The state Supreme Court Thursday ordered Governor Mark Sanford to accept $700 million in disputed stimulus money included in the state budget. [...] The writ was included in a 5-0 ruling in favor of school administrators and two South Carolina students who went up against Gov. Sanford in court. [...] The anti-bailout governor refused to take the cash even after legislators passed a budget requiring him to do so.
In response to the ruling, Sanford said the state has "a fundamentally flawed governmental structure that impedes and hurts progress in the state."
Fundamentally flawed!? As in "checks and balances" between the 3 branches of government? As in the same structure of the US Constitution?
He doesn't want to be governor, or president, he wants to be king!
As the financial crisis entered one of its darkest phases in October, a handful of the nation's largest banks began holding daily telephone sessions. Murmurs were already emanating from Washington about the need for a wide-ranging regulatory overhaul, and Wall Street executives girded for a fight. [...] The nine biggest participants in the derivatives market - including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America - created a lobbying organization, the CDS Dealers Consortium, on Nov. 13, a month after five of its members accepted federal bailout money. [...] Through political action committees and their own employees, securities and investment firms gave $152 million in political contributions from 2007 to 2008, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission data.
The top five companies - Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Credit Suisse - gave $22.7 million and spent more than $25 million combined on lobbying activities in that period, according to election data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The banksters are spending OUR money to lobby against OUR knowing how OUR money is spent. The rich really are different, they have more money.
Well jeez, I guess that's OK seeing as how it's not like they screwed up the whole economy ... oh, wait a minute, they did screw up the world's economy because of their greed! So at a time when states are gutting police, education and firefighting budgets these folks think a wee bit of oversight is egregious.
The media posits, supposedly reflecting the peoples' view republican & MSM concern trolls' view that President Obama is spread too thin, has bit off more than he can chew, can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
After 8 years of a president that couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time, couldn't speak english with or without a telepromter, I welcome a president who can multitask.
And who can figure out that the financial meltdown, oil dependence, health care and education are all interrelated.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome President Obama:
"I know that there are some on Wall Street and in Washington who've said that we should only focus on the banking crisis and one problem at a time. Well, we're spending a lot of time focusing on this banking crisis, and we will continue to do so because until we get liquidity flowing again, we will not fully recover. But the American people don't have the luxury of just focusing on Wall Street. They don't have the luxury of choosing to pay either their mortgage or their medical bills. They don't get to pick between paying for their kids' college tuition and saving enough money for retirement. They have to do all these things. They have to confront all these problems. And as a consequence, so do we." [...] Now, there are those who say the plans in this budget are too ambitious to enact; to say that -- they say that in the face of challenges that we face, we should be trying to do less, than more. What I say is that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. The cost of our health care is too high to ignore. The dependence on oil is too dangerous to ignore. Our education deficit is growing too wide to ignore. To kick these problems down the road for another four years or another eight years would be to continue the same irresponsibility that led us to this point. That's not why I ran for this office. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation -- I came here to solve them.
The infant mortality rate in this country declined sharply in the 20th century but then plateaued from 2000 to 2005. [...] In 1960, the United States ranked 12th lowest in the world in infant mortality. By 2004, the last year for which comparative data are available, it had dropped to 29th, tied with Poland and Slovakia.
Gee, I wonder what happened between 2000 and 2005!?
And that's just how health care is tied into our economic troubles. Don't get me started on energy dependence. And education? Well there might be a post soon on that!
Gosh, the economy must be OK because I'm getting unsolicited snailmail from Ken Fisher! You know, Ken Fisher!, the Forbes columnist!! and CIO of Fisher Investments!!!
So I googled Mr Fisher and guess what? This is what he recommnded:
American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people )
This giant insurer is lower than it was one, three, five or even eight years ago--back when it sold for 40 times earnings. Now it is just eight times earnings and 1.2 times annual revenue. But with an exceptionally strong presence in insurance and broader finance, and slow but steady growth, it will enjoy a good run in the stock market in 2008.
And that was in 2008.
Now to be fair I've also been solicited by folks who want to lower my mortgage, (I don't own a home,) give me great deals on a new car and think I should take out a second mortgage to pay down my credit card bills, (I still don't own a home & I pay my debit/credit card balance every month. Woo, hoo! Actual 0%!)
