JAMIE DIMON APPROVES OF TRUMP’S BOOMING ECONOMY (MORE JOBS, MORE MILITARY):
U.S. ECONOMY STRONGEST SINCE 2014.
TRUMP’S TRADE WAR YIELDS POSITIVE RESULTS FOR U.S. ECONOMY.
TRUMP KNOWS BUSINESS & BLOWS OFF TRADITIONAL, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLITICS.
MEDIA NEEDS TO FAIRLY GIVE THE PRESIDENT CREDIT WHEN IT’S DUE HIM, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Post Sources: CNN, Fox News, 4-Traders, Youtube
***** US economy grows at fastest pace since 2014
The US economy roared into high gear in the spring, growing at the fastest pace in almost four years.
Second-quarter economic growth came in at an annual rate of 4.1%, the government said Friday. That was the best showing since the third quarter of 2014.
By many metrics, the United States economy is in excellent shape: Unemployment is near an 18-year low, factories are seeing more orders, and exports are surging.
Economists are generally predicting slower growth in the second half of the year, as the effects of the tax cut wear off and rising interest rates depress consumer spending.
Already announced tariffs are forecast to be only a slight drag on economic growth, unless more are imposed. And it seems that corporate executives are treading carefully, as surveys of business confidence and hiring expectations begin to flag.
The strong second-quarter growth reflectedlarge increases in orders of durable goods, investment in non-residential construction, exports, intellectual property, and government defense spending.
Weak home construction and increased imports, which subtract from economic growth, took it down a notch.
Growth in the first quarter was revised up slightly, from 2% to 2.2%.
Personal consumption expenditures, a key metric that the Federal Reserve uses to decide whether to raise interest rates, also came in at a very strong 4%, although that may reflect a bounceback from last quarter's 0.5%.
Janet Yellen, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, was confirmed Monday by the Senate to succeed chairman Ben Bernanke as the next head of America’s central bank. Her term, which begins February 1st, will mark an important shift in the direction of the bank’s policy efforts, as it begins to “taper” back the last five years of unconventional monetary policy, which have resulted in the Fed pouring some $3.8 trillion into the U.S. economy following the financial crisis.
While Yellen’s appointment marks continuity with the Bernanke era, and with the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing” of which she was one of the chief architects, it also heralds a number of firsts. Yellen is the first woman to head the central bank, but even more important, she’s also its first openly reform-minded, Keynesian-oriented leader. A stellar academic economist and 36-year Fed veteran with a particular focus on the human impact of unemployment, Yellen has said on many occasions that the last five years of crisis, joblessness and slower growth, “aren’t just statistics to me.”
While former Fed colleagues like Donald Kohn, Alan Blinder, and Larry Meyer cite her as among the most data-driven and analytical economists around, she’s also someone who’s more interested in clear, well articulated ideas with real world impact than creating the cleverest mathematical models. That commitment was partly inspired by her Yale mentor, the legendary liberal economist James Tobin, who argued that the first priority of economics was to improve the lives of real people.
You can bet that Yellen will be keeping that in mind as she slowly and carefully continues the paring back of quantitative easing that began in December. The challenge will be to keep both the markets and the economy steady as the central bank exits from the largest bout of unconventional monetary policy in history. While the Fed’s dual mandate of keeping inflation and unemployment low will be her first task, there’s currently no conflict there, since inflation is running far below the 2 % target that Yellen herself crafted, meaning that tapering doesn’t need to be rushed. She’ll also have her eye on banking reform. Blinder, who was the Fed vice chair back in the 1990s when Yellen was a governor, remembers speaking with her “many times about how the Fed was being too lax on regulation.” And since then he adds, “things have only gotten worse.”
To do all that, she’ll need to build consensus among a group of Federal Reserve governors who are increasingly independent. Fortunately, says Kohn, who worked with her as a Fed staffer in the mid 1990s, “Janet brings a CEO-type skill set to this job.” He and many others say she’s a “listener and a questioner” who likes to surround herself with the smartest people possible, hear out their arguments, challenge them on any weaknesses, then take her own decisions.
It’s a managerial strategy that seems to have worked, as Yellen has the best track record on policy predictions of any Fed leader since 2009. While she’s often characterized as the “nicest” big name economist around, no one should mistake that for a lack of spine. “She can get at the strengths and weaknesses of someone’s arguments so quickly,” says Berkeley professor and Haas School of Business colleague James Wilcox, “but so politely. She’s got that iron fist in a velvet glove quality.” It’s a quality that will likely serve her well as she steers the most important institute in America today towards a new era of monetary policy.
Mitt Romney's role at Bain Capital was NOT to Create Jobs! Romney's Role at Bain was to Reform Businesses & Make Money! That's It! He's running as a Reformer & a Businessman NOT a Politician!
Its okay to examine Romney's Job Creation record at Bain & as Governor of Mass. Yes Massachusetts was No.47, however it was NOT No. 47 for Three Consecutive Years in a Row!
The U.S. Economy has Experienced Long Term, High Unemployment for Three Consective Years.
PRESIDENT OBAMA started his general election campaign by taking aim at Mitt Romney’s job creation record at Bain, setting off a lively debate over the fairness of the attacks.
