And, no, I don't mean the purple dinosaur. I mean Barney Frank (D-MA), the political dinosaur.
According to Wikipedia: "Barney Frank (born March 31, 1940) is the United States House Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981. He is a member of the Democratic Party. In 1982, he won his first full term, and he has been re-elected ever since by wide margins. In 1987, he became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives (the first being Gerry Studds) and is one of the most prominent gay politicians in the United States".
But more important is Frank's central involvement with the unraveling of our financial system. Frank became the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007 after the Democratic Party won a majority in the House. The committee oversees the entire financial services industry, which includes the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries.
In 2003, the Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis in response to growing concerns about Fannie Mae's role in the real estate bubble.
Under the plan, a new agency was to be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The plan was an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together had issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt, was broken. A report by outside investigators concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics said Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
At the time of the proposal, Barney the dinosaur said: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Don't you just HATE it when people exaggerate?
Frank, and accomplice Christopher Dodd (D-CT), used their influence over these two financial giants for their own purposes.
In 2008, Freddie gave $20,000 to a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) event; Fannie Mae gave nearly $19,000 to the same event. Freddie has donated $125,000 and Fannie donated $80,000 to homosexual groups since 2005.) Dodd, welcomed himself to the trough as well, getting preferential treatment from Countrywide on two mortgages totally $7 million. Countrywide was one of the biggest subprime providers.
Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd also received thousands of dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Dodd has received $133,900 since 1989; Frank received $40,100. (While in the Senate, Barack Obama received $105,849). Here, piggy piggy! Soooeeee!
ACORN, the socialist group that routinely engages in voter fraud, was involved in pushing for risky loans to people with bad credit histories, no jobs and no money for down payments. ACORN pressured banks in Chicago and elsewhere to give risky loans. Obama actually trained ACORN workers when he was a community organizer in Chicago.
After winning overwhelming victories in the last 3 decades, Frank is facing his toughest challenge ever. Some polls show him to be leading by less than 10%. Frank's own polls reveal no threat. Let's hope his ability to forecast the future of the housing and mortgage sector is as finely tuned as his own internal polling data.
Marko's Take
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Paying Your Fair Share Of Taxes
George W. Bush, who was perhaps the most profligate Republican spender in history, had one crowning achievement in his presidency. He rolled back the unconstitutionally retroactive tax hike imposed by Bill Clinton. That tax rollback, without action by Congress, will expire this year.
President Obama has recently taken to the campaign trail to decry the unfairness of this proposed lower tax rate, since it is a well known fact that high income earners do NOT pay their fair share. (Sarcasm intentional). On this, he is in complete agreement with Clinton. Presidents Obama and Clinton never let the facts get in the way of pandering to potential voters.
That there is exists a level of inequality in income is not in dispute. But what about fairness?
The distribution of pretax income in the United States today is highly unequal. The most precise studies suggest that the top 10% of households, with average income of about $200,000, received 42% of all pretax money income in the late 1990s. The top 1% of households, averaging $800,000 of income, received 15% of all pretax money income.
Interestingly, the income inequaltiy has risen over the last several decades, which is cited by many as proof of the heartlessness of the rich, the Wall Street generation and indifferent Republicans. Ironically, entitlement spending, designed to address this inequality, has literally exploded at a parabolic rate, yet has had absolutely no impact on inequality, except to make it worse.
So, for the accusation that rich do not pay their fair share to hold water, we would expect that distribution of taxes should be less skewed with a greater burden on the poor, right?
It would seem that data from the U.S. Treasury cast cold water on this claim.
According to recent Treasury figures, the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).
If we examine the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States virtually perfectly coincides with the share of income tax – the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).
President Obama and Clinton love to talk about tax cuts for the middle class. If the bottom half of income earners contribute a paltry 3.3% to the total taxes received, how on Earth could they get their taxes cut? You can only cut taxes to those who actually PAY tax. Sure, it makes for a great campaign speech to those who don't know any better such as our friends in the media, but it just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.
In a democratic society where the majority rules, what better way to buy votes than to virtually exclude half the population from taxes? Soak the rich rhetoric plays well to the liberal media, but makes no economic sense whatsoever.
I do agree with Presidents Obama and Clinton on one thing. The rich SHOULD pay their fair share. If someone would send each of them a link to this piece, I have NO DOUBT that they will acknowledge the error of their ways and immediately cut taxes for the high-income segment of the population! (Sarcasm intentional).