But how bad does Kenny Boy have to be doing that he sends out a cold call snailmail that offers me free! FREE!!1! "The Eight Biggest Mistakes Investors Make And How To Avoid Them" which he put together "solely for financially successful individuals."
Did I mention it was FREE!!1!!9!
Well of course he put them together for people with money, who else can afford snake oil!? (Jeebus, Kenny on South Park has a better record than you do!)
Now I repeatedly tried to contact Mr Fisher to interview him, but apparently he's always in a meeting ... yeah, probably all that work he has to do to oversee the boiler room operators that are taking the calls.
I really hate these bastards that have preyed on us for years and finally got caught in their Fonzi [sic] schemes.
The fact that Kenny Boy has to resort to cold calls again is a bit of schadenfreude for me, but I take no pleasure in seeing my 401(k) lose 40% its value and very little pleasure in seeing my CDs at 1.09%.
But I'm truly thankful that I still have a job and retirement accounts and health insurance.
BTW, just in case no one got the title of the post, it's by INXS. And the title & band name really sums it up.
And since I couldn't find the YouTube for INXS I'll leave you with a bit of basic accounting:
LoBiondo signaled out the following examples of provisions within the House bill that do not meet the explicit requirements of immediately stimulating the economy:
* $1.9 billion for high-level physics research;
* $1.5 billion for universities to improve their biomedical research programs;
* $600 million for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to purchase new satellites to improve weather forecasts;
* $600 million to buy new cars for federal government workers, adding to the existing inventory of 640,000 vehicles; and,
* $335 million for education and prevention programs regarding sexually transmitted diseases.
Now reporters get a lot of things wrong. But since this is from The Honorable's own office I guess it's straight from the horse's ass.
And, while I don't know his voting record, and his office had a disclaimer before what I quoted, I say he's wrong to vote against this bill. But he's a republican and they vote in lockstep just to be obstructionists. They want President Obama to fail.
For one thing, all the provisions he can find to complain about only amount to 5 billion out of 800 billion. (1/160th of the bill.)
Now let's toss some more numbers around. 1.9 billion for 'High level physics research.' I don't know what programs he's talking about, but I do know that if this bill passes physics labs don't have to lose scientists, grad students, lab workers, janitors &c, &c, &c.
The same with biomedical research programs.
$600 million to build, buy and staff and launch weather satellites. Well gosh, the ones we have are failing and now more than ever we need to predict the weather better so our farmers, fishermen, neighbors &c, &c, &c can prepare and survive extreme weather. And an ounce of prevention IS CHEAPER than a pound of cure. And the folks in those fields get to keep their jobs and this will add new ones. It's sure nice to know that if you can graduate college you can get a job in a highly technical field that you love and the world needs.
$600 million to buy federal workers cars that are cheaper and more fuel efficient from our Big 3 auto companies.
Yep, no new jobs there! Just the autoworkers, designers, managers, parts makers, truck drivers, waiters & cooks and maintenance and sanitation workers, and their mangers &c, &c, &c.
$335 million to keep our children safer thru education and treatment that replace the failed abstinence programs that Bush & republicans insisted on. (BTW, nice job Gov Palin for keeping your daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock ... and how is that shotgun marriage coming?)
Gee, all those are immediate jobs and infrastructure spending and pay off in the long run. And did I mention they were only 160th of the spending bill? And the only parts republicans are using for talking points?
Pardon me if I sound cynical, but republicans, all the way from their spokes model drug addict Rush Limbaugh, down to and including their rank & file members of congress, don't care about America or Americans.
Don't listen to what they say, watch how they act. 68% of the country has caught on. The only folks left are the rich, the pundits (also rich), and folks who can't afford teeth or health care for them or their kids and are too stupid to figure out that they've been lied to.
President Obama, We don't need bi-partisanship, we need solutions and fast. By catering to these copperheads all you are doing is slowing down the rest of the country's desperate needs and it won't help you get us what we need to survive.
Now you knew damn well they were snakes, Before you brought them in.
