Today in the economy

[El Kabong]

killersheep #1 don't tell me what I mean when I post it. I don't think handing out bonuses to people who did a piss poor job is good business and during this time it is not proper to do, but let's spread blame where it's due, if AIG is at fault for their bonuses then Merrill Lynch also deserves blame for their bonuses, and I am sure we can find spending issues with any company that got a bail out.

What I do have a problem with is the government saying they will take something from people who (whether or not they earned it) have a legal contract with a company to earn a living.....it is not the government's place. And I also find it ridiculous that the motherfuckers who voted on the goddamn bill either didn't read the bill OR knew that this was in the bill and didn't say anything. Also I find it humorous that a bunch of people who don't pay their taxes are browbeating Wall Street...."Hey Kettle! You are black!" - Pot

I use the word Omnibus to describe the bill because that's what the bill is called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o32LMlxH6I

....oh that's MSNBC the Democrat National Broadcasting Station and did they just say "Omnibus"?!?!?! Shocking

[El Kabong]

The people in power aren't helping the people who are hurting, they are only giving those hurting people companies to be angry with....Obama hasn't done a God damn thing except stir up some class envy and that doesn't benefit anyone but Obama

[killersheep]

The people in power aren't helping the people who are hurting, they are only giving those hurting people companies to be angry with....Obama hasn't done a God damn thing except stir up some class envy and that doesn't benefit anyone but Obama

[/rant]

is this because of UNC?

[killersheep]

killersheep #1 don't tell me what I mean when I post it. I don't think handing out bonuses to people who did a piss poor job is good business and during this time it is not proper to do, but let's spread blame where it's due, if AIG is at fault for their bonuses then Merrill Lynch also deserves blame for their bonuses, and I am sure we can find spending issues with any company that got a bail out.

What I do have a problem with is the government saying they will take something from people who (whether or not they earned it) have a legal contract with a company to earn a living.....it is not the government's place. And I also find it ridiculous that the motherfuckers who voted on the goddamn bill either didn't read the bill OR knew that this was in the bill and didn't say anything. Also I find it humorous that a bunch of people who don't pay their taxes are browbeating Wall Street...."Hey Kettle! You are black!" - Pot

I use the word Omnibus to describe the bill because that's what the bill is called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o32LMlxH6I

....oh that's MSNBC the Democrat National Broadcasting Station and did they just say "Omnibus"?!?!?! Shocking

Just out of curiousity did you watch the video you posted?

[Kirkland Laing]

#1 the bonuses AIG paid out were less than what Merrill Lynch paid out earlier #2 The amount paid out was less than 1/10 of 1% of the bailout money.

This bonus mess is just a red herring....and Chris Dodd (DEMOCRAT) and Tim Geithner (DEMOCRAT) put it in the Omnibus bill that companies that were bailed out could keep giving bonuses. Calling in the GOVERNMENT APPOINTED CEO of AIG and berating him infront of Congress wasn't too smooth either.

I don't like the bonuses as they are in poor taste but people screaming for them to just seize those bonuses scare me....I don't want the government to get the idea that they can just take shit that people own not for taxation but "just because"


As always the Democrats talk a good game for the people but they NEVER deliver anything but higher taxes which they don't even fucking pay

The GOP were for paying bonuses before they were against paying them. They only came out against paying them when Americans started getting upset over guys the tax payer was bailing out getting bonuses. Both the GOP and the Democrats are bought and paid for by the financial industry and are keeping them in their jobs with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. If the government hadn't bailed out firms like AIG then their employees would all be out of work. If the government really wanted to, and wasn't bought and paid for by the financial industry, they could have cancelled all those contracts/bonusus when they bailed the companies out.

The GOP over the last eight years have delivered permanently high taxes for the vast majority of your working life to come after spending the last thirty years redistributing wealth from 99% of Americans to guys like Mr. Cassano, pictured above. You can't blame the Democrats for that. You can blame them for a lot, but if you're blaming them for high taxes/screwing the economy up then the vast majority of the blame should be directed at the GOP.

[Kirkland Laing]

The people in power aren't helping the people who are hurting, they are only giving those hurting people companies to be angry with....Obama hasn't done a God damn thing except stir up some class envy and that doesn't benefit anyone but Obama

The people stirring up anger over the bonuses are Republicans, some in the media. Obama would rather not discuss them at all.

[killersheep]

3/23/09

USA - Existing Home Sales

Actual4.72M|Forecast4.45M|Previous4.49M

Pretty straightforward sales of existing homes in the US, this was for the month of February, much higher than anticipated. Also, worth noting, unemployment claims in the US were down in February from 654K to 646K. Unemployment, may be scewed because, people may have run out of unemployment benefits or given up.

