US News
Jan 18, 2008, 22:16 GMT
Bush seeks emergency boost for US economy (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Obama sees improving economy but central bank gloomy
- ANALYSIS: Signs that US may be headed slowly toward recovery
- California capital to close tent city
- US throws trillions at crisis, but devil is in details
- Schwarzenegger may slash paychecks to solve budget crisis
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
The resident propagandist can remember every time Clinton sneezed, but this well-recorded moment by the press seems to have escaped his notice.
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993465,00.html
'Of all people, George W. Bush, a son of a one-term President, should certainly understand the importance of getting the script and the staging just right when it comes to demonstrating how committed he is to helping Americans get and keep good jobs. The economy was improving on Election Day 1992, but voters could still recall images of George Herbert Walker Bush buying four pairs of socks at J.C. Penney the previous Christmas season and exhorting them to shop their way out of bad times. Or how, as he prepared to tee off at a Kennebunkport, Maine, golf course in the summer of 1991, the elder Bush declared the recession over and then blocked funding to extend unemployment benefits. Though people understand their President can't guarantee their jobs, they want to know that he's doing what he can and that, at a minimum, he's paying attention.'
'Not at all, YOU are the one who had passionately argued for a US defeat in the middle east so you could have the satisfaction of saying 'I told you so'.'
=========
I simply took note of what was already happening, thanks to Bush's complete lack of strategy and objectivity, and a read of today's headlines shows the same problems now as then - except that Petraeus has put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound just in time for the 2008 elections (perhaps). The story of 2008 may be Petraeus, rather than the candidate that the GOP cannot seem to settle on. Bush already has signed an agreement for an indefinite stay in Iraq to support the corrupt regime; and that's a massive switch from expecting benchmarks to be met, so that we could safely hand over control.
Kiss-asses like you just go along with the flow, right down the sewer; the 'amen corner' for a failed Presidency and failed policy, lashing out at those who call you the phony that you are. The personal insults that you seem to thrive on are ONLY evidence of your own incompetence in stating your case; looking instead for the White House press releases used to buoy up the incompetence of the past 8 years.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/18/opinion/main3728991.shtml
The Nation: Looming Disasters In Iraq And The Economy Will Challenge Next President
(This column was written by the editors of The Nation)
As the election drama renewed optimism among voters disgusted with the Bush era, there was an unfortunate side effect: the war in Iraq seemed to disappear from the headlines. Perhaps it was public exhaustion over a war that is nearing the end of its fifth year, or the unwillingness of Democratic leaders and candidates to keep pressing their call for an end to the occupation. Perhaps it was the White House's orchestrated 'Petraeus moment' in September and the temporary decline in violence in Iraq that led politicians and media to put the war on the back burner. Meanwhile, Democrats were slow to confront another conflagration — the tottering economy. We now face the prospect of an election-year recession on top of a disastrous and costly war.
Some voters feel that one or the other crisis demands the higher priority: the war or the rapidly deteriorating economy. We believe both are top priorities. These twin disasters are linked in practical necessity and as a stark expression of America's weakened condition. One reason Washington is so ill equipped to deal aggressively with recession is that it has spent so lavishly on a war that should never have been fought in the first place. How does government turn around a shrinking economy when it already blew its wad on Iraq? Indeed, the linkage poses discomforting questions for Democrats as well as Republicans.
Two years ago Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the war may ultimately consume $2 trillion — now much closer to standard projections than the $200 billion estimate the Bush crowd originally scoffed at. Last year the Democratic Congress took up the fight to end the war, but most Democrats, fearing the accusation that they would be 'abandoning the troops,' shied away from using their power to curb or cut off war spending. This is a shame, since the war continues to drain desperately needed resources. The projected cost of the war for fiscal year 2008 is $156 billion, which, according to the National Priorities Project, is enough to provide healthcare for 44 million Americans (only slightly less than the total number without healthcare); or to build 1.2 million new housing units; or to provide 161 million homes with renewable energy.
