I don't really believe in how organized religion defines Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil. I see them more as metaphors to positive and negative worlds with good and evil within all of us. Some people, however, may be more evil than good. I do believe in good and evil, and I have no problem saying that Larry Summers is a person living in the United States closest to actually being the Devil.
The reason is because he's a person in power who calls himself a Democrat but truly acts like a Republican. That's just the first reason, but it's an important one because he is hiding behind an agenda that does not favor all people, including the poor and middle class.
When Progressive Democrats saw Bill Clinton become U.S. President, they thought the Reagan legacy was over. When they saw Barack Obama become the first black President of the United States, they thought that the Reagan legacy was over. But economic advisors/leaders like Larry Summers keep Republican economic oppression moving full steam ahead.
Case in point, a bipartisan agreement between the House and Senate to keep student debt rates low unless the 10-year Treasury rates shift higher and have a subprime-like cap on rates for a college graduate without work experience or a full-time job. Six months later, it'll be time to pay the piper. Unless, of course, you become an investment banker at Goldman Sachs earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on Wall Street. You can probably pay that loan back in a couple of years.
What about a teacher? Or a policeman? Or a fireman? Or someone else who went to college and decided to fulfill their American Dream by choosing to work in an environment other than Wall Street or Congress? The few and far between in Congress are disliked by nearly 90% of the American people because the system answers to Wall Street rather than the American people.
Larry Summers, the "rebel" Democrat, fought to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and won. He defeated a very insightful and intelligent woman, Brooksley Born, chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Clinton Administration, into not regulating financial derivatives. Thanks to Larry Summers and his determination, depository institutions can have investment houses attached to them and Wall Street Investment Bankers can risk trillions of dollars through unregulated financial derivatives. Even Sandy Weill, on CNBC, said former chairman and CEO of Citigroup, said Banks and Investment Banks should be split apart. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48315170.
Despite the Dodd-Frank Act, Investment Bankers are still risking the nation's financial health by trading with financial derivatives. Of course, Larry Summers may not have listened to Brooksley Born because, as president of Harvard University, he admitted that women were not as good at math and science. We want this guy as the new Federal Reserve Chairman?
Boy, that Larry Summers. What a smart guy! He fought to repeal Glass-Steagall and kept financial derivatives deregulated. It only opened the doors to the 2008 financial crash. Now, we still have major Banks--supposedly too big to fail--completely insolvent with underwater commercial and residential mortgages on their balance sheets. However, thanks to leaders like Larry Summers and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, we're helping Banks cover up their losses. We're bailing out the failed banks. An accounting rule change following the 2008 financial crisis gave Banks the leeway to account for assets as "mark-to-model" rather than "mark-to-market." That means that accountants at Banks can assume the assets, such as underwater houses, will actually be worth something more in the future and banks hold these assets on the books waiting for valuations to increase. Investors are not acquiring these assets to rent, some have been sold in short sales--many to investors--and some have gone to foreclosure, later acquired by investors for rental purposes.
But, if the money's not right, the Banks will continue to hold these assets on their books because they don't have to show their losses. Thank you Tim and Larry for kicking it down the road.
Larry was on Obama's economic advisory committee, and he figured out that we can change the accounting rules in the middle of the game. His Wall Street CEO cronies were able to stay in charge and keep their power over the Federal Government. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner helped, of course, and so did Congress. As always, most members of Congress need lobbyist funds for reelection to keep their cushy jobs and receive a horrible approval rating from the public.
Five years after the 2008 financial crisis, more than 60% of Americans in a CBS News poll said the economy is "in bad shape."And the President would still nominate Larry Summers to Federal Reserve Chairman? Will the President continue to blame Congress and the Republicans while nominating Larry Summers to the Fed Chair position?
