DOWNLOADS: (156)

PLAYS: (1026)

Embed

Once again, the banks are given a pass for their criminal behavior, while homeowners are given the shaft: 4 million people wrongfully foreclosed on. Can they get their houses back?:

Imagine you are a homeowner who has made your mortgage payments on time. Or pretend for a moment that you have been informed you are entitled to relief or promised a modification. Now, imagine that in spite of all that, you receive a foreclosure notice, which the bank follows through on.

That is the reality for the 4 million people the banks wrongfully foreclosed on between 2009-2010. Tuesday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve announced the beginning of payments for some of those people whose homes were wrongfully taken from them.

As Hayes explained in the clip above, "given the scale of the deception and error, the amount of money on the table for those who've been victimized, is in most instances, cartoonishly small."

Here's more from Salon on Alexis Goldstein's What You Can Buy for Having Your House Stolen Tumblr page -- Bank stole your house? Have 10 pitchforks’ worth of compensation:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (157)

PLAYS: (1245)

Embed

Stories like this one aren't going to help the Republicans much with their so-called "rebranding' effort: Virginia is for lovers of their own currency:

Virginia sure has been a hotbed of activity on issues with national implications, hasn't it? Republicans in the commonwealth pushed a scheme to rig the electoral college (which failed soon after), launched an ugly redistricting scheme (which now appears doomed), and crafted absurd voter-ID bill (which seems likely to become law).

And while all of those are clearly important, this is the one that amazes me.

Virginia Del. Robert G. Marshall fears that a financial apocalypse is coming and only one thing can save the Commonwealth: its own currency.

The idea that Virginia should consider issuing its own money was dismissed as just another quixotic quest by one of the most conservative members of the state legislature when Marshall introduced it three years ago. But it has since gained traction not only in Virginia, but also in states across the country as Americans have grown increasingly suspicious of the institutions entrusted with safeguarding the economy.

Marshall's proposal sailed through the House of Delegates this week, passing by a two-to-one majority.

No, seriously.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (378)

PLAYS: (1039)

Embed

From this Saturday's Up With Chris Hayes, Chris asks a provocative question about the Fed's unwillingness to do more about unemployment in America: Hayes: Is Ben Bernanke trying to get Mitt Romney elected president?:

On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke went up to Capitol Hill to testify in front of the Joint Economic Committee. He faced a fairly skeptical, even hostile, audience, primarily the Republicans who think Bernanke has been doing too much to help the economy.

Rep. Kevin Brady: I wish you would look the market in the eye and say The Fed has done all it can perhaps too much.
Sen. Jim DeMint: I think you'd have to agree that the activism has been unprecedented.

Bernanke was his normal, mild-mannered, calm self, largely untroubled by his interlocutors' barbs.

Sen. Dan Coats: Given the kind of fragile state - fragile world that we're looking at and particularly the situation at night as it's unfolding do you sleep well at night?
Bernanke: Do I see-?
Sen. Dan Coats: Do you sleep well at night?
Bernanke: I generally sleep pretty well. But I have a lot to do during the day and I need to be well rested.

And he assured the members of Congress that if things get really bad, the Fed will be there to help.

"As always, the Federal Reserve remains prepared to take action as needed to protect the U.S. financial system and economy in the event that financial stresses escalate," Bernanke said.

But the point is that things are already bad. And Bernanke was never asked the one question that had I been sitting up on the dais I would have liked to ask him: "Mr. Chairman: your academic research shows the necessity of central bankers taking aggressive, sometimes unprecedented action in the wake of financial crisis in order to avoid long term stagnation and economic misery. And yet, as Federal Reserve chairman you seem to be entirely ignoring your own research. The Fed refuses to take action to address the jobs crisis in this country, even as inflation stays at or below target. You are ignoring your legal mandate, ignoring your own research, ignoring the misery of millions who are unemployed for no good reason. My question for you, Mr. Chairman, is: Are you trying to get Mitt Romney elected president?" Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (227)

PLAYS: (1049)

Embed

Nothing like a little hyperbole first thing on a Sunday morning from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) when it comes to looking out for the interests of consumers. Republicans don't want a check on the banks period and they're using the excuse of not having any oversight in order to hamstring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau set up by Elizabeth Warren.