If this war drifts out of sharp focus, there will be dire consequences for the next President. The Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are beating the drum for fat military budgets, even as Iraq's defense minister announced that he expects US troops to play guardian and instructor for Iraqi forces through 2018. Although all the Democratic candidates now reject long-term occupation and have called for withdrawal, among the leading contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are unwilling to suggest even modest cuts to our out-of-control military budget. In fact, both call for increasing the size of the military by some 90,000 troops, which would actually increase the budget. John Edwards opposes a troop increase and has called for cutting 'wasteful' spending on such programs as missile defense, but he has not called for overall reductions in the military budget.
The economic crisis has so far been approached hesitantly and without the boldness it demands. The stimulus proposals offered by leading Democrats hover around $100 billion. This is too little. Some authorities in academia and on Wall Street warn that it will take $300 billion to $400 billion in emergency spending to alleviate severe suffering and generate real recovery. Losses from Wall Street's folly are likely to total $900 billion, warns the Levy Economics Institute, a respected think tank. That's an Iraq-class disaster.
(From 2006)
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1681119,00.html
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert. The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. 'Our estimates are very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq or the UK.' In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border, Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach $200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.
(from 2008)
money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/
Missing from the debate until now has been the man who famously sparked it: Lawrence Lindsey, then President Bush's chief economist, who gave an estimate in 2002 that sent the Bush administration into sticker shock. Less than three months later he was out of the White House.
Specialized care for wounded soldiers is one of many expenditures and social costs that some economists have swept into the accounting in an effort to get a bigger perspective. One of the first was from Yale's William Nordhaus, who in 2002 gave two estimates: a low number of $99 billion for a short, favorable war and a high figure of $1.9 trillion for a case in which 'the U.S. has a string of bad luck or misjudgments.' He acknowledged that such estimates were 'virtually certain to be wrong.' In 2006 economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimated that 'the true costs may exceed $2 trillion,' including a major increase in the cost of oil. The Congressional Budget Office last October gave an estimate of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the entire war on terrorism, including Iraq and Afghanistan, through 2017; a month later the Democratic majority on the Joint Economic Committee pushed that number to $3.5 trillion as a high-side estimate. While many of those costs can reasonably be connected to the war, some of them are dependent on so many other variables that it enters the realm of the cosmic to tie them all together into one pricetag. Simply adding up the costs doesn't reach a sum that tells you on its face whether the war is worth it. Moreover, a 15-year cost estimate needs to be compared with 15 years of economic output, which will total $300 trillion.
www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/17/army.brain.injuries/
Army: Some troops suffer brain injuries and don't know it
Up to 20 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may have suffered mild concussions but were unaware of them and did not get treatment, an Army study released Thursday shows.
Traumatic brain injuries are caused by powerful blasts, such as ones created by improvised explosive devices, or other severe trauma that shakes the brain inside the skull. The result can be bruising of the brain or greater damage. The Army began looking at the TBI issue and care in January 2007 by talking to soldiers, family members and caregivers to find out how such injuries were identified and treated, Army officials said. The Army now checks soldiers before and after deployment to identify and treat as many TBI-affected troops as possible.
This is a very difficult exercise, because there might have been costs in leaving Saddam in, as well. The problem is the future commitment that the President has made, and the budgets covering those future expenses are not his responsibility. Stiglitz has a book due out in March with better cost estimates.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR200711120200 8.html
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A14
The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' 'hidden costs'-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.
That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008, according to the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Its report, titled 'The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War,' estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.
The report argues that war funding is diverting billions of dollars away from 'productive investment' by American businesses in the United States. It also says that the conflicts are pulling reservists and National Guardsmen away from their jobs, resulting in economic disruptions for U.S. employers that the report estimates at $1 billion to $2 billion.
Oil prices have more than tripled since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the report notes, to a peak of more than $90 per barrel. 'The war in Iraq is certainly not responsible for all of this increase,' the report states, but it estimates that declining Iraqi production 'has likely raised oil prices in the U.S. by between $4 and $5 a barrel.' The report added that 'because of the many factors affecting oil markets, this should be seen as a highly approximate estimate.'