[...] [Citigroup] While trying to keep a low profile, the company is still fielding an army of Washington lobbyists working on a host of issues, including the bailout. In the fourth quarter, it spent $1.77 million on lobbying fees, according to its lobbyists’ filings. [...] During the last three months of 2008, at least seven other firms receiving bailout funds — American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, KeyCorp, Morgan Stanley, PNC and Bank of New York Mellon — all lobbied the government about the bailout, according to a review of their most recent disclosure reports.
Does anyone else see a problem with that?
Or how about this, Wall Streetwalkers (OK, maybe they take a limo but that doesn't mean they aren't whores) are trying to justify the 18.4 BILLION DOLLARS they gave/got in bonuses of our tax money for failing. And not just a small fail, a fail that is epic beyond belief. Greed works my ass! I'm with Senator McCaskill:
"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."
I agree with the Senator on most counts, but I'm thinking she isn't allowed to call them greedy bastards from the Senate floor.
And then there's the justification from the greedy bastards (faithfully scribed by AP mediawhores):
[...] While Wall Street investment banks and other financial firms make headlines for the millions paid out to certain executives, more modest bonuses go to workers from human resources representatives to secretaries as well as employees who actually made money for their companies last year.
Jason Weisberg, vice president of the Wall Street brokerage Seaport Securities, said bank employees count on performance bonuses like salesmen count on commissions.
"What are you supposed to pay them?" Weisberg asked. "Or are you not supposed to pay them? And if you don't pay them, how do you expect that employee to stay employed at that company?"
One, salespeople work on commissions, managers & secretaries don't. Two, 'little people' in your Wall Street office aren't your waiters or waitresses, they make a salary, not rely on tips. Three, If you want to retain those workers, DON'T LAY THEM OFF! I'm pretty sure they'd be just happy to have a job right now. Or maybe they should unionize and force you to pay them what they're worth.
I know the HR people and secretaries where I work, along with me and every employee that I know of, work for our wages. One employee each year gets a $500 bonus. And that employee is voted that bonus by their fellow employees. And I still think $500 is a lot of money.
And I work in a nice place with wonderful people who are going to make a positive difference in peoples lives, not like these greedy bastards who have done nothing for this country or the world except cause misery while they insist on profiting thru their skill & heartlessness at clever manipulations of other people's money. And now they're bitchin' that they might lose money too!
That's not a skill to be proud of, that's a parasite that bleeds & bleeds the host until the host dies. The host has died and now they want more. Parasites always want more.
p.s I apologize to the whores and bastards I've known and worked with over the years. They've mainly been good people, and I've really got to come up with some new terms for this level of evil and incompetence.
The board of Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, agreed to acquire a rival, Wyeth, for $68 billion, the companies announced Monday. [...] If completed as planned, the transaction would be the biggest merger since AT&T and BellSouth combined in a $70 billion deal in March 2006, according to the research firm Capital IQ.
WTF!? We need to have smaller companies, not more companies that are 'too big to [let] fail.' There's a reason that laws were passed after the Great Depression that (temporarily) put the kibosh on monopolies.
There is a limit on 'economies of scale' and once passed it's just greed. And speaking of greed:
At a 600-acre farm in Platteville, Colorado, an astonishing 40,000 people from around the USA turned up this weekend ready to partake in the ancient practice of gleaning – the act of collecting leftover crops from farm fields following the harvest.
Joe and Chris Miller, the farm owners, had invited people from neighbouring communities to come and take home the remaining potatoes, leeks and carrots on their land - expecting between 5,000 to 10,000 people to show up.
When an estimated 11,000 vehicles converged on the farm, 37 miles north of Denver, Chris said, 'Overwhelmed' is putting it mildly... People obviously need food’.
The couple decided to open their fields to those suffering hardship and as a thank you to customers after being informed of raids in local churches where food was being stolen.
The farm visitors were so numerous and did such a thorough job of cleaning up the leftover vegetables on the Saturday, that the second day of gleaning had to be cancelled.
As many of us in the U.S. look forward to the traditional Thanksgiving dinner there are an estimated 36 million of our fellow Americans that cannot. There is a real and growing food crisis in what is purported to be the richest nation in the world.
