02 April 2009

Jobless claims at 26-year high - Or is it?

Don't you just love this. News organizations REALLY LOVE bad news. Of course what they don't say is that 26 years ago, we had about 100 Million LESS people in the U.S. What that means is that the unemployment figures back then was about 1/3rd higher than it is today! Problem is that's not BAD enough news, so they need to make it worse by simply stating the actual numbers instead of the percentage points.
Unfortunately, this plays right into the hands of those on the left who want to push even MORE stimulus, MORE spending, MORE Government, while most of us are fed a steady diet of bad news to keep us from revolting.

Here's the story from Reuters

Jobless claims at 26-year high
Thu Apr 2, 2009 1:42pm BST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose to its highest level in over 26 years last week and so-called continued claims jumped to a record high in March, according to data that underscored the labor market deterioration.
KEY POINTS: * The Labor Department said on Thursday initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 669,000 in the week ended March 28, the highest since the week ending October 2, 1982, from an upwardly revised 657,000 the week before. * Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast 650,000 new claims versus a previously reported count of 652,000 the prior week. * The number of people staying on the benefits roll after collecting an initial week of aid surged 161,000 to 5.73 million in the week ended March 21, the latest week for which the data is available, from 5.57 million the previous week. * This was the highest on record and lifted the insured unemployment rate to 4.3 percent, the highest since a matching 4.3 percent in the week ending May 21, 1983. * The insured unemployment rate was at 4.2 percent in the week ended March 14. * The four-week moving average for new claims, considered to be a better gauge of underlying trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, climbed 6,500 to 656,750 in the week ending March 28, from 650,250. * That was the highest reading since October 1982.
COMMENTS:
SCOTT BROWN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, ST PETERSBURG, FLORIDA:
"Jobless claims are another really bad number. We have been seeing not just an elevated trend but an increasing trend. That is not good. We know the labor market is going to be a lagging indicator but we need to see the pace of job losses moderate soon if we are going to get a recovery.
"Following the ADP data we got yesterday, I think markets will be braced for a decline of 700,000 or more in non farm payrolls.
"Treasuries are looking at the stock market, which is poised to open higher. These numbers are not affecting the government bond market much."
SUBODH KUMAR, CHIEF INVESTMENT STRATEGIST, SUBODH KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, TORONTO:
"The employment data is still poor-- we saw that in Europe as well-- but I think the markets aren't responding to hard data right now. I think markets today will be focused more on confidence measures, and how confidence may be lifted.
"At the G20 meeting, I think investors have expectations for news about regulations, and I also think they'd like to see more aggressive stimulus policy. They want more concrete action on stimulus."
T.J. MARTA, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, MARTA ON THE MARKETS, SCOTCH PLAINS, NEW JERSEY:
"This is bad. It needs to be countered against the rise in the U.S. population; as a percentage, it's not that bad.
"Continued claims is the more concerning matter. What it says to me is the persistence of unemployment. The unwillingness of the auto industry to adjust and the bubbles in housing and on Wall Street have led to a misallocation of house resources. It's more of a structural reallocation of resources, which could be worse than anything we've seen since the Great Depression."
MARKET REACTION: STOCKS: U.S. equity index futures pare gains slightly after jobless claims data. BONDS: U.S. Treasury debt prices steady at lower levels. DOLLAR: U.S. dollar little changed.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved.

01 April 2009

Child's Pay 2 - The Ten Trillion Dollar Sequel

Move On featured an ad a while back where they asked the question. Who will pay for Bush's One Trillion Dollar Deficit. The answer, according to their video was the Children.



Now it seems that RedState has Hijacked the Ad to ask who's going to pay for Obama's Ten Trillion Dollar Deficit!

And here's the Original Ad by Move On....