Hormats said he agrees with the report's finding that the United States is dangerously increasing its reliance on foreign debt and that Americans will be paying the price for generations. Hormats, author of 'The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars,' said that in every other major war, the United States has financed the conflict.
(This neglects the point that the unrest in the Mideast, as well as in other oil-producing nations, has caused a built-in speculator's markup of $20-30 a barrel, adding to the problem. No one wants to put the current war on budget, and Bush has relied on a series of supplementals, rather than acknowledging costs in each current fiscal year's budget).
(From 11/2/07)
www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=623
'MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I think there is reason for some optimism. But I have to tell you, I think we're facing the worst financial crisis in the last 40 or 50 years, maybe since the Great Depression. You have a situation where we have two and a half trillion dollars of paper, of which the estimate is that 25 percent of it is going to be wiped out in value. That's $600 billion. And that's just the estimates today. Those estimates get worse and worse as this paper gets to be worth less and less. And nobody knows what the consequences of that is. We've never been in that kind of situation.
Amongst other things, nobody knows who owns the paper. I mean, nobody -- Merrill Lynch announced that they were losing roughly $5 billion. It then went to $8 billion within a matter of three weeks, which they are the biggest seller of this kind of paper. They're off by 60 percent. I mean, if they're off by 60 percent, who knows what the real value is?'
(Merrill actually wrote off $25 billion in the second half, more than their entire earnings from 2002 through 2006)
www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20080117-000989-1313
Yet the cleanup has come at a high price. Merrill's $25 billion in write-downs in the second half exceeded all of the bank's earnings from 2002 through 2006. And while analysts said Merrill probably has put the bulk of its subprime-related trouble behind it and credited the firm's strong performance in wealth and asset management, they cautioned that troubled capital markets will continue to hurt the bank and pointed to new areas of concern like commercial real estate. Merrill's shares were 7.4% lower at $51 in midday trading.
www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2007/12/13/the-credit-crisis-gro ws.html
A whole galaxy of credit instruments has now been downgraded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars of paper losses. If those losses were incurred by individuals it would be bad enough. But leveraged lenders have a different problem. Many of them, such as commercial banks, have to maintain capital in reserve to protect against unexpected losses. If banks wish to maintain reserves equal to 10 percent of their assets, they either have to bring in new capital or shrink their balance sheets and reduce their lending accordingly. A dollar of real losses would mean scaling back lending by $10. Translate that to the whole financial sector, where the aggregate credit losses are estimated at $200 billion as of now. Ten times those losses could result in lending cutbacks of as much as $2 trillion. Such a huge hit to the credit supply will have a dramatic macroeconomic effect and could well produce a severe recession. Some major banks have literally shut their lending windows until they can repair their balance sheets.
Vicious cycle. The repair effort is further complicated because even the most sophisticated financial institutions do not know how to price many of the securities they hold and therefore cannot predict how much they will have to cut back on their loans, as the giant bank UBS said last week. This uncertainty compounds the credit crunch. So, too, does the decline in net worth of many borrowers due to a drop in house prices. In some markets, prices are down 20 percent from their mid-2006 highs. The average 10 percent drop in home values already incurred is tantamount to a $2.1 trillion loss in home equities. This threatens a vicious cycle with falling homeownership lowering house prices and forcing more defaults, causing ownership and prices to decline even more. Research suggests that for every dollar decline in home equity, spending will go down by about 9 cents, so this could lead to a $200 billion hit to consumer spending.
Another immediate effect has been a collapse in cash-out borrowing from home equity from about $700 billion in 2005 to $100 billion to date. At the same time, tighter lending and mortgage standards have contributed to a dramatic decline in residential construction from a high of over 2 million units to about 800,000 predicted for next year, with a concomitant decline in employment. A slowdown in consumer spending seems inescapable.
Bush doubled down on Iraq and now they have pacified it and have a democracy at least as good as any in the region.
This is why you are not reading much about Iraq: the libnazi press cannot push the story forward unless they acknowledge the progress so they gag it in classic CNN fashion.