Sadly if they were allowed to gain control over it, I have a feeling it would not be to make sure it works in the interest of the consumers, but instead to make sure it doesn't work at all, just as they're doing right now.

Here's Graham with the latest excuse for their continued obstruction for the benefit of the 1 percent on this Sunday's Meet the Press.

MR. GREGORY: Senator Graham, is the issue, as the president argues, income inequality? Or is it something more fundamental in the economy?

SEN. GRAHAM: No...

MR. GREGORY: Is it national decline?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think the issue is that his failure--he's, he's got a failed presidency, and he didn't talk about the things he has done to make America a stronger, better place in a bipartisan fashion. Ronald Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neill to solve the Social Security problem. Bill Clinton sat down with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget and end welfare as we know it. This whole speech is about pitting one group of Americans against the others. And his policies are the biggest threat to the hard-working Americans. If you're a union guy, the pipeline would be good news for you because it would create 20,000 jobs. The NLRB in the hands of this administration almost cost a facility in South Carolina that would have cost 10,000 hard-working South Carolinians their jobs because of union politics. The environmental policies of this administration make it very hard to create a job.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (289)

PLAYS: (4059)

Embed

Former Reagan adviser and ex-Bushie, Bartlett defends the actions by the Federal Reserve against the "grossly irresponsible" charges made by republican candidate Rick Perry. A few days ago Perry said this about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:

"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."

Karl Rove and others have condemned Perry's comments as "unpresidential."

(CNN) - Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett labeled newly-minted Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry "an idiot" Friday.

Bartlett, who served at Treasury under former President George H.W. Bush and as a domestic policy adviser to the late President Ronald Reagan, delivered the choice words to the Texas Gov. in reference to his recent comments about Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

"Rick Perry's an idiot, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that," Bartlett said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."

Perry sparked controversy when he said Bernanke would be "treasonous" if he printed more money to stimulate the economy before the 2012 election.

"I mean, printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion," Perry said Monday in Iowa. He stood by his comments Tuesday.

Bartlett said the politics at the Federal Reserve are a serious problem and in part blamed U.S. presidents, who he said have historically not focused their energies on the bank.

Video is edited down from the original 7 min.

DOWNLOADS: (616)

PLAYS: (2234)

Embed

Paul Krugman and Douglas Holtz Eakin squared off on the PBS Newshour on whether Ben Bernake and the Fed have been doing enough to keep our economy from running off into a ditch. As of now it looks like all Bernanke is worried about is keeping interest rates down and as Paul said "Do we have to have a whole Great Depression to get the Fed moving?" I hope not but Bernanke's lack of action is making me wonder as well.

Paul has more in his column at the NYT's here -- Invisible Cavalry To The Rescue!. Right now I share his lack of optimism. The ones who could actually do something to get the United States economy back on track all look like they couldn't care less if they turn us into a third world country whether it be the Fed or the Congress.

JEFFREY BROWN: Paul Krugman, I will start with you. You wrote in your column today, this isn't a recovery in any way that matters. So, did you sense today that Ben Bernanke agrees and is taking the right steps?

PAUL KRUGMAN, columnist, The New York Times: Well, he may agree, but he's not taking the right steps. I mean, there was no sense of urgency in his talk. Yes, he said we will do something if the situation warrants. But here we are. You know, this is -- we're now 32 months into this slump. Unemployment is disastrously high. Growth, we -- the economy needs to grow about 2.5 percent annual rate just to keep unemployment from rising. It's not doing that.

What would it take to justify action? So, you know, it was a good signal that he is saying, you know, the Fed is kind of, sort of willing to do something, maybe, which is better than previous statements. But, if this isn't a situation that warrants action now, what would be that kind of situation? Do we have to have a whole Great Depression to get the Fed moving?

JEFFREY BROWN: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, what did you hear from the Fed today?

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, former Congressional Budget Office director: Well, there was a little bit in there for everybody. He said, we recognize the economy's struggling, and thus tried to make sure people didn't think the Fed was out of touch. He told those who were worried about the economy going down into double dip that they had things they could do, and he outlined them.