According to the New York City Coalition Against Hunger demand is up 28 percent. In Chicago there is 33 percent rise in the number of people who have turned to a pantry for food assistance compared with a year ago. The Los Angeles Regional Foodbank reports that demand is up 41 percent and the quote that "One out of every ten people in Los Angeles County is at risk of hunger." With all of this new demand and a Thanksgiving dinner costing 12 to 15 percent more than it did a year ago, 72 percent of the food banks across the nation are receiving less government funding then they did last year.
Some 28 million Americans now receive some amount of help from the Food Stamp program, known since the beginning of this month as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Soup kitchens everywhere are in tough straits. That's because food prices have increased at a time when the numbers of people in need have risen and the people who donate, hampered by economic difficulties of their own, are contributing less. A family of 4 qualifies for about 28 dollars a week and if you have been to the grocery lately you know what $28 bucks will get you.
This is a big problem and growing bigger by the day. The great majority of us folks are feeling the pinch of the times but many of us not as much as a lot of us. Look real closely at your budget and see what you can spare for your local food bank. Even $10 will help. This is a special holiday week but next week and the week after people will be just as hungry so consider setting aside a small portion of your weekly food budget for those that have a whole lot less. Here in Atlanta and in other large cities the problem is staggeringly large but even if you live in small town America you can find someone that needs help with food. Check with local churches and they can point you to groups that are trying to help. Even if you can't help financially you might be able to help by volunteering. cross posted at Fallenmonk
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week insisted that the price tag for bailing out Wall Street would come to a princely $700 billion - cha-ching! - a vast pile of cash that we could somehow never seem to find when it was needed for silly things like healthcare or education or fixing Social Security. But here comes Wall Street, cap in hand, and what do you know? There it is.
The Dow has taken another giant leap upwards this morning (up $429 at this moment). Seems all the investors(including Warren Buffet) are glad to see Bush and his buddies reward the stupid greed that got us into this mess. Who knows how much this additional bailout will cost you and I, the American taxpayer.
We don't have any money to provide health care to ALL Americans. We don't have any money to help out Americans losing their homes. We don't have any money to do what's right for our veterans returning from a stupid and unnecessary war. We don't have any money to fund SCHIP. We don't have any money to repair our crumbling infrastructure. We don't have any money to rebuild New Orleans. We won't have any money to rebuild Galveston. We don't have any money to even provide ice to the evacuees in Texas. We don't have any money for food stamps for the poorest Americans. We don't have any money to extend jobless benefits to millions of Americans. We don't have any money for anything necessary.
BUT... We do have plenty of money to pay for an unnecessary two trillion dollar war. We do have plenty of money to bail out Bears Stearns. We do have plenty of money to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We do have plenty of money to bail out AIG. We do have enough money to bail out all the banks and money market funds that were stupid enough to buy derivatives and worthless mortgages and manage to pay their executives millions in salary and benefits.
When the average American working stiff needs a little relief or financial help, Bush and the rest of his devil's spawn tell us to get a job or cut back or even get a second job. No problem. They have theirs, the jets, the houses in the Hamptons and the little place in Vail. With their wealthy country club buddies though it is a different story. Where's the checkbook? What do you need? Only 50 billion, no problem...you sure we can't make it an even 100? Don't worry about paying it back the American taxpayer has you covered. Don't even think about returning the money you have salted away offshore or selling that 100 foot yacht.
Some estimates are that the American taxpayer is going to wind up taking responsibility for 2 TRILLION worth of bad judgment and greed with very little chance of getting any of it back or at best a few cents on the dollar.
I'm no economist but I do know something about money management and the concept of throwing good money after bad. This may be the right thing to do to prevent a total collapse of the system, as corrupt as it is, but it just seems to me that the villains in this whole mess aren't ponying up every last cent of their record salaries and options. Just yesterday it was announced that three of the big wigs at Citibank are going to share about 120 million dollars worth of golden parachute money on their way out the door.
I'm no economist, but it seems to me if you want to solve the foreclosure crisis then give the money to the homeowners to help them pay their mortgages, not to the mortgage holders. The lenders still get their money, the people get to keep their homes, which keeps their neighborhoods viable, which allows them to pay their property taxes, which keeps their schools viable, etc, etc, etc.
