-
-
Palin's Road To Nowhere Pork Barrel Project
The bridge to nowhere may never have gotten built, but the road leading to the never built bridge got built.
-
Washington prepares the mother of all bailouts
Even after committing $285 billion over the past couple of weeks to bail out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer AIG, the Federal Government is now looking to fork over more — much more.
The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve now are making plans to buy troubled mortgage securities en masse from banks and other financial firms. This would amount to moving from ad hoc loans and bailouts to a more systematic approach to resolving the bad-debt problems at the heart of the current financial crisis. Systematic apparently sounds good — the Dow jumped 400 points after CNBC first reported Thursday that such an effort was in the works, and on Friday, markets around the world opened sharply higher. But the price tag could be steep. "We're talking hundreds of billions," Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said at a press conference Friday morning. "This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem." The more alarmist economists are saying the cost of resolving the current crisis will exceed $1 trillion. To put that in context, total U.S. government spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion.
The closest historical parallel to this effort is the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was formed by Congress in 1989 to buy up and dispose of the assets of failed savings and loans. The difference is that while the RTC took over the assets of corporate corpses already in government hands, the assets everybody's worried about now are on the books of still alive banks, investment banks and other firms. The idea would be to get them off the books of these institutions, hold on to them for a few years and possibly try to renegotiate their terms to slow foreclosures. The big challenge will be coming up with a way to do this that avoids bestowing a wholly unearned windfall on the shareholders of the companies ditching the toxic securities.
There's also the question of whether Congress, which was planning to adjourn at the end of next week so its members could go home to campaign for re-election, could create such an entity on short notice. On Wednesday the answer from several key lawmakers was no, but on Thursday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told President Bush she'd keep the chamber in session longer if needed. It's also possible that the Treasury and the Fed could come up with an improvised solution that doesn't need congressional approval. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke visited Capitol Hill Thursday night to talk over the possibilities, and Paulson said Friday that he would "spend the weekend working with members of Congress of both parties" to come up with legislation that he hoped to pass "over the next week." In the meantime, Treasury on Friday announced a $50 billion guarantee program meant to calm mounting fears about the safety of money-market mutual funds.
Why should government (and by extension taxpayers) even be contemplating such action? The clearest explanation is probably that of Paul McCulley, a managing director of the money-management firm PIMCo, who wrote an essay last summer on "The Paradox of Deleveraging" that continues to resonate in financial and economic circles. When a debt-fueled investment bubble bursts, financial institutions that make their living off borrowed money (banks, investment banks, hedge funds) tend to want to reduce their leverage — their ratio of debt to equity. That's perfectly rational. But when everybody does it at the same time, big trouble ensues. "[N]ot all leveraged lenders can shed assets and the associated debt at the same time without driving down asset prices, which has the paradoxical impact of increasing leverage by driving down lenders' net worth." Basically, if all lenders de-leverage at once, the financial system implodes — and everybody, not just the bankers, suffers.
---More at Link--- Even after committing $285 billion over the past couple of weeks to bail out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer A... more -
Fed in AIG rescue - $85B loan - Sep. 16, 2008
Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the government control of the troubled insurance giant American International Group. Fearing a financial crisis worldwide, the Federal Reserve reversed course on Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would g... more
-
Taxpayers buy Pelosi $16K worth of flowers
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more in her high-profile inaugural year than her low-key predecessor did last year.
Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than $3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the $1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in 2006.
Republicans are spending more as well. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has increased spending 23 percent above what Pelosi spent when she held the same job. That would be 16 percent if some of Hastert’s closing-out costs were deducted.
The spending patterns indicate Pelosi is seeking to restore the Speaker’s role as a counterweight to the president and reclaim some of the responsibilities Hastert had ceded to his aggressive majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Because of their different roles, Pelosi aides say it is unfair to simply compare Pelosi’s spending to Hastert’s.
