I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
It boggles my mind that with conceptual material that well conceived, Jimmy Fallon still manages to be completely unfunny.
Whoever picked that asshat to host a late night show should be shot.
I didn't understand the choice at all until my girlfriend informed me that he's "cute", and that many women find him very attractive.
My response was o_O
In any event, though. I feel pretty bad for Jindal. He brought this almost entirely on himself, but he's generally a pretty sharp guy who just shouldn't put on the party's national idiocy. Having seen his gubernatorial inauguration speech, he had a lot of potential to be an even-handed counterpoint to Obama. Instead he's dangerously close to accepting a disgraceful role as GOP toolbag (see: Rudy Giuliani).
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
There are two ways to go about this, liquidity injections (what's going on now), or nationalization (could be very messy in the case of citi). Liquidity injections - at least with the amount of money we actually need for it to be successful - are quickly becoming politically untenable for congressmen to support.
So I'm thinking nationalization by the end of this year for all major insolvent banks (most of them).
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
I think they're gearing up to buy out Bank of America and Citi if need be
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
The last $750 billion would have done the job if there had been any accountability placed on it. Given that transparency and accountability are Obama's thing, I think it's likely to work this time around.
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
I think they're gearing up to buy out Bank of America and Citi if need be
If they convert their preferred stocks to common ones right now, I'm pretty sure the US has majority control of Citi. So this wouldnt even be difficult.
Giethner's talking about the stress test for banks that requires the ones that fail it to take bailout money. I think we're well on our way to de facto nationalization of the worst off banks. Honestly, that doesn't really bother me because I think the government will be much more open to lending money.
Given that so many Gulf States invested their governmental monies in to Bank of America et. al. what will that mean for nationalization? After all, you don't want to fuck them over when it comes to hundreds of billions of dollars as they have a means of getting that back, but they didn't buy debt they bought ownership stakes. Are we possibly going to not wipe out the preferred stock shareholders?
Does anyone have any thoughts on how a nationalization scenario for Citi or B of A would affect their higher risk businesses like investment banking? To some extent I could see talent migrating away from these firms to smaller, more focused firms or to regional firms (in the case of public finance).
Though they are a competitor and I would stand to gain a lot from their best bankers leaving, I still wonder how their high-paid professionals will react, especially given the new compensation rules. Why bring in $2 mil for a firm and get $500k when you can bring in the same $2 mil at another firm and get paid $750k-1mil?
It boggles my mind that with conceptual material that well conceived, Jimmy Fallon still manages to be completely unfunny.
I actually thought he did ok. Not great, and he seemed unsure of himself and wasn't comfortable... but these are test shows, too, so maybe he will be better next week.
Of course, when I heard he was picked as host I went WTF?, so maybe it is just my lowered expectations at play.
It boggles my mind that with conceptual material that well conceived, Jimmy Fallon still manages to be completely unfunny.
Whoever picked that asshat to host a late night show should be shot.
I didn't understand the choice at all until my girlfriend informed me that he's "cute", and that many women find him very attractive.
My response was o_O
In any event, though. I feel pretty bad for Jindal. He brought this almost entirely on himself, but he's generally a pretty sharp guy who just shouldn't put on the party's national idiocy. Having seen his gubernatorial inauguration speech, he had a lot of potential to be an even-handed counterpoint to Obama. Instead he's dangerously close to accepting a disgraceful role as GOP toolbag (see: Rudy Giuliani).
I'm pretty sure he's a True Believer™, what with things in his past like that forced "exorcism". I doubt he will be/would have been that sensible a counterpoint.
I heard about the proposal for a $600 billion reserve set aside for health care reform and, after being surprised at the figure, thought that it was about time someone started the health care reform debate properly prepared.
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
There are two ways to go about this, liquidity injections (what's going on now), or nationalization (could be very messy in the case of citi). Liquidity injections - at least with the amount of money we actually need for it to be successful - are quickly becoming politically untenable for congressmen to support.