I am among those who have been drawn into the argument — there was even a snippet of me defending private equity in a Romney campaign ad.
As a former Obama administration official, I was uncomfortable about being used in a Romney ad in support of his position.
However, I was also concerned that the Obama ads, while narrowly accurate, might be seen to portray Bain Capital (and implicitly, private equity) in an ugly light because a few of the companies the firm invested in went bankrupt while Bain Capital still made money
On Monday, Mr. Obama struck the right balance, emphasizing that he wasn’t attacking private equity but was questioning Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital credentials to be the job creator in chief.
That’s fair, particularly because Mr. Romney himself has been foolishly reweaving history to claim, as recently as last week, that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain.
In fact, Bain Capital — like other private equity firms — was founded and managed for profit: ideally, huge amounts of gain earned legally and legitimately. Any job creation was a welcome but secondary byproduct.
The language in one prospectus seeking Bain Capital investors was clear: “The objective of the Fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated” by other investments. Any job creation was accidental.
In Mr. Romney’s case, his jobs assertion rests heavily on just a few early investments.
Originally hatched to provide venture capital to young enterprises, Bain Capital notched a few such successes, notably Staples and Sports Authority. These were small stakes in companies — about $2.5 million in Staples — over which Bain had little influence.
While I defend the role financiers play in making our economy work, I also concede that Mark Zuckerberg was far more central to the success of Facebook and its 3,200 jobs than the venture capitalists who invested early.
Although Bain Capital sold off those early investments years ago, Mr. Romney takes credit for every job ever created at every company Bain Capital invested in during his tenure — while ignoring jobs eliminated after his departure.
“The steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital,” he said last week about GST Steel, the Kansas City, Mo., company that went bankrupt in 2001. “I was no longer there, so that’s hardly something which is on my watch.”
Meanwhile, when Staples went public in 1989, it had 1,100 employees; at the end of 1998, right before Mr. Romney exited Bain, it had 42,000 workers. Yet Mr. Romney takes credit for the 89,000 employed at the close of 2010.
As the years clicked by, Bain Capital and Mr. Romney smelled the chance to make more money by raising larger amounts. That, in turn, led them toward classic leveraged buyouts — the purchase, often heavily financed by debt, of more established companies.
These enterprises were often what Wall Street describes as “undermanaged,” which means the Bain Capital team could take “aggressive action” that often included cutting costs — read: jobs — to increase profitability.
That’s not wrong; it’s part of capitalism. Whatever its flaws, private equity has made a material contribution to sharpening management. But don’t confuse a leveraged buyout with job creation.
Under Mr. Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital engaged in the less attractive practice of putting more debt on seemingly successful investments in order to take dividends out. In at least four instances of Bain Capital investments during Romney’s tenure, these “recapped” companies, of which two were featured in the Obama ads, subsequently went bankrupt, costing thousands their jobs.
To be sure, some of Bain’s large leveraged buyouts — notably, Domino’s Pizza — added jobs. But Mr. Romney left Bain Capital two months after the Domino’s investment (7,900 new jobs claimed) was finalized.
Aware of private equity’s reputation, Mr. Romney still trots around the country erroneously calling himself a “venture capitalist.”
And in a further effort to deflect attention from the Bain Capital debate, Mr. Romney last week argued that President Obama was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs in the auto industry over the past three years.
That’s both ridiculously false (auto industry and dealership jobs have increased by about 50,000 since January 2009) and a remarkable comment from a man who said that the companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that the industry would have been better off without President Obama’s involvement.
Adding jobs was never Mitt Romney’s private sector agenda, and it’s appropriate to question his ability to do so.
Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm As U.S. Labor Secretary During Pres. Obama's 2nd Term?
Yes! Excellent Choice!
While I Do Think That Hilda Solis (Obama's Current Labor Secretary) Is Doing A Good Job In Her Role As U.S. Labor Secretary, I Believe Gov. Granholm Will In Fact Do An EXCELLENT Job! (Sorry. No Offense Hilda)
Listen I Know On A Political Level Pres. Obama Needs Hilda Solis To Help Please The Hispanic Population However....
I'm Looking At Things Long Term!
At This Time In U.S. History American Jobs Are Badly Needed For Many People: White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Asians.
Gov. Granholm Not Only Possesses Great Executive Leadership Experience But She's Also An Expert In Economic Recovery & Will Most Likely Be Able To Communicate More Effectively With Organized Labor Union Leaders.
Organized Labor Unions Are Crucial To Our Nation's Recovery Too Because Who Wants To Work Hard For $5.00 Per Hour & NO Benefits??
Its Time For Pres. Obama To Begin Hiring People With REAL Civilian Work Experience Like Gov. Granholm To Help Govern Our Country, Versus Just Hiring People With Academic Experience.
I Really Hope Pres. Obama Considers Nominating Gov. Granholm As Labor Secretary For His 2nd Term.
Once Again I Thank Hilda Solis For Her Service To Our Country But Sometimes New Blood Is Needed To Help Right The Ship!
African-Americans or blacks made up 12 percent of the United States labor force in 2010.1 Overall, 18 million blacks were employed or looking for work, representing 62.2 percent of all black people.