It's hard to believe Larry Summers is actually in the running for Federal Reserve Chairman. And it's hard to believe that Larry Summers is acting like he's going to try and help the middle class. In December, the Boston Globe reported Summers would co-lead an advisory group from the Center for American Progress "to examine how a stronger middle class serves as an engine to economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down or supply-side economics" as subscribed to most Republicans. The think-tank has just been formed six months from conception. It's really like saying Karl Rove will co-chair an advisory group to examine how to help the Democratic Party win the next election.
Unless Larry Summers has had a complete philosophical change in his own economic theories of prosperity from the past 30 years or more, most Americans should see this as a problem. If 60% of Americans think the economy is in "bad shape," how much worse will it get under Larry Summers returning to perpetuate the current economic path we're on?
Despite the Dodd-Frank Act, Investment Bankers are still risking the nation's financial health by trading with financial derivatives. Of course, Larry Summers may not have listened to Brooksley Born because, as president of Harvard University, he admitted that women were not as good at math and science. We want this guy as the new Federal Reserve Chairman?
Boy, that Larry Summers. What a smart guy! He fought to repeal Glass-Steagall and kept financial derivatives deregulated. It only opened the doors to the 2008 financial crash. Now, we still have major Banks--supposedly too big to fail--completely insolvent with underwater commercial and residential mortgages on their balance sheets. However, thanks to leaders like Larry Summers and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, we're helping Banks cover up their losses. We're bailing out the failed banks. An accounting rule change following the 2008 financial crisis gave Banks the leeway to account for assets as "mark-to-model" rather than "mark-to-market." That means that accountants at Banks can assume the assets, such as underwater houses, will actually be worth something more in the future and banks hold these assets on the books waiting for valuations to increase. Investors are not acquiring these assets to rent, some have been sold in short sales--many to investors--and some have gone to foreclosure, later acquired by investors for rental purposes.
But, if the money's not right, the Banks will continue to hold these assets on their books because they don't have to show their losses. Thank you Tim and Larry for kicking it down the road.
Larry was on Obama's economic advisory committee, and he figured out that we can change the accounting rules in the middle of the game. His Wall Street CEO cronies were able to stay in charge and keep their power over the Federal Government. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner helped, of course, and so did Congress. As always, most members of Congress need lobbyist funds for reelection to keep their cushy jobs and receive a horrible approval rating from the public.
Five years after the 2008 financial crisis, more than 60% of Americans in a CBS News poll said the economy is "in bad shape."And the President would still nominate Larry Summers to Federal Reserve Chairman? Will the President continue to blame Congress and the Republicans while nominating Larry Summers to the Fed Chair position?
It's hard to believe Larry Summers is actually in the running for Federal Reserve Chairman. And it's hard to believe that Larry Summers is acting like he's going to try and help the middle class. In December, the Boston Globe reported Summers would co-lead an advisory group from the Center for American Progress "to examine how a stronger middle class serves as an engine to economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down or supply-side economics" as subscribed to most Republicans. The think-tank has just been formed six months from conception. It's really like saying Karl Rove will co-chair an advisory group to examine how to help the Democratic Party win the next election.
Unless Larry Summers has had a complete philosophical change in his own economic theories of prosperity from the past 30 years or more, most Americans should see this as a problem. If 60% of Americans think the economy is in "bad shape," how much worse will it get under Larry Summers returning to perpetuate the current economic path we're on?
As the Fed head, Larry Summers and his Wall Street buddies will continue receiving their golden parachutes. He'll keep printing the money--the new pusher man--feeding addicted Wall Street Investment Bankers with cheap cash. The Investment Bankers will help the economy through their reckless spending habits. That's been America for the past 30 years! We don't save--we spend! And M.B.A. graduates from the past 30 years just think that this is the only economic model in town.
But, when you don't allow private equity to enter the markets with new and innovative leaders and ideas, whether it's in FAILED Banks or FAILED multi-national corporations, then the old guard's FAILURE simply prevails as success. As a result, the old guard in Wall Street lines their pockets with free cash. Meantime, Larry Summers continues his behavior of political and financial cronyism and deceit of the financially unsophisticated American public.