Our "Road To (Financial) Hell" Is Paved With Gold For The Likes Of George Soros

Commentary
Published: Apr 1, 2009
Share This Article | Most Popular Stories | Site Search
Our "Road To (Financial) Hell" Is Paved With Gold For The Likes Of George Soros
by Vincent Gioia


Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the man who President Obama said the United States could not do without despite his record of tax cheating, has come up with the "Big Sham;" a plan to reward fat cat investors who are Democrat supporters (or who will be) at tax payer expense. Geithner's so-called Public-Private Partnership Program is a sham. It's a lie. It supposedly "pairs" government money with private investors' money to buy toxic mortgages from banks but there is no pairing and there's no partnership. Private investors favored by Democrats put up a fraction of the money and get almost all the profits while taxpayers get stuck with almost all the risk.
Here is an example of how this works.
Goldman Sachs (home of many Obama appointees) wants to buy a million dollars of mortgages from a bank for $420,000; Goldman puts up $30,000 and Treasury puts up $30,000 but then the FDIC guarantees a loan for $360,000. Goldman gets 93% of the profits while taxpayers (suckers like us) are on the hook for 93% of the risk.
Tens of thousands of defaulted mortgages on tens of thousands of homes are bought giving favored bankers like Goldman Sachs ownership of them by putting up just 7 cents on the dollar. The sub-prime mortgages total more than $2 trillion so this amounts to another huge give-away to politically well-connected bankers.
Looking at the scheme all together: $80 billion goes to make JPMorgan Chase whole on its bad trades; $319 billion goes to Citibank; $300 billion goes to bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $185 billion to bonus-giving AIG; $29 billion to Bear Stearns; $25 billion to General Motors Finance; $700 billion in currency swaps to other governments and trillions for the TARP, TALF; and other programs that will make bankers who have shown their greed and incompetence wealthy while Obama and Geithner make the rest of poorer.
Although Geithner and Obama are able to fool Americans with the aid of the Democrat news media house organs, the rest of the world is not so gullible.

Recently China's central bank governor joined three other economic giants (Russia, Brazil and India) in calling for the world to abandon the dollar as the world's reserve currency; then the International Monetary Fund said the same thing. As the G-20 meet the US dollar as the international reserve currency is on the agenda there.
As the dollar trends lower against other countries' currencies, people like George Soros make billions. Soros has already said "This has been a good crisis for me," and why not? Soros was able to get 158% profits in just 24 days by buying options that stood to gain when the Euro rose against the dollar. The Euro rose less than a dime but Soros and others like him wound up with huge gains. Add another 74% profits in two weeks with options on the British pound and more profit on just a change of 9 cents – a 77% profit when the pound increased 10.3 cents against the dollar. Now with the size the bailouts and the huge multi-trillion dollar deficits, the US dollar will likely fall even more. The profit potential for the likes of George Soros who gains and adds to his fortune by currency speculation will now, from currency options on stronger currencies, be enormous.
Those with 401 Ks who lost large sums in the market meltdown can attest that no matter how well diversified you are, there are times when the whole stock market goes pretty much straight down, and the same for bonds and real estate. But that doesn't happen with currency investments because it's mathematically impossible for the US dollar to go down without other currencies like the Euro, Chinese Yuan, or the Canadian dollar going up in equal measure.
Soros knows that in any kind of financial climate, including today's recession/depression currencies can always be found that go up in value. That's not true with almost any other kind of investment.
Geithner is perpetrating a huge lie that will wreck the dollar and is the biggest scam in our history - all for the benefit of wealthy bankers who will be beholden to Obama and the Democrat Party. Even the president of the European Union called these bailouts and other lunatic American policies "the road to Hell." But in this case the road to hell is paved with gold for the fortunate few.
Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California






© Copyright 2004-2010 by Post Chronicle Corp.
Top of Page

PostChronicle.com is best viewed with an 1024x768 screen resolution

31 March 2009

AIG Bought Out Chris Dodd

You’d Be Foolish Not To Contribute To Chris Dodd’s Campaign

Promoted from diaries. - Moe Lane.

In today’s Washington Times there is a report about how a bunch of AIG Financial Services executives were “asked” by their CEO to donate to Chris Dodd’s campaign, and to encourage their subordinates to do the same. Read AIG chief executive Joseph Cassano’s email for yourself.

Was this more than just a suggestion? Well, the boss said he wanted copies of the checks they sent. And it seems pretty clear that the recipients of the email got the gist: in less than two months, Dodd received over $160,000 in donations from AIG employees and their spouses.

Did Chris Dodd have any part in this request? We may never know. And it’s not illegal. So what’s the big deal? Well, the email pretty explicitly calls for the donations with the understanding that they will have very real and practical effects in their favor:

With the Democrats having regained control of the Senate following the November elections, Senator Dodd is next in line to become chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. From securities litigation reform, class action reform, mutual funds, and international trade, Senator Dodd will now have the opportunity as chairman to set the committee’s agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry.