In 2010, about half of blacks aged 16 and older had a job and 17.5 percent of those employed worked part-time.2 Blacks are the only racial or ethnic group where women represent a larger share of the employed than do men — more than half (54.3 percent) of employed blacks in 2010 were women, compared to 46.3 percent among employed whites. Employed black women still earn less than employed black men.
More than a quarter of employed black workers aged 25 or older have earned a college degree, a share that exceeds that for Hispanics3, but continues to trail whites. While the share that are college graduates has risen 20 percent in the past decade, the gap in the share of employed blacks and whites who are college graduates has not narrowed and a 10 percentage point gap remains.
Black workers are more likely to be employed in the public sector than are either their white or Hispanic counterparts. In 2010, nearly 1 in 5 employed blacks worked for the government compared to 14.6 percent of whites and 11.0 percent of Hispanics. Conversely, blacks are less likely than Hispanics and nearly as likely as whites to work in the private sector, not including the self-employed.4 Few blacks are self-employed — only 3.8 percent reported being self-employed in 2010 — making them about half as likely to be self-employed as whites (7.4 percent).
Half of black workers employed full time earned $611 or more per week in 2010, 80 percent of that earned by whites. The gap in earnings has been similar throughout the recession and recovery period.
The average unemployment rate for blacks in 2010 was 16.0 percent, compared to 8.7 percent for whites, and 12.5 percent for Hispanics. Historically, blacks have persistently higher unemployment rates than the other major racial and ethnic groups and the recent recession and recovery period has largely reflected this pattern.
Nearly half (48.4 percent) of all unemployed blacks were unemployed 27 weeks or longer in 2010, compared to 41.9 percent of unemployed whites and 39.3 percent of unemployed Hispanics. Moreover, blacks remained unemployed longer than whites or Hispanics in 2010, with a median duration of unemployment approaching 26 weeks.
The unemployment rate for blacks has remained high. In May 2011, the unemployment rate for blacks was 16.2 percent; down only 0.3 percentage points from the peak of 16.5 percent in March and April 2010.
The past few months have seen private sector job growth in areas such as transportation and warehousing as well as continuing employment gains in health care; both industries have a large share of black workers. However, blacks are more vulnerable to continuing local government job losses because they make up a disproportionate share of public sector workers.
Congress is debating tax rates, and that has Wall Street nervously eyeing the calendar.
Worried that lawmakers will allow taxes to rise for the wealthiest Americans beginning next year, financial firms are discussing whether to move up their bonus payouts from next year to this month.
At stake is a portion of the hefty annual payouts that are a familiar part of the compensation culture on Wall Street, as well as a juicy target of popular anger. If Congress does not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.
Goldman Sachs is one of the companies discussing how to time bonus season, according to three people who have been briefed on the discussions. Pay consultants who work with major Wall Street companies say that just about every other large bank has also considered such a move in recent weeks.
With tax politics in Washington unpredictable, bank executives have spent months sketching out several options for their bonus plans, including the possibility of an earlier payout. Lawmakers have been trading accusations across a partisan divide, but after this weekend, it appears likely that a compromise will extend the tax cuts for all income levels.
Even so, the banks’ discussions about bonus timing underscore how focused the industry is on protecting every dollar of pay.
A spokesman for Goldman declined to comment. Bonus payouts are traditionally shrouded in secrecy; companies are required to disclose their top executives’ pay, but they do not disclose the size of their total bonus pools in their public filings or internally.
Goldman, not surprisingly, is the canary in the coal mine. It often announces its top executives’ bonuses before other firms, and the richness of its payouts sets the tone across the industry.
This year the tax debate has imposed a new wrinkle, and executives at two large banks said their companies tentatively decided not to speed payouts, unless Goldman did. Then, these two executives said, they would consider paying early as a competitive measure, so that their workers were not upset.
These executives and the people briefed on the Goldman discussions spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
Bonus timing is also being discussed at scores of public companies, beyond banks, for top executives who receive multimillion-dollar payouts around the turn of the year. At most companies outside the financial sector, an early bonus would help only a handful of executives, while on Wall Street, the benefit would apply to many more workers.
“This has been a topic of conversation among those of us who are involved in designing and administrating compensation plans,” said Brian Foley, a pay consultant in White Plains, N.Y. “But I really would be surprised if anyone went down this path. This is a bounce-back year in terms of bonuses going up and probably not the time to draw attention to yourself.”
Wall Street firms pay out billions of dollars in bonuses each year. In good years top executives can receive bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars. Even midlevel financial workers often earn above $250,000 a year, and they receive most of their compensation as bonuses paid early in the new year.
Extending the tax cuts for all Americans with taxable income over $250,000 for joint filers ($200,000 for single filers) would cost the country about $40 billion next year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and it would cost $700 billion over the next decade.
Currently the highest rate for taxable income is 35 percent; that would increase to 39.6 percent if the Bush tax cuts expire this year.
The top five Wall Street firms have put aside nearly $90 billion for total pay this year, and they are expected to raise that amount using their end of year earnings. That would make this year one of the best ever for bank pay.
