates. It helped service financial aid at more than 4,400 schools as of February, according to the National Assn. of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

By contrast, about 1,600 schools used direct loans provided by the Department of Education.

"I wish we could help students," Hollin said. "But the rates we charge are mandated by the federal government. We can't change them."
So Lee has a point. If the feds can come to the assistance of beleaguered banks and homeowners, why can't they offer a helping hand in the form of lower rates for students?

"That's a question I often ask myself," Hollin said.

Uncle Sam's influence over student loans could soon become even greater if Congress passes legislation that would essentially drive private lenders out of the market and leave federal programs as the main resource for people seeking help paying academic bills.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221) passed the House last month pretty much along party lines. It's now working its way through the Senate.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program, thus making student loans much riskier (and hence unattractive) for banks. The Education Department would continue offering direct loans and would presumably dominate the market.

Democrats say the legislation would free up more funds for Pell Grants and other financial aid. Republicans say the federal government would be playing too large a role in higher education.
"The bill will help restore America's global leadership in higher education, paving the way for a stronger economy," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. "The bill ensures that more students who are willing to take responsibility for their education can go to college and earn a degree."

I have no problem with the government, rather than banks, deciding who gets a college education and who doesn't, just as it's the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets at least a high school education.

But what about people like Lee, who have completed their schooling and now find themselves struggling to get by as their high-interest loans come due?

For the next decade, Lee is obligated to send $445 to the federal government every month. That will pay down $37,000 in loans held by the Education Department, which acquired the debt from Edamerica and another lender, All Student Loans.

The interest rates on those loans range from 6.8% to 8.5%.
Lee owes nearly $14,000 more to Edamerica at a rate of 7.25%, plus $21,000 to All Student Loans at 6.8%. Then there's $12,000 owed to JPMorgan Chase & Co. at a more reasonable 5.2% rate.
In all, Lee is on the hook for about $1,000 a month in student-loan costs.

"I'm not saying I don't want to pay," he said. "I'm just saying I should pay a rate that's fair. If 30-year mortgage rates are near 5%, student loans should be close to that."

Jane Glickman, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said rates under the Federal Family Education Loan Program are set by Congress. Any effort to change them would thus require congressional approval.

"It may seem high today," she said, "but remember it is a fixed rate. The comparable loan would be a fixed-rate unsecured loan or a private student loan. Even with excellent credit, you can't get one of those below 12% fixed, and the majority of students have no credit at all."

That's true. But then, the whole idea of a government-subsidized loan is to help fund the sky-high education costs of people who have nowhere else to turn. These are precisely the people who shouldn't be paying above-market interest rates.

Glickman said people like Lee do have options. They can apply for help under a program that pegs monthly loan payments to income levels. Or they can postpone payments for a set period, although they'll still be responsible for repaying the entire loan, and the interest will continue to accumulate.

"The problem with that," Lee responded, "is that I'd still have to pay an exorbitant rate. I'd just get to do it later."

I'm sympathetic, but only because the government has already shown itself to be a soft touch for banks, insurers, carmakers and especially for homeowners, who in many cases had no business taking out loans they couldn't repay.

In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable for college students and recent grads to seek a little bailout of their own.

And if these people end up in positions of responsibility, and do a better job than those who came before (which isn't saying much), taxpayers can consider the loans money well spent.
"I wonder if President Obama and members of Congress know that people are paying 8.5% on loans," Lee said.

I wonder that as well. And if so, why aren't they doing anything about it?

David Lazarus' column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com

I am generally against the entire stimulus concept, but if we are bailing out banks, homeowners and care companies… we should consider bailing out students with loans. However… only if they are not enlisted into Americorps, Obama’s National Army or the the Obama Youth program… all in process.

This is one of the greatest problems with The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221). It will put the government in charge, even more, of not only the interest rates of student loans, but exchanges for repayment by serving in Americorps, a National Army or Youth Group. As well as the ultimate goal of telling kids what they can study, base on government wants and needs instead of what the student chooses or is good at.