And then, at the end, he told the people worried about inflation, believe it or not, look, we're not promising higher inflation in the United States. We're not going on record for that. So, I thought it was a talk carefully designed to appeal to lots of audiences.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, carefully designed, but what about the state of the economy that Paul Krugman sees as in dire straits, needing more?

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN: The economy is not in good shape. And I think, about that, there ought to be great agreement. But the key is that the Fed has done all it can do. It did a tremendous job in propping up the economy during the crisis. It is now badly extended. The keys now are that we have an economy that is growing. It's been growing for about a year, but it is growing too slowly. We ought to rethink this, not as a crisis, sort of stimulus issue, but one where we have got to concentrate on long-term growth and do all the things to make the economy grow faster.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, well, that gets to the nub of the argument here, Paul Krugman. What should the Fed do now? What do you want to see it do?

PAUL KRUGMAN: I think it should be throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at the problem. I mean, Doug is saying that there's -- the Fed has done all it can do. That's not what the Fed says. The Fed says it has ammunition; it continues to have the ability to act. So, we should take them at their word and see them actually act. They can do purchases of long-term bonds. They can raise their inflation target, which, you know, Ben Bernanke, when he was a Princeton economics professor, advocated for Japan when it was in a similar situation.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (902)

PLAYS: (2750)

Embed

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan believes that the US should "follow the law" and let the Bush tax cuts lapse. He disagreed Sunday with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves.

"I am very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an appearance on NBC.

"The problem that we've gotten into in recent years is that spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous and my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here," said Greenspan.

"You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?" asked NBC's David Gregory.

"They do not," Greenspan replied firmly.

DOWNLOADS: (605)

PLAYS: (940)

Embed

Pete Davis at Capital Games and Gains gives his take on Alan Greenspan, of all people, now calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts.

Pardon my incredulity! Alan Greenspan just taped an interview with Judy Woodruff for broadcast tomorrow and over the weekend. This Bloomberg News story quotes him saying, "They should follow the law and let them [the Bush tax cuts] lapse." He believes it is more important at this point to cut burgeoning deficits than to funnel more money to taxpayers. In a telephone interview after the taping, Greenspan acknowledged that this "probably will" slow growth.
...
Recall also, in 2001, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan's crucial testimony in support of the Bush tax cuts. That gave Congress the high sign that the Fed wouldn't choke off that much fiscal stimulus.

This is another example of the adage that if you live long enough you'll see everything, including Alan Greenspan getting religion on the federal deficit.

Recall that in 2001 Greenspan warned that with the Government swimming in money (a then ballooning budget surplus) the Federal Debt would soon be paid off and that we wouldn't know what to do with the all the excess capital! Better to get into the private hands of the wealthy as soon as possible, lest it get wasted.

The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade.

But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

Recall also that when Bill Clinton office the Federal Debt was approximately $6 trillion, having quadrupled under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, it was now actually reversing.

Jump ahead to the end of George W. Bush's presidency and the debt, aided with the Bush tax cuts, had risen to over $10 trillion. So much for the end of the National Debt. Here's what happened in graphical form.

From Sen. Bernie Sanders -- Sanders vs. Gregg:

Sharply contrasting views of the role of Wall Street in American society were staked out in a Senate floor debate over a major overhaul of financial regulations. In an exchange that extended over two days, Senators Bernie Sanders and Judd Gregg clashed over their competing visions of big banks and federal regulation of the financial industry. The progressive independent and a conservative Republican from neighboring states that share a border shaped by the Connecticut River debated how best to avoid the kind of financial fallout that plunged the economy into a severe recession in the fall of 2008.

Sanders Op-Ed: Real Wall Street Reform:

In my view, the real and transformational financial reform we need must include the following elements:

Break Up Huge Banks The four major U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Well-Fargo – issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, write half the mortgages and collectively hold $7.4 trillion in assets, about 52 percent of the nation’s estimated total output last year. Incredibly, despite all of them being bailed out during the Wall Street meltdown because they were “too big to fail,” three of them (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo) are now bigger than before the bailout. But this is an issue which goes beyond the danger of “too big to fail” and future taxpayer liability. We must break up these behemoths because of the incredible economic power they exert on the economy through their concentration of ownership and enormous competitive advantages.