'When Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, it was an historic moment. In the days since, the Speaker has hosted leaders from across the country and around the world — opening the People’s House to the people and discussing the work of the 110th Congress,' Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in response to e-mailed questions. 'There are major new costs associated with setting up the new office of the new Speaker of the House.'
Republicans say Pelosi’s office spending undercuts her message that Democrats are restoring fiscal responsibility to the halls of Congress.
'They could have saved the taxpayer $16,000 by sending out an intern to pick flowers from the Capitol lawn, but I guess that would have detracted from the $4 million worth of pork they planted as part of the ‘greening’ project,' said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for Boehner."
(End of excerpt)
Full story at link by Mike Soraghan// TheHill.com "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more in her hig... more -
Hillary, The Queen of Pork!
Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for
-
Israel strike kills Reuters camerman
An Israeli air strike on the Gaza Strip has reportedly killed 11 Palestinians after a Hamas attack which left three soldiers dead.
Five children are among those killed by the strike near Bureij refugee camp, doctors say, and a Reuters cameraman was killed, apparently by a tank shell.
Confirming the Bureij strike, Israel said it had targeted gunmen.
In all, 22 people were killed on one of the bloodiest days since Israel's Gaza incursions in February-March.
At least 100 people were killed during those operations which Israel launched after Palestinian rocket attacks on its territory.
Medics told the BBC that five people were also injured by the Israeli air strike near Bureij.
DAY OF BLOODSHED IN GAZA
An Israeli helicopter launches a missile towards the Gaza Strip on 16 April
Children among 11 Palestinians killed by Israeli air strike near Bureij
Three Israeli soldiers killed near Nahal Oz
Four Hamas militants killed by Israeli troops east of Gaza City
Reuters cameraman and two bystanders killed by blast
One man killed on air strike on car near Beit Lahyia
Most of those killed were civilians, Hamas and medical officials said.
According to Hamas, Israeli helicopters launched four missiles.
Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, 23, was killed along with two bystanders after he got out of a vehicle marked "TV" and "Press" in central Gaza, the agency reports.
Film recovered from his camera shows an Israeli tank opening fire several hundred metres away, Reuters adds.
It goes blank about two seconds after the shell is fired - apparently at the moment of impact.
Local residents said earlier he had died in an Israeli air strike.
Four Hamas militants were also killed by Israeli troops east of Gaza City early on Wednesday.
An air strike on a car also killed one Palestinian near Beit Lahyia, in the north of the strip.
Earlier on Wednesday, three Israeli soldiers were killed and three wounded when Hamas gunmen approached the security fence near the Nahal Oz crossing, the army said.
The soldiers were killed as they pursued two Hamas fighters who had planted a bomb. They were ambushed by a second Hamas group lying in wait, the military said.
Hamas said it had mounted a "sophisticated ambush".
Israel's military losses were its biggest single toll in the area since 2006.
It is hard to say whether the recent spike in Israeli military casualties is down to more effective tactics by Hamas or simply the result of increased Israeli activity in Gaza and therefore increased exposure, says BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson.
A recent Israeli study by a research group with close ties to Israel's defence establishment said Hamas was currently engaged in the broadest and most significant military build-up in its history.
Some generals argue a major Israeli incursion will eventually be needed to prevent Hamas growing even stronger militarily.
But they also fear the possible consequences of a lengthy campaign in the crowded cities and refugee camps of Gaza, our correspondent says. An Israeli air strike on the Gaza Strip has reportedly killed 11 Palestinians after a Hamas attack which left three soldiers dead. ... more -
Waste! Fraud! Abuse! Bush and Cheney go on wild spending spree with taxpayers'...
Excerpt: "A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, and soon you’re talking real money.
But when it comes to reporting on what the Bush war legacy has cost American taxpayers, the media have been shockingly indifferent to the highest run-up in military spending since World War II. Even the devastating defense spending audit released Monday by the Government Accountability Office documenting the enormous waste in every single U.S. advanced weapons system failed to provoke the outrage it, and five equally scathing previous annual audits, deserved."