Let's try 'trickle up' for a change, I'm calling it the 'for want of a nail' approach.
And you don't want to .... have the terrorists won?:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer sentiment fell sharply in early February to levels associated with previous recessions, dragged down by concerns a bleak economic outlook would raise the unemployment rate, a survey showed on Friday.
The Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers index of consumer sentiment dropped to 69.6, the lowest reading since February 1992, and below analysts' median forecast for a preliminary reading of 76.3.
The index was at 78.4 at the end of January.
"The sentiment index has only been this low during the recessions of the mid 1970s, the early 1980s and the early 1990s," survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.
[snip]
Pessimism was widespread among households of all incomes and age groups, with half the consumers surveyed expecting declines in real incomes and higher unemployment in the year ahead.
In addition, 86 percent of consumers believed the economy was in decline, the highest number since 1982. The current economic conditions index fell to 85.4 in early February, the lowest level since October 1992, and below a reading of 94.4 at the end of January.
President Bush is sending Congress a $3 trillion spending blueprint that would provide a big boost to defense and protect his signature tax cuts. ... His blueprint for the budget year that begins next October projects huge deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next, more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. Private economists believe the deficit could easily surpass the previous record in dollar terms of $413 billion set in 2004, especially if the country does go into a recession.
Democrats said the big jump in deficits for this year and 2009 continued an era under Bush in which the national debt has exploded. A projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office was wiped out by the 2001 recession, the increased spending to fight terrorism and, Democrats contend, Bush's costly tax cuts.
"Democrats contend" this...? No, more like anyone without their thumb in their mouth and a first class ticket booked on the good ship Lollipop contends this.
Let me extemporize a bit, here. Apparently, some people still think that there is such a thing as permanent unchecked growth - that an economy can just keep getting bigger and bigger with no restrictions, spiraling ever upwards toward a promised Valhalla of entitled profit. Oh, what a desirable state, my brothers and sisters - rivers of milk and honey a-flowin', the cotton candy trees a-blowin' in the balmy breeze, and all of us lolling on comfy poolside lounges whilst our personal cabana cuties peel us a grape and pop it into our waiting mouths...forever.
Now of course, empirical thought renders this nonsensical, as the only thing that grows unchecked if you let it is cancer. There is always going to be a recessive factor within a nation's economy, as simple and ineffable as the tides going in and out, and the change of the seasons. 'What comes up must come down' is a rule of balance that applies to damn near everything touched or made by the hand of humanity, but if one acknowledges and prepares for this eventuality whether in business or in domestic applications of economics, the downturn can be weathered until the next upward curve appears.
However, to 'prove' the validity of this moronic conceptualization of permanent economic growth a lot of valid 'conservative' (if by conservative one means common f*cking sense) principles such as fiscal prudence and balanced spending objectives need to be thrown out the window in order to make that turkey fly.
Trifles like financing one's country on increasing debt to foreign entities, the sort of thing that would make a Goldwater-era Republican set their own hair on fire, have moved from an occasional dalliance offset by internal revenue to a dangerous addiction that will only magnify the oncoming depression, along with sacrificing the necessary foldback of revenue into the maintenance of national infrastructure so that some Wall Street fop can have a permanent tax holiday from their responsibilities to the state that nurtures them.
One can't just tear up the markers and yell 'finnsies' to China, or any other international trading partner. They don't owe America an allegiance other than to provide goods and services for financial recompense...so, when the well runs dry, there won't be a water truck driven by smiling foreigners coming down the old country road to help out unless the cash is on hand.
I am not an advocate of violence as a solution to minor disputes, but I would opine that any Republican or fellow traveller who dares suggest in the midst of the recession-cum-depression that is sure to come (one that will only be magnified by the grossly imprudent fiscal policies pursued on behalf of the Bush crime syndicate's base) that Democrats and progressives are the culprits for the economical woes that we all will suffer globally be slapped across their stupid face hard enough to rattle their chattering teeth.
This economy is a Bush construct, just like all of his administration's other reality-denying products. A failed set of intellects formulating failed economic and social policies...Who would have thought?