Marko's Take
President Obama has recently taken to the campaign trail to decry the unfairness of this proposed lower tax rate, since it is a well known fact that high income earners do NOT pay their fair share. (Sarcasm intentional). On this, he is in complete agreement with Clinton. Presidents Obama and Clinton never let the facts get in the way of pandering to potential voters.
That there is exists a level of inequality in income is not in dispute. But what about fairness?
The distribution of pretax income in the United States today is highly unequal. The most precise studies suggest that the top 10% of households, with average income of about $200,000, received 42% of all pretax money income in the late 1990s. The top 1% of households, averaging $800,000 of income, received 15% of all pretax money income.
Interestingly, the income inequaltiy has risen over the last several decades, which is cited by many as proof of the heartlessness of the rich, the Wall Street generation and indifferent Republicans. Ironically, entitlement spending, designed to address this inequality, has literally exploded at a parabolic rate, yet has had absolutely no impact on inequality, except to make it worse.
So, for the accusation that rich do not pay their fair share to hold water, we would expect that distribution of taxes should be less skewed with a greater burden on the poor, right?
It would seem that data from the U.S. Treasury cast cold water on this claim.
According to recent Treasury figures, the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).
If we examine the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States virtually perfectly coincides with the share of income tax – the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).
President Obama and Clinton love to talk about tax cuts for the middle class. If the bottom half of income earners contribute a paltry 3.3% to the total taxes received, how on Earth could they get their taxes cut? You can only cut taxes to those who actually PAY tax. Sure, it makes for a great campaign speech to those who don't know any better such as our friends in the media, but it just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.
In a democratic society where the majority rules, what better way to buy votes than to virtually exclude half the population from taxes? Soak the rich rhetoric plays well to the liberal media, but makes no economic sense whatsoever.
I do agree with Presidents Obama and Clinton on one thing. The rich SHOULD pay their fair share. If someone would send each of them a link to this piece, I have NO DOUBT that they will acknowledge the error of their ways and immediately cut taxes for the high-income segment of the population! (Sarcasm intentional).
Marko's Take
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Government Sachs In The Cross-Hairs: What The Scandal Is All About
Goldman Sachs (GS), aka "Government Sachs" has been exposed for being what readers of Marko's Take, as well as anyone with a brain, already knew: the most corrupt and greedy institution on planet Earth! (But Marko... how do you REALLY feel?)
With so many allegations and opinions flying about, it's easy to get confused as to exactly what prompted the SEC complaint and how it relates to the Obama Administration's formerly cozy relationship with Government Sachs.
Goldman was accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a lawsuit filed April 16. The SEC claims Goldman duped investors in a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) called Abacus 2007-AC1, by failing to disclose that it was created with the help of hedge-fund firm Paulson & Co., which made a profit of about $1 billion when the investment collapsed in value. John Paulson became an overnight celebrity within the investment community by virtue of his huge score shorting the real estate market.
The CDO is a bet against the value of mortgages and the housing market overall. The securities themselves were allegedly created specifically to give hedge fund manager John Paulson a means to profit from the real estate meltdown. Goldman, for its part, put its own clients into these CDO's, which defaulted in droves.
Paulson and Goldman got rich as America and the world got poor.
Warren Buffett, the richest man in America, and the most hypocritical man in America, sees ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG! Why should he? His investment in Goldman, made at terms not available to anyone BUT him, is in the money. What him worry? (But Marko... how do you REALLY feel?).
Goldman's defense filing included copies of six lawsuits, as well as a "demand letter" from the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, that the company's board launch an internal probe of "officers and directors responsible for the Abacus 2007-AC1 incident."
In addition, Goldman clients are up in arms, believing not only that they had been misled, but that GS used its trading operation to benefit itself at their expense. Goldman, trade against its clients for its own profit? You're kidding, right? NOT! (But Marko... how do you REALLY feel?).
Prosecutors have demanded trading records as part of a probe that has ensnared several hedge-fund managers, including Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan has alleged Mr. Rajaratnam was at the center of a massive insider-trading ring that generated millions of dollars in improper trades. Mr. Rajaratnam has denied wrongdoing.
The SEC move came as President Barack Obama is making a final push for financial reform in the Senate next week. “Wall Street titans still recklessly speculate with borrowed money,” he told supporters. “We cannot delay action any longer.”
