It's only your tax money (yes, unemployment benefits are taxed).
Need to be a corporation, bank, or Israel to get a kickback.
"Jobless benefits extension is unlikely; Congress hesitant to take up measure" by Brian Faler, Bloomberg News | April 30, 2010
WASHINGTON — Since the recession began in December 2007, Congress has extended the length of unemployment benefits for the jobless three times. Now, the lawmakers may have reached their limit.
They are quietly drawing the line at 99 weeks of aid, a mark that hundreds of thousands of Americans have already reached. In coming months, the number of those who will receive their final government check is projected to top 1 million.
So John Kerry is a liar, huh?
Related: At the Window in the Senate Unemployment Office
They gave you an extension and then closed it?
But are KEEPING IT OPEN for BANKS?
The deadline has rarely been mentioned in recent debates over jobless benefits....
But we are being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth by this government and MSM.
Democrats who have pushed through the past extensions agree there’s insufficient backing to go beyond 99 weeks, largely because of mounting concern over the federal deficit, projected to reach $1.5 trillion this year.
But THAT DOESN'T STOP them from IMPOSING a TRILLION DOLLAR HEALTH BILL or a $750 BILLION in STIMULOOT WASTE or carving out BILLIONS for WARS and ISRAEL!!
Now, all of a sudden the DemocraPs have seen the deficit light?
That isn't going to save November for you.
Guys are acting like you WANT TO LOSE!
Who wants to captain a sinking ship?
See: Executive Payday: Scientific Stealing
Always a $33 million exception to the rule, folks.
“You can’t go on forever,’’ said Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, whose panel oversees the benefits program. “I think 99 weeks is sufficient.’’
And when he comes up for reelection?
He's had a sufficient amount of "service."
**************
Allowing the ranks of those who lose their aid to swell carries risks for Democrats in November’s elections....
Why?
They have made it clear they care more about the money interests than the people.
Baucus said extension legislation would fail in the Senate because of both the deficit and the negative “atmospherics’’ of lengthening the weeks of aid into triple digits.
What a WEAK, LAME-ASS REASON! It doesn't look good!
Neither do TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUTS and WARS, but we are doing them anyway!
“The best thing to do is get this economy turned around’’ to create jobs, he said.
Then why did you guys waste a year on a health tax we did not want and why are you moving on to amnesty for illegals next? What a bunch of effin' liars!!!!!!
Unemployment aid has become one of the federal budget’s fastest-growing components, with costs this year expected to reach $200 billion. That is six times what was typically spent before the recession.
Let's see, banks get $700 billion in one shot, war checks are cut for about the same amount, etc, etc, etc.
Since the recession began, aid extensions added 53 weeks of assistance to the 46 weeks that had been in place. About 11 million Americans, roughly 70 percent of the nation’s jobless, in March received unemployment checks averaging $320 per week.
What type of bonuses did the bankers make this year?
The challenge for lawmakers is that while benefits have reached record lengths, so has long-term unemployment....
Yeah, never mind the people depending on the check.
About 3.4 million Americans have been out of work for more than a year, according to a study by the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative....
Then they will DROP OFF the ROLLS and GOVERNMENT can claim unemployment went DOWN!
The Senate doesn't care about you, Americans, it cares about the NUMBERS and HOW THEY LOOK!!!!
Here is who they REALLY serve:
"The fund would be gone, but taxpayers could still wind up fronting billions of dollars to help cover the costs.... money that would take the forms of loans"
Oh, so you will be PAYING INTEREST to the VERY SAME BANKS that you gave you the taxpayers money throught the Fed, Americans!
Related:
"The Obama administration has also opposed the fund, which it fears could limit its ability to deal with bank failures."
Translation: They MAY NEED MORE than $50 billion!
So the WHOLE DEBATE was a FRAUD from the BEGINNING, 'eh?
Another filibuster fooley!
WASHINGTON — Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he would hold additional votes later in the week; he and other Democrats have spent days accusing Republicans of doing the bidding of the big financial firms on Wall Street.
They both do their bidding, for obviou$ rea$ons.
The events unfolded in the Capitol as Republicans and Democrats alike spent hours at a committee hearing criticizing current and former officials at
More political theater for you.
Related: Goldman Sachs' Rigged Gambling Game
Yeah, they screwed governments, too.
--more--"Let the "debate" begin.
"Debate to begin on financial rules overhaul; 3-day GOP filibuster ends; But battle is far from over" by Matt Viser, Globe Staff | April 29, 2010
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats broke through a three-day Republican filibuster last night to open debate on a far-reaching financial regulation overhaul....
The vote, which passed with no objections, also followed 10 hours of congressional testimony Tuesday by executives of
Republicans still hold significant leverage: As with opening debate, Democrats need 60 votes to end debate. So if Republicans are united in opposition, they could prolong the discussions or kill the bill. After Republicans ended the filibuster, Democrats claimed victory....
And once again, you are the losers, American taxpayers.
