Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: What if the U.S. government released an "educational video"
1/15/2010 3:35:23 PM

Morning Bell: Bank Tax Misses the Real Bailout Deadbeats in Detroit and DC

Posted January 15th, 2010 at 9:51am in Enterprise and Free Markets 0 Print This Post Print This Post

Facing rising populist anger over his administration’s billion-dollar bailouts, President Barack Obama proposed a $117 billion tax over the next 12 years on financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it,” the President said. The President is half right. Taxpayers are going to get their money back from the banks that received bailout money … but don’t expect to see any of the money the Obama administration poured into General Motors and Chrysler at the behest of their union allies. That is where the real losses are coming from.

The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As The New York Times reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”

So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.” Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that helped create the crisis.

The plan also will do nothing to help reform the banking system. Financial regulatory analyst Karen Shaw Petrou tells The Washington Post: “The new big-bank tax is just like charging a nickel sin tax on a half-gallon of cheap liquor — it may make moralists feel good, but it doesn’t do much to stop bad behavior.” Instead of protecting consumers, it will just end up hurting them. Financial services analyst Meredith Whitney tells The New York Times: “The irony is it hurts the weaker banks more than the stronger banks. To think that it won’t come out of consumers and businesses is mistaken.” And banking analyst David Hendler tells Bloomberg: “We remain concerned that this is more evidence of the cynical view of the banking industry which prevails in Washington.”

In sum, this new $117 billion Obama tax will penalize firms that already repaid TARP, and some who never accepted bailout money to begin with, while also making it harder for Americans to get the loans they need to help our economy recover, all while letting the real deadbeats get off scot-free. If the President were serious about making taxpayers whole and restoring confidence in the banking sector, then he should end TARP now.

Quick Hits:

Tags: , , , , ,

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: What if the U.S. government released an "educational video"
1/15/2010 3:38:49 PM

Unions Cut Special Deal on Health Taxes


Democratic negotiators acceded to union demands for a scaled-back tax on high-end health-insurance plans, exempting union contracts from the tax until 2018, five years beyond the start date for other workers.

The deal helped Democrats clear a key hurdle, but the reduced tax added to the pressure to find new revenue to pay for their health bill, which is designed to give coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Negotiators were considering increasing the financial hit on drug makers, nursing homes and medical-device makers, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The tax on high-value insurance plans was included in the Senate's version of the bill but not the House's, and has been one of the main unresolved issues as Democrats work to combine measures passed by the two chambers late last year.

Unions, as well as many House Democrats, are fiercely opposed to the tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans, which they say will hit many middle-class workers and undermine benefits won by unions.

President Barack Obama has supported the measure as a way to pay for the legislation and control overall health-care spending. The changes mean that the tax will raise about $90 billion over 10 years, down from $149 billion in the Senate bill, labor officials said.

Mr. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to reassure House Democrats who feared a vote for the bill would be politically damaging. "I know how big a lift this has been. I see the polls," Mr. Obama said. He promised to wage a "great campaign from one end of the country to the other to sell the legislation to the public should it become law.

Republicans seized on the delay for unionized workers to say the deal was unfair to workers not in unions, who would be forced to pay the tax five years earlier, starting in 2013.

"The White House and congressional Democrats are picking one group of workers over another," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. "If this sounds discriminatory, well it is."

J.P. Fielder, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that like the unions, the business community didn't like the tax and supported scaling it back. But he said it seemed unfair for unionized workers to be exempted for five years when others were not.

In addition to softening the tax on high-end plans, Democrats plan to increase subsidies for lower earners to buy health insurance. To pay for such changes, Democrats are considering levying an additional $10 billion in fees on medical-device makers, for a total of $30 billion over 10 years. But it wasn't a done deal as the House was showing resistance.

Congressional negotiators have also told drug makers they were considering decreasing reimbursements under government health programs or increasing fees by an additional $10 billion over a decade, beyond the $80 billion in concessions the industry agreed to last year, according to people familiar with the negotiations. And lawmakers are looking to push fees on nursing homes past the $14.6 billion over a decade that is in the Senate version.

The union deal comes as the White House and congressional leaders pressed to reach a final agreement on key parts of health-care legislation by the weekend. Top congressional Democrats negotiated with the president into the night Thursday, the second consecutive day of lengthy talks. They hoped to have an agreement ready for assessment by the Congressional Budget Office as soon as Friday.

