Does Cissy ever get it right??? Seriously... I don't remember the last time Cicero actually got his facts straight!
What wasn't correct? The $45 billion citi received or the $1 million Obama received from Citi? How many home mortgages did the USG hold for homeowners?
Dean Baker pointed out a myopic Washington Post story on Saturday reporting that the Treasury will make a several-billion-dollar profit on its Citigroup bailout. It’s worth pushing back on this meme, especially since The Wall Street Journal rewrites the Post’s story today. Yes, it’s true that if the government sells its Citi shares for $32 or $33 billion it will make a $7-$8 billion profit on its $25 billion “investment.” Pretty impressive if you leave it devoid of context, as the Post and Journal both do. As Baker points out, this gain pales in comparison to what the government handed to investors and executives (emphasis mine): On November 23, 2008, the government bought $20 billion in preferred shares in Citigroup. It also received another $7 billion in preferred shares in exchange for guarantees on $300 billion in bad assets. At the time, the combined value of the investment in preferred shares and the guarantee on bad assets exceeded the full market value of Citigroup stock on November 21st, the last trading day prior to the deal. In other words, for the same financial commitment that the government made on that day, it could have owned Citigroup outright. The government subsequently held onto to its preferred shares until Citigroup’s stock had nearly tripled in value. In September of last year it traded its preferred shares for common shares that were priced at a level that only give the government a 27 percent stake in Citigroup. Baker calculates that this government generosity left some $90 billion on the table at today’s Citi market capitalization. So, while the Post asserts that the government’s Citi sale would be “a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic,” it actually does no such thing. Instead, it shows yet again how government deployed its resources to benefit banks and bankers over taxpayers. That money could (not to mention should) have recapitalized Citi while giving taxpayers the bulk of the company’s shares. Instead it recapitalized Citi in exchange for a sliver of them. That’s a raw deal. But another problem we see all too often in press coverage is its failure to account for the true scope of the government bailouts. Neither the Journal nor the Post does that here. Baker does a great job running this stuff down: It is also worth noting that the government has supported Citigroup through other mechanisms. The Fed created various special lending facilities that allowed Citigroup to borrow money from the government at extremely low interest rates. Since one of the main uses of this money was buying government bonds, Citigroup was essentially getting free money from the government. If it borrowed $200 billion at near zero interest and lent it back to the government by buying 10-year Treasury bonds at 3.7 percent interest, then the government was effectively handing Citigroup $7.4 billion a year for nothing. This money is not deducted from the Post’s estimate of the government’s “profit” on its dealings with Citigroup…
Dean Baker pointed out a myopic Washington Post story on Saturday reporting that the Treasury will make a several-billion-dollar profit on its Citigroup bailout. It’s worth pushing back on this meme, especially since The Wall Street Journal rewrites the Post’s story today. Yes, it’s true that if the government sells its Citi shares for $32 or $33 billion it will make a $7-$8 billion profit on its $25 billion “investment.” Pretty impressive if you leave it devoid of context, as the Post and Journal both do. As Baker points out, this gain pales in comparison to what the government handed to investors and executives (emphasis mine): On November 23, 2008, the government bought $20 billion in preferred shares in Citigroup. It also received another $7 billion in preferred shares in exchange for guarantees on $300 billion in bad assets. At the time, the combined value of the investment in preferred shares and the guarantee on bad assets exceeded the full market value of Citigroup stock on November 21st, the last trading day prior to the deal. In other words, for the same financial commitment that the government made on that day, it could have owned Citigroup outright. The government subsequently held onto to its preferred shares until Citigroup’s stock had nearly tripled in value. In September of last year it traded its preferred shares for common shares that were priced at a level that only give the government a 27 percent stake in Citigroup. Baker calculates that this government generosity left some $90 billion on the table at today’s Citi market capitalization. So, while the Post asserts that the government’s Citi sale would be “a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic,” it actually does no such thing. Instead, it shows yet again how government deployed its resources to benefit banks and bankers over taxpayers. That money could (not to mention should) have recapitalized Citi while giving taxpayers the bulk of the company’s shares. Instead it recapitalized Citi in exchange for a sliver of them. That’s a raw deal. But another problem we see all too often in press coverage is its failure to account for the true scope of the government bailouts. Neither the Journal nor the Post does that here. Baker does a great job running this stuff down: It is also worth noting that the government has supported Citigroup through other mechanisms. The Fed created various special lending facilities that allowed Citigroup to borrow money from the government at extremely low interest rates. Since one of the main uses of this money was buying government bonds, Citigroup was essentially getting free money from the government. If it borrowed $200 billion at near zero interest and lent it back to the government by buying 10-year Treasury bonds at 3.7 percent interest, then the government was effectively handing Citigroup $7.4 billion a year for nothing. This money is not deducted from the Post’s estimate of the government’s “profit” on its dealings with Citigroup…
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
So lets say we raise the minimum raise to $10.10, does the line of poverty increase with that raise? Will those who make $10.10 still be eligible for government assistance since basically they are still the lowest paid? If raising the minimum wage would boost the economy then why stop at $10.10, if we go $20.20 wouldn't the boost be twice as strong and twice as fast? What happens to the small businesses who could only afford to pay their workers $8 per hour, are they to shut down because labor cost is to high? Wouldn't unemployment skyrocket with that loss of businesses that employed so many. Questions the left seem to ignore.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
nope....that is what I think....I work with minimum wage women....even if the minimum wage is raised it's still the bottom....