We should be fighting The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221), working on using some of the stimulus money to help students with loans… without having to join socialistic youth programs, as well as taking a hard look into the plans and activities of all those organizations. ...Ask Marion~

The Beast That Swallows Its Young - Video

Related Resources:

College kids recruited to join Obama’s ‘army’

Obama Says We Need National Civilian Security Forces. WHY?

Is the National Civilian Security Force Obama Wants AmeriCorps?

Michelle Obama is Building Her Boot Camps For Radicals with Tax-Payer Money

The Dumbing Down of America Series

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power - Cross-posted: Daily Thought Pad

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Don't Let Obama "Devour" Your Wealth!

Obama's Dangerous "Eating Problem." Don't Let it Gobble You Up...

Dear Concerned American,

Mike HuckabeePresident Obama keeps lecturing about our “obesity epidemic.” But he’s the one who can’t stop eating (or smoking)!

No, not food. It’s worse! Obama is devouring the entire free-enterprise system.

In his first 100 days as president, Obama gobbled up two major automakers, wolfed down nearly 600 banks, gorged on blue-chip companies, and scarfed down the U.S. credit industry. Now he wants dessert.

President “Obama the Hungry” makes King Henry VIII look like a compulsive dieter!
I know something about overeating. It can kill you. Back when I was governor of Arkansas, I was so overweight I developed Type II diabetes. Doctors told me to lay down the knife and fork -- or else. That scared me. I cut the calories and lost 110 pounds. Only then did I regain my health.

Does bloat scare Obama? Heck no. He’s hungry for more! Fresh from gulping down $800 billion of our money to load up his Washington smorgasbord, he’s planning yet another massive banquet. Obama wants to belly up to the table and swallow the best health care system in the world. And you and I will pay the tab for this gargantuan pig-out!

As sure as heartburn follows a chili-dog, this massive “Obama-binge” will trigger hyperinflation. There’s only one way for the President to pay for this feast and you know what it is. Yes, get those presses rolling and print trillions of inflated dollars.

I’ll bet you’re thinking -- well, what can I do about it? True enough, Obama can pretty much do what he wants -- at least until the 2010 mid-term elections come along and we Americans can send him a “slim-down or else” message.

But right now, you and I need to protect the money we’ve earned and invested over the years -- before Obama’s hyperinflation chews our buying power down by multiple percentage points. This is a serious concern, believe me. It’s so serious I won’t pretend, as a politician and talk-show host, to have the answers for you. But I know someone who does.

I urge you to consider the proven financial guidance of Doug Fabian -- the renowned investing advisor who saw the financial meltdown of 2008 coming and saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of money.

Subscribers to Successful Investing, Doug’s newsletter, knew the meaning of terms like “housing bubble” and “sub-prime” long before they became headline news and the source of financial misery for millions.

This is what Doug wrote in 2006, nearly two years before the crash:

“Pay little heed to the real estate industry’s PR campaign to play down the coming housing price slump. It’s happening. The bottom is falling out for many banks, investors, and homeowners right now.”

This is what Doug is writing today:

“Never mind the endless speculation about inflation and interest rates -- they’re going up.”

Doug ’s not just warning his readers about hyperinflation, he’s steering them to investments that make money during inflationary periods. He reminds us that many fortunes were made in the 1970s when America was ravaged by high inflation and brought to the brink of collapse by Jimmy Carter -- a president eerily similar to Barack Obama.

Look, I’m no investing wizard. But I invest. I have to. So do you. Counting on Social Security while Obama is in office is a little like saying, “The Light Brigade is about to charge? Sign me up!”

But having someone with the proven know-how and track record of Doug Fabian is a comfort. That’s some track record, by the way. Successful Investing has generated double-digit annual returns for ordinary investors for 32 years and counting. Best of all, Doug does all the work for you.

Don’t just take my word. Investor’s Business Daily called Doug “one of the best market timers in the business.” And The Hulbert Financial Digest -- the watchdog of investing newsletters -- rated Doug’s trading services in the Top 10 for 2008 -- out of 186 financial publications over all.