Financial Institutions Must be Integrated Into the Real Economy At a time when we are in the midst of a major recession, it is insane that our largest financial institutions continue to trade trillions in esoteric financial instruments which makes Wall Street the largest gambling casino in the world. We need to create a financial system which invests in the real economy, and helps create millions of new jobs by providing small and medium businesses with the credit they desperately need. We also need investments to rebuild our manufacturing sector, transform our energy system and create modern transportation and infrastructure systems. We don’t need banks pushing home mortgages on people who can’t afford them. We don’t need huge amounts being “bet” on whether housing securities go up or down or what the price of oil will be six months from now.

National Usury Legislation Major financial institutions have, in many ways, become nothing less than loan-sharking operations. Today, millions of Americans who pay their bills on time are now forced to pay 25 or 30 percent interest rates. That is not only obscene but, according to every major religion, immoral. Banks cannot be allowed to engage in usury and charge outrageous interest rates. We must cap interest rates for private banks at the same level as we do for credit unions – 15 percent except under exceptional circumstances.

Transparency at the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve cannot continue to operate in almost total secrecy. During the bailout, large financial institutions received trillions of dollars in zero or near-zero interest loans. Who received those loans and under what terms? The Fed isn’t telling. Did some of them turn around and, in a mammoth welfare scam, invest that Fed money in government treasury bonds at 3 percent or 4 percent interest rates? The Fed refuses to say. It’s time we had transparency at the Fed so that the American people know what our central bank is doing.

DOWNLOADS: (641)

PLAYS: (836)

Embed

Even after the close call we just had with Wall Street practically taking down the entire world's economy, Brit Hume thinks our economy is not recovering because of the "regulatory atmosphere". Apparently Hume thinks we need more of what took the system down as a means to fix it.

Hume: You talk to bankers across the country, you talk to potential borrowers across the country, they’re all saying the same thing, even now, the credit still remains for many of these potential borrowers a tremendous problem, credit is tight and that restricts their ability to invest and to grow and actually therefore to hire. And that is part of what is holding this recovery back. This economy needs to be unleashed. What has happened over the past year or so is it’s been leashed.

Williams: How do you unleash? We’ve had tax cuts through the Bush years. President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and you have in place a regulatory atmosphere that’s trying to respond to the excesses of Wall Street…

Hume: I agree Juan.

Williams: …and those very bankers and you want to sit here and defend the bankers and corporate America after this terrible performance.

Hume: Juan let me just say this… (crosstalk)

Williams: He extended the Bush tax cuts this year this year. Think of the logic. Why did he do that? Because he knew that raising taxes is deflationary and recessionary. Why doesn’t he extend the Bush tax cuts again next year? Why are all the huge environmental regulations...

Williams: You’re making a political argument…

Kristol: No.

Williams: …on what’s to come (crosstalk). President Obama has cut taxes. Is that an argument?

Hume: He has not cut taxes in a way to be meaningful to the private sector, to business owners and so when you talk to them all, they’re virtually unanimous on this point that the credit atmosphere, the tax atmosphere and the general regulatory atmosphere are all adverse to job creation and the growth of their businesses. Now they’re all trying Juan and they’re all doing the best they can but when you see this, what you just said, defending corporate America…Juan…who do you think does the hiring in this country?

He goes on to defend the bankers who were bailed out with our tax dollars by saying that they're paying the money back, unlike the automotive companies that got bailed out. I'm not sure why he thinks the auto companies needing a bailout excuses what Wall Street did and they sure as hell have not paid all of the money back. And as usual Hume and Kristol's answer to everything is more tax cuts.

Naturally Forbes Magazine shares their feelings on raising corporate tax rates in this article -- What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes. Our team member Jamie pointed to these two items in the article.

The most egregious example is General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

...

"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Schackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."

All I've seen from these big companies is a race to the bottom unless you force them to behave otherwise. The Humes and Kristols of the world pretend they will behave if you just as Hume put it "unleash" them. Unfortunately we've already seen the results when that happens and it's why the economy is in the mess it is now.