Now, Bush is leaving it to the next guy as a big present, for greenlighting it for him! The dems wanted him to get Saddam and clean it up before they ran again, then blame him, for the outcome. This is why they cried for the dead out of one side of their mouths while trying to cut funding for the trrops out of the other! Remember???? You had resolutions to cut funding and then they'd cry about the dead, after they actually OK'ed the conflict to begin with! The dem sheep they represent buy it all! None of them ever brings this up!
Think about it: why would THEY want to deal with it???? Clinton had far better tools to deal with it than Bush and promptly de-constructed the capability to do so.
So here comes ol GW, beating that talking head Gore, and now, they can get a republican to do it for them! Why do you think half of ther dems greenlighted it???? This was their chance! Get saddam and pillory Bush for it!
Now, the economy is cooling since no one is going to keep paying more for housing and other items, so let's get ol GW to pimp a second stimulus package and then after we're back in office....raise taxes!
I can't wait to see ol GW's play on this!
LOL! the bore is in a real lather today!
'No reprieve from war costs'
'No reprieve from dumb comments, either'
'No payoff in infrastucture[sic] Iraq investments'
'Zuckerman comments on Web Monday'
'Dum-dum with selective amnesia'
'Threats Of War, Recession Going Ignored'
'Lies on the Iraq war costs; brain injuries'
'Assessing the total costs of the war'
'For SP4: Mort Zuckerman details re recession'
'Zuckerman - The Credit Crisis Grows'
And my favorite, the aptly titled:
'More garbage from the pit of ignorance'
Well done demonstrating your obsessive compulsive disorder yet again. You need electro-shock therapy. Thanks for rantings from your leftist sources and your heavily redacted commentary from Mort frigging Zuckerman. Do you really expect ANYONE to believe Mort Zuckerman has the interests of the USA as one of his priorities? The man is a leftist leech who sees the USA as his boarding house between starting in Canada and ending in Israel.
from some of the comments posted here if maybe the wrong people are in the political arena - notice I stated 'some'! It's up to others to figure out who the 'some' are!! Or maybe argue about it...........
Certainly it can be said that there are NO innocents among American politicians. The Clinton Clan set up our trade deals with China and the Bush Bunch signed off on it. Now have a look at this article. It's stuff like this that makes it profitable to read foreign newspapers.
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a .xml
Snippet:'Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a 'bargaining chip' in talks with the US.
'Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order,' he added.
He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.
'China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.
'China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar,' he told China Daily.
The Clinton Clan is, of course, blaming this nightmare on the Bush Bunch. The truth is, they have been switch-hitting.
Snippet:'Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session.
'The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles,' he said.'
In other words, we either do what the Chinese want and play the game by Chinese rules or we can watch our economy collapse like the house of cards it is.
Whose responsible? Bush-Clinton-Bush and like as not, Clinton again.
The United States is a republic, not an empire or monarchy. We are fools for allowing these political dynasties.
'While the headlines have been focused on the economy and primaries,'
They are focused on the economy because the situation in Iraq is improving to the degree that the democrats can no longer push surrender to the terrorists as a political strategy. (In other words: Treason) What they are left with is desperately trying to call slower growth and nearly full employment a 'recession' or even 'depression'. Pathetic because there hasn't even been a contraction in the GDP yet. It isn't going to work.
'the situation in Iraq continues to be both miserable and expensive, with daily reports of violence continuing'
Wrong, liar. This is now your fall back BS. The facts on the ground are proving you wrong and despite the lack of coverage the American people are realizing that, thanks to the most brilliant American general since Eisenhower or Abrams and the most competent fighting force the world has ever known we are making clear, undeniable progress in Iraq.
GO TO THIS LINK AND LOOK AT THE MAPS:
www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/01/al_qaeda_in_iraqs_sh.php
Al Qaeda in Iraq's area of operations as of December 2007. Dark red indicates operating areas, light red is transit routes. Click to view.
Nearly one year to the day of the announcement of the 'surge' of US forces to Iraq and the change in counterinsurgency plan, Iraqi and Coalition forces have shrunk al Qaeda's ability to conduct operations inside Iraq, a senior US commander said.