Count on it, the “Obama-binge” will result in hyperinflation. ($800 billion in government spending makes it all but inevitable). You can’t control that. But when the day of reckoning comes, you can be one of the few whose portfolio is already adapted to profit from it. Could you ask for anything better? Well, you can. But you’ll have to wait till 2012 before we elect a new president!


Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

GM May Need More U.S. Job Cuts as Buyouts Fall Short

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. may have to cut more U.S. hourly jobs after an offer of buyouts and early retirements fell about 7,500 workers short of the reorganized automaker’s target.

The possibility of layoffs was disclosed today by Sherrie Childers Arb, a spokeswoman, in an interview after GM announced that more than 6,000 United Auto Workers members, or 11 percent of the hourly workforce, left the company on Aug. 1.

GM’s latest voluntary exits pushed the total of U.S. hourly workers leaving through buyouts and retirement offers to about 66,000 since 2006. The biggest domestic automaker is shrinking its workforce to match reductions including the shutdown of 14 U.S. plants and 3 warehouses by the end of 2011.

“It’s not surprising they didn’t reach their goal,” said Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group Inc. in Ann Arbor, Michigan. With U.S. unemployment at 9.5 percent in June, “workers are more reluctant to accept a buyout because the prospects for other employment are more challenging.”

GM aims to eliminate 13,500 hourly positions in 2009, trimming that payroll to about 40,500 jobs, said Tom Wilkinson, a spokesman. Detroit-based GM began the year with about 61,000 U.S. hourly jobs and cut that total to about 54,000 at the end of April with buyouts and early retirements.

Moving Jobs

Any layoffs probably wouldn’t total 7,500, Childers Arb said. Some employees are likely to leave on their own or retire rather than relocate once GM shuffles work among its facilities, dropping jobs in some locations while keeping others, she said. GM hasn’t said where the job cuts will take place.

Hourly workers who took the buyout and retirement offers are receiving cash payments of $20,000 to $115,000 as well as $25,000 vehicle vouchers.

Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson is also paring the U.S. salaried workforce and chopping its eight domestic brands in half.

GM left a government-backed bankruptcy on July 10 as a new company whose largest shareholder is the U.S. Treasury. Losses at predecessor General Motors Corp. totaled $88 billion since the company last posted an annual profit in 2004.

To contact the reporter on this story: Katie Merx - in Southfield, Michigan, at kmerx@bloomberg.net

Source: Bloomberg.com

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Monday, July 20, 2009

$23.7 Trillion to Fix Financial System?

In New Report, Neil Barofsky Says It's Possible Government Could Spend $23.7 Trillion to Fix Financial System

Sitting down?

Photo: In New Report, Neil Barofsky Says It's Possible Gov't Could Spend $23.7 Trillion To Fix Financial System

In a July 2009 report on government efforts to fix the financial system, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP, says total government support has the potential to reach $23.7 trillion.

(Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)

"The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in a new report obtained Monday by ABC News on the government's efforts to fix the financial system.

Yes, $23.7 trillion.

"The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn't even imaginable," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn't even come close to just $1 trillion -- $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure."

Granted, Barofsky is not saying that the government will definitely spend that much money. He is saying that potentially, it could.

At present, the government has about 50 different programs to fight the current recession, including programs to bail out ailing banks and automakers, boost lending and beat back the housing crisis.

Barofsky's estimate means that if each federal agency spends the maximum potential amount involved in these 50 different initiatives -- if the Federal Reserve ends up spending $6.8 trillion on its programs. If the Treasury Department spends $4.4 trillion, if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation spends $2.3 trillion, and so on -- then the numbers add up to a total of $23.7 trillion.

That figure, Barofsky notes, is designed to "suggest the scale and scope of these efforts and not to provide a firm financial statement." It is not a figure that has been evaluated to give an estimate of likely net costs to the American taxpayer. "The actual potential for losses," he says, "is likely to be lower."

