While Obama is busy "saving the world" (with his trusty TelePrompter), he's doing a terrible job protecting the U.S. . . .
With TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) and the Stimulus Package, Obama has essentially thrown money (nearly $1.5 trillion) in the direction of his favored groups (bankers, unions, and big city governments) -- and done little or nothing for the American people.
How much is $1.5 trillion? Basically, it adds up to $5,000 for every American -- men, women, and children. In other words, if the Obama Administration had been so inclined, which it was not, it could have sent a family of four nearly $20,000. The "Octomom," with a total of 14 children, would have received $75,000.
Instead, Obama has favored financial institutions, the same ones that caused the global economic crisis. AIG has received nearly $175 billion, the equivalent of nearly $600 from every Americans. Other firms, including the Bank of America, have also received huge sums. Famously, of course, AIG executives received $165 million in "Chris Dodd bonuses." That adds up to about $555 from every American. By the way, did you receive even $1 as a bonus?
Of course, Obama/Geithner pretend that this is "free money." They don't link it to taxpayers. Instead, they imply that the government has a money tree that it can pluck to give payments to favored groups. They forget to mention the huge campaign "donations" Obama and other leftists received from financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill-Lynch, and other entities. (Note: Goldman Sachs received the government money indirectly, the better to protect its executives' huge bonuses.)
In fact, giving every American $5,000 would have produced much better results. Because part of the money would have been spent and part invested, the results would have been much better. People would have bought houses, cars, and other goods. How would it have helped, say, banks? Frankly, a lot of the money would have been deposited, which is exactly what banks need. With a big infusion of deposits, banks would have had a great deal more money to lend.
As usual, Obama's politically driven approach has shortchanged the American people. Americans want to believe in the man, but he's giving them precious little reason to do so.
Showing posts with label Citigroup Collapse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citigroup Collapse. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
Urkel Hussein celebrates his latest economic achievements.
Who caused the economic crisis that now grips our nation? The correct answer, one we really don't want to hear, is: We did. He (The Anointed One featured in the graphics above) also did his part.
Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see the new column.
How? By taking on (high) levels of debt that we're now finding harder and harder to pay off. We believed that something called "inflation" would allow us to pay off debts with ever-cheaper dollars. Instead, we have something called "deflation," which is having just the opposite effect, making dollars harder and harder to come by. There's no more inflation to bail you out.
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing.
One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end.
Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In the words of Koppenheffer: "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . .
.
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $100 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
Why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.
With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG. It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
How? By taking on (high) levels of debt that we're now finding harder and harder to pay off. We believed that something called "inflation" would allow us to pay off debts with ever-cheaper dollars. Instead, we have something called "deflation," which is having just the opposite effect, making dollars harder and harder to come by. There's no more inflation to bail you out.
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing.
One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end.
Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In the words of Koppenheffer: "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . .
.
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $100 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
Why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.
With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG. It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
Did FDR really lift America out of the Depression. No, he didn't.
Barack Obama talks regularly about the inspiration he receives from the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, when it comes to bringing the country out of an economic crisis, FDR is a very poor model. He succeeded at getting large segments of the population to revere him. He failed at solving the country's economic disaster. Consider . . .
In November , 1933, a year after FDR's election, unemployment in the U.S. was above 23%, nearly one-in-four workers. The Dow Jones Industrial average, which had gone over 380 in fall, 1929, was at a miserable 90.
What about November, 1934, two years after Roosevelt's election? Unemployment remained exactly where it had been a year earlier -- at 23%, and the Dow had moved us a measly three points -- to 93.
By July, 1935, two-and-a-half years after his election, FDR had barely put a dent in unemployment, which remained about 21%. The Dow had moved up some -- to 119 -- but it was still at a level less than one-third the high in 1929.
Frankly, much of what we learned about FDR from old family members -- and from our history books -- was incorrect. FDR remained a dashing and popular figure, but the Depression lasted all the way through Roosevelt's first two terms.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Barack Obama: Bankrupting the Nation
Handing money out to AIG is "like donating blood at a morgue." (Troy Dunn)
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."
Her: "He has your wallet."
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."Her: "He has your wallet."
Financial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG.
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."
About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."
About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama: America's Road to Serfdom
I found the following section (bold-faced paragraphs below) of Marnie Delano's PumaTruthisGold piece on blogspot to be fascinating. The goal of the Obama administration, in case you haven't noticed, is to throw the American economy -- along with the political system -- into chaos. The redistribution of wealth is, of course, generally from McCain voters to . . . Obama voters, and from the most productive to . . . the least productive.
To that end, a major emphasis on fear/panic (driven by a constant drumbeat of words such as crisis, catastrophe, and cataclysm) is a key element. Marnie focuses on Robert Rubin, a key architect of the collapse of Citigroup, and Robert Orszag, a protege of Rubin's and Obama's head of the Office of Management and Budget:
[Note] . . . Christopher Bollyn's work on Obama’s new budget director Peter R. Orszag.Oddly, Orszag’s background has received virtually no attention in the media. At this critical moment, however, it would be foolish to ignore the troubling background of Obama’s budget director, which deserves to be looked at very carefully.
Orszag, for example, could start by explaining exactly what happened to the Icelandic economy. Orszag was, after all, the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland - before it went bankrupt. How did Icelandic banks become so indebted? Ask Peter Orszag.