Don't you just love watching greedy businessmen control the Federal Government and take over the country? It's so wonderful that Congress--like the current and possibly future Federal Reserve Chairman and, yes, very possibly the President of the United States--continue to banter as the United States falls into the widest wealth gap since the founding fathers brought black slaves to the country?
How ironic! With Federal Reserve Chairman Larry Summers, the first black President will go down as leader of the largest wealth gap in the modern era! His legacy will be widening the gulf between the middle class and the extraordinarily affluent. The high-class gamblers who use the numbers in their head to calculate the best bets on Wall Street derivatives will continue to receive free money given to them by the Federal Reserve.
What would you do if someone gave you millions of dollars to gamble each day to make more money? And, your bonuses are based on how much money you can make. You'll risk it because the alternative is no longer playing at the table. That's today's America. And, when Quantitative Easing makes all your bets and dreams come true, why stop? Keep the party going!
How ironic! With Federal Reserve Chairman Larry Summers, the first black President will go down as leader of the largest wealth gap in the modern era! His legacy will be widening the gulf between the middle class and the extraordinarily affluent. The high-class gamblers who use the numbers in their head to calculate the best bets on Wall Street derivatives will continue to receive free money given to them by the Federal Reserve.
What would you do if someone gave you millions of dollars to gamble each day to make more money? And, your bonuses are based on how much money you can make. You'll risk it because the alternative is no longer playing at the table. That's today's America. And, when Quantitative Easing makes all your bets and dreams come true, why stop? Keep the party going!
The big party consists of Larry Summers and his disciples calling winners and losers in this society because they decide who's going to get free cash. Give free cash to consumers to spend? No way. The decision makers--the lawmakers--no longer focus on free enterprise. Now, someone calls the game in favor of the Wall Street Investment Bankers. As for consumers, good luck, go to work and earn low wages, hope you don't lose your job to office politics, and have a nice day.
The Federal Reserve is deciding who scores the touchdowns. It's choosing the penalties and putting in new rules so that the Wall Street team wins the game. It's like the prisoners versus the guards in The Longest Yard when the warden wants to fix the game. So, we know that the manipulation in Quantitative Easing is keeping Wall Street on track for record numbers in the Dow and S&P. What's keeping the American consumer on track for prosperity? Corporations holding billions of dollars in capital, pretending to hit earnings by taking on more debt, and not hiring more staff? Today's companies are loading on more responsibilities to the workers and keeping wages stagnant.
The Federal Reserve is deciding who scores the touchdowns. It's choosing the penalties and putting in new rules so that the Wall Street team wins the game. It's like the prisoners versus the guards in The Longest Yard when the warden wants to fix the game. So, we know that the manipulation in Quantitative Easing is keeping Wall Street on track for record numbers in the Dow and S&P. What's keeping the American consumer on track for prosperity? Corporations holding billions of dollars in capital, pretending to hit earnings by taking on more debt, and not hiring more staff? Today's companies are loading on more responsibilities to the workers and keeping wages stagnant.
You see, when the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government and the Banks work together so that Investment Bankers can rob the banks, then you're really not robbing the banks. The robbers come in and the management says, "take the money, you need it more than anyone else." And, the consumers keeping their own money in the Banks are left working, struggling and even muckraking through their lives trying to put more of their money into savings. That money is not making more money and is even at greater risk due to Wall Street's greed and recklessness. But, the Investment Banks keep making the big money. If Occupy Wall Street was about anything, it was about this hypocrisy.
The are still many smaller banks in really bad shape. Some get shuttered and/or sold off to the highest bidder. However, if the Federal Government has slowed the process of shuttering small banks. They continue to slowly determine who is going to win, how long they'll succeed and who will eventually lose.
If Wall Street Investment Banks fail again, who will be bailing them out? Guess who? US! No, not the United States. The me and you of the United States. The taxpayers. The Federal Government and Federal Reserve have already bailed out the Too Big to Fail Banks and Wall Street Investors. It'll be up to you and me. The American taxpayers. So, what now? .
Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, with easy and cheap debt provided to consumers through equity loans, credit cards and an overheated housing market, we were all able to spend money. The Stock Market soared so high that it hit a new record. And then, there was one big crash.
The Stock Market has soared again to a record high and vulnerable to the Fed tapering Quantitative Easing (QE)--the Federal Reserve purchases Mortgage Backed Securities and Treasury bonds to lower interest rates. A pull back on QE causes withdrawals by the addicts...and likely, the withdrawals will take down the stock market.
Under a greed and power-inspired economy (Charles Ferguson's film "Inside Job" already provided proof of a revolving door between academia, Wall Street and the Federal Government, (http://chronicle.com/article/Larry-Summersthe/124790/) we start to see a psycho-sociological change take place in our environment. The rich spend to keep up the affluent lifestyle, remain within the revolving door and eventually get called back as a guest "expert" to comment on an economy that they totally screwed up. Some even marry top correspondents from major news networks!
They are. of course, optimistic that Quantitative Easing, housing investors and new accounting rules with lift middle-class spending and debt to bring the economy back and add much-needed jobs. Can I ask where the middle class is getting the money and/or debt to spend frivolously? The upper class will be able to spend money on items outside of the necessities. I'm not sure about anyone else.
The gulf between affluent and the middle-class widens to the point of demoralization within the poor and middle class. The gap makes the road to success miles longer. This month, the Federal Reserve of San Francisco reported economic recovery for four years and unemployment declining considerably, but wage growth continued to slow down.
A Pew Research Center report of Census Bureau data--released in April of this year--found that the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% from 2009 to 2011.
Rick Newman, chief business correspondent at U.S. News, wrote a story in March that said "financial assets are mostly held by the wealthy." Data from G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz showed the wealthiest 20% of households owned 95% of all financial assets.
In the United Kingdom, the Bank of England reported that "The benefits of loose monetary policy have not been shared equally across all individuals...By pushing up a range of asset prices, asset purchases have boosted the value of households’ financial wealth held outside pension funds, although holdings are heavily skewed with the top 5% of households holding 40% of these assets."
Don't even get me started on Europe because they're much worse off than the United States.
If you believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from June--and we will in this case--14.5% of the country has a part time job and is frustrated because they're looking for full time work. How much spending can you do with a part-time job? How much more debt will you take on?
Wages are not rising for a majority of the country, and the BLS does not take into account people who have left the workforce. The overall unemployment number is 7.6%. According to Gallup, it's 7.8% and underemployment is 17.2% for June.
The families who decide to stabilize and improve their credit will deleverage out of debt. They won't spend outside of priority items--food, clothing and shelter--and put their saved funds toward paying down debt. They might not be able to afford many more luxuries other than family necessities of smartphones and Internet access. That's only good for Verizon, ATT and other phone carriers. As consumer spending slows, so does economic growth.
We, the people, have already paid off the big-screen televisions and furniture from last decade's home purchases. Now, the majority of mothers and fathers need their jobs to support their families and pay those mortgages. And, the bosses know it. So, mothers and fathers are working harder for the same wages. Stress and demoralization likely increases in these households under this burden. That can't be a couple's relationship and it's not good for the children of this country.
Because, in addition to paying off student debt, future college graduates will have more money taken out of their paychecks to pay taxes on increasing U.S. debt. The money left will hopefully be enough for food, clothing and shelter, not to mention necessary car payments.
The future workforce will stop seeing U.S. growth ahead with perpetual QE ahead. That's what we're getting with a Larry Summers nomination. The future will just be in trying to survive. We'll see stagnation due to slower growth, less spending and future, higher unemployment levels. We're already seeing it. Look at Japan's "lost decade" following their housing crisis. Their answer was to save the Banks, face slow growth and enter into new recessions.