But in his new quarterly report to Congress that will be released Tuesday, the watchdog warns that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost if the government does not make certain changes to these programs. The Treasury Department, he cautions, needs to increase the transparency of the $700 billion TARP program, which he says has grown to an unprecedented scope and scale.

"Although Treasury has taken some steps toward improving transparency in TARP programs, it has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury's stated commitment to implement TARP with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible," Barofsky says in the report.

Barofsky said his office currently has 35 ongoing civil or criminal investigations.

Treasury Should Require TARP Recipients to Report on Use of Funds, Says Barofsky

Barofsky notes that there are currently four specific recommendations that the Treasury Department has not adopted. The department, he believes, should require all TARP recipients to report on their use of funds. The department should also report on the values of its TARP portfolio so taxpayers know about the value of their investments; disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers; and disclose tradings, holdings and valuations of assets of the public-private investment funds that will be buying toxic assets from banks.

This public-private investment program is a key source of concern for the watchdog. In the program, a handful of selected funds will purchase toxic assets -- like mortgage-backed securities -- from banks in an effort to cleanse their balance sheets and help them increase lending.

In his last quarterly report in April, Barofsky cautioned that many aspects of the toxic asset program left it vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, such as conflicts of interest for fund managers, collusion with fund managers, money laundering and misuse with the Fed's lending program, known as the TALF.

Since then, Treasury has incorporated many of the watchdog's recommendations, so now "the program has a significantly improved compliance and fraud-prevention regime than that initially proposed," Barofsky says. However, he warns that "there remain some significant areas in which Treasury's plan for PPIP falls short."

One such area is the lack of an informational barrier -- or a wall -- between fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the program and employees of the fund management company who manage funds that are not part of the program. A fund manager, Barofsky warns, "could generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage."

Treasury has declined to put such a wall in place.

"Failure to impose a wall will leave Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it -- that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers and that, by granting certain firms PPIF manager status, it is benefiting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer," Barofsky says. "The reputational risk is not one that can be readily measured in dollars and cents, but is rather a risk that could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government."

"Such transparency not only dissuades misconduct and promotes sound management but also promotes a better understanding of PPIP and thus enhances the credibility of PPIP and TARP more broadly," he says. "Even more importantly, the most significant investors in each PPIF, the American taxpayers, have a right to know the status of their investments. The lack of transparency as to what use TARP funds were put by recipients in other TARP programs, in SIGTARP's view, has damaged the credibility of TARP and therefore may have threatened its viability. Treasury should not repeat that apparent error with PPIP."

However, the department, Barofsky says, plans to disclose "no more than the bare minimum required by statute."

With nearly $24 trillion potentially flying out of federal coffers, the watchdog wants the government to do a lot more than just "the bare minimum."

When Barofsky testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday, Congress is expected to sound off on the watchdog's findings.

In a separate report released Monday, Barofsky said he obtained responses from banks on what they did with TARP funds, something that the Treasury Department has refused to do. Many of the banks, he said, used some funds to make investments, buy other banks and pay off debts.

"This administration promised an 'unprecedented level' of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise," Issa said. "In fact, the Treasury Department is actively obstructing transparency. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent -- especially considering they are the ones who are footing the bill."

Source: abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics / Fox Nation

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Sir Richard Branson on Airlines, Bailouts and Staying Young

Gretchen’s “Virgin” Experience

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen got to “make out” with British billionaire and Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson on the curvy couch on the After the Show Show (ASS) yesterday.* F&F co-anchor Steve Doocy gleefully stoked the fires. (For viewers who did not see it yesterday, F&F was more than happy to offer another prurient peep today.)*

ASS was quite a bit more risque than usual yesterday. Throughout the segment, bawdy humor abounded. Steve joked that the Virgin Airlines PJ changing area was the Mile High Club room. Branson immediately jested, “Exactly. And now with our space progam coming up, it will be the 180 Mile High Club. As to the origin of the airline’s name, Branson repeated Steve’s alleged conjecture that it was so dubbed because it would not go all the way. (He explained that actually it was because he started business because he was only fifteen when he started in business.)