[El Kabong]

The people stirring up anger over the bonuses are Republicans, some in the media. Obama would rather not discuss them at all.

I haven't heard Republicans stir up anger over this....maybe some very moderate Republicans have big issues with the bonuses but no hardcore Conservative does.


"The GOP were for paying bonuses before they were against paying them."

That argument didn't work for John Kerry and it doesn't work for you.



And yes I watched enough of the video to see that MSNBC a faaaaaar left wing station used the term "Omnibus"

[killersheep]

The people stirring up anger over the bonuses are Republicans, some in the media. Obama would rather not discuss them at all.

I haven't heard Republicans stir up anger over this....maybe some very moderate Republicans have big issues with the bonuses but no hardcore Conservative does.


"The GOP were for paying bonuses before they were against paying them."

That argument didn't work for John Kerry and it doesn't work for you.



And yes I watched enough of the video to see that MSNBC a faaaaaar left wing station used the term "Omnibus"

You are right they did use the term Omnibus.

[Kirkland Laing]

The people stirring up anger over the bonuses are Republicans, some in the media. Obama would rather not discuss them at all.

I haven't heard Republicans stir up anger over this....maybe some very moderate Republicans have big issues with the bonuses but no hardcore Conservative does.


"The GOP were for paying bonuses before they were against paying them."

That argument didn't work for John Kerry and it doesn't work for you.



And yes I watched enough of the video to see that MSNBC a faaaaaar left wing station used the term "Omnibus"

So you're claiming that Obama is stirring up anger against his own policies? Explain why would he do that.



"I really don't want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do." Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told ABC News in February, when asked about Obama's proposed limits on executive compensation. Senator Jim DeMint, who attacked the original bailout bill as "pure socialism," characterized executive pay caps as a dangerous government intervention. "I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they [sic] are," DeMint told the Huffington Post. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy." DeMint's right-wing fellow traveller, James Inhofe, also equated limits on compensation with the demise of the American way. "As I was listening to [Obama] make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay, and how much to pay?"
A mere six weeks later, DeMint and Inhofe are now attacking the administration for failing to curb these executive payouts. In a long diatribe delivered on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Inhofe abandoned his earlier defense of businesses to make their own decisions about compensation to express his "deep anger" over the pay. "I don't know how someone at AIG giving out or receiving a bonus right now can look at themselves in the mirror," Inhofe thundered on the floor. "You can be sure that we will do all we can to right this wrong and get these bonuses back." DeMint has also found ways to channel his newfound anger against corporate pay. In a letter sent to the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, DeMint, along with David Vitter and Jim Bunning, demanded that AIG contracts be formally subpoenaed to determine why the company was "specifically exempt[ed]" from the executive compensation limits. In other words, DeMint is now asking why AIG hasn't been forced to comply with the conditions that he had so vehemently opposed.



This is just a small sample of GOP hypocrisy. You could probably find similar quotes for every GOP politician with a google search or two. But you never let facts or evidence bother you, do you?



Explain what you mean about MSNBC.



So that's two things you need to reply to :


1. So you're claiming that Obama is stirring up anger against his own policies? Explain why would he do that.


and

2. Explain what you mean about MSNBC.

and 3., the head guys at AIG are under investigation for fraud in two countries and eventually America too. Do you think it's the right and correct thing to give tens of millions of dollars of US taxpayer money in bonuses to individuals who made hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent deals which the US taxpayer has already assumed the liability for? Put more simply, do you agree that your taxes should go to pay tens of millions in yearly bonuses to a bunch of crooks who have already defrauded the US taxpayer of hundreds of billions (potentially trillions) of their future earnings? Should half a dozen guys get tens of millions each of US taxpayer money as a thank you for already costing them hundreds of bilions/potential trillions?

[Kirkland Laing]

3/23/09

USA - Existing Home Sales

Actual4.72M|Forecast4.45M|Previous4.49M

Pretty straightforward sales of existing homes in the US, this was for the month of February, much higher than anticipated. Also, worth noting, unemployment claims in the US were down in February from 654K to 646K. Unemployment, may be scewed because, people may have run out of unemployment benefits or given up.

Housing sales always go up in February from January. They'll go "up" next month too. The rate they went up is similar to most previous years. House prices are still falling, that's the important thing. The really crucial thing is unemployment though. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of recessions, they're over (measured by GDP growth) well before unemployment stops rising. And that's a big problem for this recession as more unemployment means more defaulted mortgages which means more toxic assets. Economists are flapping over the "increase" in home sales and the "decrease" in unemployment when really they're just seasonal patterns/statistical noise. It's hard to believe they're so clueless but they are.