Also yesterday, Mary Schapiro, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairwoman, told senators the timing of the agency’s civil fraud charges against Goldman Sachs was not linked to efforts by Democrats to push consideration of the regulations bill.
Of course it was!
Some Republicans had accused the SEC of timing the April 16 announcement of the charges to bolster Democrats’ chances on the legislation....
Well, the newspaper did mention it as a backdrop twice!
--more--"
Moving right along:
"Partisanship recedes slightly on finance bill; As debate starts, Dodd sees chance for agreement" by David Espo, Associated Press | April 30, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Senate lurched into action yesterday on legislation reining in Wall Street....
No votes were taken, and none was likely before Tuesday on the legislation, expected to take two weeks or more to complete.
I didn't see 'em move, did you?
Must have been a flinch.
The House has already passed its version of the bill, and it could be months before a compromise goes to President Obama for his signature.
Despite the rhetoric, Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said there was a chance for bipartisan agreement....
I'll get back to you.
While some of the differences are partisan, others are driven by ideological concerns, pressure from banks or other industries, proximity to Wall Street, or concerns raised by the Obama administration or the Federal Reserve.
In the end, it will be a bill that those interests can at the least live with.
Some liberals favor using the bill to break up large banks, and have said they intend to seek a vote on the issue. Both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have raised concerns about a provision in the measure that would prohibit banks from participating in the trading of derivatives, the complex investments that some blame for the economy’s near-collapse.
Then it won't be in there.
--more--"
Also see: Washington Standing Up to Wall Street
Only so they could drop to their knees.
"A case of regulatory jitters; Local banks, insurers, financial firms brace for a new regimen of rules" by Beth Healy, Globe Staff | May 2, 2010
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston would oversee six banks instead of 180. Lenders would have to keep a 5 percent stake in mortgage loans they write and sell to investors. And stockbrokers might have to live up to a higher standard, as “fiduciaries’’ charged with doing what’s best for their clients.
Weren't stockbrokers supposed to be doing that anyway in the greatest economy ever invented?
These are just a few of the moving parts in the US Senate’s financial overhaul bill, which lawmakers will continue debating this week. The sweeping legislation has Congress in full battle mode, and it could change the way business is done, not just on Wall Street, but in Boston’s large financial sector, from banks and insurers to mutual fund managers and hedge funds.
Banks could see the swiftest changes....
Banks are fighting the bills on a number of fronts....
Big banks and Wall Street firms also are against implementation of what’s called the Volcker rule in the Dodd bill, which could restrict banks from trading for their own accounts and owning or running hedge funds. Paul Volcker, an adviser to President Obama and a former Fed chairman, proposed the rule.
Banks also oppose a measure that would force them to spin off their derivatives trading units.
The Fed, for its part, has been lobbying to keep its role as regulator of both large and small banks — currently about 850 state member banks and 4,900 bank holding companies across the country. Taking away small banks from the Fed, said Daniel J. Forte, the president of the Massachusetts Bankers Association, could hurt the central bank’s ability to monitor the economy.
“The Fed is intended to design monetary policy for the entire country,’’ Forte said. “The Fed would lose that perspective because they’d no longer have those institutions, no longer be talking to those bankers on a regular basis.’’
Separately, under both bills, derivatives would have to trade on exchanges — instead of privately between parties. That’s so there would be public prices and data on such instruments as credit default swaps, which grew, unnoticed by regulators, into a multibillion-dollar business that helped topple the markets.
Tracking these investments is critical, according to many observers....
Insurers are loudly complaining about additional oversight. Although American International Group. Inc. required a $180 billion bailout, industry officials say it wasn’t the insurance business that went awry. It was the New York insurer’s financial products unit, which sold credit default swaps, or insurance on mortgage-related bonds....
Yup, everybody was selling s*** and making money off it!
Related: Executive Payday: Government Grants AIG Raises
Yeah, they are looking out for you, taxpayers.
--more--"
So where are the amendments so we can see who is in whose pocket?
"Overhaul change would tax bonuses
Lawmakers have filed 32 proposed changes to the financial-overhaul bill pending in the Senate, including a tax on “excessive’’ bonuses paid this year at firms that received federal assistance.
The list of proposed amendments list also includes a proposal sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, that would preserve the Federal Reserve’s powers to oversee smaller banks. Another measure offered by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, would eventually dissolve government-backed mortgage-finance companies
Is that after they pay off the $6 TRILLION or MORE?
Related:
“They’ve cleared the decks to use Fannie and Freddie as a vessel for whatever they want.... taking troubled mortgage investments off banks’ books.’’So the problem is REALLY MUCH WORSE than the government and MSM are telling you!
And how much is that going to cost, readers?
"Obama’s budget seeks tax hikes on firms, rich; $1.1 trillion more sought in a decade" by Globe Wire Services | February 2, 2010
--more--"
That's TRILLION with a T, America!!!