However, ASS got steamier when the topic turned to Branson’s Virgin glamor girl publicity shoots. Noting that five years ago Branson had picked up Pamela Anderson but yesterday he hoisted Kate Moss, Steve teased, “You just can’t bench press what you used to be able to? Are you looking for smaller girls?” In response, chuckling, Branson rushed toward Gretchen, saying, “Well, let’s see. What do we got here?” Gretchen screamed, “Oh, no! Oh, no! No!” As Sir Branson tried to lift F&F’s damsel in distress, one understood why she resisted so and had color coordinated beforehand.

After Branson relented amidst howls of laughter, he embraced Gretchen tightly as she exclaimed, “Oh, my god! I haven’t been swept off my feet in a while, Buddy! Alright? Flattered and flustered, she animatedly added, “Hello! Oh my goodness! Could we make sure we get a still photo of that? If I could make that like into an 11×14 in my office.” When Steve remarked, “That’s your screen saver,” Gretchen heartily concurred, “Definitely!”

As the segment concluded, still holding Gretchen, Bronson joked, “Could we turn the light out, please.?” As the F&F floor crew complied and added mood music to boot, Branson playfully acted as if he were friskily frolicking with her as she saucily screamed. As the lights came back on, Branson kissed her hand and said, “It’s been a pleasure.” Gretchen responded, “No kidding! Could you stop back in tomorrow?”

Probably not. But, Branson certainly gave Gretchen a Virgin flight of fancy.

*Fox & Friends’ After the Show Show (06/23/09)

By jakeho - Carpe Diem

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

WHAT'S KEEPING OBAMA UP? - THE ULTIMATE REALIZATION THAT THE CURE WAS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE

The Rasmussen poll conducted over the weekend of May 30-31 asked a key question designed to give us perspective on Obama's current popularity. The question was whether the current problems "are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration or to the policies Obama has put in place since taking office." In other words, who's to blame, Bush or Obama?

(For now) By 62-27, voters say Bush is still the culprit.

As long as this opinion remains prevalent, Obama will continue to enjoy high popularity. But when it changes, as it inevitably must, we will see him begin a long, long fall.

And this is the key measurement to watch.

The real recession -- dating from the stock market collapse -- began four months before Bush left office. And it is now four months since Obama was inaugurated. From this vantage, it still looks to voters like Bush's recession.
But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in -- with no relief in unemployment -- it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.

Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out -- without even cracking a guilty smile -- against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.

Obama now faces a choice of poisons.

He can leave taxes as they are and take the poison of high interest rates, rapid inflation and a new recession, all caused by the massive borrowing he has forced on the Treasury. If the Treasury cannot sell enough bonds at a reasonable interest rate, it will, of course "monetize the deficit" -- economics-speak for printing money so that there will be enough to buy the Treasury debt at moderate interest rates. But the process of so vastly expanding the money supply (or even just leaving the current expansion in place without trying to soak up the extra money) will cause its own runaway inflation.

Or Obama can break his pledge and raise taxes on everybody. His soak-the-rich approach will not be enough to cover the deficit. Especially when one factors in his healthcare proposals, big tax increases on the middle class become an increasing likelihood. And when we consider his cap-and-trade legislation, huge increases in utility rates also loom.

Either poison will make it clear that the economy is suffering from the medicine Obama administered, rather than the original disease that started under Bush.
And, of course, while we cannot predict precisely the start date of the Obama-generated misery, it's pretty clear that it will be a long-lasting pain. Neither inflation nor the pain of higher taxes is going to go away soon. And either approach will probably kindle a new recession.

Some economists think we will have an L-shaped recession from which we do not emerge for years and years. Others think it will be a W-shaped recession (not Bush's W) in which we emerge briefly and then go back down again. But a U-shaped recession, in which we go down and then come bouncing back, probably cannot happen with Obama's deficits now firmly in place. Then it will become clear that the cure was worse than the disease.