And this explains the sudden ploy by President Obama to throw his cronies at "Government Sachs" under the bus. It's 2010, and the elections are coming up. How better to show the American people that you have their interests at heart? He's gotten what he can out of Goldman. They're no longer useful. No honor among thieves!
Suddenly, the market impression of GS has taken an extreme turn for the worse. Not only has its stock plunged, but now market fears that the cumulative effects of the SEC and the private lawsuits will imperil Goldman's excellent credit-worthiness.
The cost of insuring Goldman Sachs’ debt against default has risen to about the level of Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, two less profitable rivals, as Goldman’s regulatory woes take a toll on investors’ confidence and its standing on Wall Street.
Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) leapt to 160 basis points yesterday, a real market sign that this is no slap on the wrist, but a real threat to the most corrupt institution in the world. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys! And that's how I REALLY feel!
Marko's Take
Our newest video entitled "Social In-Security: The Problem" will be uploaded in the next 24 hours. You can access all our videos by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv.
With so many allegations and opinions flying about, it's easy to get confused as to exactly what prompted the SEC complaint and how it relates to the Obama Administration's formerly cozy relationship with Government Sachs.
Goldman was accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a lawsuit filed April 16. The SEC claims Goldman duped investors in a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) called Abacus 2007-AC1, by failing to disclose that it was created with the help of hedge-fund firm Paulson & Co., which made a profit of about $1 billion when the investment collapsed in value. John Paulson became an overnight celebrity within the investment community by virtue of his huge score shorting the real estate market.
The CDO is a bet against the value of mortgages and the housing market overall. The securities themselves were allegedly created specifically to give hedge fund manager John Paulson a means to profit from the real estate meltdown. Goldman, for its part, put its own clients into these CDO's, which defaulted in droves.
Paulson and Goldman got rich as America and the world got poor.
Warren Buffett, the richest man in America, and the most hypocritical man in America, sees ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG! Why should he? His investment in Goldman, made at terms not available to anyone BUT him, is in the money. What him worry? (But Marko... how do you REALLY feel?).
Goldman's defense filing included copies of six lawsuits, as well as a "demand letter" from the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, that the company's board launch an internal probe of "officers and directors responsible for the Abacus 2007-AC1 incident."
In addition, Goldman clients are up in arms, believing not only that they had been misled, but that GS used its trading operation to benefit itself at their expense. Goldman, trade against its clients for its own profit? You're kidding, right? NOT! (But Marko... how do you REALLY feel?).
Prosecutors have demanded trading records as part of a probe that has ensnared several hedge-fund managers, including Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam.
The U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan has alleged Mr. Rajaratnam was at the center of a massive insider-trading ring that generated millions of dollars in improper trades. Mr. Rajaratnam has denied wrongdoing.
The SEC move came as President Barack Obama is making a final push for financial reform in the Senate next week. “Wall Street titans still recklessly speculate with borrowed money,” he told supporters. “We cannot delay action any longer.”
And this explains the sudden ploy by President Obama to throw his cronies at "Government Sachs" under the bus. It's 2010, and the elections are coming up. How better to show the American people that you have their interests at heart? He's gotten what he can out of Goldman. They're no longer useful. No honor among thieves!
Suddenly, the market impression of GS has taken an extreme turn for the worse. Not only has its stock plunged, but now market fears that the cumulative effects of the SEC and the private lawsuits will imperil Goldman's excellent credit-worthiness.
The cost of insuring Goldman Sachs’ debt against default has risen to about the level of Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, two less profitable rivals, as Goldman’s regulatory woes take a toll on investors’ confidence and its standing on Wall Street.
Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) leapt to 160 basis points yesterday, a real market sign that this is no slap on the wrist, but a real threat to the most corrupt institution in the world. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys! And that's how I REALLY feel!
Marko's Take
Our newest video entitled "Social In-Security: The Problem" will be uploaded in the next 24 hours. You can access all our videos by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Is Obama's Stimulus Plan Working?
According to the most modest man on Earth, YES! According to a recent Wall St. Journal Poll, nearly 60% of the respondents gave our President's handling of the stimulus program a grade of F. Marko's Take agrees.