they get to buy real cheese instead of cheese food and they STILL get to apply for government assistance and they STILL get to apply for government assisted child care......however, if they choose to get married or live with their significant other they lose all those subsidies or they get lowered because the next rung on the tax ladder kicks them off....
ya gotta love the tax cast system....I bet if they decide to sell 'illegal' cigarettes to subsidize their income they will be suffocated to death...we gotta make sure that chained animal pays their taxes and follows those f'en laws.....
minimum wage is a term only used in our tax cast system...if those folks think living in the city/suburbia is affluent they fail to recognize freedom....owning land and working your own land to feed yourself removes the chains of the tax cast system.....
box, if you own or did own a business how was it for your minimum wage worker....now remember their minimum wage isn't what the government calls it but what we value it at....the government only makes the minimum wage based on the 'tea tax' they think we need to pay....
what's a living wage what's minimum wage what's a taxable wage what's a subsidized wage
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
So lets say we raise the minimum raise to $10.10, does the line of poverty increase with that raise? Will those who make $10.10 still be eligible for government assistance since basically they are still the lowest paid? If raising the minimum wage would boost the economy then why stop at $10.10, if we go $20.20 wouldn't the boost be twice as strong and twice as fast? What happens to the small businesses who could only afford to pay their workers $8 per hour, are they to shut down because labor cost is to high? Wouldn't unemployment skyrocket with that loss of businesses that employed so many. Questions the left seem to ignore.
Henry's Questions Answered:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
allowing the feds to set a standard wage forces a virtual value upon you, me and everyone else......and then it perpetuates into the tax code and our voluntary compliance for filing income tax and paying the extortion.....
oh yeah, how grand our handlers are...kinda like jesus god muhammad budda etc etc.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
What a croc of sh1t, how is someone who makes 15.00 an hour going to create jobs where he would have to employ people at 15.00 an hour. And he didn't answer the question, how is raising the minimum wage getting people out of poverty when the line of poverty will be raised with the raise of minimum wage, they would still be the lowest paid workers who would be allowed assistance, assistance is not going to be cut off when the line is raised.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
What a croc of sh1t, how is someone who makes 15.00 an hour going to create jobs where he would have to employ people at 15.00 an hour. And he didn't answer the question, how is raising the minimum wage getting people out of poverty when the line of poverty will be raised with the raise of minimum wage, they would still be the lowest paid workers who would be allowed assistance, assistance is not going to be cut off when the line is raised.
Henry needs a course in economics... he really doesn't get it.
The worst case scenario...
Quoted Text
The federal govt drives down a poor neighborhood in a truck throwing $100 bills out the window. Everyone picks up those $100 bills. Some pay off bills, some buy groceries, some play a number with their local bookie, some take the family out to dinner, some buy illegal drugs, some go to the DR or Dentist, some use the money to buy their kids music lessons. It's the least efficient system possible for helping the poor and for growing the economy, but it will to some degree, help the poor and grow the economy.
A minimum wage of $10, $13, or $15 an hour (not from the fed govt) would add dollars to the local businesses, and would do all of the above to spur the economy while helping those working poor.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry needs a course in economics... he really doesn't get it.
The worst case scenario...
A minimum wage of $10, $13, or $15 an hour (not from the fed govt) would add dollars to the local businesses, and would do all of the above to spur the economy while helping those working poor.
Consumer prices would rise do to the rise in cost of labor, they would be no better off and in fact end up hurting the middle class even more. Do you really think businesses are going to eat the cost of paying more for labor, you're crazy if you think they will. Economics aside you need a crash course on business practices because you clearly have none.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Consumer prices would rise do to the rise in cost of labor, they would be no better off and in fact end up hurting the middle class even more. Do you really think businesses are going to eat the cost of paying more for labor, you're crazy if you think they will.
If you watched the video at post #173, and look at past instances of raising the minimum wage, you would find out that YES businesses who pay minimum wages would either cut jobs, or eat the added cost, or both. McDonalds didn't raise prices or reduce employment with the last round of minimum wage hikes... they "ate" the added costs.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
