Guess I'm just the news repeater these days. It's just that you can't make this stuff up.
Fannie, Freddie will pay $210 million in retention bonuses: "Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies.
The retention awards for more than 7,600 employees were disclosed in a letter from the companies' regulator released Friday by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The companies paid out nearly $51 million last year, are scheduled to make $146 million in payments this year and $13 million in 2010. " (No hypocrisy there. - JH)
U.S. aims to help firms sidestep bailout rules: "
The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.
Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.
The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials." (No hypocrisy there. These guys should run a hedge fund. - JH)
Financial industry paid millions to Obama aide : Summers earned cash last year from firms over which he now has influence: "Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money, the White House disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials. " (No hypocrisy there. Well, no more than Hank Paulson et al. A guy has to earn a living doesn't he? - JH)
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Senate bailout bill protects wooden arrows
(First posted 10/2/2008 HERE)
A.k.a. "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," Shakespeare, HAMLET. I heard about this on the news and looked it up. Following is the text from the actual bill passed last night by the U.S. Senate (Ref: http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bailouttext.pdf):
20 SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN
21 WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY
22 CHILDREN.
23 (a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b)24 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub
301
1 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A)
2 the following new subparagraph:
3 ''(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN
4 ARROW SHAFTS.-Subparagraph (A) shall not
5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural
6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of
7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold
8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished
9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the
10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as
11 sembly-
12 ''(i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in
13 diameter, and
14 ''(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow
15 described in paragraph (1)(A).''.
16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by
17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date18 of enactment of this Act.
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is your Federal Government at work. In addition to the voluminous PARTISAN rhetoric I've heard from both sides of the aisle, I've heard or read many opinions THAT I RESPECT saying a 'bailout' or 'rescue' of the financial system is an unfortunate but necessary measure in order to stave off economic catastrophe for all, including thoseof us who DID NOT participate in conducting bad business. This catastrophe would be in the form of lack of loans (already occurring) causing reduced auto and home sales (already occurring) and reduced business growth, resulting in layoffs and higher unemployment, resulting in reduced consumer spending, resulting in reduced auto, home, and business sales, resulting in... well, you get the idea.
Despite the highly respected opinions, I'm still not sure it wouldn't be better to fail miserably now and get it over with. Many who invested in the great financial institutions either directly or through mutual funds have seen those stocks plummet 80-90%. Anyone invested in the stock market directly or through mutual funds, 401k, etc and who did not make a VERY timely adjustment have seen their investment plummet 20% in the last year. Anyone who has little or no savings will merely join the rest in paying higher prices for everything as goods become relatively scarcer.
I'm not voting for candidates this year. As usual it's the choice of the lesser of two evils. Neither Abe Lincoln or George Washington are running again this year. (Though doesn't it seem like we have Abe and George wannabe's running against each other?)
I am voting for political party. One party wants to reduce taxes and reduce government spending. (Why were we EVER taxing wooden arrows in the first place!?) To me, less taxes is a no brainer. If you pay less taxes you have more money to spend (OR save). If you spend it (and, short of stuffing it under your mattress, saving or investing is "loaning" it to someone else to'spend' while you don't need it) then the businesses and employees where you spend it have greater incomes, they spend it elsewhere also, and you eventually have MORE taxes being paid to government.
The other party wants to " Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families". Might one logically assume this is the lower 95% of income earners? Do you know that as of 2005 the top 5% of income earners paid 59.7% of all income taxes? (Well, they earned 35.8% of all income, so why shouldn't they pay more?) Let's see, this means that the "bottom" 95% of income earners paid 40.3% of all income taxes while they earned 64.2% of all income. The BOTTOM FIFTY % of income earners paid 3.1% of all income taxes. (Ref:Graphs at http://www.koaradio.com/pages/rosenfiles.html.) Hmm. "From each according tohis ability, toeach according tohis needs." (Karl Marx, I believe.)
Ah well, I digress. Since it is still a (more or less) free country, vote for socialism, or nationalism, or national socialism, if you see fit. Personally, I'm a Conservative, AND a Republican, though we are barely a constitutional republic anymore. (WHAT! We're not a DEMOCRACY!? Omg, Omg. And I'm digressing again.)
Have a nice day.
A.k.a. "The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," Shakespeare, HAMLET. I heard about this on the news and looked it up. Following is the text from the actual bill passed last night by the U.S. Senate (Ref: http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bailouttext.pdf):
20 SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN
21 WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY
22 CHILDREN.
23 (a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b)24 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub
301
1 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A)
2 the following new subparagraph:
3 ''(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN
4 ARROW SHAFTS.-Subparagraph (A) shall not
5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural
6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of
7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold
8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished
9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the
10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as
11 sembly-
12 ''(i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in
13 diameter, and
14 ''(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow
15 described in paragraph (1)(A).''.
16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by
17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date18 of enactment of this Act.
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is your Federal Government at work. In addition to the voluminous PARTISAN rhetoric I've heard from both sides of the aisle, I've heard or read many opinions THAT I RESPECT saying a 'bailout' or 'rescue' of the financial system is an unfortunate but necessary measure in order to stave off economic catastrophe for all, including thoseof us who DID NOT participate in conducting bad business. This catastrophe would be in the form of lack of loans (already occurring) causing reduced auto and home sales (already occurring) and reduced business growth, resulting in layoffs and higher unemployment, resulting in reduced consumer spending, resulting in reduced auto, home, and business sales, resulting in... well, you get the idea.
Despite the highly respected opinions, I'm still not sure it wouldn't be better to fail miserably now and get it over with. Many who invested in the great financial institutions either directly or through mutual funds have seen those stocks plummet 80-90%. Anyone invested in the stock market directly or through mutual funds, 401k, etc and who did not make a VERY timely adjustment have seen their investment plummet 20% in the last year. Anyone who has little or no savings will merely join the rest in paying higher prices for everything as goods become relatively scarcer.
I'm not voting for candidates this year. As usual it's the choice of the lesser of two evils. Neither Abe Lincoln or George Washington are running again this year. (Though doesn't it seem like we have Abe and George wannabe's running against each other?)
I am voting for political party. One party wants to reduce taxes and reduce government spending. (Why were we EVER taxing wooden arrows in the first place!?) To me, less taxes is a no brainer. If you pay less taxes you have more money to spend (OR save). If you spend it (and, short of stuffing it under your mattress, saving or investing is "loaning" it to someone else to'spend' while you don't need it) then the businesses and employees where you spend it have greater incomes, they spend it elsewhere also, and you eventually have MORE taxes being paid to government.
The other party wants to " Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families". Might one logically assume this is the lower 95% of income earners? Do you know that as of 2005 the top 5% of income earners paid 59.7% of all income taxes? (Well, they earned 35.8% of all income, so why shouldn't they pay more?) Let's see, this means that the "bottom" 95% of income earners paid 40.3% of all income taxes while they earned 64.2% of all income. The BOTTOM FIFTY % of income earners paid 3.1% of all income taxes. (Ref:Graphs at http://www.koaradio.com/pages/rosenfiles.html.) Hmm. "From each according tohis ability, toeach according tohis needs." (Karl Marx, I believe.)
Ah well, I digress. Since it is still a (more or less) free country, vote for socialism, or nationalism, or national socialism, if you see fit. Personally, I'm a Conservative, AND a Republican, though we are barely a constitutional republic anymore. (WHAT! We're not a DEMOCRACY!? Omg, Omg. And I'm digressing again.)
Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)