Since Mr. Humble doesn't read Marko's Take, let's let him enjoy his world of fanstasy. Since we live in the real world, let's take a hard look at the facts.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, the Obama administration's economic-stimulus program has delivered about a third of its total $787 billion budget during its first year, much of that to maintain social services and government jobs and to provide tax cuts for workers. Now, the pace and direction of stimulus spending are about to change http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069772167897834.html?mod=djemTAR_h).
Infrastructure spending is set to step up in the second year of the stimulus program, which should mean more money flowing to private-sector employers. Still, economists say that won't likely have a big effect on the unemployment rate, which most say ought to continue a slow decline as the broader economy recovers.
Most of the spending, thus far, has gone to enhance government, which we KNOW is a GREAT way to
stimulate the economy (sarcasm intentional).
Proponents of the stimulus program focused attention on infrastructure projects during the fight to win approval for it last year. But, the bulk of the money proposed for projects like new rail lines and water projects — about $180 billion in all — is likely to be spent this year at the earliest.
During year 1 of the stimulus, only about $20 billion was handed out for infrastructure projects. Of the $179 billion in stimulus funds paid out last year, $112 billion has gone out in the form of large checks to state governments to plug holes in school, Medicaid and unemployment-benefits budgets, or to increase funding for established programs, such as food stamps, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
But surely we must be seeing some major economic improvement? NOT! Economic data released today continues to verify that things are growing worse. The Producer Price Index (PPI) came in at a whopping 1.4%. Thank God, the Fed isn't too concerned (sarcasm intentional).
Fed officials expect the widely watched consumer price inflation index to stay between 1.3% and 1.6% this year, minutes of their latest meeting at the end of January showed Wednesday. Core inflation is seen at an even lower 1.0% to 1.5% range by the central bank. And we know how good their track record is (sarcasm intentional)!
We also have more "good news" on the employment front. Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 31,000 to 473,000 in the week ended Feb. 13, according to the Labor Department's weekly report Thursday. The previous week's level was revised upward to 442,000 from 440,000. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected initial claims to increase only by 5,000.
Still think the Stimulus Plan is working? If so, by all means, TAKE ME ON!
Marko's Take
Please stop by our new You Tube site, which will be adding new episodes weekly: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv
Since Mr. Humble doesn't read Marko's Take, let's let him enjoy his world of fanstasy. Since we live in the real world, let's take a hard look at the facts.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, the Obama administration's economic-stimulus program has delivered about a third of its total $787 billion budget during its first year, much of that to maintain social services and government jobs and to provide tax cuts for workers. Now, the pace and direction of stimulus spending are about to change http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069772167897834.html?mod=djemTAR_h).
Infrastructure spending is set to step up in the second year of the stimulus program, which should mean more money flowing to private-sector employers. Still, economists say that won't likely have a big effect on the unemployment rate, which most say ought to continue a slow decline as the broader economy recovers.
Most of the spending, thus far, has gone to enhance government, which we KNOW is a GREAT way to
stimulate the economy (sarcasm intentional).
Proponents of the stimulus program focused attention on infrastructure projects during the fight to win approval for it last year. But, the bulk of the money proposed for projects like new rail lines and water projects — about $180 billion in all — is likely to be spent this year at the earliest.
During year 1 of the stimulus, only about $20 billion was handed out for infrastructure projects. Of the $179 billion in stimulus funds paid out last year, $112 billion has gone out in the form of large checks to state governments to plug holes in school, Medicaid and unemployment-benefits budgets, or to increase funding for established programs, such as food stamps, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
But surely we must be seeing some major economic improvement? NOT! Economic data released today continues to verify that things are growing worse. The Producer Price Index (PPI) came in at a whopping 1.4%. Thank God, the Fed isn't too concerned (sarcasm intentional).
Fed officials expect the widely watched consumer price inflation index to stay between 1.3% and 1.6% this year, minutes of their latest meeting at the end of January showed Wednesday. Core inflation is seen at an even lower 1.0% to 1.5% range by the central bank. And we know how good their track record is (sarcasm intentional)!
We also have more "good news" on the employment front. Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 31,000 to 473,000 in the week ended Feb. 13, according to the Labor Department's weekly report Thursday. The previous week's level was revised upward to 442,000 from 440,000. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected initial claims to increase only by 5,000.
Still think the Stimulus Plan is working? If so, by all means, TAKE ME ON!
Marko's Take
Please stop by our new You Tube site, which will be adding new episodes weekly: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)