"The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, which is lower than the average of the last 40 years. In other words, we have told the American people that by keeping taxes low we can grow the economy, and by working with Congress to set priorities we can be fiscally responsible and we can head toward balance," said President Bush in a statement to the press. "And that's exactly where we're headed."
Did you read that quote really carefully? Did you catch the 'non-action' words he always uses? He's 'telling the American people', 'can grow', 'set priorities, 'can be fiscally responsible', 'can head toward balance'. Nice, Georgie. You've covered your ass by telling us. So the incoming recession just can't be your fault, can it?
And if we're 'headed toward balance', doesn't that mean we are out of balance right now with your borrow and spend policies?
Well... The US economy can withstand much if we keep the consumer confidence high.....
WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumer confidence fell to an all-time low as worries about jobs, energy bills and home foreclosures darkened people's feelings about the country's economic health and their own financial well-being.
According to the RBC Cash Index, confidence tumbled to a mark of 56.3 in early January. That compares with a reading of 65.9 in December - and a benchmark of 100 - and was the worst since the index began in 2002.
"People are anxious because everything sounds pretty awful these days," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services Group.
Well, at least we had a good Christmas season?
Credit card usage and other data showed a disappointing shopping season for US retailers after consumer spending rose 3.6 percent over the holiday spending period, the slowest growth rate in four years, media reports said Wednesday.
The figure, calculated from Nov 23 to Dec 24, rose 6.6 percent in 2006 and 8.7 percent in 2005, according to MasterCard's SpendingPulse data.
The report was cited by The New York Times and Washington Post in their online editions.
The US economy has been sluggish all year, and consumer confidence has been eroded by the crisis in the mortgage industry. Tens of thousands of homes have been repossessed by banks after high-risk borrowers could not keep up with interest rates that were jacked up after initial low rates.
The SpendingPulse report cited high fuel and food costs as also working against holiday spending. It was based on credit card purchases made by more than 300 million MasterCard holders and cash and cheque use, the reports said.
About 20 percent of annual revenues for the US retail industry depend on Christmas holiday shopping.
Ah. I'm sure Bernanke is right on this, and Bush is doing a heckovajob:
The White House is exploring a rescue plan, possibly including a tax cut, to aid the ailing economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, criticized for not doing enough, pledged on Thursday to keep lowering interest rates. They are expected to drop by as much as one-half of a percentage point when central bank policymakers meet later this month.
The public is giving President Bush low marks for his economic stewardship. His approval rating on the economy dipped slightly to 33 percent in January, from 36 percent in December, according to a separate Associated Press-Ipsos poll. His overall job-approval rating was 34 percent, compared with 36 percent last month.
Um, just an aside, but if you keep lowering interest rates, aren't you in danger of a liquidity trap?:
In monetary economics, a liquidity trap occurs when the economy is stagnant, the nominalinterest rate is close or equal to zero, and the monetary authority is unable to stimulate the economy with traditional monetary policy tools. In this kind of situation, people do not expect high returns on physical or financial investments, so they keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts or hoards rather than making long-term investments. This makes the recession even more severe.
But I'm sure Bush is listening to his advisors:
The White House is more sanguine than several of the nation's most prominent economists, who have been urging the federal government in recent days to adopt a much more vigorous fiscal policy to head off the possibility of a damaging long-term recession.
Martin S. Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has said that he thinks there is a 50 percent chance of a recession next year and that Congress should pass a tax cut that would depend on how much the economy slows. Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury secretary in President Bill Clinton's administration, called this week for a temporary tax cut, longer-lasting unemployment insurance benefits and additional money for food stamps. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has said that he thinks the considerable risk of a recession warrants making emergency aid available to homeowners at risk.
But in an interview this week, Bush's outgoing economic policy adviser, Allan Hubbard, said the White House does not see the need for such measures at the moment. "We just don't see any reason why the economy won't continue to expand," he said.
Well... at least everybody will share in whatever is coming at us:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office show.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the 3 million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President George W. Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.
Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005, the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.
Don't think Bush will be too happy about having a really painful recession tagged onto his legacy... But if the recession truly kicks in after January 20, 2009, it can't be Bush's fault, can it?