Issues that have yet to be resolved, aides said, included how to structure the new exchanges where Americans would buy coverage, how much to increase the Medicare payroll tax and how to handle restrictions on abortion coverage.

Union leaders pressed their case for the changes on the high-end insurance tax at two White House meetings this week, including a two-hour session with Mr. Obama.

The dispute threatened to drive a wedge between the White House and unions, which strongly backed Mr. Obama's presidential campaign. The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, this week suggested that without changes to this provision, unions might be less likely to help Democrats on the ballot this fall and Republicans could take back the House. Another union threatened to pull support for the health bill, Mr. Obama's top legislative priority.

After Thursday's agreement, labor leaders had warm words for the president and said they would promote the deal among Democrats.

Under the Senate bill, health insurers would have paid a 40% tax on premiums that exceed $8,500 annually for individuals, or $23,000 for family plans. The agreement reached Thursday raises those thresholds slightly, to $8,900 for individuals and $24,000 for families, with annual increases tied to one point above the Consumer Price Index, labor and White House officials said.

The threshold increases further if health-care costs rise faster than predicted between now and 2013, when the tax takes effect, officials said. In addition, the value of dental and vision benefits wouldn't count toward the thresholds, and the threshold would rise further for plans where premiums were higher because the work force was older or had more women. There are also adjustments for 17 states with particularly high health costs.

In addition, union officials said that under the agreement, companies with unionized work forces could buy their health coverage beginning in 2017 through the new exchange, which had been designed to serve individuals and small businesses. White House officials suggested that wasn't a done deal but said that over time they wanted to open the exchange to more people.

Both labor and White House officials described the delay in applying the tax to Cadillac plans as a transition and said many of the other changes apply to all workers.

"We think we've done a great job for all working Americans out there and that includes union members," Mr. Trumka said.

—Jonathan D. Rockoff and Janet Adamy contributed to this article.

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com and Jonathan D. Rockoff at jonathan.rockoff@wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

More In Politics

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: What if the U.S. government released an "educational video"
1/16/2010 12:21:05 AM
These are my views and thoughts on current events. Thank you for reading.



I want to take a moment and commend the patriots of Massachusetts for gaining national attention and motivating our Commander and Chief into action. With the rising threat of the SB underground and the potential takeover of a Kennedy stronghold.

The President has been pressed into action to overcome and quell the voices and forces of discontent with the status quo of the past 38 years.

It appears that a less government, voice of reason scares this oppressive force that is in charge of the country at present.

Especially when it gets in the way of delivering to the forces already on the ground in the field battle. Yes the purple shirts have been dispatched to the red zones and preparing to blanket the area with shots of propaganda. Reaching deep into their arsenal they will utilize all forms of media and field warfare.

Yes folks they see this as warfare for welfare and you need to understand the "Rules of Engagement" from the sunshine with more clarity "Progressives" In Charge.

I commend the efforts of the underground grassroots movement and hope their efforts and success will be recognized and replicated on a national scale.

Imagine getting the chief cook and bottle washer to leave his hoop dreams and handicaps behind to address the losses in the field of battle.

Especially when that field of battle was a such a sure walk in the park, that it has really taken them by surprise. And swift action must be seen from the leadership to even save face much less the empty seat belonging to the people of Massachusetts and not some Kennedy or Progressive Legacy enslaving future generations to some kind of Communist/Islamic state of existence.

Fellow Americans that are fed up with the "Progressives' Politically Correct" big government appeasement programs. We have to realize, understand, face and decide exactly what American Freedom means to each of us.

What it means to me is something very different than represented by the current status quo of career monarchs with lifetime pensions and other benefits while ignoring the very document and oath they took when sworn into office.

They have been allowed to appoint themselves royalty above the laws we must live by. Now is the time is to speak up and take a stand for the American Freedoms you believe in. As these times may be last time we can do so civilly and in a peaceful manner.

American Patriots like the ones in the SB underground network should be supported and celebrated for their magnificent efforts. Causing the Commander n Chief to come into the field of battle to defend against your grassroots organization.

Proof that the American Spirit is alive and taking a stand. Voters of Massachusetts stand up, speak up and claim your Senate seat by supporting Scott Brown in his quest to speak for a Free America.