As Mr. Foley said, much of the focus within banks is on the appearance of the payouts. Several senior banking executives received either no bonuses or modest ones in recent years, and with the taxpayer-financed bailouts receding, top executives are pushing to be paid well again.
Some compensation consultants have been helping their clients devise new labels for the pay that are less likely to inflame the public. For instance, some banks are considering reducing the amount of their payouts that are labeled as bonuses, and instead shifting some to other categories like “long-term incentives.”
Depending on how banks structure this part of the payout package, it might not represent much of a change for bankers, since it has long been standard practice to tie up some pay for a few years for retention purposes. But, some bankers said, the goal was to make the dollar amounts appear less offensive.
Bankers are also discussing speeding up the way they award company stock. Many banks pay a substantial portion of bonuses in stock, rather than cash, and companies often have a multiyear delay between when those shares are awarded and when the employees can sell them. The tax bill does not come due until employees sell the shares, or own them outright.
Robert J. Jackson Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who helped oversee the Treasury Department’s rules on compensation at bailed-out companies, said he would look carefully at footnotes in company filings to see if they accelerated executives’ stock awards. “Even companies who pay in stock instead of cash can structure it to be taxed at this year’s rates,” Mr. Jackson said. “If it does happen, it may be a little tricky to see.”
It is not uncommon for Wall Street to consider the tax consequences of its pay practices. Private firms like hedge funds often let workers choose when they’re paid. And until about a decade ago, Goldman allowed its partners to decide whether they received their bonuses in December or January. Back then, Goldman was an investment bank, and like other former investment banks, it closed its books at the end of November, making it easier to pay earlier.
One of the challenges for the banks in paying bonuses early would be coming out with exact amounts before the year is over and before they determine their final earnings — a lengthy process. Banks have in the past found ways to get around rules, or make their workers’ pay look lower than it actually was. For instance, a year ago Goldman capped the pay of all of its London workers at £1 million each.
But last summer, Goldman made it up to its partners in Britain, albeit quietly. The bank made dozens of multimillion-dollar stock grants to its partners there, according to a person briefed on their pay. Credit Suisse, in similar form, paid its British bankers summer cash bonuses to make up for their lower pay last year.
Mayor Bloomberg took at shot at President Obama’s cabinet - and his own - today, saying the President needs more business expertise.
“We can all use better advisors. I can use some too,” he said [as two of his top aides exchanged a look of dismay].
“One of those things that I’ve urged the president to do is to get some business people in his close, tight circle,” Bloomberg said of the president. “I think business is—one of the president’s job is to promote American business around the world, sell our products around the world, get people from around the world to come and invest here. That’s a big part of the job.
That’s our tax base. That’s how Americans earn a living and I don’t think he has enough advisers.”
Bloomberg was responding to a question about comments he made about the president in the December issue of GQ Magazine in which he accused the president of breaking campaign promises.
"The president, I think, needs some better advisers," Bloomberg told GQ in an article that named Bloomberg one of its men of the year for being "the most interesting—and most fearless—politician in America."
"He campaigns, 'I'm gonna do A,' and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents."
The mayor did not name any specific promises Obama had broken.
Bloomberg has adamantly denied rumors that he plans to challenge Obama in 2012 but he’s been openly critical about some of the president’s efforts.
His comments today came just minutes after he refused to weigh in on whether the House should censure Charlie Rangel.
“You have to ask the members of the House. I don’t know what the procedures are,” Bloomberg said when asked about Rangel. “I shouldn’t be criticizing. I don’t want them to come to the city and try to tell us how to run New York City.”
In a year when Democrats became the party that dared not speak its name and Republicans would not shut up, one diminutive New York mayor stood tall. Once the GOP made a national issue of whether or not a mosque (actually part of an Islamic community center) should be allowed at Ground Zero (actually two long blocks away), Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the one politician who spoke to his city—and the country—in a way that made a citizen proud.
He delivered a beautiful, and beautifully straightforward, speech that embraced the idea of the community center and dared to evoke the firefighters, police, and emergency workers who made the ultimate sacrifice on September 11: "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights—and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."
Bloomberg is surely the most intriguing politician in America today, by turns earthy and high-minded, funny and dismissive, modest and self-congratulatory. Scorned by right-wingers for his social liberalism, reviled by some liberals for his avid support of developers, he is a one-man party of the "sensible middle" that so many voters and commentators claim to want.
They won't get it, as American third parties never emerge from the middle. Instead, Mayor Mike, a Massachusetts native who speaks with fierce pride of his adopted city, a rich man who takes the subway twice a week (even if he takes an SUV to his stop), a leader who can see the practical benefits of the First Amendment, is likely to remain sui generis. And that's fine by us.
First, as somebody who has lived in New York for almost thirty-five years, I have to say your stand on the non-mosque that's not at Ground Zero marked the first time I've ever written a mayor to say thanks for doing the right thing.
It's a First Amendment issue. About a month ago, my girlfriend, [financial-services manager and public activist] Diana [Taylor], and I were at J.G. Melon, 74th and Third, great hamburgers, and a big hulking guy comes up to me. I have a rule with my security guys: Anybody can come up to me. Now, if you shoot me, you won't get away, but I should be accessible to the people—that's the job.
