Upbeat economic news

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

How we, the media, report economic news has been a subject that has come up more and more lately. Here is an interest web site, where contributors find economic news that is positive and put it up. Might be an "economic mental health" exercise for our own forum. The number of things people came up with was pretty surprising to me. Maybe we, in the media, need to give a little hope now and then. Thoughts?
http://positiveeconomicnews.com/

[Bob Jentges]

How we, the media, report economic news has been a subject that has come up more and more lately. Here is an interest web site, where contributors find economic news that is positive and put it up. Might be an "economic mental health" exercise for our own forum. The number of things people came up with was pretty surprising to me. Maybe we, in the media, need to give a little hope now and then. Thoughts?
http://positiveeconomicnews.com/

Most importantly, I think that whatever economic news the media reports must be fact based. If the situation is very complex (good or bad) to the extent many people might not be sophisticated enough to fully understand, reporters/writers may need to seek out an expert for analysis. Since economists often come to somewhat different conclusions about the same set of facts, it might be good to have the reporter/writer include differing points of view in the same article. But the article should be as free from political bias as reasonably possible.

Because often people seem to have a natural tendency toward being pessimistic it might be best if bad economic news is balanced with good economic news. It is equally important that the media does not overly emphasize good news to the extent people are lead down a primrose path.

The way I see it balanced reporting that makes people think and formulate their own opinions so they can exercise their own judgement about their own finances is the key.

[Dan Conner]

I think we get in trouble thinking too hard about what we report. The press needs to report the news - the facts. This can be good and bad. Unfortunately, people might gravitate more toward the negative. It's almost like some voyeuristic tendency we have.

I have a difficult time with the TV news media "punditry." There are now networks of the TV media focusing on issues in an overtly biased matter. It's as if they want to think for us. I suggest that all media need to revert back to simply reporting facts, not interjecting biased political perspectives. Then, allow the public to apply reason to determine the significance of the facts.

The media focuses so much energy in the presentation, they don't devote enough energy to ferreting out all of the facts. Jornalism seems to becoming more of a pretty face and novel presentation than quality/quantity of the facts. I think that the American public can come to a reasoned decision once it has all the facts. Otherwise it's just GIGO!

[Ellen Mrja]

I am a complete proponent of a free press. But, I must wonder, why didn't the business press do a better job of ferreting out the truth from the spin that was out in the market during the past few years leading up to this current economic crisis? Could it be that business journalists become co-opted by their reliance on business analysts and stock brokerages and thus did not report impartially without fear of losing their sources? I think this is part of what happened.

Radio? Well that belongs to the most popular radio host on the air, the bloviating Rush. He has already publicly stated his desire to see the president's "socialistic policies" fail. That's real patriotic.

As for TV punditry..that is the most ill-serving journalism of all. While the nation was drooling over the Money Honey, people's pensions were being raided. Jim Kramer's "BUY THE BEAR" just five days before the Bear collapsed is another example of a huckster who knew no more than I did about anything. And don't even get me started on the doomsday prophet, Glenn Beck. He'll tell you to bury your money in the backyard, after you arm yourself and stockpile emergency supplies.

Compared to all of these messengers, I think the media is doing what it can to get on top of this story now. But, it's a tsunami.

[Dan Conner]

I am a complete proponent of a free press. But, I must wonder, why didn't the business press do a better job of ferreting out the truth from the spin that was out in the market during the past few years leading up to this current economic crisis? Could it be that business journalists become co-opted by their reliance on business analysts and stock brokerages and thus did not report impartially without fear of losing their sources? I think this is part of what happened.

Radio? Well that belongs to the most popular radio host on the air, the bloviating Rush. He has already publicly stated his desire to see the president's "socialistic policies" fail. That's real patriotic.

As for TV punditry..that is the most ill-serving journalism of all. While the nation was drooling over the Money Honey, people's pensions were being raided. Jim Kramer's "BUY THE BEAR" just five days before the Bear collapsed is another example of a huckster who knew no more than I did about anything. And don't even get me started on the doomsday prophet, Glenn Beck. He'll tell you to bury your money in the backyard, after you arm yourself and stockpile emergency supplies.

Compared to all of these messengers, I think the media is doing what it can to get on top of this story now. But, it's a tsunami.

I agree with you Ellen. I think it's all crap as well. I don't think anyone predicted the crash because no one saw it coming. We had too many years of prosperity. Greedy people were making money for years. Why would they think things would collapse. Everything seemed to come up roses, so everyone assumed it would continue. All the experts in government and business never saw it coming, until it was too late. The stupid thing was they were all doing the things they knew were not good. It was like removing all the laws and watching the chaos. Eventually the machine overloaded and quit.

[Ben Willaert]

Did no one know, or see what was going to happen, or was there no way to stop it. Imagine if someone tried to stop the risky mortgages. People wouldn’t be able to buy houses with no money down. Pesky credit problems like not paying bills on time and over extending credit cards would also disqualify someone from getting a mortgage. The public outcry would have been enormous. We all had the greed of wanting what we couldn’t afford. The banks facilitated what we and the government demanded; risky mortgages, or in other words, affordable housing. The bankers may have been the devil in all this, but that doesn’t mean we are innocent for our self-indulgence in the devils temptations. They (bankers) didn’t make us do it; they just provided us the money for which they were encouraged to do by the government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

[Dan Conner]

Did no one know, or see what was going to happen, or was there no way to stop it. Imagine if someone tried to stop the risky mortgages. People wouldn’t be able to buy houses with no money down. Pesky credit problems like not paying bills on time and over extending credit cards would also disqualify someone from getting a mortgage. The public outcry would have been enormous. We all had the greed of wanting what we couldn’t afford. The banks facilitated what we and the government demanded; risky mortgages, or in other words, affordable housing. The bankers may have been the devil in all this, but that doesn’t mean we are innocent for our self-indulgence in the devils temptations. They (bankers) didn’t make us do it; they just provided us the money for which they were encouraged to do by the government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

You keep going back to blaming people buying homes here. IT WASN'T PEOPLE BUYING HOMES THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. It was the CSD's and the extreme leveraging by investors. If fault is used, home owners were about 1% at fault. You need to look for the people 99% at fault.

[Ben Willaert]

You keep going back to blaming people buying homes here. IT WASN'T PEOPLE BUYING HOMES THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. It was the CSD's and the extreme leveraging by investors. If fault is used, home owners were about 1% at fault. You need to look for the people 99% at fault.

I am not blaming people buying houses for causing this to happen. I am trying to point out that if we all take more personal responsibility in the future, we could stop this from ever happening again. We can’t be taken advantage of if we make good decisions and live within our means. I fear that by sitting back and blaming the rich people, we won’t learn anything. Punish the rich now and there will just be another wolf around the corner to take advantage of us again. That won’t happen if we all step up to the plate and decide to be responsible for our decisions.

[Dan Conner]

I am not blaming people buying houses for causing this to happen. I am trying to point out that if we all take more personal responsibility in the future, we could stop this from ever happening again. We can’t be taken advantage of if we make good decisions and live within our means. I fear that by sitting back and blaming the rich people, we won’t learn anything. Punish the rich now and there will just be another wolf around the corner to take advantage of us again. That won’t happen if we all step up to the plate and decide to be responsible for our decisions.