And it just happens to turn out that Cassano was right on. On the eve of the passage of the stimulus bill, who tweaks an amendment that a few weeks later allows numerous AIG executives to collect about $160 million in bonuses that would not have been allowed without the last minute change by Chairman Chris Dodd! Not a bad return on an investment: donate $160k, 28 months later get $160 million.

Dodd doesn’t deny any of it. Instead, he sends his spokesman to trots out his now-tired line of “it’s old news.” From FoxNews:

…[DeAngelis] said Dod’s fundraising “has always been above-board, transparent and in accordance with campaign finance rules.”

“This is a biased news story that seems to be a blatant attempt to repeat old news,” DeAngelis told FoxNews. “The truth is, Senator Dodd has made it clear that he will not accept contributions from PAC’s of companies receiveing (federal bailout) money and has also made it clear that if anyone who received these recent bonuses from AIG has donated to his campaigns, he will donate that money to charity.”

As if the fact that he got paid off two years ago and that he was “transparently” bought off makes it okay. Just like when he got caught with his sweetheart Countrywide mortgages, he figures that since the unethical behavior was a long time ago and he recently got around to remortgaging, there is no story there.

Frankly, the fact that he doesn’t seem to think any of his numerous scandals are newsworthy is nearly as worrisome as the scandals themselves.

Here are a few links on the story: NRO (and here and here), Everyday Republican, Hot Air, Courant’s Capitol Watch,

And via “A Disgruntled Republican,” you might get a chuckle out of this:

Hey, you hear about this? Very strange incident at JFK Airport in New York City today. An AIG executive going through security had to empty out all his pockets. You know what fell out? Senator Chris Dodd.” - Jay Leno

Cross-posted at The Artful Doddger.

I still believe that some Employees of AIG got a raw deal, but this is just more proof that Washington, with their fake outrage needs to get on the ball and get off the take.

25 March 2009

Dear A.I.G., I Quit! (Part 1 of 2)

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.






DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

Page 2

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

(Page 2 of 2)

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Back to Page 1

24 March 2009

Conservatives Against Marijuana Prohibition

Why Conservatives should insist on overturning cannabis prohibition in the U.S.:
Cut wasteful spending, restore respect for law enforcement, grow a sustainable economy without large government stimulus.
Personally, I'm not a Marijuana user, though I did experiment over 20 plus years ago in my youth. I do however enjoy a nice Margarita every once in a while and really see no difference between that and occassionally "lighting one up". The preposterous laws that we have banning cannibis, hemp and Marijuana based pharmacuticals is absolutely un-American, and was born out of a campaign of fear, not facts.
Here's a few highlights of the benefits of legalizing this herb.

1) Effective Law Enforcement: Ending cannabis prohibition will drastically reduce wasteful government spending and corruption of law enforcement officers. Half of the police budget is spent on invesitigating and prosecuting non-violent drug offenders.Law enforcement funds should be used to fight real crimes like murder, robbery, sexual abuse, fraud, assault, domestic abuse, driving while intoxicated, money laundering, cyber crimes, government corruption, vandalism, arson, conspiracy against rights, and medical and legal mal-practice. In todays socio-economic upheaval we need all the resources available to suppress gang violence, prevent home invasion and protect our citizens against real threats to their safety. With the lessening of profits available in the street drug business, that will certainly come about with the end of prohibition, our inner-city youth will have more incentive to get an education and seek a ligitimate career. No more kingpins.


2) Cut Government Spending: Cap on Taxes Ending proibition of cannabis will allow the introduction of the highly prolific hemp industy in New York State, which produces the essentials of life: food, clothing and shelter, and a multi-purpose medicine, thus giving non-profit charities the key ingredients for aiding the poor and disabled citizens, and eliminating nearly all of the need for state funding for welfare, medicaid, H.U.D., and Food Stamps.


3) Freedom of Enterprise The hemp industry was a standard part of the spectrum of agricultural and manufacuring business ventures in nearly every state in the country until it's prohibition was established deceptively by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Millions of Americans were in one way or another benefiting from hemp industries and were unaware that the arbitrary banning of marijuana was actually a ban on hemp. Had it been clearly explained to the public the law would likely have been opposed by an overwhelming majority. The cultivation of hemp never posed any serious threat to public safety, and in fact only threatened some newly invented pharmaceuticals.