During a press briefing in Baghdad, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the Commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, said al Qaeda in Iraq has been ejected from its strongholds in the cities to the rural regions of Iraq.
Al Qaeda in Iraq's area of operations as of December 2006. Dark red indicates operating areas, light red is transit routes. Click to view.
From late 2006 into 2007, 'Iraq was caught in a cycle of bloodshed under the dark cloud of al Qaeda,' said Odierno. Al Qaeda was 'entrenched in numerous urban safe havens across Iraq' until the surge forces launched Operation Phantom Thunder in June 2007.
Operation Phantom Phoenix, the current nationwide operation targeting al Qaeda's remaining safe havens, was launched on Jan. 8. Iraqi and US forces have captured or killed 121 al Qaeda fighters, wounded 14, and detained an additional 1023 suspects. Al Qaeda's leadership has been hit hard during the operation, with 92 high values targets either killed or captured.
Iraqi and US forces have also discovered 351 weapons caches and four tunnel complexes, Odierno said. Iraqi and US forces have also discovered three car bomb and improvised explosive device [IED] factories and 410 IEDs, including 18 car bombs and 25 homes rigged with explosives. Also found were 'numerous torture chambers, an underground medical clinic, several closed schools, and a large foreign fighter camp with intricate tunnel complexes,' said Odierno.
The reduction of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad from December 2006 to December 2007. Ethno-sectarian violence is down 90 percent Baghdad from December 2006 to December 2007.
Iraqi security forces have conducted independent operations and deployments during Phantom Phoenix. An entire brigade was moved from Anbar province to Diyala, where a major fight against al Qaeda in Iraq is under way.
'With less than a week's notice the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Iraqi Army Division was alerted to deploy from Anbar province to Diyala province to support combat operations in the Diyala River Valley,' said Odierno.” This was a good Iraqi decision and was executed solely by the Iraqis. Within 36 hours upon arrival, the 3rd Brigade uncovered two sizeable caches, gathered significant intelligence and aggressively hunted down al Qaeda in tough terrain and demanding climatic conditions.' As recently as the spring of 2007 Anbar was the most violent province in Iraq.
www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/OPINION01/8012 00329
Surge shows success signs
In the year since the surge began in Iraq — with its 30,000 additional U.S. troops — the improvement in security throughout the country is outstanding. Perhaps nowhere is it more notable than in the capital of Baghdad.
This time last year, just 8 percent of Baghdad's neighborhoods were secure. Today, that number has jumped all the way to 75 percent.
Gen. David Petraeus, a former Fort Campbell commander, launched the surge strategy in Baghdad in February 2007. Its goal was to reduce violence by moving troops off the bases and into the neighborhoods, and it's working.
'They extended beyond a sentence or two, and bear in mind this is from someone who 6 months ago thought the risk of recession a minor problem.
The panel was in agreement that Bush and the Fed should have acted faster '
So if 6 months ago the thought of this recession (which STILL hasn't happened!) was thought to be 'minor' would it have been a good idea to spend a lot of money on a stimulus package? You contradict yourself again. Indeed, since there HAS BEEN NO RECESSION why should we drive up the budget deficit by dumping money in to the economy?
Regardless, since there wasn't a downturn 6 months ago, or a serious one even 2 months ago, how could anyone have 'acted faster'? Since there has yet to be A SINGLE quarter of contraction, let alone the 2 you need to call it a recession how on earth could you call a stimulus package 'too late'?
FURTHER, it is the federal reserves job to release money to ease inflation or to stimulate growth. How is it Bush's fault if this independent body has not released more money in the form of lower interest rates?
You demonstrate your ignorance bu your need to scapegoat your bogeyman, you idiot.
'More garbage from the pit of ignorance'
Again, an apt title for your rants.
'I simply took note of what was already happening, thanks to Bush's complete lack of strategy and objectivity,'
Would you like me to google up some of your golden oldies, you miserable liar? You have overtly supported the terrorists because you saw every American killed in Iraq as an opportunity to sermonize and focus your illiterate anger on the man you love to hate. You peddled your defeatism, scorned our sacrifice and openly rooted for a humiliating defeat at the hands of the head chopping, child murdering, miserable savages that the USA and the coalition were working to defeat in Iraq. You have compared the terrorists to our minutemen in the revolutionary war and predicted even endorsed their victory. All of tis is still up there for anyone to see, you piece of sh*t.
'except that Petraeus has put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound just in time for the 2008 elections (perhaps).'
(Perhaps) eh? So there is still hope for your allies in al Qaeda to salvage victory against the infidels. No, there has been a dramatic turnaround in Iraq. You are one of the last idiots on earth who refuse to see it. Even Bin Laden and Harry Reid have grudgingly acknowledged it.
'Kiss-asses like you just go along with the flow,'
Another one of your lies. I was against the invasion of Iraq to begin with, when it had 70% approval in the USA. I was against abandoning the mission when it was deeply unpopular. Now that over half the country thinks it is going 'well' or 'very well' I can honestly say have maintained the exact same position throughout. It has never been about popularity with me it is about right and wrong, something that you will never understand.
'The personal insults that you seem to thrive on are ONLY evidence of your own incompetence in stating your case;'
I have stated my case and time has proven me correct and you wrong,, not to mention a weasel and a liar. In terms of 'insults' I think you are a contemptible traitor and I intend to remind you of that.
''MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I think there is reason for some optimism. But I have to tell you, I think we're facing the worst financial crisis in the last 40 or 50 years, maybe since the Great Depression. '
LOL... 'K... Mort Zuckerman, the same guy who gave so much to the Clinton's, the same guy who bought the Israeli greenhouses in Gaza to give as a present to the Palestinians (Who immediately trashed them and used them to launch attacks against Israel) The Canadian who has said that he owes his allegiance to Israel... That Mort Zuckerman is trying to put the scare in to people about a looming depression. Even though there hasn't been a recession. Or even a contraction.
Well, looks like Mort is on board with the Clinton's.
' You have a situation where we have two and a half trillion dollars of paper, of which the estimate is that 25 percent of it is going to be wiped out in value. '
From where? Where are these estimates coming from? When does this begin? Should I build a bunker? What will stop it? A Billary in the oval office? LOL! It is a bubble popping. Thankfully this is in real estate which will retain value. Not like the internet bubble where the whole thing evaporated.
'Merrill actually wrote off $25 billion in the second half, more than their entire earnings from 2002 through 2006'
Gee, how much was lost in the tech bubble? (Under the Clinton's)
' Merrill's $25 billion in write-downs in the second half exceeded all of the bank's earnings from 2002 through 2006.'
Am I supped to feel bad for Merrill Lynch for buying up bad loans that shouldn't have been made in the first place? Good heavens. Thanks for nothing with the reposts of every utterance of Mort Zuckerman.
We could put into place a quarterly payment, in the form similar to gift cards sold in stores (Government Gift Cards), from the government for every household in the U.S. They must be used with one stipulation that the cards can only be purchased for goods Made in The U.S.A.
Five-thousand dollars for every household per quarter sounds reasonable.
The first quarter can start as soon as they can get them made, (by a company headquartered in America, of course) anytime during a three-month period would do.
Businesses could offer special discounts if folks choose to use their gift cards in their stores, online, etc.
If the government can waste billions, (hey, what can be done about that?) they can implement this for the people and our economy.
With best intentions,
One Individual
Edited: They must be used with one stipulation that the cards can only be purchased for goods Made in The U.S.A.
Should read: They must be used with one stipulation that the cards can only be used to purchase goods Made in The U.S.A.
How do you define 'Made in the US' - many products are manufactured elsewhere (or parts of them are) and then assembled in the US.
Also, this scheme is effectively a trade restriction against other countries - so they will ban US imports in retaliation. Since the USA is the World's largest exporter, who do you think will lose most ?
'Since the USA is the World's largest exporter, who do you think will lose most ?'
The USA also has the largest trade defect. We should be buying American whenever possible.
what is the right thing to do if the goods manufactured in the U.S. aren't as good as the items manufactured outside the U.S.? I've found that to be true in some clothing items I've purchased.
Your Talkback on this Story