Orszag is an economist who served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. The fact that Orszag was a protégé of the now disgraced Rubin certainly does not bode well for the Obama administration.
Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997. Credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities were the key reason for the recent failure of a number of large financial institutions, including AIG and Citigroup.
In 1999, Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company.” The Wall Street Journal noted that Citigroup shareholders suffered losses of more than 70 percent since Rubin joined the firm and that he encouraged changes that led the firm to the brink of collapse.
In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm’s risks.
(Note: Today, the U.S. government's share of Citibank grew from 8% to 36%. No comments yet from Robert Rubin.)
Sneak Peek at Tomorrow's Column: "But What Do You Really Think About Obama, Steve?"
Obama's Administration is more like fascism than Communism. The big bloated corporation remain, but now they're run by your friendly overseer from the government -- not by the Board of Directors or the CEO.
Ancient Robert Byrd questioned why all these guys -- the various czars and advisers -- were being named to powerful positions that didn't require Senate confirmation and oversight.
Because they don't want any oversight. They're Obama's version of the Mafia leg-breakers. They are responsible to no one but Emperor Bozo ("Don Barack" and "Don Rahm")
The main thing that bothers me is the fact that they don't have anyone who has a clue about terrorism, or any idea about how to prevent another 9/11. I don't think sending around bags of cash is going to impress al Qaeda. Putting Panetta at the head of the CIA is like making Richard Simmons commissioner of major league baseball. They excluded anybody who had any post 9/11-experience.
Somebody on my Facebook wall was singing Obama's praises, a young guy, and a friend of mine wrote, "I hope you're ready to spend your entire life in a soup line."
Okay, Obama's way to solve the housing crisis is to cut the mortgage interest deduction for houses. I give up. The only good thing is that a lot of big contributors to Democratic congresspeople are going to start howling soon -- housing construction people and the like.
Obama's way to create jobs is to do away with E-verification that keeps illegals from getting the jobs. I give up again.
One big construction project in Pittsburgh that's way over budget (up in the $600 million category) wants another $160 stimulus payment. Gov. Rendell calld THE WHOLE PROJECT "a tragic mistake." (I'm laughing.) Your stimulus money in action.
This is worse than we thought, and we didn't expect much to begin with.
To that end, a major emphasis on fear/panic (driven by a constant drumbeat of words such as crisis, catastrophe, and cataclysm) is a key element. Marnie focuses on Robert Rubin, a key architect of the collapse of Citigroup, and Robert Orszag, a protege of Rubin's and Obama's head of the Office of Management and Budget:
[Note] . . . Christopher Bollyn's work on Obama’s new budget director Peter R. Orszag.Oddly, Orszag’s background has received virtually no attention in the media. At this critical moment, however, it would be foolish to ignore the troubling background of Obama’s budget director, which deserves to be looked at very carefully.
Orszag, for example, could start by explaining exactly what happened to the Icelandic economy. Orszag was, after all, the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland - before it went bankrupt. How did Icelandic banks become so indebted? Ask Peter Orszag.
Orszag is an economist who served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. The fact that Orszag was a protégé of the now disgraced Rubin certainly does not bode well for the Obama administration.
Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997. Credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities were the key reason for the recent failure of a number of large financial institutions, including AIG and Citigroup.
In 1999, Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company.” The Wall Street Journal noted that Citigroup shareholders suffered losses of more than 70 percent since Rubin joined the firm and that he encouraged changes that led the firm to the brink of collapse.
In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm’s risks.
(Note: Today, the U.S. government's share of Citibank grew from 8% to 36%. No comments yet from Robert Rubin.)
Sneak Peek at Tomorrow's Column: "But What Do You Really Think About Obama, Steve?"
Obama's Administration is more like fascism than Communism. The big bloated corporation remain, but now they're run by your friendly overseer from the government -- not by the Board of Directors or the CEO.
Ancient Robert Byrd questioned why all these guys -- the various czars and advisers -- were being named to powerful positions that didn't require Senate confirmation and oversight.
Because they don't want any oversight. They're Obama's version of the Mafia leg-breakers. They are responsible to no one but Emperor Bozo ("Don Barack" and "Don Rahm")
The main thing that bothers me is the fact that they don't have anyone who has a clue about terrorism, or any idea about how to prevent another 9/11. I don't think sending around bags of cash is going to impress al Qaeda. Putting Panetta at the head of the CIA is like making Richard Simmons commissioner of major league baseball. They excluded anybody who had any post 9/11-experience.
Somebody on my Facebook wall was singing Obama's praises, a young guy, and a friend of mine wrote, "I hope you're ready to spend your entire life in a soup line."
Okay, Obama's way to solve the housing crisis is to cut the mortgage interest deduction for houses. I give up. The only good thing is that a lot of big contributors to Democratic congresspeople are going to start howling soon -- housing construction people and the like.
Obama's way to create jobs is to do away with E-verification that keeps illegals from getting the jobs. I give up again.
One big construction project in Pittsburgh that's way over budget (up in the $600 million category) wants another $160 stimulus payment. Gov. Rendell calld THE WHOLE PROJECT "a tragic mistake." (I'm laughing.) Your stimulus money in action.
This is worse than we thought, and we didn't expect much to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