Yeah, that's like saying if we all stop breathing we won't have pollution any more. Totally impractical! You've been writing about drunks being irresponsible, but you want cheap smokes and drinks so they can afford to keep doing their irresponsible habits. I suppose you want to help thieves by offering more items for theft? How do you expect to get rid of greed and avarice? It's hilarious that you now expect people to be responsible, but not the rich?

Yup, you're right, I am blaming the rich for a lot. That's because they have taken alot of our country's resources. Why shouldn't I expect a lot? Do you expect a $30 million baseball player to bat a .150, lose 30 games, or make 2 errors a game? I hope not, but if you do, don't expect me to buy tickets to your game.

I expect a lot from the rich because they take a lot. They say they are paid for all their responsibility, so let's see them be responsible. Who knows, if they become more repsonsible we might have more of us "grunts" down here follow their example. I don't know what your definition of punishment is. If what you mean by punishment is that they at least do their share, then punishment it is. You said,"...punish the rich now and there'll just be another wolf around the corner to take advantage of us again?" What kind of statement is that? If they took advantage of us they probably should be punished...in prison. And again? So, what are you proposing? Let them keep taking advantage of us? What are you a masochist?

Yes, the rich need to do a lot of havy lifting. They are the most rewarded. Responsible? They better be...that's what they say they are paid the big bucks for. Also, they need to start paying more taxes. The relative free ride needs to be over.

[Ben Willaert]

Yeah, that's like saying if we all stop breathing we won't have pollution any more. Totally impractical! You've been writing about drunks being irresponsible, but you want cheap smokes and drinks so they can afford to keep doing their irresponsible habits. I suppose you want to help thieves by offering more items for theft? How do you expect to get rid of greed and avarice? It's hilarious that you now expect people to be responsible, but not the rich?

Yup, you're right, I am blaming the rich for a lot. That's because they have taken alot of our country's resources. Why shouldn't I expect a lot? Do you expect a $30 million baseball player to bat a .150, lose 30 games, or make 2 errors a game? I hope not, but if you do, don't expect me to buy tickets to your game.

I expect a lot from the rich because they take a lot. They say they are paid for all their responsibility, so let's see them be responsible. Who knows, if they become more repsonsible we might have more of us "grunts" down here follow their example. I don't know what your definition of punishment is. If what you mean by punishment is that they at least do their share, then punishment it is. You said,"...punish the rich now and there'll just be another wolf around the corner to take advantage of us again?" What kind of statement is that? If they took advantage of us they probably should be punished...in prison. And again? So, what are you proposing? Let them keep taking advantage of us? What are you a masochist?

Yes, the rich need to do a lot of havy lifting. They are the most rewarded. Responsible? They better be...that's what they say they are paid the big bucks for. Also, they need to start paying more taxes. The relative free ride needs to be over.

Dan, do you ever actually read what I write or just assume I am the stereotypical what ever it is you have in your head? Cheap drinks? Cheap smokes? That is not what I posted and you know it. I am done answering your personal attacks. I want to talk about the issues at hand and only the issues at hand. Don’t read into what I write based on who you think I am. You’re wrong.

The rich do not control us. We all have the same opportunities in a free market system. We can be successful no matter how many of your evil rich people are out there to rob us blind. We just need to learn from the past mistake so we don’t repeat them in the future.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, do you ever actually read what I write or just assume I am the stereotypical what ever it is you have in your head? Cheap drinks? Cheap smokes? That is not what I posted and you know it. I am done answering your personal attacks. I want to talk about the issues at hand and only the issues at hand. Don’t read into what I write based on who you think I am. You’re wrong.

The rich do not control us. We all have the same opportunities in a free market system. We can be successful no matter how many of your evil rich people are out there to rob us blind. We just need to learn from the past mistake so we don’t repeat them in the future.

There are good and honest people taken advantage of all the time. Ask many of the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff. You are wrong about the rich not using their wealth to their further advantage. They bribe our Congressmen and pay heavily for lobbyists to take care of their special interests. They use access for special advantage.

You say cheap smoke? Well, what is it when you say you don't want to tax cigarettes and bars any higher because it punishes them? People can be successful in any environment. Do you think the US has a monopoly on that? Russia has billionaires and Europe as many of them as well. They have extraordinary wealth without the extensive poverty we do. Our country is more "third world" compared to Europe. So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by being successful here. That happens in Europe, Russia, and in every other industrialized nation. Japan has millionaires. So, what is so unique about being successful here? That happens everywhere.


Many, many years ago people from Europe flocked here because we were a growing nation with many opportunities. Not any longer. Europe has about as many opportunities as we do. In fact, there is a growing number of people leaving the US for life overseas in Europe. And guess what, it's because of the opportunity to be successful there. Our porblem is that the chasm between the rich and everyone else is growing rapidly. That means less opportunity for success. Not many years ago, executives averaged 25-35 times the pay of their production workers. Today, it's about 300-400 tiimes that pay. That isn't increasing opportunity, it's reducing opportunity.

[Ellen Mrja]

Well, speaking only for myself, I did what I was supposed to do. Paid my bills on time, borrowed only so that we could send our daughter to college, contributed to my pension faithfully. My pension is down more than 40% and I was not invested in risky stocks. I was playing it safe because I thought I could see a door marked "retirement" in my near future. Hah.

And I'm not alone nor even the worse case. I'm fortunate to have a job and a home and insurance. But hundreds of thousands do not. There is plenty of blame to go around. But remember. Lots of people did everything "right" and still are hurting.

And as for those who lost my money by performing 35-to-1 leverages, why aren't they in prison? Isn't that called theft?

We all need to stick together. Keep informed. Trust no one. That's sad to say.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, speaking only for myself, I did what I was supposed to do. Paid my bills on time, borrowed only so that we could send our daughter to college, contributed to my pension faithfully. My pension is down more than 40% and I was not invested in risky stocks. I was playing it safe because I thought I could see a door marked "retirement" in my near future. Hah.

And I'm not alone nor even the worse case. I'm fortunate to have a job and a home and insurance. But hundreds of thousands do not. There is plenty of blame to go around. But remember. Lots of people did everything "right" and still are hurting.

And as for those who lost my money by performing 35-to-1 leverages, why aren't they in prison? Isn't that called theft?

We all need to stick together. Keep informed. Trust no one. That's sad to say.

Yes Ellen, and to get our country back on track honest people need to continue to work hard, continue to take reasonable chances, and do what we can to see that the "crooks" are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But people like you do not need to be told that; you already know it. Good luck!

[Dan Conner]

Well, speaking only for myself, I did what I was supposed to do. Paid my bills on time, borrowed only so that we could send our daughter to college, contributed to my pension faithfully. My pension is down more than 40% and I was not invested in risky stocks. I was playing it safe because I thought I could see a door marked "retirement" in my near future. Hah.

And I'm not alone nor even the worse case. I'm fortunate to have a job and a home and insurance. But hundreds of thousands do not. There is plenty of blame to go around. But remember. Lots of people did everything "right" and still are hurting.

And as for those who lost my money by performing 35-to-1 leverages, why aren't they in prison? Isn't that called theft?