Personal comments from none other than me:
Jim Allen III
Reason and Common Sense Patriot
NoIncumbents 2010 2012
http://contactjim.info

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: What if the U.S. government released an "educational video"
1/16/2010 1:45:58 AM

Michelle Obama Staff – Nauseating

Executive Summary – Michelle Obama has a bigger staff than any other first lady. This costs the taxpayers a fortune each year. For what, touching the Queen of England, flyinga round shopping. What a waste of money. People are going without healthcare and homeless while she has 24 servants like the Queen of some country for her social itinerary. Read the details.

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)

4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)

10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)

16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

The list excludes makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles and hairstylist Johnny Wright. She flies both of them around on air force one.

Discussion – The illegal President of the USA did promise us change. Here is another example of it.

Sources :

Executive Office of the President. "Annual Report on White House Staff to Congress." WhiteHouse.gov. 1 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Sweet, Lynn. "What Michelle Obama's Staffers Earn." PoliticsDaily.com. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Sweet, Lynn. "More Michelle Obama staff appointments." SunTimes.com. 16 Jan 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

"First Lady Requires More than 20 Attendants." TheLastCrusade.org. 6 Jul 2009, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

Froomkin, Dan. "2008 White House Office Staff List." Washington Post White House Watch Column. 24 Jul 2008, accessed 30 Jul 2009.

http://www.rense.com

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: What if the U.S. government released an "educational video"
1/16/2010 6:46:55 AM
Hi Jim

I enjoyed reading your comments and will add one thing to it.

The Dems are hysterical and out there denigrating American citizens that think differently then they do. It's obvious from their reactions that they recognize the power of the different grass roots movements even though they try their d*amnest to minimize them and use disgusting name calling as a defense of themselves and their candidate.

Scott Brown is handling himself in a respectable manner and isn't resorting to dirty tactics as they are and is continuing to state what he stands for and hopefully that will bring about one of the greatest wins that will be catastrophic for the Dems and a resounding win for the entire USA.

You'll see how desperate the Democrats are in the below news report.

Shalom,

Peter


Updated January 15, 2010

Democrats Accuse Brown of 'Radical' Ties as Senate Election Nears

FOXNews.com

GOPSenate candidate Scott Brown and his supporters are firing back atDemocratic senators for accusing him of being a "far-right" politicianbacked by "right-wing radicals" by virtue of his ties to theconservative tea party movement.

Brown, with the support of the tea party groups and others, isposing a stiff challenge to Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for theU.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts formerly held by the late TedKennedy. Polls show him closing in on Coakley, long the frontrunner,with just four days to go until the special election, and the latestsurvey shows him leading by 4 points.

With the race tightening, national Democratic heavyweights havestepped into the picture and are lobbing harsh accusations at Brown'ssupport network.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., claimed in an e-mail that "swift boaters"were trying to sink Coakley, a reference to the ads that targeted himin the 2004 presidential campaign. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., calledBrown a "far-right tea-bagger" in an e-mail, using a term that also canrefer to a sexual act. Then on Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wrotein a fundraising e-mail that Coakley was "being attacked by teapartiers and right-wing radicals."

Levi Russell, a spokesman for the Brown-supporting Tea PartyExpress, said the rhetoric is a "sign of desperation" from Coakley'sbackers.

"It's funny -- if your views differ at all with the Democraticestablishment, then you're obviously a far-right extremist," he said."None of that messaging is addressing Scott Brown on the validity ofhis views. It goes straight to name-calling."

Russell noted that Brown, a state senator, did not come out of thetea party movement, though he is supported by it. Russell said a Brownvictory would still count as a "win" for the tea party groups.

Tea Party Express announced Friday that it had spent more than$200,000 to support Brown, with much of that going into a new TV adendorsing him.

Brown also recently attended a fundraiser with a group called the Greater Boston Tea Party.

Democrats point to this support in arguing that Brown is closely aligned with the movement and not part of the mainstream.

"Not only is Scott Brown an enthusiastic member of the movement, buthis fellow tea partiers are bankrolling his campaign," the DemocraticSenatorial Campaign Committee said in a blog on its Web site. The DSCCalso referred to his "right-wing views" and "radical record."

But Brown is hammering the Democrats, accusing the party of bringingout the machine to trip up his race. Asked about Schumer's fundraisinge-mail Thursday, Brown called it "unfortunate." "I'm not intoname-calling. ... so shame on Chuck," he said

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!