So I'm thinking nationalization by the end of this year for all major insolvent banks (most of them).
It's worth pointing out that those aren't just two methods. If the banks are viable, but have no money to lend out (i.e., a pure credit crisis), then a bailout is the best solution (i.e., a loan).
If the banks are actually bankrupt but are hiding it then you may as well "nationalize" them. As many econopundits have already pointed out, nobody seriously thinks that the government should actually operate the finance industry in the longer run - the plan is to seize control, get things 'in order' (however defined), then sell it back out.
In other words, a fancy bankruptcy procedure.
The reason why all this is taking so long is because it's hard^W impossible to tell just how solvent each bank is. A quote:
WaMu was probably solvent (subject to definitions below) and was confiscated – certainly – according to the FDIC – it had enough capital when it was confiscated. Wachovia was forced to sell itself when solvent (and when Wells happily purchased them later proving the point). AIG was shockingly insolvent and the shareholders were 80% diluted. Citigroup was in much bigger trouble than WaMu (it was actually illiquid) and the shareholders were given a big kiss (lots of very cheap government money and guarantees) and told to go on their way.
The government policy is very hard to determine. Under the Bush administration there was no policy. Each financial institution in crisis was handled a different way – think Bear, Lehman, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, WaMu, Wachovia, Citigroup. No two deals were even close to similar. Ad-hoc – thy name is Hank Paulson.
The banks have a big incentive to pretend that they're solvent, too, which really doesn't help.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
There are two ways to go about this, liquidity injections (what's going on now), or nationalization (could be very messy in the case of citi). Liquidity injections - at least with the amount of money we actually need for it to be successful - are quickly becoming politically untenable for congressmen to support.
So I'm thinking nationalization by the end of this year for all major insolvent banks (most of them).
Technically, there's a third way: let it all burn to the ground hahahaha. But that strategy is pretty much only supported by crazy right-wingers and people who have no clue what's going on.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
There are two ways to go about this, liquidity injections (what's going on now), or nationalization (could be very messy in the case of citi). Liquidity injections - at least with the amount of money we actually need for it to be successful - are quickly becoming politically untenable for congressmen to support.
So I'm thinking nationalization by the end of this year for all major insolvent banks (most of them).
Technically, there's a third way: let it all burn to the ground hahahaha. But that strategy is pretty much only supported by crazy right-wingers and people who have no clue what's going on.
Regarding Jindal, I really hope that putting someone to rebutt post-Obama speechifying becomes the new way the GOP sacrifices those who are useless to them. I know that wasn't the intention, mind you.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
Regarding Jindal, I really hope that putting someone to rebutt post-Obama speechifying becomes the new way the GOP sacrifices those who are useless to them. I know that wasn't the intention, mind you.
Well, if you observe him carefully for the near future, you will find out how the GOP now sacrifices those who are useless to them...
Regarding Jindal, I really hope that putting someone to rebutt post-Obama speechifying becomes the new way the GOP sacrifices those who are useless to them. I know that wasn't the intention, mind you.
Oh god, if that's the case then poor Linda Lingle.
Why is giving solvent, viable banks money they don't ask for, and telling them to loan it out and then pay it back, called a "bailout"?
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
Why is giving solvent, viable banks money they don't ask for, and telling them to loan it out and then pay it back, called a "bailout"?
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
I'm not saying they were "forced." I'm just saying it doesn't seem accurate to call it a "bailout."
Qingu on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Ambinder spots something that doesn't make me too pleased in the 10-year budget forecast released today:
President Obama's FY 2010 budget outline includes ten years' worth of deficit projections. As Obama noted two nights ago, he intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his first term.
But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit -- $570b. For 2015? $583b. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636b again; by 2019, it's up to about $712b.
The budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.