[El Kabong]

I don't think Obama is stirring up controversy over his own policies, I just don't think anyone read the bill and they simply got caught HOWEVER they were able to spin it to where the Democrats can call AIG in for hearings (as is the typical Democrat fashion) and berate them on CSPAN for loads of "I care about the little guy" sound bytes which all the bobble head news anchors will just accept as fact.


killersheep, "omnibus" is just used to describe, in this case a bill, that contains multiple items. But yes I am right, thanks for noticing

[killersheep]

3/23/09

USA - Existing Home Sales

Actual4.72M|Forecast4.45M|Previous4.49M

Pretty straightforward sales of existing homes in the US, this was for the month of February, much higher than anticipated. Also, worth noting, unemployment claims in the US were down in February from 654K to 646K. Unemployment, may be scewed because, people may have run out of unemployment benefits or given up.

Housing sales always go up in February from January. They'll go "up" next month too. The rate they went up is similar to most previous years. House prices are still falling, that's the important thing. The really crucial thing is unemployment though. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of recessions, they're over (measured by GDP growth) well before unemployment stops rising. And that's a big problem for this recession as more unemployment means more defaulted mortgages which means more toxic assets. Economists are flapping over the "increase" in home sales and the "decrease" in unemployment when really they're just seasonal patterns/statistical noise. It's hard to believe they're so clueless but they are.

I disagree that they are just noise, surely people react to these numbers.
Regardless if these numbers are cyclical, positive news could definately have an effect on consumer spending. Would you agree?

[Kirkland Laing]

3/23/09

USA - Existing Home Sales

Actual4.72M|Forecast4.45M|Previous4.49M

Pretty straightforward sales of existing homes in the US, this was for the month of February, much higher than anticipated. Also, worth noting, unemployment claims in the US were down in February from 654K to 646K. Unemployment, may be scewed because, people may have run out of unemployment benefits or given up.

Housing sales always go up in February from January. They'll go "up" next month too. The rate they went up is similar to most previous years. House prices are still falling, that's the important thing. The really crucial thing is unemployment though. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of recessions, they're over (measured by GDP growth) well before unemployment stops rising. And that's a big problem for this recession as more unemployment means more defaulted mortgages which means more toxic assets. Economists are flapping over the "increase" in home sales and the "decrease" in unemployment when really they're just seasonal patterns/statistical noise. It's hard to believe they're so clueless but they are.

I disagree that they are just noise, surely people react to these numbers.
Regardless if these numbers are cyclical, positive news could definately have an effect on consumer spending. Would you agree?

If you follow various economic numbers like unemployment/durable goods orders/house prices etc. in America and a bunch of other economies and how increases/decreases in them affect other moving parts of those economies for twenty years then you'll be in a more qualified position to say whether rises and falls are important or not.

The average American consumer isn't paying attention to the rate of housing sales. They're worrying about whether their job is going to exist in a month. American consumers have spent their way into huge indebtedness over the past couple of decades. They've maxed their credit cards out (look for massive amounts of credit card debt default with attendant effects on credit card debt securities values in the future) and even if banks were lending they're not borrowing at pre-crisis levels anymore for a while. Consumer spending, residential investment and the unemployment rate are the numbers worth watching going forward but you've got to put them in context, and you only get context over time.

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't think Obama is stirring up controversy over his own policies, I just don't think anyone read the bill and they simply got caught HOWEVER they were able to spin it to where the Democrats can call AIG in for hearings (as is the typical Democrat fashion) and berate them on CSPAN for loads of "I care about the little guy" sound bytes which all the bobble head news anchors will just accept as fact.


killersheep, "omnibus" is just used to describe, in this case a bill, that contains multiple items. But yes I am right, thanks for noticing

So what did you mean when you said Obama was stirring up class envy?

And answer 2 and 3. Here they are again :

2. Explain what you mean about MSNBC.

and 3., the head guys at AIG are under investigation for fraud in two countries and eventually America too. Do you think it's the right and correct thing to give tens of millions of dollars of US taxpayer money in bonuses to individuals who made hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent deals which the US taxpayer has already assumed the liability for? Put more simply, do you agree that your taxes should go to pay tens of millions in yearly bonuses to a bunch of crooks who have already defrauded the US taxpayer of hundreds of billions (potentially trillions) of their future earnings? Should half a dozen guys get tens of millions each of US taxpayer money as a thank you for already costing them hundreds of bilions/potential trillions?