Maybe we should put a temporary ban on the topic. ;)
Ok, now which bills are there even in committee? Last I saw was the say on pay, which basically was passed by the house, does hardly anything, gives a non-binding vote to shareholders on executive compensation and yet even this, is being sworn to be killed by the Senate! (The Senate needs a flush if they would kill this because it doesn't nothing! It's symbolic)
And we have Geithner's proposal which clearly, in terms of a Fed systemic regulator isn't going to happen according to Barney Frank.
So, then we also have Ron Pauls' "audit the Fed" which Frank has promised to pass and also which has a majority of the House as co-sponsors.
But it seems in terms of actual regulatory reforms...do we even have a bill to grab a hold of yet? It seems it's just a scattered bunch of proposals sitting on the House Financial Services committee's legislative staffers' desks.
Then, to me the Senate is doing nothing except to fight anything the House manages to pass or even get out of committee.
Know of anything else? Is that where we are at in terms of actual Congressional actions?
Louis Brandeis's statement in the year of 1913 was certainly ominous: that was the year we got the federal income tax, the oil depletion allowance as well as the federal reserve system.
And to think that in 1912 we had made a giant leap forward when they "allowed" women and children to only work 54 hours per week (men were still required to work at least 60 hours plus, per week).
and as usual Seebert, you have to argue over the very thing I am pointing out is "not an argument" and a diversionary tactic away from financial regulatory reform.
What a surprise.
Firstly, here is the entire factcheck.org statement and they mention enforcement and how amendments to enforce it were voted down in committee.
Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.
H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.
Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.
i.e. no verification and up to the commissioner to determine who gets credits, i.e. health care paid for by the state...or not.
Illegals can also obtain Emergency Medicaid coverage. Which one can debate or not, a moral issue.
But the above, report, by a simple research service used by Congress, clearly shows the loopholes and methods.
Now, considering how many loopholes there are in using guest workers to displace U.S. workers legally, I strongly recommend checking out legislation oneself and not quote "because some website said so".
This is also precisely why I said read the actual bills, do your own research and digging from credible sources and do not listen to the rhetoric in the noise.
The same is completely true for financial regulatory reform...
the way the rhetoric is, one would believe the government actually did something and they have passed nothing and made the system worse. How do we know that? We watch the committees and read the bills!
Factcheck.org did an analysis of Obama's speech. You're right on most things, but not the illegal immigrants:
Obama said that his proposal would not cover illegal immigrants, a remark that prompted Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout "You lie!"
Obama: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
The president is correct: The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246) titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it’s worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you’re not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it’s considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president’s statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
and tell me people don't want major reform on executive compensation as well as corporate governance as well!
I'm sorry, considering we had this supposed Economic Armageddon which brought down the world economy, this should be before health care.
Isn't it interesting that this is falling by the wayside, any financial and regulatory reform dying on the vine....as we have the MSM going on and on about the heckler and trying to deny the House Health care bill will give benefits to illegal immigrants. I mean what a stupid argument and putting the entire public option at risk on top of it.
It's basically two amendments, that already exist in Medicaid, and then people arguing magically no one has birth certificates, valid social security numbers and so on in the U.S., well, plain fix that problem too, if they can document it's such an issue! (as if every county doesn't have the original on file for people to get?)
It was only mentioned in the 9/11 commission.
So, simply just add the amendments which make it like a host of other social services, including Medicaid already and be done with it. End of story. but no....this has to be a war which will put the entire thing at risk...
so they are arguing over nothing which threatens any real reforms.
So, in other words, it's like we have an "artificial war" going on that doesn't even need to exist over health care....that is clearly diverting the public attention from any financial systemic and regulatory reforms....
another thing to note over the "artificial war" on health care is they also buried in the noise all of those who want universal single payer, again by amplifying the "artificial war" that doesn't need to exist, very easy to put out these fires...very minor changes to the bill. Instead the flames are fanned.
One year after the demise of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. paralyzed the financial system, “mega-banks,” as Fine’s group calls them, are as interconnected and inscrutable as ever. The Obama administration’s plan for a regulatory overhaul wouldn’t force them to shrink or simplify their structure.
............
Instead, the Obama plan would label Bank of America, New York-based Citigroup and others as “systemically important.” It would subject them to capital and liquidity requirements and stricter oversight, relying on the same regulators who didn’t understand the consequences of a Lehman failure. And while companies could be dismantled if they got into trouble, they, their creditors and shareholders could also be bailed out with taxpayer money, according to the plan.
The chief architects, Geithner, 48, and National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers, 54, say they don’t think it would be practical to outlaw banks of a certain size or limit trading activities by deposit-taking banks, according to people familiar with their thinking. They said the two men, who declined to be interviewed, and others on Obama’s team believe the lines are too fuzzy between banking and investing products and that forcing the divestiture of units and assets would create bedlam.