Without change for future growth, demoralization destroys the human spirit. Once a country that proposed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" becomes a country that proposes "life as a debt-slave and the pursuit of survival." The true non-profits give out $50,000 grants for new ideas. The for-profit Investment Banks give out $1 million bonuses for the same old economic activity we've seen in the past 30 years. And, it keeps getting worse. This is the result of the Alan Greenspan/Ben Bernanke/Larry Summers economic theory of recovery.
So, how is it that Barack Obama feels more comfortable with Larry Summers? Clinton liked this guy, too. Why would a political Progressive still be a member of the Democrat party? Today's Democrats, with few exceptions, have no clue about new ideas and change for economic prosperity.
Here's a New Rule for Bill Maher--New Rule: the real Progressive Party will be known as the Common Sense Party but for political reasons, the acronym will be the Progressive Party--PP--because CSP looks too much like an acronym for the Communist Party. Not that PP is much better since the public will think of urine the first time they see it. It's either Communism or Urine. Either way, society will refuse a common sense party with this negative connotation. It's probably because they fear any change from the right-leaning Democrats and the contrarian yet morally crazed Republicans. A third party? That's like adding a third network to CBS and NBC during the 1960's. What next? A fourth network like Fox? A fourth party? How absurd! This country can only handle two political philosophies. Let's not make us have to think!
Barack Obama, the President who once ran on hope and change will decide the new Federal Reserve Chair. In this week's economic speech, the President said the rest of his term will be devoted to raising the working class. Politico reported that President Obama "spent a significant portion of the speech talking about how wages have grown for top earners but not the middle class, and rising stock prices don’t translate to widely shared prosperity."
If hope and change is synonymous to Larry Summers, then that guy's really changed his economic philosophy from the past 30 or more years. A little time off may have made him reflect on his poor choices and now he's decided to alienate his Wall Street cronies in favor of John Q. Public. Nah!
Perhaps Barack Obama's idea of hope and change is hope and change for himself. He does have hope because he's the President of the United States and his future looks awfully good. His life has certainly showed change for the good. So, maybe he was just talking about himself.
But, if we're talking about hope and change for all American people--Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, Men, Women, Gays, Native Americans, Fat, Thin, Poor, Rich, Young and Old living in the USA--then Janet Yellen, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, would be the logical candidate.
Here's a New Rule for Bill Maher--New Rule: the real Progressive Party will be known as the Common Sense Party but for political reasons, the acronym will be the Progressive Party--PP--because CSP looks too much like an acronym for the Communist Party. Not that PP is much better since the public will think of urine the first time they see it. It's either Communism or Urine. Either way, society will refuse a common sense party with this negative connotation. It's probably because they fear any change from the right-leaning Democrats and the contrarian yet morally crazed Republicans. A third party? That's like adding a third network to CBS and NBC during the 1960's. What next? A fourth network like Fox? A fourth party? How absurd! This country can only handle two political philosophies. Let's not make us have to think!
Barack Obama, the President who once ran on hope and change will decide the new Federal Reserve Chair. In this week's economic speech, the President said the rest of his term will be devoted to raising the working class. Politico reported that President Obama "spent a significant portion of the speech talking about how wages have grown for top earners but not the middle class, and rising stock prices don’t translate to widely shared prosperity."
If hope and change is synonymous to Larry Summers, then that guy's really changed his economic philosophy from the past 30 or more years. A little time off may have made him reflect on his poor choices and now he's decided to alienate his Wall Street cronies in favor of John Q. Public. Nah!
Perhaps Barack Obama's idea of hope and change is hope and change for himself. He does have hope because he's the President of the United States and his future looks awfully good. His life has certainly showed change for the good. So, maybe he was just talking about himself.
But, if we're talking about hope and change for all American people--Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, Men, Women, Gays, Native Americans, Fat, Thin, Poor, Rich, Young and Old living in the USA--then Janet Yellen, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, would be the logical candidate.
If the public has no need for common sense, then we'll sit back and watch the nomination of Larry Summers and think--as Kevin Bacon's character thought during the parade finale and its mayhem in the film Animal House--"all is fine." Any negative psycho-sociological behavior in the United States is just the result of a few "crazies"-- or, worse, "terrorists" -- who never should have been able to make a bomb or get hold of a gun.