You don't want to run the risks, get out of the kitchen. Anyway, big guy comes up to me, says, "Can I talk to you?" I say, "Sure." I've got a hamburger in one hand, I got a glass of beer in the other one, and I said, "Whaddya wanna talk about?" He says, "The mosque," and I'm thinkin', Ah shit, I don't need this. But he said, "I just want to say, I just got back from two tours in Afghanistan, and a couple of my friends never came back. You get out there and keep reminding everybody why we're fighting."
Your speech did a great job of tracing the fights for immigrants' rights, the fights for religious freedom in New York, all the way back to the Flushing Remonstrance of the seventeenth century. Is New York City the place, more than any other, where we have fought it out over who gets to be a full American and what that means? Is the Islamic community center the latest chapter in that fight?
I don't know that it's as big a battle as the others you describe. I think it's fair to say that the mosque as an issue goes away on November 3 [the day after election day]. Keep in mind these guys don't have the money to build a mosque and there's already a mosque down there.
This is an issue on the stump, in the polls, with the op-ed writers. We don't man the barricades and burn torches. There are a lot of cities in the world that are as diverse as New York: London, Singapore—cities that have been welcoming to immigrants and where they speak 150 languages and all that sort of stuff. But New York is different, because we live as a mixture and they live as a mosaic.
In London, there is an Arab quarter, if you will, an Irish quarter, a Roma quarter, whatever. In New York, in one block you have signs in Arabic and in Korean and in Spanish and English.
New Yorkers, I don't know that they like each other or socialize together, but they go down the same steps to the subway, they hail a cab at the same corner, they buy their coffee at the same Starbucks, their newspaper at the same kiosk—and so people who look different, act different, sound different, smell different, dress different, whatever, they are not threatening, because you are next to them all the time. That gets people to work together in a way here that's not true elsewhere.
You're saying this is an issue manufactured by politicians, and very much the kind of thing people hate about politics nowadays?
A hundred percent. None of this stuff is done on a rational basis. It's all in the world of the twenty-four-hour news cycle and of the blogs, and also the economics of the news business. You know the old joke: "If it bleeds, it leads." Well, the news business is so tough that if today it's not bleeding, they take a knife to it.
So in standing up to that, does that make you the model for the twenty-first-century American politician—somebody who understands the political news business but whose independence nevertheless lets him be the sort of leader we like to say we all want? It's pretty hard for me to say no to that! Although if, in my daily press conference, I stood up and described myself the way that you just did, the blogs here would probably rip me apart.
I am a believer that the public is a lot smarter than the press—that they don't read the press, listen to the press, remember what the press wrote. If you go out in the street and say, "Who is Monica Lewinsky or Gary Condit?" a lot of people wouldn't know. And the public wants somebody they believe is genuine. I've always believed that George W. Bush was elected and reelected not because people agreed with him but because people think [he] believes in something.
Bush ran against Gore and he ran against Kerry, and people never believed that either of those two guys stood for something. They thought they flip-flopped and looked for the right issue all the time. George W., if you call him today, he would say he did a good job, he did what was right. And you may find that so laughable, you don't agree with that at all, [but] the Bushes believe.
Is that an ongoing problem with Democrats? Do you think that's also the case with President Obama? Listen, the last thing I'm ever going to do is criticize the president. I think we should work very hard to make this president a good president, even if you would prefer somebody else. The time to prefer somebody else is two years from now, not while he's president.
We need him to be good, for our country, for our kids. But I think that it is too easy to let your political guys set your agenda; you'll never do anything if you have your political guys that close. It is too easy to look at the polls and lead from the back. I have always said what I believed, even when it's not popular, and the results are that today if you did a poll in New York City, after the mosque, after nine years in office, we'd have a 65 percent approval rating. I think the ways to be popular are to say what you believe.
Watching you up close at a couple of political functions, I don't think I've ever seen a major politician less worried about whether people liked him, whether they're reacting well to him.
No, but I care as much as anybody else. You know, if you don't want people to like you, you should see a shrink. The first day I ever campaigned was on South Beach in Staten Island. And this nice little old lady with white hair comes up to me and she said, "Oh, I'm glad you're running. You're a breath of fresh air. I'm going to vote for you. All my friends are going to vote for you. Anybody that wants to run against you is going to drop out right away."
And I'm thinking, "Shit, this is easy. First day and I'm elected." Then she looks up at me adoringly and says, "And I'm so glad you're pro-life." And I remember for a billionth of a second in my mind: What do you say? Do you lie? You want someone's vote. She's got all her friends; she's influenced the whole city already the first day! I don't wanna piss her off. But I said, "Well, I'm so sorry, I happen to be very much pro-choice. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I do think it's totally up to the woman's right to choose." And I will bet you anything that I got that woman's vote.
Consistency is paramount?
It's the old saying: You dance with the one that brung ya. The president, I think, needs some better advisers. He campaigns "I'm gonna do A," and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents. You go for it.