We all need to stick together. Keep informed. Trust no one. That's sad to say.

All I can say is that I truly feel sorry for you. I will offer some additional information other than just telling you to work harder. We also need to work smarter. You and millions of others have been cheated, and you are still being cheated. Banks are still paying outlandish bonuses, even though you and all the other taxpayers are subsidizing them will hundreds of billions of dollars. Almost all the people that have been hurt in this economic calamity are innocent and playing by the numbers.

I think all of us have to stand up and demand the rich, who have ripped us off, be tried and imprisoned for what they have done. It they are not, what is to stop them from doing the same thing in the future? It is too bad that much of what happens - good and bad, is luck, good or bad. Of course, others on this website feel people make their luck and choose to call it fate. I disagree. Much of it is luck.

All I can tell you is that I would be investing in the safest commodity right now. The safest I can think of is government treasury notes, CD's, etc. Not that they can't fail, but they would probably be the last to fail. Another question that needs to be answered is when will the market bottom out? If it has bottomed out, and will only be going up, then now might be a good time to buy. The problem with that is, what to buy. Be very careful about what you buy. You can see that corporations can be in the process of bankruptsy, but they will deny it and say all is going fine. So be careful. There will be many many companies that are yet to go bankrupt before this is over.

The leveraging was a terrible problem. Many of the experts even knew that, but they were making so much money when times were good, they couldn't get off the merry-go-round. I feel very fortunate because I got out of the stock market, a long time ago, because I felt the whole process was a gamble. Face it, it's like going to Las Vegas and betting on the big win. And betting on the probability that something will go up means it can also go down. The higher the return, the bigger the risk.

I agree, we need to stick together. Also, we must stand up and demand justice for the people who illegally ripped the system off. Certainly, we must stop the insane executive bonus structure that rewards failure. It's like the executives are saying heads they win and tails you lose. They need a swift kick in the ... if things are going to change. They have proved for several months that they aren't worth what they were paid.

[Ellen Mrja]

Yesterday I read the best explanation yet on "How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do About It" by Jeff Madrick. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22280)

Warning: this article is dense. I struggled with much of it. But it is worth reading, whether you're a novice (me) or a stockbroker.

[Ben Willaert]

Thanks for the article Ellen.

When I got to the end of the article, I had to wonder about the statement about repairing the credit system to make more credit available. It seems our banking system has picked up on the Fingerhut model of making profits by charging high rates to high risk consumers. For our credit system, high rates are needed to cover the defaults, but in this case those profits got pocketed. The Fingerhut model and credit scores are not very old. Our free market economy was very successful for a long time with little credit available.

Could it be that paying for a hamburger on Tuesday that I eat today, is the part that doesn’t work? Is there a need for so much credit? If consumers didn’t have to pay credit fees/interest they would have more money to spend (once their debt is paid off). It is difficult to default if you can’t buy something until you have the money. Instead of paying $10,000 for a new car and $5,000 to the banks in interest, a person could save $10,000 for a new car without paying the middle man $5,000. The consumer would even get a little interest on their own money while saving up for the car. There you have profit for the consumer and manufacturer, and no profit for middle men.

[Bob Jentges]

Yesterday I read the best explanation yet on "How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do About It" by Jeff Madrick. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22280)

Warning: this article is dense. I struggled with much of it. But it is worth reading, whether you're a novice (me) or a stockbroker.

You are correct on both counts Ellen; it was a difficult (especially for a 72 yr old retiree like me) but worthwhile read.

The problems had been developing over many years. Faulty policies and wrong decisions by people spreads the blame to almost every sector of society. My experience has been when we make things too complicated there is room for devious people to try to game the system, resulting in unintended consequences from the good intentions when the program(s) were origionally put in place.

I agree with the writer's conclusion that we must first right the economy. But the $64 question as I see it is how to get that done. Hopefully we will have a specific program in place soon. I am not an economist, but from a laymans point of view I do not think the government can borrow, tax and spend our country out of this situation. Nor do I think an individual can borrow and spend their way out of personal financial problems.

[Dan Conner]

You are correct on both counts Ellen; it was a difficult (especially for a 72 yr old retiree like me) but worthwhile read.

The problems had been developing over many years. Faulty policies and wrong decisions by people spreads the blame to almost every sector of society. My experience has been when we make things too complicated there is room for devious people to try to game the system, resulting in unintended consequences from the good intentions when the program(s) were origionally put in place.

I agree with the writer's conclusion that we must first right the economy. But the $64 question as I see it is how to get that done. Hopefully we will have a specific program in place soon. I am not an economist, but from a laymans point of view I do not think the government can borrow, tax and spend our country out of this situation. Nor do I think an individual can borrow and spend their way out of personal financial problems.

I don't think the intent by anyone is to borrow, tax, and spend our way out of this problem. I think it is more like borrow, tax, and spend to avoid total economic collapse. Right now almost all the major banks are insolvent. They have to operate to allow any economic activity. They have unimagineable bad debts on their books and are unable to lend. The insurance company (AIG) they used to insure against bad debt has failed. We have pumped almost $200,000,000,000 into it to keep it solvent, so it can make good on its insurance to banks.

You're right, we will not be able to spend our way out of this problem. We will be saddled for years in a contracted economy because of this mess. It is hoped that the Government infusion of money will help us, and the rest of the world for that matter, from total bankruptsy. Maybe the low won't be quite so low and the spending will cushion the blow. Otherwise, we are probably looking at something worse that the Great Depression.

[Dan Conner]

Thanks for the article Ellen.

When I got to the end of the article, I had to wonder about the statement about repairing the credit system to make more credit available. It seems our banking system has picked up on the Fingerhut model of making profits by charging high rates to high risk consumers. For our credit system, high rates are needed to cover the defaults, but in this case those profits got pocketed. The Fingerhut model and credit scores are not very old. Our free market economy was very successful for a long time with little credit available.

Could it be that paying for a hamburger on Tuesday that I eat today, is the part that doesn’t work? Is there a need for so much credit? If consumers didn’t have to pay credit fees/interest they would have more money to spend (once their debt is paid off). It is difficult to default if you can’t buy something until you have the money. Instead of paying $10,000 for a new car and $5,000 to the banks in interest, a person could save $10,000 for a new car without paying the middle man $5,000. The consumer would even get a little interest on their own money while saving up for the car. There you have profit for the consumer and manufacturer, and no profit for middle men.

It is not as simple as removing consumer credit. Without use of credit, an enormous amount of money will be taken out of the economy. This will lead to further contraction and implosion of the economy. I think you want to maybe say responsible spending using credit. Yes, people have to be more responsible.

Just think, without credit car sales will plummet, employees will be laid off, research and development with slow, medical treatment will be reduced, home purchases will almost come to a stop. Basically, the economy will grind to a halt. That brings us to Hooverville. Unfortunately, it is credit that has enabled our country to prosper, but if we aren't careful, it will also cause our country to fail. Accordingly, we need regulation to prevent these extreme forces that batter the credit markets.