Who are these culprits? Disaffected members of a society where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Where greed and political cronyism are blind to gender, race and the true USA spirit. As Martin Sheen said in Wall Street, "The rich have been doing it to the poor for thousands of years, only the poor didn't have unions." Well, neither does the United States. Look around. Anyone see Detroit lately? How are those unions doing?
At the end of his second term, Barack Obama may be able to sit back and say his legacy was that the economy never crashed on his watch. But he played not to lose rather than to win--something he never would do in a game of basketball. That same legacy would leave a wealth gap with a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon. Maybe Barack Obama can live with that, but it was something Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against to the point of self-sacrifice.
Legacy is about character and the remembrance of that character is an achievement in itself. Of course, in a world where people praised Richard Nixon at his death, anything is possible. The American people have such a short attention span, they probably forgot that Congress, under George W. Bush, created a three-page bill in a matter of days that became law to give $800 billion in cash to big banks--too big to fail. Some Republicans are still blaming that on Obama. In the meantime, Congress takes months on a gun control bill for background checks that can't pass the House.
If the American people are too young or stupid to recognize revisionist history, then we must question ourselves and our education system. If good character for a political leader means better character than Hitler, then we all must question ourselves and our moral judgment. If we don't have the common sense to appreciate great character from leaders like Mother Theresa helping the poor, Martin Luther King, Jr. sacrificing for equal rights and economic equality, Anwar Sadat for the courage to promote peace amongst belligerent nations and Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves from bondage, then we must question our own integrity. Were these leaders perfect human beings? No. Were their principles in tact despite external dangers and obstacles along the way? Absolutely. That means they had great character and there is good that lies within the human condition.
Who are these culprits? Disaffected members of a society where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Where greed and political cronyism are blind to gender, race and the true USA spirit. As Martin Sheen said in Wall Street, "The rich have been doing it to the poor for thousands of years, only the poor didn't have unions." Well, neither does the United States. Look around. Anyone see Detroit lately? How are those unions doing?
At the end of his second term, Barack Obama may be able to sit back and say his legacy was that the economy never crashed on his watch. But he played not to lose rather than to win--something he never would do in a game of basketball. That same legacy would leave a wealth gap with a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon. Maybe Barack Obama can live with that, but it was something Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against to the point of self-sacrifice.
Legacy is about character and the remembrance of that character is an achievement in itself. Of course, in a world where people praised Richard Nixon at his death, anything is possible. The American people have such a short attention span, they probably forgot that Congress, under George W. Bush, created a three-page bill in a matter of days that became law to give $800 billion in cash to big banks--too big to fail. Some Republicans are still blaming that on Obama. In the meantime, Congress takes months on a gun control bill for background checks that can't pass the House.
If the American people are too young or stupid to recognize revisionist history, then we must question ourselves and our education system. If good character for a political leader means better character than Hitler, then we all must question ourselves and our moral judgment. If we don't have the common sense to appreciate great character from leaders like Mother Theresa helping the poor, Martin Luther King, Jr. sacrificing for equal rights and economic equality, Anwar Sadat for the courage to promote peace amongst belligerent nations and Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves from bondage, then we must question our own integrity. Were these leaders perfect human beings? No. Were their principles in tact despite external dangers and obstacles along the way? Absolutely. That means they had great character and there is good that lies within the human condition.
As for Larry Summers, his new powers will keep the cheap money flowing, kicking the proverbial economic can down into the future with a total disregard for the mass republic and the future of the United States of America--at least the people who are not making hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My goodness. Who does he think he is? God. Maybe. But you know what I think. He's really...oh, I forgot, I don't believe in how organized religion defines it.
My goodness. Who does he think he is? God. Maybe. But you know what I think. He's really...oh, I forgot, I don't believe in how organized religion defines it.
--Robert Michaels
No comments:
Post a Comment