Do you have any ideas for better advisers? No. I don't know. David Axelrod, when I've talked to him, he seems very smart, and Rahm Emanuel, who I've known forever, he is very smart. [But] you know, if you're going to stand up for the mosque Friday night, you don't walk away from it Saturday morning.
Who has been the past New York mayor you admire most or are most interested in, or who had to deal with problems that are most similar to yours?
I have a friend, David Rockefeller; he's 95 years old. My father, if he were alive, he wouldn't find my success fascinating. He would have found fascinating the fact that I can tell you David Rockefeller is a friend on a first-name basis. That would have been something. But David's first job was as secretary to a mayor. And the mayor was Fiorello La Guardia, and his job was to walk around and write down everything that La Guardia said.
And La Guardia said, you know, "There's no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage." La Guardia did what he thought was right; he was not afraid of anybody. That is, I'm sure he was afraid of people, but he never let it show. And he was willing to tackle the big things. He had a good feel for people. He wanted to help the less fortunate, but he understood you needed a tax base. And I think, you know, he's as good an example as any. And we're the same height, I think.
Is there a big, transformative idea you could imagine getting behind, for the city and/or the country, or is the job of the mayor just the daily grind, getting it done?
Collect the garbage, educate the kids, and keep it safe. That's why mayors never go on, incidentally, to higher office—I prefer to call it "other office," I don't think it's higher. The mayor's job is not to cave in, and just as we've resisted those wages and benefit increases for city workers that we can't afford, we've also resisted tax cuts that businesses and conservative ideologues may want but that we can't afford.
So you're not running for "other office," including president? I've said many times, I have no intention of running for president or any other office.
With Income Tax rates set to go up on Dec. 31, Congress is hotly debating what to do next. But most economists agree: Keep them where they are.
One option, to let the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration expire for only the richest 3% of taxpayers while renewing them for everyone else, is popular among Democrats and the choice of the Obama administration.
But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.
The first in a series of economic surveys revealed that extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers is the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy. Of the 31 economists surveyed, 18 chose that from a list of options now being debated on Capitol Hill.
"Extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else," said Sean Snaith, economics professor at the University of Central Florida. "More of the same piecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to change the path the economy is on."
Three economists surveyed endorsed the Obama administration's plan to extend the tax cuts only for the lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but allow it to go up on those in the top two brackets -- individuals making more than $200,000 a year or couples earning $250,000 or more. That limited increase in taxes would raise an estimated $700 billion over the next 10 years.
Some experts, such as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that with the size of U.S. budget deficit, the government can't afford to extend anyone's tax break.
But economists surveyed were in broad agreement that the recovery is still too fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97% of taxpayers not in the top brackets.
"If those tax cuts expire for everybody, we go into a double-dip recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.
Zandi and some of the economists calling for an extension of cuts for the wealthy want to phase out the lower rates for those taxpayers after a couple of years to limit the cost to the Treasury.
Higher taxes are generally believed to be a drag on the economy since it leaves consumers and businesses with less money to spend. Those who argue for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy say that raising those tax rates would hit many small businesses and could put a crimp in hiring.
Those who want to allow the rates to rise for the top earners argue they are more likely to save the money rather than spend it, and thus the tax cut would have less of an economic impact than would lowering the taxes for most other taxpayers.
"I would prefer that the tax cuts for the two upper brackets would also be extended, but there is much more spending [that needs to be done] and much more of an economic impact from extending the tax cuts for everybody else," said Dana Johnson of Comerica Bank, one of those who endorsed the Obama plan to let taxes rise on the top earners.
Four of the economists surveyed backed the plan that passed the Senate Thursday to provide funding and other incentives to spur more lending to small businesses.
Another five suggested other choices of their own, including taking more steps to stop home foreclosures, reforming the overall tax system, resuming drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and having the Federal Reserve do more to provide credit directly to businesses and consumers.
Only two cited additional help for long-term unemployed and more help to cash-strapped state and local governments as their top priorities.
Senate Republicans' threat to hold up legislation for everything not related to tax cuts or the budget is either standing up for principles or a "congressional temper tantrum," depending on your point of view.
Thousands of CNN.com readers responded to news that all 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."
The letter came the day after President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties, and all parties pledged to work together to solve the nation's economic problems.
Some readers said Republicans' tactics are a continuation of the "obstructionism" they have practiced since Obama took office.
"Republicans lose an election and stick to their obstructionism, Republicans win an election and stick to their obstructionism," commented a reader who identified himself as "joesmith007."
Others said Democrats acted with a similar heavy hand.
"Sounds alot like the passage of the healthcare bill to me," commented a reader who called himself "pedrosanchez."
Many likened the ultimatum to a "temper tantrum."
Right, because throwing temper tantrums and keeping other important issues from being addressed is the way to solve problems," wrote reader "lmmmr." "Did we really elect a bunch of 3 year olds?"
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted by former President George W. Bush will expire after December 31 if Congress fails to reach an agreement on their extension. Top Democrats and Republicans disagree sharply over whether the current tax rates should be extended just for families earning $250,000 or under per year, or for everyone, regardless of income.
Republicans contend that a failure to extend all of the tax cuts would hamper an already sluggish economy. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders argue that the roughly $700 billion price tag attached to an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be fiscally irresponsible.