[Bob Jentges]

The title of this thread is "Upbeat economic news" and if I recall correctly the initial question had something to do with whether there has been too much economic doom and gloom reporting and whether reporting some positive economic news might have a more benificial effect on the economy. Since that initial question, and after a few posts expressing opinions about the initial question, the discussion seems to have drifted more toward the actual economic problems and what can be done about them. That is probably fine, especially some ideas about what might be done to help resolve the economic problems, but to digress a little I would like to offer something that if not "Upbeat economic news" may add a little humor to a very serious situation.

A few days ago I happened to be listening to a Minnesota radio station where the CEO of TCF Bank (a fellow named Cooper I believe) was being interviewed. The interviewer asked why TCF had accepted bailout money. Mr. Cooper responded saying TCF did not need the bailout and initially told the regulators they did not want to accept it. He said the regulators more or less said they had better take it, and since he did not want to put the bank on the wrong side of regulators TCF accepted it. He went on to say they were now in the process of trying to figure out how to pay back the money in a very timely fashion. The interviewer then asked why pay it back so soon? The CEO repeated they did not need it initially and did not need it now. From here I paraphrase what Cooper said from memory: Taking bailout money from government is like borrowing money from your mother-in-law. Pretty soon she wants to redecorate your bedroom and repaint your bathroom.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this, and if anyone is offended I didn't originate it, I'm simply paraphrasing what the TCF Bank CEO said. My purpose here is to hopefully bring a smile to the face of some that might read it. Often a smile is just what we need during troubled times.

[Dan Conner]

The title of this thread is "Upbeat economic news" and if I recall correctly the initial question had something to do with whether there has been too much economic doom and gloom reporting and whether reporting some positive economic news might have a more benificial effect on the economy. Since that initial question, and after a few posts expressing opinions about the initial question, the discussion seems to have drifted more toward the actual economic problems and what can be done about them. That is probably fine, especially some ideas about what might be done to help resolve the economic problems, but to digress a little I would like to offer something that if not "Upbeat economic news" may add a little humor to a very serious situation.

A few days ago I happened to be listening to a Minnesota radio station where the CEO of TCF Bank (a fellow named Cooper I believe) was being interviewed. The interviewer asked why TCF had accepted bailout money. Mr. Cooper responded saying TCF did not need the bailout and initially told the regulators they did not want to accept it. He said the regulators more or less said they had better take it, and since he did not want to put the bank on the wrong side of regulators TCF accepted it. He went on to say they were now in the process of trying to figure out how to pay back the money in a very timely fashion. The interviewer then asked why pay it back so soon? The CEO repeated they did not need it initially and did not need it now. From here I paraphrase what Cooper said from memory: Taking bailout money from government is like borrowing money from your mother-in-law. Pretty soon she wants to redecorate your bedroom and repaint your bathroom.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this, and if anyone is offended I didn't originate it, I'm simply paraphrasing what the TCF Bank CEO said. My purpose here is to hopefully bring a smile to the face of some that might read it. Often a smile is just what we need during troubled times.

Well, I agree with the CEO, but where has he been hiding? His bank makes plenty of demands on homeowners, car buyers, boat buyers, or whoever borrows money from them. Even borrowing money from parents goes with "strings." It is unfortunate that bankers have such poor perception of the borrowing process when they are the borrowees.

I also greatly appreciate the government's involvement in the loan process because most of it is to protect the taxpayer. The current outrage with AIG bonuses is because of the Government's concern about taxpayers actually subsidizing these very high bonuses. The insurance company should have realized that before they even entered into the contracts, let alone when they paid the bonuses. I think it is common knowledge that when you borrow from the fed, they protect their investmnet and control operations to ensure their investmnet is paid back. Anything else is wasteful.

[Ben Willaert]

It is not as simple as removing consumer credit. Without use of credit, an enormous amount of money will be taken out of the economy. This will lead to further contraction and implosion of the economy. I think you want to maybe say responsible spending using credit. Yes, people have to be more responsible.

Just think, without credit car sales will plummet, employees will be laid off, research and development with slow, medical treatment will be reduced, home purchases will almost come to a stop. Basically, the economy will grind to a halt. That brings us to Hooverville. Unfortunately, it is credit that has enabled our country to prosper, but if we aren't careful, it will also cause our country to fail. Accordingly, we need regulation to prevent these extreme forces that batter the credit markets.

Who is going to back the consumer credit? The government is pumping in money but the banks don’t want to do it. I am sure they fear all the profits will be taken out of lending through regulations, making it unattractive for investment. Venezuela is having that problem right now by setting the price of rice too low for profits to be made. Now no companies want to produce the rice. http://www.startribune.com/business/41337657.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

Right now we already do have a shortage of consumer spending. Laid off workers are beginning to open new businesses that are being designed to succeed in this new economy. That new economy could exist without credit, or at least like our country did until the last 20 years or so. Credit would exist, just not be as available as it is now. If the average American didn’t have $8,000 in credit card debt, they could spend more money in the economy. We would prosper as soon as the debts were paid off and some savings could be accumulated by the American consumers. In the mean time new businesses that are focused on efficency and economy can grow and prosper, taking out the greedy old washed up corporations.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, I agree with the CEO, but where has he been hiding? His bank makes plenty of demands on homeowners, car buyers, boat buyers, or whoever borrows money from them. Even borrowing money from parents goes with "strings." It is unfortunate that bankers have such poor perception of the borrowing process when they are the borrowees.

I also greatly appreciate the government's involvement in the loan process because most of it is to protect the taxpayer. The current outrage with AIG bonuses is because of the Government's concern about taxpayers actually subsidizing these very high bonuses. The insurance company should have realized that before they even entered into the contracts, let alone when they paid the bonuses. I think it is common knowledge that when you borrow from the fed, they protect their investmnet and control operations to ensure their investmnet is paid back. Anything else is wasteful.

With respect to the "current outrage" with the AIG retention bonuses I found many media sources that suggest it is a government sponsored diversion from something that should probably be causing a much greater public outrage. The $165M in retention bonuses paid to AIG executatives (which I too consider an outrage) is about one-tenth of one percent of the approximate $170B the goverment committed to AIG in the bailout. Those retention bonus
contracts were in effect long before the $179B bailout, and if the government was not aware of them at the time of the bailout, they should have been.

[Dan Conner]

With respect to the "current outrage" with the AIG retention bonuses I found many media sources that suggest it is a government sponsored diversion from something that should probably be causing a much greater public outrage. The $165M in retention bonuses paid to AIG executatives (which I too consider an outrage) is about one-tenth of one percent of the approximate $170B the goverment committed to AIG in the bailout. Those retention bonus
contracts were in effect long before the $179B bailout, and if the government was not aware of them at the time of the bailout, they should have been.

What's your point? You think it's fine? The problems was that the contracts were agreed to before the market and AIG failed. However, much like Republicans clamoring to reduce auto workers pay at GM, the same needs to happen with the executives at AIG. Are you proposing a double standard, where it's OK to pay outlandish bonuses to executives when their companies go broke, but not to union employees? The company should have renegotiated the contracts or fired the executives. Instead, it is your taxpayer dollars that are being used to pay multi-million dollar salaries for people who bankrupted the company. That's welfare on a grand scale.