4) Right to Bear Arms The unconstitutional prohibition of cannabis exposes free and upstanding citizens who grow the herb for personal use to felony charges which deprives them of their right to keep and bear arms and violates their right to privacy and sovereignty in the home. Let us not give the government licence to invade us.


5) Freedom of Education Choices Just as Conservatives value the right to pray in schools, the implication by police in D.A.R.E. programs, that the choice to use marijuana, as opposed to store-bought cold medicine, such as Nyquil is inherently self destructive, is not scientific and imposes a particular religious stance on our children, comparable to telling our children that God is not real. The role of public schools is to teach our children about science and generally accepted morals, not one religious stance or another. It is a family choice to teach kids our personal ideals.


6) Economic Prosperity Ending prohibition of cannabis will introduce a wide array of hemp products, grown and manufactured here in New York, including food, clothing, rope, canvas, building materials, fuel, and cosmetics. The production of so many valuable saleable items here at home will make way for many prosperous, self- sufficient economic networks. Our children won't have to wonder where they will work, because the job market will arguably be growing nearly as fast as the hemp fields. The lessening of the need for public welfare programs will free up government funds and open the opportunity to introduce sizeable tax-break incentives for new businesses. Allowing marijuana users to grow their own will allow them to save on healthcare and return their money to the mainstream economy. Let's put the criminal drug dealers out of business.


7) Medical Practice Accountability Without the restrictive control of the individual's free choice of medical treatments, the pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers will not be able to corrupt the medical establishments by encouraging certain prescriptions for the benefit of private corporate interests.


8) Freedom of Religion Many conservatives strongly believe that use of any mind-altering substance is morally damaging and should be kept from reaching our children. However, the current laws are a blatant invasion of people's rights to make their own moral judgements concerning what medicines to use, and whether or not to engage in euphoric practices. Prohibition is encouraging government to make arbitrary decisions on which freedoms to violate, depending on what party or political agenda is in control. The unavoidable truth is that not everyone's religion calls for the same guidelines, therefore we can not make state laws based on a certain group's religious convictions. That is a violation of the separation of church and state. We should follow the example of the founding fathers by opposing any infringement on rights and thereby protect our offspring from being subject to the future loss of their own freedoms. As long as your religion is not becoming an invasion of someone else's safety and well being, your religion is lawful and protected within the Constitution.


9) Right to Privacy If you allow the government to control what plants you grow on your own property even when you pose no real threat to neighbors or the community, then you are allowing government to violate your constitutional rights, committing treason against the country. If you let the government invade us because of regulations on plants, you are certainly encouraging the arbitrary invasion of whatever rights the acting regime might want to deprive us of in order to gain more control over our personal freedoms. You have a right to grow food, medicine and herbs on your own property. Prohibition of alcohol was destructive to the peace and tranquility of communities and so is prohibition of cannabis.

read more digg story

02 March 2009

Rush Limbaugh's CPAC Speech in Full

Perusing through the plethora of YouTube videos that has Rush's Speech in it's entirety is a bit of a mishmash, so I figured I'd post them here... In order, along with some responses from the Mainstream Media.

One of Ten

Two of Ten

Three of Ten

Four of Ten

Five of Ten

S
ix of Ten

Seven of Ten

Eight of Ten

Nine of Ten

Ten of Ten

Keith Oberman's Delusional Response

Ron Christie Defends Rush at CNN

01 March 2009

The Young Turks, More Partisan Bickering.


This is kind of old, but for a fleeting moment, I thought to myself, WOW, for once I have to agree with these guys. Of course, in the end though, he makes this all about the Evil "Republicans" vs the "Saitly" Democrats. What he fails to say however, is the fact that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the past 2 years and could have crafted this in any way they wanted to. They've been in the majority since the 2006 Elections, so why the outrage against JUST the Republicans. Once again, The Young Turks prove themselves to be nothing but a mouth peice for the Democrat Party.

I checked their You Tube Video's to see if they had something similarly critical of Obama's Trillion Dollar "Bailout" or his nearly 4 Trillion Dollar budget, and of course there's nothing there critisizing that level of outrageous spending. So there you have it, these so called "Rebels" are nothing more than

Our Sponsors