Readers accused Republicans of being more interested in paying back campaign donors than helping lower-income Americans in hard times.
"The people making over $250,000 are generally not having problems paying their bills. [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell must think the American people are seriously stupid in trying to sell that they are attempting to help the average American with this maneuver," wrote a reader who called himself "rapier."
"ocscorpio78" wrote, "Good to know that the GOP thinks tax cuts for millionaires is the most important issue facing our country right now."
But a reader who identified himself as "rukidding1" countered that "Democrats are just as bad. They just voted not to ban special pet projects called earmarks. There all politicians."
Political analysts were split along ideological lines on the Republicans' tactic and on the fiscal impact of extending tax credits for those above the $250,000 threshold.
"What you're doing will take additional tax revenues from individuals who can do something positive," Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins told CNN's "John King USA" on Wednesday. "It's not like there's a shortfall, because you take taxes away from us. That's the other side of the story. You're not cutting any spending.
"We for four years have had to sit here and deal with how Democrats can do whatever they want. They can't do that now. Republicans aren't going to give up what they've been fighting for."
But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said extending the cuts for all in return for extending benefits for the long-term unemployed is a deal that Democrats shouldn't agree to.
"Remember, when you extend it for people making over $250,000, you're adding $700 billion to the deficit," he said. "To deal with it -- we're going to cut the deficit, but the first thing we'll do is add $700 billion to the deficit and we're going to extend unemployment compensation. But don't worry, we're going to freeze federal pay.
"I mean, it's -- does anybody see it? Is it just me that sees if we cut the deal, we're going to spend money on both sides and talk about cutting the deficit? I don't know."
While the debate over extending the tax credits to all goes on, the stalemate feeds public perception that lawmakers are more driven by party politics than finding solutions, said CNN contributor Jon Avlon, an independent.
"There are two parallel tracks here. The argument Republicans are making is that this will create a stimulus for the economy rather than a tax cut in the middle of a recession," he said. "But clearly, I mean, Republicans beginning the day with this kind of bargain is what gives bipartisanship a bad name in Washington. If you agree 100 percent of the time and cave in, then you're being bipartisan. There's something disingenuous about that."
A reader who called himself "Brational" also decried leaders' lack of ability to compromise.
"Whether we are Republican or Democrat we all need to send the message to both sides of the aisle that constructive compromise is more important to us than sound bites and ideological nonsense," he wrote. "I manage to get things accomplished in my job, working with people I don't always agree with. Don't you? These bozos (on both sides of the aisle) will continue to act like three year olds until we demand better behavior. Let's stop defending them based on the (R) or (D) after their name and start expecting them to get to work, damn it!"
Some readers advocated not paying lawmakers if they're not getting anything done.
"So if I showed up to work and said that I have no intention of doing anything for the next 2 months and prevent everyone else from doing anything as well then I would be fired in a heartbeat," wrote a reader identified as "AliTny." "Does it make it ok if you are a US congressman. At a minimum can we at least not pay them for the period they are not working?"
Bank of America Corp., Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were among the top borrowers from the Term Auction Facility, one of the Federal Reserve's first and longest-lasting efforts to combat the financial crisis.
Bank of America had three loans for $15 billion each outstanding from the facility as of Jan. 15, 2009, while Wells Fargo had three loans for $15 Billion each on Feb. 26, 2009, according to documents released Wednesday by the Fed to comply with orders from Congress to identify recipients of emergency aid.
Charlotte-based Wachovia, which agreed to be bought by Wells Fargo at the peak of the financial crisis in fall 2008, was one of the first banks to tap the program in December 2007. It took out its last loan in February 2009. Other N.C. banks that used the program included Winston-Salem-based BB&T Corp. and Raleigh-based RBC Bank.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke created the TAF in December 2007 to let banks obtain cheaper funding without risking the stigma of loans from the central bank's discount window. Under the program, banks bid for Fed loans at a rate determined through auctions. Borrowing peaked at $493.1 billion in March 2009 and began declining until the TAF closed in April 2010.
Because the program lent to banks, the Fed didn't invoke an emergency legal clause allowing borrowing by nonbanks in "unusual and exigent circumstances." The central bank used the provision in 2008 to set up loan facilities for investment banks, money-market mutual funds and corporations.
"The funding and guarantee programs were an example of a successful government initiative at no taxpayer expense," said Bob Stickler, a spokesman for Charlotte-based Bank of America. "The programs enabled the U.S. financial system to continue to operate, preventing a recession from becoming much more severe."
Wells Fargo spokeswoman Mary Eshet declined to comment.
In another program, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch & Co. sold $22.9 billion of commercial paper to the Fed in October 2008, days after the two companies received $25 billion in U.S. bailout funds.
The Fed bought $7.96 billion of three-month notes from Merrill on Oct. 27, then purchased $14.9 billion from Bank of America two days later, according to data on the Commercial Paper Funding Facility.
Investor demand for commercial paper, an unsecured short- term loan typically issued to finance inventories and accounts receivable, evaporated in mid-2008 amid concern that the largest U.S. banks might fail.