I thought you stood for individual responsibility? Where were the executives being responsible? Well, if the executives want to hold onto the money, I guess Congress can invent a law to tax it all away. Or, it can nationalize the company and throw all the old contracts away, or it could allow bankrutcy, in which case contracts would be nullified. However, it sure would show some responsibility and accountability, if the executives who were responsible for taking AIG down, would offer to give their unearned bonuses back. There are options to get it back.

More business greed caused this, not government. The government didn't tell AIG to insure most of the bad CSD's. They didn't run the company down the toilet. Now that AIG executives have ruined the company, they come running to the government for a bailout, but they think they deserve to keep their astronomical salaries? On what planet are these people from. This is a giant failure of capitalism...period!

[Liz Ratcliff]

The title of this thread is "Upbeat economic news" and if I recall correctly the initial question had something to do with whether there has been too much economic doom and gloom reporting and whether reporting some positive economic news might have a more benificial effect on the economy. Since that initial question, and after a few posts expressing opinions about the initial question, the discussion seems to have drifted more toward the actual economic problems and what can be done about them. That is probably fine, especially some ideas about what might be done to help resolve the economic problems, but to digress a little I would like to offer something that if not "Upbeat economic news" may add a little humor to a very serious situation.

A few days ago I happened to be listening to a Minnesota radio station where the CEO of TCF Bank (a fellow named Cooper I believe) was being interviewed. The interviewer asked why TCF had accepted bailout money. Mr. Cooper responded saying TCF did not need the bailout and initially told the regulators they did not want to accept it. He said the regulators more or less said they had better take it, and since he did not want to put the bank on the wrong side of regulators TCF accepted it. He went on to say they were now in the process of trying to figure out how to pay back the money in a very timely fashion. The interviewer then asked why pay it back so soon? The CEO repeated they did not need it initially and did not need it now. From here I paraphrase what Cooper said from memory: Taking bailout money from government is like borrowing money from your mother-in-law. Pretty soon she wants to redecorate your bedroom and repaint your bathroom.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this, and if anyone is offended I didn't originate it, I'm simply paraphrasing what the TCF Bank CEO said. My purpose here is to hopefully bring a smile to the face of some that might read it. Often a smile is just what we need during troubled times.

That line from Cooper is so ironic coming from a banker. While TCF may have behaved more responsibly than other banks, it is still the banks that are not only redecorating but repossessing your bedroom... SMILE!

[Dan Conner]

With respect to the "current outrage" with the AIG retention bonuses I found many media sources that suggest it is a government sponsored diversion from something that should probably be causing a much greater public outrage. The $165M in retention bonuses paid to AIG executatives (which I too consider an outrage) is about one-tenth of one percent of the approximate $170B the goverment committed to AIG in the bailout. Those retention bonus
contracts were in effect long before the $179B bailout, and if the government was not aware of them at the time of the bailout, they should have been.

I hope you're not my banker. I think $165,000,000 is a lot of money compared to anything. It would fund entire agencies. The national total price for Spplemental Security Income (SSI) is about $40 billion a year. The Government has quadrupled that just for AIG. And the SSI goes to about 5 million people. Where was there bonus?

The retention bonus is a farce. 11 of the 73 executives getting the bonuses quit AIG. Another real success story for AIG. Frankly, I'm still trying to think of a good reason for retaining these executives.

[Bob Jentges]

What's your point? You think it's fine? The problems was that the contracts were agreed to before the market and AIG failed. However, much like Republicans clamoring to reduce auto workers pay at GM, the same needs to happen with the executives at AIG. Are you proposing a double standard, where it's OK to pay outlandish bonuses to executives when their companies go broke, but not to union employees? The company should have renegotiated the contracts or fired the executives. Instead, it is your taxpayer dollars that are being used to pay multi-million dollar salaries for people who bankrupted the company. That's welfare on a grand scale.

I thought you stood for individual responsibility? Where were the executives being responsible? Well, if the executives want to hold onto the money, I guess Congress can invent a law to tax it all away. Or, it can nationalize the company and throw all the old contracts away, or it could allow bankrutcy, in which case contracts would be nullified. However, it sure would show some responsibility and accountability, if the executives who were responsible for taking AIG down, would offer to give their unearned bonuses back. There are options to get it back.

More business greed caused this, not government. The government didn't tell AIG to insure most of the bad CSD's. They didn't run the company down the toilet. Now that AIG executives have ruined the company, they come running to the government for a bailout, but they think they deserve to keep their astronomical salaries? On what planet are these people from. This is a giant failure of capitalism...period!

If you were left with the impression I think the retention bonuses are "fine" you must have overlooked the parenthises in my post "(which I consider an outrage too)".

In answer to your first question, I am not and never have proposed a "double standard" here.

I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar, but with respect to the retention bonuses I wonder, if as you seem to suggest, "Congress can invent it a law to tax it all away". I have heard a retrospective tax is a Bill of Attainder and forbiden by the Constution.

You could be correct that AIG is one example of a failure of capitalism. It is not the first, and unfortunatly probably will not be the last. The good thing is that capitalism has always recovered. One of the principles of capitalism is that their should be no reward for failure. Maybe their should not have been a bailout of AIG. There is an arguement that not bailing out AIG would have caused our economy or the world economy to collapse. Was that risk to great to chance, maybe but I do not know.

Finally, I think members of congress and the administration might be just a little disingenuous in the outrage they are now demonstrating regarding the retention bonus contracts. It has now been established that they knew of the existance of those contracts when the wrote the bill. It had been reported in the NYT, WA PO, WSJ, Politico, CNN, FNC, etc., etc., etc. In fact Congress addressed them with ammendments before sending the bill to President Obama to sign. If capitalism failed here maybe it is fair to say government might have demonstrated a lack of competency in properly addressing the retention bonus contracts, at least before they sent the bill to the President to sign.

[Dan Conner]

If you were left with the impression I think the retention bonuses are "fine" you must have overlooked the parenthises in my post "(which I consider an outrage too)".

In answer to your first question, I am not and never have proposed a "double standard" here.

I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar, but with respect to the retention bonuses I wonder, if as you seem to suggest, "Congress can invent it a law to tax it all away". I have heard a retrospective tax is a Bill of Attainder and forbiden by the Constution.

You could be correct that AIG is one example of a failure of capitalism. It is not the first, and unfortunatly probably will not be the last. The good thing is that capitalism has always recovered. One of the principles of capitalism is that their should be no reward for failure. Maybe their should not have been a bailout of AIG. There is an arguement that not bailing out AIG would have caused our economy or the world economy to collapse. Was that risk to great to chance, maybe but I do not know.

Finally, I think members of congress and the administration might be just a little disingenuous in the outrage they are now demonstrating regarding the retention bonus contracts. It has now been established that they knew of the existance of those contracts when the wrote the bill. It had been reported in the NYT, WA PO, WSJ, Politico, CNN, FNC, etc., etc., etc. In fact Congress addressed them with ammendments before sending the bill to President Obama to sign. If capitalism failed here maybe it is fair to say government might have demonstrated a lack of competency in properly addressing the retention bonus contracts, at least before they sent the bill to the President to sign.

There is always a way for the government to get out of it. Tax it away, reduce the bailout money given, but put it back in the amount owed the government, nationalize then, let them go bankrupt, etc. All should be considered. However, the first thing should be to ask the payees of that money to give it back. I am not aware of your "Bill of Attainder", but I will say that Congress has passed numerous laws with retospective enforcement. I'm sure it could be done again. The question is, if there is a will to do that.

The media now has released information that Senator Wyden (Oregon) and Senator Snowe (Maine) included restrictions on executive pay in the stimulus bill, but it was stripped out during the conference committee meeting between the House and Senate. We need to find out who stripped it out. There's the executive sychopant. Then those representatives/senators need to be reemoved from Congress.

You might have called the bonuses an outrage, but then you dismnissed it as diminimous. I don't think the amount of money is small or inconsequential at all. Couple these bonuses with the thousands of others ones that have illegitimately occurred, and the amount is staggering. It has an appreciable affect on the economy. Also, it's not just banks. I think the public is generally getting fed up with executive perks, astronomical pay, back dated stock options, golf and spa outings, airplanes, shower curtains, and generally poor work ethic. They seem to count golf, spa resorts, sailboat and yacht outings as work. I think people are getting wise to that. Afterall, they are just employees too. Then, when their astromonical pay, perks and bonuses prove to be too much for a company to sustain, they lay off owrkers to make up the difference. Everyone else works harder to luxuriate their executives.

Capitalism has never recovered from a crisis this severe. Did you listen to Bush's speech at the advent of this crisis? He said it could cause a crisis worse than the Great Depression. Many economist say the setting is for a situation far worse than the Great Depression. It was the damn greed of the executives and other rich that have caused this problem. In addition, there are scads of foreign bank accounts where they have hid money to escape taxes. Up to 52,000 accounts in UBC alone. The US estimates it involves $100,000,000,000 a year in lost tax revenues. That's why these same rich people have to now start to do thier share. I don't come close to feeling sorry for them. I would actually be in favor of taxing them far heavier to make up for the time they were getting by not paying their share. Prison should be an option for those evading taxes overseas.

All of this goes back to the need for government to rein in the greed and corruption that develops with capitalism. There is an old saying, "It only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of us." Well, those few sure did, and now it is time to clamp down on everyone because of them. Also, it is foolish to unconditionally support capitalism when it ruins so many people's lives. What is the purpose of "capitalism" when it causes so much misery for so many people? It is only the few very rich and powerful that reap its extreme benefits. I think a ket factor many of us forget and that is that our democracy represents all people, rich, poor, white, balck, disabled, or not, women, and men....yes everyone. Then, why should it be that so few live so well to the detriment of so many? There has to be a force to better equalize the benefits of our country than what we now have. Poeple should not have to die to protect those who have so much and return so little.

[Bob Jentges]

There is always a way for the government to get out of it. Tax it away, reduce the bailout money given, but put it back in the amount owed the government, nationalize then, let them go bankrupt, etc. All should be considered. However, the first thing should be to ask the payees of that money to give it back. I am not aware of your "Bill of Attainder", but I will say that Congress has passed numerous laws with retospective enforcement. I'm sure it could be done again. The question is, if there is a will to do that.

The media now has released information that Senator Wyden (Oregon) and Senator Snowe (Maine) included restrictions on executive pay in the stimulus bill, but it was stripped out during the conference committee meeting between the House and Senate. We need to find out who stripped it out. There's the executive sychopant. Then those representatives/senators need to be reemoved from Congress.

You might have called the bonuses an outrage, but then you dismnissed it as diminimous. I don't think the amount of money is small or inconsequential at all. Couple these bonuses with the thousands of others ones that have illegitimately occurred, and the amount is staggering. It has an appreciable affect on the economy. Also, it's not just banks. I think the public is generally getting fed up with executive perks, astronomical pay, back dated stock options, golf and spa outings, airplanes, shower curtains, and generally poor work ethic. They seem to count golf, spa resorts, sailboat and yacht outings as work. I think people are getting wise to that. Afterall, they are just employees too. Then, when their astromonical pay, perks and bonuses prove to be too much for a company to sustain, they lay off owrkers to make up the difference. Everyone else works harder to luxuriate their executives.

Capitalism has never recovered from a crisis this severe. Did you listen to Bush's speech at the advent of this crisis? He said it could cause a crisis worse than the Great Depression. Many economist say the setting is for a situation far worse than the Great Depression. It was the damn greed of the executives and other rich that have caused this problem. In addition, there are scads of foreign bank accounts where they have hid money to escape taxes. Up to 52,000 accounts in UBC alone. The US estimates it involves $100,000,000,000 a year in lost tax revenues. That's why these same rich people have to now start to do thier share. I don't come close to feeling sorry for them. I would actually be in favor of taxing them far heavier to make up for the time they were getting by not paying their share. Prison should be an option for those evading taxes overseas.

All of this goes back to the need for government to rein in the greed and corruption that develops with capitalism. There is an old saying, "It only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of us." Well, those few sure did, and now it is time to clamp down on everyone because of them. Also, it is foolish to unconditionally support capitalism when it ruins so many people's lives. What is the purpose of "capitalism" when it causes so much misery for so many people? It is only the few very rich and powerful that reap its extreme benefits. I think a ket factor many of us forget and that is that our democracy represents all people, rich, poor, white, balck, disabled, or not, women, and men....yes everyone. Then, why should it be that so few live so well to the detriment of so many? There has to be a force to better equalize the benefits of our country than what we now have. Poeple should not have to die to protect those who have so much and return so little.

Dan, FYI Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." In the event you are interested more can be found on this issue at: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

To his credit, Charlie Rangle (D NY), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said yesterday or today that he did not think it was a good idea to use the tax laws to go after private citizens in situations like the retention bonus matter.

I do agree with you that we need to find out who stripped the Snowe (R Ma)/Wyedn (D Wa) Ammendment from the bill. I think we also need to find out who changed the Dodd (D CT) Ammendment to restrict collecting retention bonuses back only for any such contract entered into after February 11, 2009.

Although under the Bill of Attainder provision in the Constitution the answers to those two questions may be moot, the answers would still be interesting to know.

I sure would like to see the AIG executatives volunteer to pay back their bonuses, but I will not hold my breath.

You probably know that Fannie Mae and I believe also Ferddie Mac, who were bailed out earlier, have similar retention bonuses in their executatives contractsfor calander 2010.

I heard a brief interview with Andrew Cuomo this morning during which he said it was not the insurance division of AIG that created AIG's problems, and that if AIG had been allowed to go bankrupt the AIG Insurance Division policy holders would have been protected.

Finally, it is my understanding that a very large share of the AIG bailout money went to European banks. I do not like that!

But after all is said and done I expect that I will still believe in the Capitalist system.

[Bob Jentges]

That line from Cooper is so ironic coming from a banker. While TCF may have behaved more responsibly than other banks, it is still the banks that are not only redecorating but repossessing your bedroom... SMILE!

Liz, your Reply did bring a smile to my face. Thank you! Those that know me know I smile very often. I think it is good for my health.

With respect to the final sentence in your Post, as fate would have it our bedroom and all the other rooms in our house are paid for; no mortgage. That made me smile a few years ago when that was accomplished!