By:  DickMorris – Dick’s new book released today: Catastrophe

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Government Borrowing Fifty Cents for Every Dollar It Spends

Gov't Borrowing Fifty Cents for Every Dollar It Spends

  • Government Borrowing Fifty Cent for Every Dollar It Spends
  • Obama Administration Has Amassed More Debt Already Than The Bush Administration in Its First Seven Years Combined

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?

According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.

In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

But the private sector economy got in the way of Obama’s plans to save the world, because some of Chrysler’s secured creditors are hedge funds, that, unlike the “bailed-out banks,“ are NOT under Obama’s control. Several of the hedge fund managers involved in the situation did what they are permitted to do under bankruptcy law, and demanded more than the meager “pennies on the dollar” loan repayment that President Obama was ordering them to accept.

And this is when dear leader Obama moved in to “tirade mode.” Lashing out at the hedge fund “hold outs,” he succumbed to name-calling and insults, claiming that the “greedy” hedge fund managers were standing in the way of saving Chrysler.

Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious - - that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds - - were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, “get credit flowing in America again,” while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will “save” the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.

If Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.

In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

But the private sector economy got in the way of Obama’s plans to save the world, because some of Chrysler’s secured creditors are hedge funds, that, unlike the “bailed-out banks,“ are NOT under Obama’s control. Several of the hedge fund managers involved in the situation did what they are permitted to do under bankruptcy law, and demanded more than the meager “pennies on the dollar” loan repayment that President Obama was ordering them to accept.

And this is when dear leader Obama moved in to “tirade mode.” Lashing out at the hedge fund “hold outs,” he succumbed to name-calling and insults, claiming that the “greedy” hedge fund managers were standing in the way of saving Chrysler.

Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious - - that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds - - were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, “get credit flowing in America again,” while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will “save” the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.

If Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

Austin Hill :: Townhall.com Columnist by Austin Hill

Monday, May 4, 2009

Senior creditors: Chrysler deal violates 5th Amendment

If the Obama administration expected the senior creditors of Chrysler to fold their tents under political pressure, they may have gotten a rude shock today.  Thomas Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration’s machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy.  Lauria and his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors’ holdings on behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the allegation.

The heart of the argument starts on page 8 (via HA commenter Outlander):

III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.

13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.

14. Justice Brandeis noted that the “essence of a mortgage” is the right of the secured party “to insist upon full payment before giving up his security [i.e., the property pledged].” Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In invalidating the statute, the Court stated that “[t]he bankruptcy power . . . is subject to the Fifth Amendment,” and that the pernicious aspect of this law was its “taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the bank prior to the act.” Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property pledged to them or “the right to control meanwhile the property during the period of default.” Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders’ property rights that were acquired prior to the enactment of TARP.

15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property.

16. Here, the proposed sale of the Debtors’ assets will leave the Senior Lenders with a diluted pool of assets and no further interests in the operating assets covered by their specific liens. The Constitution forbids this application of a law retroactively to undercut the Senior Lenders’ pre-existing property rights in favor or inferior creditors.

17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression, could not be saved because “the Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation.” Id. at 602.

18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other creditors – even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified unsecured creditors.

One might think that a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama would have already known that, but either this precedent escaped him or he doesn’t care about it at all.  Brandeis acted to uphold contract law, especially in the face of a government interest in paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the senior creditors.  There is no other reason for Brandeis to make that decision, as only government could insert itself into the contractual relationship during a bankruptcy proceeding — just as Obama has done with Chrysler.

Lauria’s argument seems very compelling here, especially given Brandeis’ rather clear assertion that bankruptcy proceedings have to fall within the 5th Amendment — and that government can’t implement a taking to satisfy its own arbitrary aims by ignoring the relationship of the creditors to the default.  We’ll see whether the court rebukes Obama.

POSTED AT 1:36 PM ON MAY 4, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY