| Posted: Tue Dec 22nd, 2009 03:22 pm |
|
51st Post |
| Posted: Tue Dec 22nd, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
52nd Post |
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Dodd Can Take more calls
Unemployment Calls Overwhelm Server
Updated 2:15 PM EST, Mon, Dec 21, 2009
Unemployment claims have been flooding into the state Department of Labor, dragging the filing system to a crawl.
“Due to the high volume of claim filing, you may experience some difficulty filing your claim via the Web or by telephone. We apologize for any inconvenience,” the Web site says.
A spokeswoman says the Department of Labor issued 156,673 benefit checks during the week of Dec. 13-19, up nearly 50 percent from 105,431 last year.
The agency has been "incredibly busy" with claims and was "flooded with calls," she said.
Gary Horn, of West Hartford, says he and his wife, who has been unemployed from a playground design company for a year, got through to the Labor Department's automatic filing system after hours of trying.
The system overload comes just a couple days after the state announces that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.8 percent in October to 8.2 percent.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21st, 2009 04:12 pm |
|
53rd Post |
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Serious delinquencies among U.S. prime mortgages rose nearly 20 percent in the third quarter from the prior quarter, as the percentage of current and performing mortgages fell for the sixth consecutive quarter, banking regulators said on Monday.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18th, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
54th Post |
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is setting aside $30 billion from the financial bailout fund for a program designed to encourage lending to small businesses to aid the economic recovery.
An internal document obtained by The Associated Press spell out how the Treasury Department plans to spend money from the fund before it expires in October 2010. The document show $40 billion would go to consumer and business lending programs.
Of that amount, $30 billion would support lending to small companies, according to a Treasury official who spoke Friday on condition of anonymity because no final decisions on the program have been made.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17th, 2009 04:11 pm |
|
55th Post |
areyounotkidding me
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 211 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The Obama Economy is So Bad...
The Obama economy is so bad...that Chris Matthews' leg has quit tingling.
The Obama economy is so bad...that Rush Limbaugh is smoking Swisher Sweets.
The Obama economy is so bad...that the Grey Poupon guy has switched to French's.
The Obama economy is so bad...that the White House china is actually being made in China.
The Obama economy is so bad...that the President is changing his slogan to "Hope and Spare Change!"
The Obama economy is so bad...that Nancy Pelosi is selling earmarks for 1/2 price.
The Obama economy is so bad...that Saturday Night Live is thinking about telling an Obama joke. The Obama economy is so bad...that the President is running a small business on the side. It's called GM. The Obama economy is so bad...that Rosie O'Donnell is losing weight. The Obama economy is so bad...that Kenya now claims he wasn't born there. The Obama economy is so bad...that Al Gore is selling carbon credits on late night television. The Obama economy is so bad...that Bill Ayers has to make do with M-80s.
The Obama economy is so bad...that the White House plans to cut Hillary Clinton's hours. The Obama economy is so bad...that Barack's pyramid is on hold. The Obama economy is so bad...that Michelle fired her nanny and learned her children's names. The Obama economy is so bad...that the airlines are installing pay toilets in coach. The Obama economy is so bad...that you can order checks pre-marked "Insufficient Funds." The Obama economy is so bad...that Congress is planning a spare change for clunkers program. The Obama economy is so bad...that Americans are being caught sneaking into Mexico. The Obama economy is so bad...that the Chicago mob is laying off judges. The Obama economy is so bad...that Jesse Jackson is renting a limo. The Obama economy is so bad...that it only takes one lick to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop. The Obama economy is so bad...that Motel Six won't leave the light on for you anymore. The Obama economy is so bad...that they now ask at the burger counter, "Can you afford fries with that?" The Obama economy is so bad...that the federal stimulus checks are bouncing.
Just a bit of fun, I hope nobody takes offense. We need more humor since the Obama economy is so bad....
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17th, 2009 01:44 pm |
|
56th Post |
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly
Dec 17, 8:42 AM (ET)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP) - The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.
The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of new jobless claims rose to 480,000 last week, up 7,000 from the previous week. That was a worse performance than the decline to 465,000 that economists had expected.
The four-week average for claims, which smooths out fluctuations, did fall, dipping to 467,500, the 15th straight decline, viewed as an encouraging sign that the labor market is gradually improving. The four-week average is now at its lowest point since late September 2008, the period when the financial crisis was hitting with full force.
Unemployment claims have been on a downward trend since this summer. That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year. But the rise in weekly claims of 7,000 last week, which had followed an increase of 19,000 the previous week, shows that the improvement has been halting.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
57th Post |
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 07:29 pm |
|
58th Post |
ItsAllAConspiracy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Online
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: Razenkn wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
I'm doing this from memory but isn't he the guy that brokered a deal with White House Advisor Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when he was working with Goldman Sachs a 16 MILLION dollar deal?? No question he got a chunk of change off of it as well.
I don't know if anyone has noticed or not but President Appeaser has surrounded himself with past WALLSTREETER's that made MILLIONS of dollars. So his little hissy fit yesterday was a joke, it was a photo op for his "black base" because they are thoroughly ticked at him for bailing out Wallstreet but doing nothing for them that he so eloquently promised....you know, pay their rent and car payments and buy their gas?? That's what they thought he was going to do but instead he was busy running WALLSTREET execs who BTW donated millions of dollars in bundled campaign funds to get him elected so we all know the "winky, wink" game on this deal. "Let me yell at you publicly" then we can all go back to the Oval office and have a good slap on the back laugh.
He doesn't fool anyone who is paying attention. So what does that say? Everyone needs to be paying attention but obviously they're not. 
That is where I remember the name. I think it was $16 million that Rahm Emanuel made on the deal. Do you think this was payback?
Ahem. You have to ask? Can you say "Chicago Style politics?"
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 07:28 pm |
|
59th Post |
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1287 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
Yeah...I think he might have been the guy I hired to board my dog last year....he drove a new Hummer..older, white guy who seemed very angry...yeh..he had the ultra-conservative look about him......wonder why my dog bit him, tho?Last edited on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 07:40 pm by callmelou
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
60th Post |
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
I'm doing this from memory but isn't he the guy that brokered a deal with White House Advisor Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when he was working with Goldman Sachs a 16 MILLION dollar deal?? No question he got a chunk of change off of it as well.
I don't know if anyone has noticed or not but President Appeaser has surrounded himself with past WALLSTREETER's that made MILLIONS of dollars. So his little hissy fit yesterday was a joke, it was a photo op for his "black base" because they are thoroughly ticked at him for bailing out Wallstreet but doing nothing for them that he so eloquently promised....you know, pay their rent and car payments and buy their gas?? That's what they thought he was going to do but instead he was busy running WALLSTREET execs who BTW donated millions of dollars in bundled campaign funds to get him elected so we all know the "winky, wink" game on this deal. "Let me yell at you publicly" then we can all go back to the Oval office and have a good slap on the back laugh.
He doesn't fool anyone who is paying attention. So what does that say? Everyone needs to be paying attention but obviously they're not.
That is where I remember the name. I think it was $16 million that Rahm Emanuel made on the deal. Do you think this was payback?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 05:57 pm |
|
61st Post |
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
Made a lot of money with AT&T. Agreed that he knows nothing about cars but steered GM into Bankruptcy.Last edited on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 05:57 pm by designman124
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 05:51 pm |
|
62nd Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
I'm doing this from memory but isn't he the guy that brokered a deal with White House Advisor Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel when he was working with Goldman Sachs a 16 MILLION dollar deal?? No question he got a chunk of change off of it as well.
I don't know if anyone has noticed or not but President Appeaser has surrounded himself with past WALLSTREETER's that made MILLIONS of dollars. So his little hissy fit yesterday was a joke, it was a photo op for his "black base" because they are thoroughly ticked at him for bailing out Wallstreet but doing nothing for them that he so eloquently promised....you know, pay their rent and car payments and buy their gas?? That's what they thought he was going to do but instead he was busy running WALLSTREET execs who BTW donated millions of dollars in bundled campaign funds to get him elected so we all know the "winky, wink" game on this deal. "Let me yell at you publicly" then we can all go back to the Oval office and have a good slap on the back laugh.
He doesn't fool anyone who is paying attention. So what does that say? Everyone needs to be paying attention but obviously they're not.
Last edited on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 05:53 pm by
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 04:39 pm |
|
63rd Post |
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Why does the name of the new CEO of GM sound familiar?: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Any body recognize his name?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15th, 2009 02:38 pm |
|
64th Post |
| Posted: Mon Dec 14th, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
65th Post |
| Posted: Thu Dec 10th, 2009 07:33 pm |
|
66th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: Razenkn wrote: cindisue_g wrote: goldrush wrote: Absolutely not. It's going to be a long time before we see an unemployment rate of 5%. Remember, he said we're probably in for a jobless recovery. Besides without tax hikes how do you pay for all the spending that's goin' on? Initially, he committed to eliminating the deficit by the end of his first term. Yesterday, he backed off of that and said he will cut it in half. How do you accomplish that without massive tax hikes?
The point is that they have to stop spending, something this administration doesn't know how to do.
This President said just this week that we have to "SPEND OUR WAY OUT OF THE RECESSION"...he believes that or at least he claims to. Everyone with even a half of a brain knows better than that. But I do think he does knows better and is going down this path on purpose in order to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA just as he promised in his last speech before the election and all of his radical friends have been put in Czar positions to do.
He's dumb like a fox and he pretends not to realize it is destructive economy practices, but you know that folks like Warren Buffet who he claimed to listen to has told him better. So, this is all intentional to keep us in as much of a CRISIS as he can so that he can get his dirty deeds done. He has tripled the deficit in less than a year and he is still going strong on the spending so one can only predict there will be more to come, much, much more. The thing that is the hardest to swallow is that 83% of the DEMS think he is doing a good job on the economy, guess those are all the ones he's hired on as a Gov't employee because those are the only jobs being CREATED. I hear he personally serves them the juice every morning as they walk in. 
President Obama can't consider the Republican option, because (1) no taxes would mean no "cap and trade" tax, (2) no optional spending would mean he couldn't throw money to his "friends" (like the dollars wasted for a field mouse) and (3) no anti-business regulations would take him out of trying to control the business world.
I don't think 83 percent of the Democrats think he is doing a good job, I just think that they are so party centered that they are afraid to admit that they were taken in by him.
I keep wondering why the minuscule number of saved/created jobs he is claiming are all "blue collar" jobs - does he have something against those that have "white collar" jobs or is there an agenda there???
Well, his Black Caucus is ticked at him now because he PROMISED to focus on jobs for the blacks and he hasn't done that either. They showed a clip of him saying that last year and now of course, he's unable to deliver. So, he just keeps increasing the Welfare for them because that is where he wants them anyway, totally dependent upon him. Therefore, he has a captive voting audience.
Democrat John Conyers has started to criticize President Appeaser on a regular basis so much so that the WH sent him a memo asking him why he is doing that and he said, oh nothing personal, I just don't agree with how he's handling a lot of the policies. LOL
That's what happens when you do the FLOURISHING RHETORIC thing for a couple of years making promises you can't possibly keep under the phony guise of HOPE AND CHANGE because we aren't even a full year into his administration and people have figured out they have been had. He's losing the independent vote at a dizzying rate and now his own party are turning against him because the phony face of HOPE AND CHANGE is crumbling before our very eyes. The fabricated MESSIAH is coming undone at the seams.
Besides, he's to darned busy running over to Norway to pick up his PEACE Prize just a few days after order 30,000 troops into battle....LOL Has the whole world just gone crazy here or what??
Is it time to say I TOLD YOU SO yet??
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: cindisue_g wrote: goldrush wrote: Absolutely not. It's going to be a long time before we see an unemployment rate of 5%. Remember, he said we're probably in for a jobless recovery. Besides without tax hikes how do you pay for all the spending that's goin' on? Initially, he committed to eliminating the deficit by the end of his first term. Yesterday, he backed off of that and said he will cut it in half. How do you accomplish that without massive tax hikes?
The point is that they have to stop spending, something this administration doesn't know how to do.
This President said just this week that we have to "SPEND OUR WAY OUT OF THE RECESSION"...he believes that or at least he claims to. Everyone with even a half of a brain knows better than that. But I do think he does knows better and is going down this path on purpose in order to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA just as he promised in his last speech before the election and all of his radical friends have been put in Czar positions to do.
He's dumb like a fox and he pretends not to realize it is destructive economy practices, but you know that folks like Warren Buffet who he claimed to listen to has told him better. So, this is all intentional to keep us in as much of a CRISIS as he can so that he can get his dirty deeds done. He has tripled the deficit in less than a year and he is still going strong on the spending so one can only predict there will be more to come, much, much more. The thing that is the hardest to swallow is that 83% of the DEMS think he is doing a good job on the economy, guess those are all the ones he's hired on as a Gov't employee because those are the only jobs being CREATED. I hear he personally serves them the juice every morning as they walk in.
President Obama can't consider the Republican option, because (1) no taxes would mean no "cap and trade" tax, (2) no optional spending would mean he couldn't throw money to his "friends" (like the dollars wasted for a field mouse) and (3) no anti-business regulations would take him out of trying to control the business world.
I don't think 83 percent of the Democrats think he is doing a good job, I just think that they are so party centered that they are afraid to admit that they were taken in by him.
I keep wondering why the minuscule number of saved/created jobs he is claiming are all "blue collar" jobs - does he have something against those that have "white collar" jobs or is there an agenda there???
|
Trophywife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 664 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: The thing that is the hardest to swallow is that 83% of the DEMS think he is doing a good job on the economy
He's doing a great job on my economy. My investments and retirement plans are starting to make me smile again.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: goldrush wrote: Absolutely not. It's going to be a long time before we see an unemployment rate of 5%. Remember, he said we're probably in for a jobless recovery. Besides without tax hikes how do you pay for all the spending that's goin' on? Initially, he committed to eliminating the deficit by the end of his first term. Yesterday, he backed off of that and said he will cut it in half. How do you accomplish that without massive tax hikes?
The point is that they have to stop spending, something this administration doesn't know how to do.
This President said just this week that we have to "SPEND OUR WAY OUT OF THE RECESSION"...he believes that or at least he claims to. Everyone with even a half of a brain knows better than that. But I do think he does knows better and is going down this path on purpose in order to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA just as he promised in his last speech before the election and all of his radical friends have been put in Czar positions to do.
He's dumb like a fox and he pretends not to realize it is destructive economy practices, but you know that folks like Warren Buffet who he claimed to listen to has told him better. So, this is all intentional to keep us in as much of a CRISIS as he can so that he can get his dirty deeds done. He has tripled the deficit in less than a year and he is still going strong on the spending so one can only predict there will be more to come, much, much more. The thing that is the hardest to swallow is that 83% of the DEMS think he is doing a good job on the economy, guess those are all the ones he's hired on as a Gov't employee because those are the only jobs being CREATED. I hear he personally serves them the juice every morning as they walk in.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
goldrush wrote: Absolutely not. It's going to be a long time before we see an unemployment rate of 5%. Remember, he said we're probably in for a jobless recovery. Besides without tax hikes how do you pay for all the spending that's goin' on? Initially, he committed to eliminating the deficit by the end of his first term. Yesterday, he backed off of that and said he will cut it in half. How do you accomplish that without massive tax hikes?
The point is that they have to stop spending, something this administration doesn't know how to do.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Absolutely not. It's going to be a long time before we see an unemployment rate of 5%. Remember, he said we're probably in for a jobless recovery. Besides without tax hikes how do you pay for all the spending that's goin' on? Initially, he committed to eliminating the deficit by the end of his first term. Yesterday, he backed off of that and said he will cut it in half. How do you accomplish that without massive tax hikes?
Last edited on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 08:37 pm by goldrush
|
Trophywife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 664 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republican lawmakers Wednesday presented President Barack Obama with their plan to tackle unemployment, proposing a freeze on tax hikes until the jobless rate falls below five percent.
Does this sound like a plan he would agree with?
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I would bet, that in a week our President says that the Republicans didn't submit any ideas. But at least we will know that he is lying again.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republican lawmakers Wednesday presented President Barack Obama with their plan to tackle unemployment, proposing a freeze on tax hikes until the jobless rate falls below five percent.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
It is nice to see our money at work, when there are so many hungry people in the United States, our administration is allowing money to be wasted on these types of items. Thank you President Obama and Vice President Biden for watching out for our money - you have once again disappointed us - no wonder your approval rating is the lowest for any President in the first 11 months.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Another Obama Plan
Another part of Obama's jobs plan is to boost investment in our nation's infrastructure. Remember that $787 billion Recovery act passed in February? That was just a dress rehearsal. Now we are REALLY going to get serious about infrastructure spending!
But let me remind you how that worked out for us, folks. Here is just a handful of different projects that qualified as economic stimulus under Obama's dress rehearsal Recovery Act.
- $5 million grant from the Department of Energy to create a geothermal energy system for the Oak Ridge City Center shopping mall in Oak Ridge, Tenn.Researchers at Penn State University received $1.57 million to search for fossils in Argentina
A liberal-leaning theater in Minnesota, In the Heart of the Beast, named after a famous quote by leftist leader Che Guevara, received $100,000 for socially conscious puppet shows.
- The administration allocated $133 million to renovate the Edith Green/Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Ore., by installing a vegetative façade of plantings to improve the building's insulation.
$6 million went to the New York advertising firm Young & Rubicam to advertise the transition from analog to digital television, which created three jobs.
- More than $2 million in stimulus funds that went to pay for new pipes to pump recycled water to the Sharp Park Golf Course, which the San Francisco City Council considered closing because of the threat it posed to the California red-legged frog.
-
- Two million dollars in stimulus money went to build a replica railroad as a tourist attraction in Carson City, Nev.
A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism.
Half a million dollars went to Arizona State University to study the genetic makeup of ants to determine distinctive roles in ant colonies
$450,000 went to the University of Arizona to study the division of labor in ant colonies.
- The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana.
-
- The National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to "hook up" after drinking alcohol.
The University of Hawaii collected $210,000 to study the learning patterns of honeybees, and $700,000 went to help crab fishermen in Oregon recover lost crab pots.
And you still believe that these people can adequately "spend our way" out of this recession? This all about making local constituencies happy with their congressmen or senators. It's buying votes, pure and simple. Your children will pay the bill for the immense debt we're piling up so Democrats can buy votes. For generations we'll be competing with the government to borrow funds. You might need the funds to start or grow a business, or to pay medical bills; but the government will need the funds to pay interest on the massive debt that is being built up by these free spenders.
This is a disaster, folks. A disaster that will cripple us for generations to come. Elections have consequences. Just how proud are you of that Obama bumper sticker now?
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Obama announced his jobs plan yesterday at the Brookings Institute (no prime time before all Americans. Hmm.) It will expanded his $787 billion stimulus. Obama avoided calling it a new stimulus plan, but isn't that what it is? "Stimulus II". Can't wait to see the total price tag. It will easily push total Stimulus over a trillion dollars. He said he's going to take Stimulus components that worked best and extend or amplify them. Does he honestly think he can spend his way out of the Great Recession? Last edited on Wed Dec 9th, 2009 01:38 pm by goldrush
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Obama administration predicts $30B loss on auto bailout
DAVID SHEPARDSON
Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington -- The Obama administration will tell Congress Wednesday that it expects to lose about $30 billion of the $82 billion government bailout of the auto industry, two administration officials familiar with the report said today.
The estimate -- the first public accounting of losses connected to the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler -- is in line with what the Government Accountability Office, the Troubled Asset Relief Congressional Oversight Panel and former auto czar Steve Rattner have suggested.
But it is lower than previous internal administration estimates.
The Treasury Department has loaned $50 billion to General Motors, and swapped all but $6.7 billion of it for a 61 percent majority stake in the automaker. In order for taxpayers to be repaid fully, GM's stock would have to be worth far more than current estimates when the company goes public as early as next year.
GM chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. said that GM will make a $1 billion payment of its outstanding loans on Dec. 31 and plans similar quarterly payments. In a Web chat with reporters today, he said the company could opt to make a lump-sum payment.
The administration forgave much of Chrysler's $12 billion in government loans. Fiat SpA, which owns 20 percent of Chrysler and controls the company, must repay $6 billion of the loans before it can acquire a majority stake in the automaker. It can get 15 percent by meeting three benchmarks.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Have you heard of the Making Home Affordable program? Well, it’s part of Obama’s massive foreclosure-prevention plan. You know, to help people who can’t meet their mortgage payments. Right now it’s a trial program. Here are the results so far:
650,000 borrowers enrolled in program.
Payments lowered by an average of $640 (40%).
160,000 (25%) are already delinquent.
Can you imagine agreeing to have your mortgage payment lowered by 40% and falling behind in your payments? Foreclosure sounds like it would've have been a better outcome rather than modifying payments. Then they could become renters. No wonder banks have tightened their credit requirements.
Last edited on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 05:53 pm by goldrush
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Nebraska Hikes Unemployment tax
Nebraska Hikes Unemployment Tax
Sunday, December 6, 2009 1:36 PM
LINCOLN, Neb. -- Nebraska businesses will be hit with a sharp increase in their tax bills next year to replenish the state's unemployment fund after a year in which state jobless benefit payments more than doubled to $190 million.
Nebraska is one of 33 states expected to increase its unemployment tax in 2010 in response to the sharp increase in the number of people claiming jobless aid over the past year. But the tax hike comes at the worst possible time: when a fragile economy recovery is taking shape.
And some Nebraska businesses could be surprised by the increases because this is the first recession since the formula for the state's employer-funded unemployment fund was revised in 2005. Tax notices will go out to businesses over the next week.
|
Kn Wright
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Companies will continue to falsify the number of jobs saved or created to magnify the success of the program. By showing inflated results, the companies will move to the head of the line for the next round of "stimulus" funding. This fits right in with Obama's plan. Any lie to waste more money and gain more control. A feel good meeting by attorneys general is a waste of time because they are not about to take any action that might tick off Obama.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The head of the board that tracks stimulus spending said inspectors general on Friday will review causes of numerous mistakes in an October report estimating the number of jobs created or saved:
1. Jennie-O Turkey Store received stimulus as part of $100 million provision to help stock food pantries. The company reported it had created or saved 384 jobs because 384 of its existing employees had worked for one week to fulfill those contracts.
2. Integrated Statistics reported each of its three contracts with the NOAA twice.
3. A number of recipients of stimulus reported creating 15,000 jobs between them on projects that had not begun at the time they filed their forms.
Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, said he thought there’s enough embarrassment to go around. I don’t enjoy sitting here with numbers I know to be wrong for three months. (wsj)
|
Trophywife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 664 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
goldrush wrote:
Delusional paranoia. Ya got luv it!
I see that fear again goldie!
|
BigSurprize
Member
back to top
|
Kinda makes you wonder...just how far will they take this Government control and how long will the sheep just sit baaaaack and let this happen? (note to bard: What's good for the goose is good for the gander......it's 1984 all over again! )
Big Government Media: CRA For News Organizations?
by Andrew Marcus
Reading this account of discussions at the “U.S. Federal Trade Commission workshop on the future of journalism in the Internet age,” it appears “legacy media” might just slash and burn the First Amendment, shredding it to pieces on their journey to statist organ status.
In their desperation to stay alive, as newspapers and other legacy channels of distribution collapse, surviving publishers will maneuver themselves for prime suckling positions on the public teat. The keepers of the teat appear willing to enable the feast.
Federal and state officials this year have explored how the government might play a role in helping ease the financial travails of news organizations. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D., Md.) this spring proposed a bill that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt institutions. [MORE - WSJ]
“Public” money comes with a labyrinth of exponentially multiplying political strings attached. Just ask GM, AIG, and BofA.
If news organizations go 501(c)(3), will they be subject to the same restrictions on political activity as the churches?
No matter, the only way they will be allowed to stay anchored to the public teat is if they agree to have their testicles removed, and placed in a jar, on a stool, in the corner.
There will be a host of restrictions placed on these future state organs:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked the Department of Justice to consider a broad range of market factors in antitrust reviews, a step that could help clear a path for mergers of struggling papers. Congress has held several hearings about the financial challenges facing the industry. [MORE - WSJ]
Can you say Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for news organizations? How much do you want to bet newspapers are going to have to meet specific hiring guidelines based strictly on race and gender quotas?
Who has time for trivialities like merit when there’s political correctness to be suffered?
The editorial and executive boards of publicly supported “news” outlets will be chosen by the public in the form of local ‘citizen news and information committees’.
Anyone want to guess who will control these local committees, and thus be empowered to grade the merger worthiness of news organizations? If you guess anything other than community organizations, you only get your news from the New York Times.
Under this scenario, the Federal government would necessarily lay down a smothering blanket of regulation on the world of publishing, defining and thus restricting the “how” and the “what” of news reporting, journalism, and editorial opinion making.
The government will have to do these things in order to define their new working relationship with the publicly controlled-supported entities. Or is the Federal government going to spend our tax dollars on failed businesses without a peep of legislation on the matter? That wouldn’t be very progressive.
Consider for a moment, the combination of whatever legislation they are brewing up in the meeting linked above, and McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to envision a future where the government holds tremendous sway over defining what is “political speech”, who may engage in political speech, how they may engage in it, and when.
Will you need a registered license to engage in “political speech” during election cycles? What is an election cycle when you are engaged in a “permanent campaign?”
The end result will be a vast new regime of communications regulations which will not serve the long term interests of the First Amendment. To the contrary, as with the McCain-Feingold “campaign reform” law, the First Amendment will be under direct assault.
Last edited on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 10:16 pm by BigSurprize
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
JOBS SUMMIT FALLOUT
Barack Obama tried his best to dismiss any criticism of his jobs summit. Obama failed to invite key players in the private sector and yet extended the invite to labor unions and campaign donors. However, Obama said that although government can help, "ultimately, true economic recovery is going to come from the private sector."
Great. We'll give him credit for saying that but reserve some doubts about whether or not he is expressing his true feelings. Remember, in his book he referred to the private sector as the enemy. So ... Obama thinks that true economic recovery is going to come from the enemy? Interesting. Tell me something. If Obama is so certain that the private sector is going to drive true economic recovery, then why were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses left out of his donor-rich jobs summit?
Obama went on to say, "If there are things that we are doing in Washington that inhibit you, we want to know." Really? I could name just a few ... how about government spending that crowds out the private sector? How about government borrowing that soaks up available funds? How about regulations being broadened to encompass small businesses with fewer and fewer employees? How about America having virtually the highest corporate tax in the world? And then there's threatening the jobs creation machine out there with even more taxes? If Obama had invited the right people to his phony summit he might have heard some of these things.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Anybody Crashing This One?
PrezBO is having his big White House jobs summit today. Let's take a look at the general guest list:
- Small business owners -- Not invited.
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- Not invited.
- Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union -- Invited.
- National Federation of Independent Businesses - Not invited.
- United Steel Workers union president -- Invited
- Teacher's union president -- Invited
- Anna Burger, SEIU .. invited.
- Big Obama Donors. Invited.
- Opponents of Obama's stimulus spending. Not invited
WTF? Small business owners account for 80% of all private sector jobs in our economy, and 70% of all jobs now being created (or is it the other way around?) and they're not playing a huge role in this phony summit? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest proponents and supporters of free enterprise in this nation ... not invited?
There is a problem. Businesses just aren't creating jobs as they have in previous recoveries. And why would that be? Perhaps that's because in previous economic recoveries the very businesses we rely on for new jobs weren't being threatened with huge tax increases. Can someone please tell me what sane small businessman is going to go on an expansion spree at a time when the political party in power is talking tax increases that could increase that businessman's federal tax burden by as much as 15 percentage points?
The goal here is to present to the government-educated dumb masses the idea the Obama is actually engaged in the business of creating more jobs. Truth is, the only business Obama is engaged in is that of increasing the size and power of government. Remember, our community organizer President has referred to the private sector as "the enemy." The enemy has no seat at his jobs summit.
Bottom line? It's all for show. This is a MoveOn.org, ACORN, union and government jobs fest .. nothing more. The people, however, will easily be fooled.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5359 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Critics Missing
Critics Not Invited to WH Jobs Summit
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:18 AM
By: Kara Rowland, The Washington Times
Facing rising unemployment rates and having seen uncertain results from the stimulus bill, President Obama is hosting a "jobs summit" at the White House Thursday that will be packed with business leaders and economists supportive of White House policies but lacks a diversity of opinion, several analysts say.
Missing from a partial list of attendees released by the White House are the self-proclaimed voices of business - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business - both of which have been critical of Mr. Obama's proposed health care overhaul.
Confirmed attendees include liberal economists credited with shaping the $787 billion stimulus package, union leaders, environmental advocates and executives from Google and other blue-chip firms.
"He's going to get lots of recommendations to spend more money," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. "These are the very same people who gave us the stimulus package. My feeling is we're not going to get what we need, and that's a complete change in direction on economic policy."
A spokeswoman for the White House would not comment for the record on the format or how the list of participants was drawn up. A full list of attendees is expected to be released Thursday.
More federal spending to generate jobs is a likely subject at Thursday's summit given that guests will include economists such as Paul Krugman, who has argued that the first stimulus package was not large enough. Likewise, chiefs of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, both of whom are slated to be in attendance, have called for more federal dollars to aid states experiencing budget shortfalls.
"My chief concern is that the list features no serious and prominent labor economist, which seems essential to offering a sound, long-run policy to put us on a path of lower unemployment," said John Coleman, an economics professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.
Representatives from NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce said their organizations were not asked to attend, but representatives from some of the country's largest unions, Change to Win and the United Steelworkers, will participate.
In an open letter to Mr. Obama on Tuesday, Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue outlined a series of proposals to stimulate job growth, including eliminating protectionist trade barriers, reducing the deficit and eliminating unnecessary regulation.
The nation's unemployment rate has climbed steadily throughout Mr. Obama's presidency - from 7.6 percent in January to 10.2 percent in October - leading critics to question the effectiveness of unprecedented levels of government spending in his first 10 months in office.
The administration may have snubbed business trade associations but invited more than a dozen chief executive officers of large and small businesses, including Rose Wang, president of the Binary Group, an Arlington government contractor. Ms. Wang said she plans to suggest tax credits for new entrepreneurs and workers who go back to school to learn new skills.
"I think I speak for all small-business owners that we want to be a part of the solution," she said.
A spokeswoman for Google said the Internet giant is "looking forward to having [CEO Eric Schmidt] join other American corporate leaders to help find a way forward."
"We have and will continue to meet with both Republicans and Democrats to discuss how technology can help fuel an economic recovery," spokeswoman Mistique Cano said.
Several analysts said the summit is unlikely to amount to more than window dressing without a balanced guest list.
"The panel does not include free-market voices who will contend the administration is spending too much or interfering too much in the economy, or that it is hurting job creation by increasing the burden of taxes and government debt," said Josh Barro, a senior fellow on fiscal policy at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute. "I expect these economists will generally call for more Keynesian stimulus - more deficit spending and more aid to state governments."
The continued joblessness has led congressional Democrats to begin drafting a so-called "jobs bill" that could include business tax credits for new employees, infrastructure spending and extended unemployment benefits.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
95th Post |
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
callmelou wrote: cindisue_g wrote: callmelou wrote:
So you're saying "no" you would not support your family member in accepting a temp job until the economy picks up? Which party should he work with ? Certainly not the Republican party which only opposes his plans....I guess you don't know anyone personally affected by job loss...figures...the sky is always blue when your head in the clouds. I think you're a very,. very cold person.
No the sky is not always blue, unfortunately because of President Obama, we have a huge storm cloud over our country - we are broke, unemployment is over 10 percent, we have a huge looming national debt, we have lost the trust of America's allies and President Obama and his administration continue to spend money foolishly and make decisions without results which benefit the US citizens. No, unfortunately the sky is not blue anymore in the United States.
Let me reiterate: What I want is our President to do what he promised. I want him to cross party lines and put together a plan that will help those that don't have jobs get a full time permanent job.
President Obama made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to hear from anyone other than his chosen few. Remember what President Obama said to one elected official that offered an opinion: "I'll trump that, I won".
If President Obama would have had the best interest of the US citizens, we would not be at over 10 percent unemployment. He promised that if he did "his" stimulus package, the unemployment would not go over 8 percent - Just another lie from President Obama.
Amazing. We have suffered under bush nearly the entire decade. Obama has been in office less then one year, yet you blame the entire mess on him. Perhaps you were in outer space until Jan. 20.
Delusional paranoia. Ya got luv it!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 11:24 pm |
|
96th Post |
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1287 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: callmelou wrote:
So you're saying "no" you would not support your family member in accepting a temp job until the economy picks up? Which party should he work with ? Certainly not the Republican party which only opposes his plans....I guess you don't know anyone personally affected by job loss...figures...the sky is always blue when your head in the clouds. I think you're a very,. very cold person.
No the sky is not always blue, unfortunately because of President Obama, we have a huge storm cloud over our country - we are broke, unemployment is over 10 percent, we have a huge looming national debt, we have lost the trust of America's allies and President Obama and his administration continue to spend money foolishly and make decisions without results which benefit the US citizens. No, unfortunately the sky is not blue anymore in the United States.
Let me reiterate: What I want is our President to do what he promised. I want him to cross party lines and put together a plan that will help those that don't have jobs get a full time permanent job.
President Obama made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to hear from anyone other than his chosen few. Remember what President Obama said to one elected official that offered an opinion: "I'll trump that, I won".
If President Obama would have had the best interest of the US citizens, we would not be at over 10 percent unemployment. He promised that if he did "his" stimulus package, the unemployment would not go over 8 percent - Just another lie from President Obama.
Amazing. We have suffered under bush nearly the entire decade. Obama has been in office less then one year, yet you blame the entire mess on him. Perhaps you were in outer space until Jan. 20.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
97th Post |
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1567 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
November 26, 2009
White House Weighs New Panel to Tackle Deficit
Bipartisan Commission Considered as Administration Seeks to Show Resolve on a Problem that Dogs Its Broader Agenda
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON -- The White House is considering a bipartisan commission to tackle the nation's swelling deficit, as it seeks to show resolve on a problem that threatens its broader agenda.
Top White House officials, including budget director Peter Orszag, met Tuesday with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad to discuss establishing such a commission, which has been pushed by Mr. Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, and his Republican counterpart on the committee, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
This is pure theater on Obama’s part. You want to reduce deficits? Take a look at the cost of health care reform. Duh!
wsj
Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 11:21 pm by goldrush
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 02:47 pm |
|
98th Post |
| Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 01:47 pm |
|
99th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
cindisue_g wrote: callmelou wrote:
So you're saying "no" you would not support your family member in accepting a temp job until the economy picks up? Which party should he work with ? Certainly not the Republican party which only opposes his plans....I guess you don't know anyone personally affected by job loss...figures...the sky is always blue when your head in the clouds. I think you're a very,. very cold person.
No the sky is not always blue, unfortunately because of President Obama, we have a huge storm cloud over our country - we are broke, unemployment is over 10 percent, we have a huge looming national debt, we have lost the trust of America's allies and President Obama and his administration continue to spend money foolishly and make decisions without results which benefit the US citizens. No, unfortunately the sky is not blue anymore in the United States.
Let me reiterate: What I want is our President to do what he promised. I want him to cross party lines and put together a plan that will help those that don't have jobs get a full time permanent job.
President Obama made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to hear from anyone other than his chosen few. Remember what President Obama said to one elected official that offered an opinion: "I'll trump that, I won".
If President Obama would have had the best interest of the US citizens, we would not be at over 10 percent unemployment. He promised that if he did "his" stimulus package, the unemployment would not go over 8 percent - Just another lie from President Obama.
We would all like to think this President and administration is piling on the crushing debt and massive Gov't take over's out of ignorance, inexperience and ideology. Well, I think we may have to face the fact that this is their plan. This is straight from the radical 60's plan to take over the Gov't. The first rule is to OVERWHELM the system with entitlements and debt. We are well on our way of that happening, the more unemployed the more gov't dependency. That also explains this lunatic and almost frantic focus on HealthCare "reform" when it is number four on America's list. It is their only sure way to get at least 50% of American's on the Gov't dole. Once they have achieved that, it will cause our economy to collapse and fail. Taxing the so-called "wealthy", I call it class warfare, cannot possibly sustain the price tag. Then the Gov't will have to step in and take everything over because we will be in "CRISIS". They are setting up the framework for that to take place as we speak in those 2,000 page bills that nobody is reading. It's called "spreading the wealth -- SOCIALISM/MARXISM.
If American's don't start standing up, start speaking out, and start protesting the daily assaults on our freedoms, the constant threats of raising our taxes even higher, the out of control spending, the waste, the bribes, the corruption, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves for what is in our future...sadly our near future.
Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 03:21 pm by
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2789 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
callmelou wrote:
So you're saying "no" you would not support your family member in accepting a temp job until the economy picks up? Which party should he work with ? Certainly not the Republican party which only opposes his plans....I guess you don't know anyone personally affected by job loss...figures...the sky is always blue when your head in the clouds. I think you're a very,. very cold person.
No the sky is not always blue, unfortunately because of President Obama, we have a huge storm cloud over our country - we are broke, unemployment is over 10 percent, we have a huge looming national debt, we have lost the trust of America's allies and President Obama and his administration continue to spend money foolishly and make decisions without results which benefit the US citizens. No, unfortunately the sky is not blue anymore in the United States.
Let me reiterate: What I want is our President to do what he promised. I want him to cross party lines and put together a plan that will help those that don't have jobs get a full time permanent job.
President Obama made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to hear from anyone other than his chosen few. Remember what President Obama said to one elected official that offered an opinion: "I'll trump that, I won".
If President Obama would have had the best interest of the US citizens, we would not be at over 10 percent unemployment. He promised that if he did "his" stimulus package, the unemployment would not go over 8 percent - Just another lie from President Obama.
Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 12:08 pm by cindisue_g
|
| Current time is 04:22 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