[Dan Conner]

Dan, FYI Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." In the event you are interested more can be found on this issue at: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

To his credit, Charlie Rangle (D NY), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said yesterday or today that he did not think it was a good idea to use the tax laws to go after private citizens in situations like the retention bonus matter.

I do agree with you that we need to find out who stripped the Snowe (R Ma)/Wyedn (D Wa) Ammendment from the bill. I think we also need to find out who changed the Dodd (D CT) Ammendment to restrict collecting retention bonuses back only for any such contract entered into after February 11, 2009.

Although under the Bill of Attainder provision in the Constitution the answers to those two questions may be moot, the answers would still be interesting to know.

I sure would like to see the AIG executatives volunteer to pay back their bonuses, but I will not hold my breath.

You probably know that Fannie Mae and I believe also Ferddie Mac, who were bailed out earlier, have similar retention bonuses in their executatives contractsfor calander 2010.

I heard a brief interview with Andrew Cuomo this morning during which he said it was not the insurance division of AIG that created AIG's problems, and that if AIG had been allowed to go bankrupt the AIG Insurance Division policy holders would have been protected.

Finally, it is my understanding that a very large share of the AIG bailout money went to European banks. I do not like that!

But after all is said and done I expect that I will still believe in the Capitalist system.

While I am not an attorney, there might be a case for passing a tax. Technically, I don't know that the law would be after the fact. We are not through with taxable year 2009, and those bonuses were paid in 2009. Therefore, paying taxes on those bonuses wouldn't occur until early 2010. I am not sure this is a distinction that can be made, but it is possible. Other tax legislation has been passed in the same taxable year.

Yes, I know about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The big offenders resigned before the mortgage collapse. I can't remember which, but an executive for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae did not take a salary for his time up to the collapse. That was a patriotic sole. There is also Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual, and many many others who gave big bonuses and collected bailout funds. I think that is what has made the public so damn mad. AIG was the straw that broke the camel's back. Also, they got the largest bailout dollars by a bunch. Since the U.S. is now 80% owners of AIG, they could "spin off" all of the other insurance parts of AIG and then bankrupt the investment insurance part of it. They were still the insurance part of AIG, it's just that they insured mortgage securities.

[Bob Jentges]

As a reminder, the title of this thread is "Upbeat economic news". There were some articles in The Free Press this morning that, although not everyone might call upbeat economic news, made me smile. I like to smile, even when things do not look real positive. Smiling helps me through those type times and I think may be good for my overall health. So here goes.

Yesterday Dan and me agreed we would like to find out who stripped the Snowe/Wyden ammendment from the bill, and who added the February 11 date to the Dodd ammendment in the bill before President Obama signed it.

We might be a little closer to the answers this morning. Yesterday Senator Dodd said the administration wanted the bonus restrictions out of the bill. Since Snowe/Wyden passed the Senate by unamimous consent I will go out on a limb and suggest the administration stripped that too.

In Garrison Keillor's article this morning he said: "As a member of the board of directors of the American International Group, I am pained by the hailstorm of fecal matter raining on our company for the $450 million in bonuses we are paying out to the traders in credit derivatives after receiving billions from the U.S. Treasury to rescue us from going over the cliff that the derivative traders were driving us toward....It is painful for me to leave AIG, but I am not comfortable with the government owning 80 percent of our company. Call me old fashioned, but that's just plain old socialism to me, and this latest frenzy of plain old class warfare fomented by an anti-business administraton has convinced me that it's time to go."

Some might want to read my writing again and check my quotations with the actual articles. But for me, while I start my garage Spring cleaning a day early, I will be contemplating whether the article by the "Old Scout" was meant to be satire---and smiling!

[Bob Jentges]

At the time of my beginning to write this post there had not been a reply to my 7:13 AM post immediatly above. I think I might understand the reason why. Maybe the talking points have not been circulated yet; maybe there is no logical counter argument; or maybe people are just busy. In any event, I understand.

But to update things a little, while I was cleaning my garage, and smiling, I was listening to a radio. Not Rush; not Hannity; not MPR. But I heard a short clip of an interview Don Imus (who I do not listen to regularly either) had with Senator Joe Lieberman (I? CT) this morning. Imus asked Joe if he or any other Senator read the "stimulus bill" before voting on it. Joe replied that they had a "general idea" of what was in the bill but had not read every line. Imus came back with, and I paraphrase, thats like saying you read the Bible but not the part where it says "Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife" and then saying if you had read that part you would not have had an affair with your neighbors wife. When I heard that I stopped smiling. I broke-out in laughter.

I have more than a little respect for Joe Lieberman, but with all due respect I think we are being played for fools, yes played for fools, by these people!

[Dan Conner]

As a reminder, the title of this thread is "Upbeat economic news". There were some articles in The Free Press this morning that, although not everyone might call upbeat economic news, made me smile. I like to smile, even when things do not look real positive. Smiling helps me through those type times and I think may be good for my overall health. So here goes.

Yesterday Dan and me agreed we would like to find out who stripped the Snowe/Wyden ammendment from the bill, and who added the February 11 date to the Dodd ammendment in the bill before President Obama signed it.

We might be a little closer to the answers this morning. Yesterday Senator Dodd said the administration wanted the bonus restrictions out of the bill. Since Snowe/Wyden passed the Senate by unamimous consent I will go out on a limb and suggest the administration stripped that too.

In Garrison Keillor's article this morning he said: "As a member of the board of directors of the American International Group, I am pained by the hailstorm of fecal matter raining on our company for the $450 million in bonuses we are paying out to the traders in credit derivatives after receiving billions from the U.S. Treasury to rescue us from going over the cliff that the derivative traders were driving us toward....It is painful for me to leave AIG, but I am not comfortable with the government owning 80 percent of our company. Call me old fashioned, but that's just plain old socialism to me, and this latest frenzy of plain old class warfare fomented by an anti-business administraton has convinced me that it's time to go."

Some might want to read my writing again and check my quotations with the actual articles. But for me, while I start my garage Spring cleaning a day early, I will be contemplating whether the article by the "Old Scout" was meant to be satire---and smiling!

The Administration can't strip items from legislation. I'm guessig that would have been Dodd. He might have done it at the request of the administration, but the President can't change legislation by himself...unless you're talking about the "signing statement." However, the legislation would have to be passed and on the President's desk for that.

Believe me, it was tougue in cheek bigtime. I know Garrison Keillor, and that is not what he felt. I thought it was funniest when he mentioned at the end of the column that he was moving to Costa Rica. I think that was a little swipe at this very rich person's patriotism. Also, I like the people on the board of directors. His bonus was for "perfect attendence on the board." Lot's of laughs, if so much of it wasn't a little true.

[Bob Jentges]

The Administration can't strip items from legislation. I'm guessig that would have been Dodd. He might have done it at the request of the administration, but the President can't change legislation by himself...unless you're talking about the "signing statement." However, the legislation would have to be passed and on the President's desk for that.

Believe me, it was tougue in cheek bigtime. I know Garrison Keillor, and that is not what he felt. I thought it was funniest when he mentioned at the end of the column that he was moving to Costa Rica. I think that was a little swipe at this very rich person's patriotism. Also, I like the people on the board of directors. His bonus was for "perfect attendence on the board." Lot's of laughs, if so much of it wasn't a little true.

My point was that it seems the Snow/Dodd Ammendment was stripped from the bill in conference by Democrat's; either House members of the conference committee, or Senate members of the conference committee or at the direction of members of the administration during committee.

Well I do not know Garrison Keillor, but I do consider him a wonderful writer although seldom agree with his political views. That, along with the fact that a writer of Keillor's ability can make it difficult to seperate satire from fact, and my that impression of his ideology was he might lean somewhat toward government control of business, socialisim rather than capitalism and anti-business legislation is why I said I was contemplating his intent in the article. You have convinced me---it was satire!

[Dan Conner]

My point was that it seems the Snow/Dodd Ammendment was stripped from the bill in conference by Democrat's; either House members of the conference committee, or Senate members of the conference committee or at the direction of members of the administration during committee.

Well I do not know Garrison Keillor, but I do consider him a wonderful writer although seldom agree with his political views. That, along with the fact that a writer of Keillor's ability can make it difficult to seperate satire from fact, and my that impression of his ideology was he might lean somewhat toward government control of business, socialisim rather than capitalism and anti-business legislation is why I said I was contemplating his intent in the article. You have convinced me---it was satire!

I'm sorry Bob, but the conference committee they were talking about here is between the House and Senate. And both poitical parties are present in that meeting. Anyway, it wasn't a conference meeting od Democrats. I believe you are referring to a Democratic Caucus.

You are right, it was a huge satire of capitalism, even though it doesn't need to be satirized that much these days. Capitalism is a satire of itself. You look at it and you see failure. I think it was easy to distinguish fact from satire in his presentation. I thought that would be readily apparent to any one. Well, maybe cartoon caracters and members on a board of directors are confusing.

Great, I'm glad you saw satire for what it is. Mockery with a little message.

[Dan Conner]

My point was that it seems the Snow/Dodd Ammendment was stripped from the bill in conference by Democrat's; either House members of the conference committee, or Senate members of the conference committee or at the direction of members of the administration during committee.

Well I do not know Garrison Keillor, but I do consider him a wonderful writer although seldom agree with his political views. That, along with the fact that a writer of Keillor's ability can make it difficult to seperate satire from fact, and my that impression of his ideology was he might lean somewhat toward government control of business, socialisim rather than capitalism and anti-business legislation is why I said I was contemplating his intent in the article. You have convinced me---it was satire!

I'm sorry Bob, but the conference committee they were talking about here is between the House and Senate. Both poitical parties are present in that meeting. Anyway, it wasn't a conference meeting of Democrats. I believe you are referring to a Democratic Caucus.

You are right, it was a huge satire of capitalism, even though it doesn't need to be satirized that much these days. Capitalism is a satire of itself. You look at it and you see failure. I think it was easy to distinguish fact from satire in his presentation. I thought that would be readily apparent to any one. Well, maybe cartoon caracters and members on a board of directors are confusing.

Great, I'm glad you saw satire for what it is. Mockery with a little message.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Liz, your Reply did bring a smile to my face. Thank you! Those that know me know I smile very often. I think it is good for my health.

With respect to the final sentence in your Post, as fate would have it our bedroom and all the other rooms in our house are paid for; no mortgage. That made me smile a few years ago when that was accomplished!

That is great! :) Unfortunately, it is not the case for many folks. I still owe on my home but I am not in a precarious place, so I am not worried for myself. It is the large number of others that have lost their jobs or have seen their home values plummet that I feel for. And to be perfectly honest, I also feel bad for folks that perhaps foolishly believed they could afford more than they actually could. Do they deserve to lose so much? Perhaps if the banks were doing their jobs, they would have refused the overbudget mortgages. But there was too much money to be made in the short term... Now we bail out the banks with no strings attached and so far the consumers and foreclosed home owners are left to bare the burden. And what about all the families that are being displaced?

[Bob Jentges]

I'm sorry Bob, but the conference committee they were talking about here is between the House and Senate. And both poitical parties are present in that meeting. Anyway, it wasn't a conference meeting od Democrats. I believe you are referring to a Democratic Caucus.

You are right, it was a huge satire of capitalism, even though it doesn't need to be satirized that much these days. Capitalism is a satire of itself. You look at it and you see failure. I think it was easy to distinguish fact from satire in his presentation. I thought that would be readily apparent to any one. Well, maybe cartoon caracters and members on a board of directors are confusing.

Great, I'm glad you saw satire for what it is. Mockery with a little message.

If you are saying an administration (any administration) has no influence in what happens in a conference committee between the House and Senate when legislation is finalized and returned to each body for a vote before the bill is sent to the President for signature, I respectfully disagree.

You underestimate me. I do understand the difference between a conference committee and a caucus among members of a political party. But with respect to the immediate issue we have been discussing maybe their was little difference. Some Republican conference committee members said they were not invited/involved in the committee discusion until it came to a vote.

I do not understand your sentance: "Well, maybe cartoon characters and members on a board of directors are confusing." Do not bother trying to explain; you might just confuse me more because I do not understand gobbledegook!

P.S. I think you posted the same reply to my post twice. So as not to try to confuse you I am only responding once.

[Bob Jentges]

That is great! :) Unfortunately, it is not the case for many folks. I still owe on my home but I am not in a precarious place, so I am not worried for myself. It is the large number of others that have lost their jobs or have seen their home values plummet that I feel for. And to be perfectly honest, I also feel bad for folks that perhaps foolishly believed they could afford more than they actually could. Do they deserve to lose so much? Perhaps if the banks were doing their jobs, they would have refused the overbudget mortgages. But there was too much money to be made in the short term... Now we bail out the banks with no strings attached and so far the consumers and foreclosed home owners are left to bare the burden. And what about all the families that are being displaced?

Liz, I pretty much concur with what you said.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Liz, I pretty much concur with what you said.

Cool - common ground! :)

[Dan Conner]

If you are saying an administration (any administration) has no influence in what happens in a conference committee between the House and Senate when legislation is finalized and returned to each body for a vote before the bill is sent to the President for signature, I respectfully disagree.

You underestimate me. I do understand the difference between a conference committee and a caucus among members of a political party. But with respect to the immediate issue we have been discussing maybe their was little difference. Some Republican conference committee members said they were not invited/involved in the committee discusion until it came to a vote.

I do not understand your sentance: "Well, maybe cartoon characters and members on a board of directors are confusing." Do not bother trying to explain; you might just confuse me more because I do not understand gobbledegook!

P.S. I think you posted the same reply to my post twice. So as not to try to confuse you I am only responding once.

Go ahead and respond twice if you want. Of course an administration has influence. You state the obvious. I simply said the administration never stripped anything from the legislation. A Congressman needed to do that. I don't know why you are making a big deal of this. It's simply a statement of fact. If you disagree, you can research the issue on Wikipedia.

The majority and minority parties are represented in the conference committee. Whether they are listened to is another matter. If Republicans are angry because of their limited influence, I would suggest that they just reflect back to the last 10 years, when the shoe was on the other foot. It's like that statement, what goes around comes around.

What I meant was that cartoon characters and executives (large banks and investment houses) might be close to the same these days. Both seem to be goofy.