Hmmm. That sounds kind of dry and technical to me. I prefer to think of it this way:
How would feel if someone stole your debit card and your checkbook?
Now imagine that the bank allowed the thieves to overdraw your account while on a wild spending spree! They bought a few dozen iPhones, a couple Playstation 3's and bought a big screen plasma TV and overdrew your account -- but the bank didn't put a freeze on your account. It just kept allowing each new debit card purchase to go through, kept putting you further into overdraft and kept racking up more overdraft fees. And let's say these thieves were allowed to do this for about 8 years. Suddenly, before you know it, you're getting a bank statement indicating that you're now $2 trillion in debt.
Those thieves that stole your debit card and checkbook? Bush & Cheney.
Only they didn't really "steal" it exactly. They didn't need to. See, when they got elected they kind of/sort of were empowered to take loans out using our name. We being the American citizens and taxpayers. Think of it as being turned into an involuntary co-signer for someone with a compulsive spending problem. It's going to ruin your credit and bankrupt you, but there isn't much you can do about it. Only it's not just Bush and Cheney that get to use your debit card any way they want -- basically everyone in Congress can use it to. They pass that old taxpayer debit card around like a bong at a frat party. Everyone gets to take a hit.
One day you wake up, check your statement and notice that someone went out and put $81 BILLION on your card. You check the fine print and see that it was for a submarine -- to fight Al-Qaidas Navy! Had it been real-live x-ray specs ordered off the back of a comic book it couldn't be a more ridiculous purchase. But there's nothing you can do about it (until re-election time anyway). If that jackhole Sen. Joseph Lieberman wants to use your card to buy a fracking submarine to battle the dirt poor DESERT DWELLING insurgents in Iraq, well, there's not much you can do to stop him.
And WE get to pay the bill.
Bush doesn't have any money. He spent it all buying that real-life flight suit he wore for his speech. Oh! And buying that baseball team. But we are the co-signer to all the purchases he made on our joint US debit card and thus we are responsible. Oh look! There's Bush right now -- stuffing another collection notice from China into the drawer of his Oval Office desk. He sees us! He's grinning and shrugging his shoulders. Awww. Look at that face! How can you stay mad at the guy? He's just a harmless scamp with a compulsive spending problem.
Quick question: Is any of this debt dischargable? If we were lied into a "war" and we didn't really "approve" of any of these charges on our card -- can the World Bank or someone take them off? Could we declare bankruptcy as a nation and get a fresh start as we sometimes allow other (ahem) 3rd world nation to do? Excerpt: "A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, and soon you’re talking real money. ... more -
Is US aid to Israel funding our own decline?
During periods of recession, when Americans are thrown out of work, homes are repossessed, school budgets cut and businesses fail, Congress continues to give Israel massive amounts of our tax money; currently, about 7 million dollars per day.
On top of this, Egypt and Jordan receive large sums of money (per capita about 1/20th of what Israel receives) to buy their cooperation with Israel; and Palestinians also receive our tax money (about 1/23rd of that to Israel), to repair infrastructure that Israeli forces have destroyed, to fund humanitarian projects required due to the destruction wrought by Israel's military, and to convince Palestinian officials to take actions beneficial to Israel. These sums should also be included in expenditures on behalf of Israel.
When all are added together, it turns out that for many years over half of all US tax money abroad has been expended to benefit a country the size of New Jersey.
It is certainly time to begin debating this disbursement of our hard-earned money. It is quite possible that we have better uses for it.
To decide whether the US should continue military aid to any nation, it is essential to examine the nature and history of the recipient nation, how it has used our military aid in the past, whether these uses are in accord with our values, and whether they benefit the American taxpayers who are putting up the money. During periods of recession, when Americans are thrown out of work, homes are repossessed, school budgets cut and businesses fail, Con... more
-
related topics
taxpayer dollars
Contributors (45)
taxpayer dollars