The Senate last week began debating legislation offered by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to redesign rules governing Wall Street and aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis that forced the United States to extend $700 billion in taxpayer funds to companies including
Related: You Belong to the Citi
Executive Payday: Coming and Going at Bank of AmeriKa
That's where your bailouts went; bonuses and balancing books to boost bottom lines while the crap is dumped into taxpayer accounts.
Among the most contentious issues to be resolved in the floor debate are a provision that would require financial companies to separate their commercial and investment banking operations; the scope and power of a proposed consumer financial protection bureau; and proposals to restrict the size and activities of the biggest banks.
Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia offered an amendment that would impose a one-time, 50 percent tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 paid to executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other financial institutions that received at least $5 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program Congress approved in 2008. It would apply to income generated for work in 2009 and paid in 2010.
Hutchison’s amendment would eliminate a provision in Dodd’s bill that shrinks the central bank’s jurisdiction to the 36 banks with more than $50 billion in assets, including
Yeah, we see who Kay is working for.
The Fed and chief executive officers of smaller banks have been urging senators to remove that language, saying the central bank needs to continue its overview of the entire system to set monetary policy....
It shall be done, sire.
WASHINGTON — In a widely expected concession, Senate Democrats agreed yesterday to jettison a $50 billion fund that Republicans attacked repeatedly as a perpetual Wall Street bailout-in-waiting, officials in both parties said, clearing one of the key obstacles to approval of tougher controls over the financial industry.
Yeah, now Obama can spend even more.
A formal announcement was held up pending a review by key lawmakers and the Obama administration, but the emerging agreement was designed to ensure that any future taxpayer costs arising from the liquidation of big firms would be temporary and on a case-by-case basis.
Your wallet just fell out of your pocket, American taxpayers.
The agreement marked a retreat by Democrats, who had protested bitterly that Republicans were inaccurate with claims that the multibillion-dollar fund would serve as a source for bailouts.
President Obama has made an election-year priority of passing legislation to prevent future economic calamities. Opinion polls suggest strong support for additional regulations, even though numerous surveys also report high levels of public distrust of government....
That is WHAT HAPPENS when you LIE TO and LOOT the PEOPLE!
The tentative compromise was struck by Senators Chris Dodd, a Democrat, and Richard Shelby, a Republican, the parties’ two seniors members of the Banking Committee.
The fund would be gone, but taxpayers could still wind up fronting billions of dollars to help cover the costs of taking down a failed firm, money that would take the forms of loans from the Treasury to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Government just grabbed your wallet.
The Treasury would be required to recover those costs over time from the sale of a firm’s assets and from its creditors. As a last resort if not enough money could be raised, the government would assess a fee on other large financial institutions....
With you know who backing it all up, right?
Also yesterday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner urged Congress to impose a 10-year, $90 billion tax on the largest financial institutions to recoup the costs of the 2008 bailouts. But he faced skeptical lawmakers.
Because they are in the pocket$ of said financial in$titutions.
And where you been, Tim?
That is so late in the game he can't believe we take him seriously.
What, trying to repair your image, Geith?
The Obama administration proposed the tax, which it calls the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, in January. It is not part of the overhaul of financial regulations, but could be added to it.
The American Bankers Association and the Financial Services Roundtable sharply criticized the proposal. While lawmakers did not reject the idea outright, some questioned its impact on consumers and small businesses.
Because they pass on costs, right?
“This is a simple and fair principle: Banks, not the taxpayer, should pay for bank failures,’’ Geithner said....
At this stage, that is just an insult.
--more--"
Turns out some that you would not expect are not liking the bill:
"Overhaul bills make AG wary; State authority over financial sector is vital, Coakley says" by Beth Healy, Globe Staff | April 30, 2010
Attorney General Martha Coakley warned that consumers will suffer if states lose their power to police the financial sector as a result of overhaul bills moving through Congress.
I figured as much.
“The new regulations have to be smart, they have to be fair, and they shouldn’t preempt states in having a role to play in the investigation and correction of some of these excesses,’’ Coakley said in a Globe interview.
Federalis are doing that all over the place.
The House financial overhaul bill that has already passed would protect the current powers of state attorneys general and financial regulators, but the issue is still being debated in the Senate. Wall Street firms are lobbying aggressively to weaken the measure and curtail state oversight.
I thought we were all in this together?
“If it preempts the states from investigations or enforcement, then I think it’s a step backwards,’’ Coakley said.
Kirsten Brost, a spokeswoman for Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said Dodd is fighting efforts by lobbyists and some Republicans to water down regulation. “It’s something Senator Dodd strongly objects to,’’ she said.
Both bills are aimed at better monitoring risk on Wall Street and at large banks to prevent another financial crisis like that of 2008. Both propose a federal consumer protection bureau and take steps to make federal bank regulators more accountable. Both bills are generally looking for more regulation, not less — including leaving in place state regulators of banks, investment firms, and insurers. But lobbyists for those industries are fighting back, and some lawmakers are drafting amendments that would let federal regulators preempt state authorities in matters of federal law....
I didn't see that one mentioned above; however, I'm sure it is out there.
--more-"