I hope this is some sort of negotiating tactic. I thought the purpose of halving the deficit was to get it to a reasonable and sustainable percentage of GDP; not halving it just so we can start growing it again.
Why is giving solvent, viable banks money they don't ask for, and telling them to loan it out and then pay it back, called a "bailout"?
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
I'm not saying they were "forced." I'm just saying it doesn't seem accurate to call it a "bailout."
The biggest banks were most definitely bailed out. Citi and BoA are probably insolvent right now.
President Obama's FY 2010 budget outline includes ten years' worth of deficit projections. As Obama noted two nights ago, he intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his first term.
But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit -- $570b. For 2015? $583b. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636b again; by 2019, it's up to about $712b.
The budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.
I hope this is some sort of negotiating tactic. I thought the purpose of halving the deficit was to get it to a reasonable and sustainable percentage of GDP; not halving it just so we can start growing it again.
I suspect theyre being honest about medicare. Healthcare costs are going to be a huge problem in ever getting a surplus again.
President Obama's FY 2010 budget outline includes ten years' worth of deficit projections. As Obama noted two nights ago, he intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his first term.
But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit -- $570b. For 2015? $583b. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636b again; by 2019, it's up to about $712b.
The budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.
I hope this is some sort of negotiating tactic. I thought the purpose of halving the deficit was to get it to a reasonable and sustainable percentage of GDP; not halving it just so we can start growing it again.
It's like seeding some torrents overnight so you can get your share rating higher before you go download the entire last season of Boy Meets World!
Why is giving solvent, viable banks money they don't ask for, and telling them to loan it out and then pay it back, called a "bailout"?
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
I'm not saying they were "forced." I'm just saying it doesn't seem accurate to call it a "bailout."
Banks have every incentive to say that they're solvent when they are not, mind you. Perverse incentives in full effect here.
President Obama's FY 2010 budget outline includes ten years' worth of deficit projections. As Obama noted two nights ago, he intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his first term.
But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit -- $570b. For 2015? $583b. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636b again; by 2019, it's up to about $712b.
The budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.
I hope this is some sort of negotiating tactic. I thought the purpose of halving the deficit was to get it to a reasonable and sustainable percentage of GDP; not halving it just so we can start growing it again.
Projections that far into the future are very difficult. Eight years ago it was projected the government would have cash coming out their assholes by now. But look at the actual changes. As compound interest that rate of increase is ~3.7% from 2012 to 2019. That's without fundamental budget changes that might occur - increasing taxes on the super-wealthy, universal healthcare reducing the per unit costs of health care, budget slashing in the DoD, etc.
Why is giving solvent, viable banks money they don't ask for, and telling them to loan it out and then pay it back, called a "bailout"?
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
I'm not saying they were "forced." I'm just saying it doesn't seem accurate to call it a "bailout."
Banks have every incentive to say that they're solvent when they are not, mind you. Perverse incentives in full effect here.
Also, Bank Bailout is alliterative, and Headlines like that kind of thing. It's a loan, it's always supposed to have been a loan, it's just that the message got garbled for a variety of reasons.
Posts
mxmarks can
I'm looking forward to the budget today, which is an odd to say, since I've never really given a donkey's droppings about budget talks in the past.
It boggles my mind that with conceptual material that well conceived, Jimmy Fallon still manages to be completely unfunny.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The $640 billion is spread over the next 10 years. That comes to a whopping 2% of the total budget each year for 10 years. If it actually makes health care affordable in this country, it's worth every penny.
Edit: Put another way, that's $200/yr for every man, woman, and child in the country for the next decade. That doesn't seem an unreasonable price if (there's that magical word again) it results in substantive improvements in our nation's health care system.
Whoever picked that asshat to host a late night show should be shot.
Ugh, seriously. Is he like that for the entire show? He sounds like a high schooler in a talent show.
I didn't understand the choice at all until my girlfriend informed me that he's "cute", and that many women find him very attractive.