WTF!!! Don't think it would be practical? I would said $12 trillions in bailout money makes it very practical.
Pres. Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. And who is the common player between Clinton and the current administration: Larry Summers. Larry Summers backed GLB and Commodity Futures Modernization Act (also signed by Clinton).
The Obama Administration has endorsed the concept of "Too Big to Fail".
There has been a very deep and profound brainwashing campaign deliberately employed by "movement conservatives" over the last almost half century. It is the stuff started by Goldwater and Reagan in the mid 60s, and it craftily employed the strategies of Kevin Philips, Lee Atwater, Grover Norquist, etc.. Milton Friedman's close association with the early movement and the introduction of the "Santa Claus" strategy created the economic pulse of the movement. I would highly recommend Thomas Frank's excellent review of the conservative (= Chicago School) tactics and history in his book "The Wrecking Crew". It's a terrific piece of investigative journalism.
then could be obliterate all of these 'neo-liberal' policies, demolish the University of Chicago (at least the building with the economics department) and kick all these 'neo-liberal' fu*ks out the country?
Banks are moving so slowly that I wonder whether they are not, as a matter of policy, stringing the process out to keep from realizing losses. and new non-recoverable costs (taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, security, operational costs, etc.). I realize this is an abstraction and does not have big effect on bottom line, but for many individuals, renting now makes more sense than ownership, since renters have more mobility (and perhaps more liquidity). As the banks have not only non-performing assets but also depreciating liabilities (empty properties), you would think they would be more actively managing and modifying, or are they just kicking the can down the road?
Frank T.
You can't just take exports - imports to get GDP growth; Cash for clunkers increased local demand increasing GDP as well. The trade deficit can't be avoided. The American dollar being the de fact world currency and the American people being the defacto world consumers makes it cheaper to import goods. It will hurt us down the line, but not now.
A booming trade deficit means a rise in retail jobs, services, economic confidence, and consumption. All are beneficial things.
Foreclosure filings in the U.S. exceeded 300,000 for the sixth straight month as job losses that boosted the unemployment rate to a 26-year high left many homeowners unable to keep up with their mortgage payments.
A total of 358,471 properties received a default or auction notice or were seized last month, according to data provider RealtyTrac Inc. That’s up 18 percent from a year earlier, and down 0.5 percent from July, the Irvine, California-based company said in a statement. One in 357 households received a filing.
Analysts getting real and saying people plain can't afford their mortgage because they are out of a job and nothing will change until the unemployment rate drops.
right now, they are trying to claim that bringing in foreign guest workers as well as offshore outsourcing creates jobs. Nice spin to try to turn not only fundamentals in labor economics upside down but also the statistics themselves.
There is no reason, other than the lack of will or laziness, that banking reform and health reform couldn't get done at the same time.
Banks and private insurance companies own the senate so no serious reforms will leave that chamber.
And this applies to the Administration, as well, Geithner and Summers, don't really want reform.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Maybe we should put a temporary ban on the topic. ;)
Ok, now which bills are there even in committee? Last I saw was the say on pay, which basically was passed by the house, does hardly anything, gives a non-binding vote to shareholders on executive compensation and yet even this, is being sworn to be killed by the Senate! (The Senate needs a flush if they would kill this because it doesn't nothing! It's symbolic)
And we have Geithner's proposal which clearly, in terms of a Fed systemic regulator isn't going to happen according to Barney Frank.
So, then we also have Ron Pauls' "audit the Fed" which Frank has promised to pass and also which has a majority of the House as co-sponsors.
But it seems in terms of actual regulatory reforms...do we even have a bill to grab a hold of yet? It seems it's just a scattered bunch of proposals sitting on the House Financial Services committee's legislative staffers' desks.
Then, to me the Senate is doing nothing except to fight anything the House manages to pass or even get out of committee.
Know of anything else? Is that where we are at in terms of actual Congressional actions?
Louis Brandeis's statement in the year of 1913 was certainly ominous: that was the year we got the federal income tax, the oil depletion allowance as well as the federal reserve system.
And to think that in 1912 we had made a giant leap forward when they "allowed" women and children to only work 54 hours per week (men were still required to work at least 60 hours plus, per week).
EP has a lot more features for formatting than DK as well as Soapblox sites.
We have a "image zoom" if a graph doesn't fit.
ZOOM, just too cool is the admin forum on how to use it.
It won't port to DK or other sites but it really helps to zoom into those detail graphs that are too big to fit on a blog.
Even on the EP, an article about banking reform becomes a debate about health care reform. No wonder banking reform can't get any traction.
and as usual Seebert, you have to argue over the very thing I am pointing out is "not an argument" and a diversionary tactic away from financial regulatory reform.
What a surprise.
Firstly, here is the entire factcheck.org statement and they mention enforcement and how amendments to enforce it were voted down in committee.
You know, instead of arguing, how about reading the actual Congressional Research Service report.
i.e. no verification and up to the commissioner to determine who gets credits, i.e. health care paid for by the state...or not.
Illegals can also obtain Emergency Medicaid coverage. Which one can debate or not, a moral issue.
But the above, report, by a simple research service used by Congress, clearly shows the loopholes and methods.
Now, considering how many loopholes there are in using guest workers to displace U.S. workers legally, I strongly recommend checking out legislation oneself and not quote "because some website said so".
This is also precisely why I said read the actual bills, do your own research and digging from credible sources and do not listen to the rhetoric in the noise.
The same is completely true for financial regulatory reform...
the way the rhetoric is, one would believe the government actually did something and they have passed nothing and made the system worse. How do we know that? We watch the committees and read the bills!
Q.E.D.
Factcheck.org did an analysis of Obama's speech. You're right on most things, but not the illegal immigrants:
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
and tell me people don't want major reform on executive compensation as well as corporate governance as well!
I'm sorry, considering we had this supposed Economic Armageddon which brought down the world economy, this should be before health care.
Isn't it interesting that this is falling by the wayside, any financial and regulatory reform dying on the vine....as we have the MSM going on and on about the heckler and trying to deny the House Health care bill will give benefits to illegal immigrants. I mean what a stupid argument and putting the entire public option at risk on top of it.
It's basically two amendments, that already exist in Medicaid, and then people arguing magically no one has birth certificates, valid social security numbers and so on in the U.S., well, plain fix that problem too, if they can document it's such an issue! (as if every county doesn't have the original on file for people to get?)
It was only mentioned in the 9/11 commission.
So, simply just add the amendments which make it like a host of other social services, including Medicaid already and be done with it. End of story. but no....this has to be a war which will put the entire thing at risk...
so they are arguing over nothing which threatens any real reforms.
So, in other words, it's like we have an "artificial war" going on that doesn't even need to exist over health care....that is clearly diverting the public attention from any financial systemic and regulatory reforms....
another thing to note over the "artificial war" on health care is they also buried in the noise all of those who want universal single payer, again by amplifying the "artificial war" that doesn't need to exist, very easy to put out these fires...very minor changes to the bill. Instead the flames are fanned.
I'll probably update my article with the Bloomberg article once I've read it closely.
From Bloomberg:
WTF!!! Don't think it would be practical? I would said $12 trillions in bailout money makes it very practical.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Pres. Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. And who is the common player between Clinton and the current administration: Larry Summers. Larry Summers backed GLB and Commodity Futures Modernization Act (also signed by Clinton).
The Obama Administration has endorsed the concept of "Too Big to Fail".
We have to break up these TBTF institutions.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
There has been a very deep and profound brainwashing campaign deliberately employed by "movement conservatives" over the last almost half century. It is the stuff started by Goldwater and Reagan in the mid 60s, and it craftily employed the strategies of Kevin Philips, Lee Atwater, Grover Norquist, etc.. Milton Friedman's close association with the early movement and the introduction of the "Santa Claus" strategy created the economic pulse of the movement. I would highly recommend Thomas Frank's excellent review of the conservative (= Chicago School) tactics and history in his book "The Wrecking Crew". It's a terrific piece of investigative journalism.
I hope you don't mind if I add it to my article that I've already prepared.
after their huge debacle in Chile and creation of multiple asset bubbles and huge income inequality in the U.S.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
then could be obliterate all of these 'neo-liberal' policies, demolish the University of Chicago (at least the building with the economics department) and kick all these 'neo-liberal' fu*ks out the country?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Banks are moving so slowly that I wonder whether they are not, as a matter of policy, stringing the process out to keep from realizing losses. and new non-recoverable costs (taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, security, operational costs, etc.). I realize this is an abstraction and does not have big effect on bottom line, but for many individuals, renting now makes more sense than ownership, since renters have more mobility (and perhaps more liquidity). As the banks have not only non-performing assets but also depreciating liabilities (empty properties), you would think they would be more actively managing and modifying, or are they just kicking the can down the road?
Frank T.
I may have posted before: (Hope it fits.)
I just ran across a most interesting list of all the bailouts since 1980. Very interesting. Maybe I'll write it up.
You can't just take exports - imports to get GDP growth; Cash for clunkers increased local demand increasing GDP as well. The trade deficit can't be avoided. The American dollar being the de fact world currency and the American people being the defacto world consumers makes it cheaper to import goods. It will hurt us down the line, but not now.
A booming trade deficit means a rise in retail jobs, services, economic confidence, and consumption. All are beneficial things.
Bloomberg:
Analysts getting real and saying people plain can't afford their mortgage because they are out of a job and nothing will change until the unemployment rate drops.
right now, they are trying to claim that bringing in foreign guest workers as well as offshore outsourcing creates jobs. Nice spin to try to turn not only fundamentals in labor economics upside down but also the statistics themselves.
Pages