The purchases add to the tally of bailouts for Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender by assets, which took a total of $45billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That included an extra $20 billion after losses surged at Merrill Lynch, which it agreed to buy in September 2008.
Bank of America has "repaid, with interest, all of the borrowings except some of those whose terms have not expired," Stickler, the bank spokesman, said.
Lifting the veil on its $3 trillion emergency rescue of the financial industry, the Federal Reserve Wednesday revealed the names of U.S. and foreign banks that benefited hugely from nearly a dozen programs to stem panic and keep money moving.
The 21,000 transactions show that the Fed not only stretched the limits of its authority by lending tens of billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs and other giants of Wall Street, but that it also aided British, German and French banks, other big businesses and smaller banks from Puerto Rico to North Carolina and Washington state.
In some instances, the Fed made loans to banks that were in shaky condition, even lending to investment firm Lehman Bros. on the brink of its 2008 bankruptcy.
Defending themselves against mounting Republican criticism over the Fed's contribution to the rising national debt, officials at the central bank said the data proves that they acted responsibly during the crisis. They said most of the loans have been repaid, and taxpayers have suffered no credit losses.
The Fed's actions were taken as large global investment banks were operating outside the direct reach of regulators. Economists have widely praised Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke for saving the global economy with bold, unprecedented actions that saved investment banks and thawed frozen credit markets.
But anger that the Fed helped Wall Street while Main Street struggled fueled a backlash against the Fed, and many newly elected members of Congress campaigned on platforms to rein in the central bank's freedom to act independently.
Some experts said the newly released data probably would give critics new fodder.
Disclosure of all the loans to big banks "could be interpreted as actions to protect the connected, and the Fed has to be nervous about that," said Vincent Reinhart, who directed the Fed's Division of Monetary Affairs from 2001 to 2007."If you want to channel voter anger, there's got to be stuff in that document drop."
The data revealed that the Fed made massive loans to Charlotte-based Bank of America and the firms it acquired, including Wall Street investment bank Merrill Lynch. Investment bank Morgan Stanley, which sustained big losses in the subprime mortgage market, borrowed up to $47.6 billion in late September 2008 under a Fed overnight loan program for major securities dealers, the data showed.
Goldman Sachs, the goliath of Wall Street, faced months of controversy over its receipt of more than $43 billion in federal aid. Wednesday's data showed, however, that Goldman also borrowed up to $24 billion under the program for dealers in fall 2008 and got an additional $7.5 billion from the Fed for its unmarketable securities.
Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that, at a time when "many of the U.S. funding markets were clearly broken ... the Federal Reserve took essential steps to fix these markets, and its actions were successful."
Citigroup, beneficiary of a massive Treasury Department bailout, held up to $18.6 billion in loans under the Fed program for primary dealers, while Bank of America's securities division borrowed up to $11 billion. Merrill, acquired late that year by Bank of America, had loans totaling up to $27.5 billion in mid-October 2008.
Bank of America spokesman Bob Stickler called the Fed programs "an example of a successful government initiative at no taxpayer expense."
"The programs helped our customers such as borrowers, auto dealers, depositors and money market fund investors continue to do business as usual despite virtually unprecedented disruptions in the financial markets," Stickler said.
Peak lending under each of the programs combined to total $3.3 trillion, though the Fed said much less was extended at any one time. Still on the Fed's books are more than $1 trillion in securities backed by home mortgages.
The data drop came at the last moment before a congressional deadline for disclosure, adopted as part of a revamp of financial regulation by Congress earlier this year called the Dodd-Frank Act. The Fed, an independent and autonomous agency, successfully skirted attempts to require that it be audited, and the information released did not answer all questions about the Fed's activities.
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who succeeded in inserting the transparency requirement in the massive bill, cited Bernanke Wednesday for refusing to open the books.
"Today ... we finally learn the truth - and it is astounding," Sanders said in a statement. "We now know that Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest rates not only to the largest financial institutions in this country, but also to many of our largest corporations - including GE, McDonalds and Verizon. Most surprising, the Fed also lent huge sums of money to foreign private banks and corporations."
Reinhart, now a senior researcher with the free market-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the growing size of the Fed's balance sheet suggested as much.
However, he said, "when you see the number of loans being rolled over day after day (by big Wall Street investment banks), it's pretty striking."
He pointed to Bank of America, which borrowed up to $15 billion under the Term Auction Facility that provided short-term loans at rates lower than what was available in the panicked marketplace.
"Bank of America had lots of really lowly rated securities as its collateral," said Reinhart, who added that the amount of loans being rolled over suggests a subsidy involved to keep Wall Street from fracturing further.
The government also told Bank of America to take $45billion to shore up its balance sheet, which the bank later repaid.
Small banks also were helped under the Term Auction Facility, which doled out $493 billion in one- to three-month loans.
For example, the Cascade Bank of Everett, Wash., borrowed up to $162 million from the program between Valentine's Day 2008 and last January. Lars Johnson, who worked at the bank and is now chief financial officer of the Washington Business Bank in Olympia, Wash., said the loans "helped the banking system in general."
"It took pressure off us, knowing it was there," he said. "You could use it in the shorter term or the longer term."
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