My response was o_O
In any event, though. I feel pretty bad for Jindal. He brought this almost entirely on himself, but he's generally a pretty sharp guy who just shouldn't put on the party's national idiocy. Having seen his gubernatorial inauguration speech, he had a lot of potential to be an even-handed counterpoint to Obama. Instead he's dangerously close to accepting a disgraceful role as GOP toolbag (see: Rudy Giuliani).
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
On the other hand, reports are coming out that he's apportioning another 750 billion buckaroos to help the financial industry.
That doesn't sit well with me at all, so he better come up with a good rationale for that.
There are two ways to go about this, liquidity injections (what's going on now), or nationalization (could be very messy in the case of citi). Liquidity injections - at least with the amount of money we actually need for it to be successful - are quickly becoming politically untenable for congressmen to support.
So I'm thinking nationalization by the end of this year for all major insolvent banks (most of them).
I think they're gearing up to buy out Bank of America and Citi if need be
The last $750 billion would have done the job if there had been any accountability placed on it. Given that transparency and accountability are Obama's thing, I think it's likely to work this time around.
If they convert their preferred stocks to common ones right now, I'm pretty sure the US has majority control of Citi. So this wouldnt even be difficult.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/186554
Lots of typical politician embellishments, nothing too outrageous so far (still reading).
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Though they are a competitor and I would stand to gain a lot from their best bankers leaving, I still wonder how their high-paid professionals will react, especially given the new compensation rules. Why bring in $2 mil for a firm and get $500k when you can bring in the same $2 mil at another firm and get paid $750k-1mil?
I actually thought he did ok. Not great, and he seemed unsure of himself and wasn't comfortable... but these are test shows, too, so maybe he will be better next week.
Of course, when I heard he was picked as host I went WTF?, so maybe it is just my lowered expectations at play.
It's worth pointing out that those aren't just two methods. If the banks are viable, but have no money to lend out (i.e., a pure credit crisis), then a bailout is the best solution (i.e., a loan).
If the banks are actually bankrupt but are hiding it then you may as well "nationalize" them. As many econopundits have already pointed out, nobody seriously thinks that the government should actually operate the finance industry in the longer run - the plan is to seize control, get things 'in order' (however defined), then sell it back out.
In other words, a fancy bankruptcy procedure.
The reason why all this is taking so long is because it's hard^W impossible to tell just how solvent each bank is. A quote: The banks have a big incentive to pretend that they're solvent, too, which really doesn't help.
Technically, there's a third way: let it all burn to the ground hahahaha. But that strategy is pretty much only supported by crazy right-wingers and people who have no clue what's going on.
WE SHALL PAVE THE STREET WITH GOLD STANDARDS
*hops in zeppelin and flies away cackling*
Well, if you observe him carefully for the near future, you will find out how the GOP now sacrifices those who are useless to them...
Oh god, if that's the case then poor Linda Lingle.
OH MY GOD. why is this shit still floating around.
They didnt have to take it. They were offered it on a set of non-negotiable terms and pressured by paulson to accept. This is not the same thing as being forced.
I hope this is some sort of negotiating tactic. I thought the purpose of halving the deficit was to get it to a reasonable and sustainable percentage of GDP; not halving it just so we can start growing it again.
The biggest banks were most definitely bailed out. Citi and BoA are probably insolvent right now.
I suspect theyre being honest about medicare. Healthcare costs are going to be a huge problem in ever getting a surplus again.
Banks have every incentive to say that they're solvent when they are not, mind you. Perverse incentives in full effect here.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I swear Republicans are SO DAMN BITTER for losing the election that they will say anything now.
e: Also that clip of the real Kenneth showing up is hilarious to me.
e2: Oh wow:
I'm glad to see people haven't given up on Palin, because she'll guarantee an entertaining primary.
Also, I love that Conservative Documentary is its own genre, presumably because it presents a different view of reality than regular documentaries.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation