How stimulating is $13 a week?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
You want to be stimulated? How does $13 a week sound to you?
Officials estimate the new stimulus plan will mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks this year.
While the federal government is passing an $800 billion stimulus bill - which works out to about $2,700 for every man woman and child in the country - the average worker can look forward to seeing about an extra $13 a week in his/her paycheck after taxes. This is on top of the $700 billion financial bailout package that was passed last fall and given to the Wall Street and banking weasels.
When I was a kid and was given my meager allowance I was often told, "Try not to blow it all in one place."
$13 a week. Think you can stave off foreclosure with that? How about junior's tuition, room and board at college?
Maybe trade in the old car for one of those new, fancy hybrids. $13 a week ought to handle it.
Or you could plan a lavish trip to Las Vegas and make the whiny old mayor of that town happy.
I'm no economist. But if two-thirds of our economy depends on consumer spending, and we have lost three million jobs in the past year and have almost five million people drawing unemployment benefits, wouldn't it make sense to put a little more jingle in the pockets of the folks who are fortunate enough to still have a job?
President Obama should be embarrassed. And those clowns in Congress should be ashamed of themselves.
Here’s my question to you: How stimulating is $13 a week?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is stimulus plan “theft”?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It was on. Then it was off. Now it's on again. The stimulus plan at this moment is a done deal.
Meanwhile, as top Democrats and a select few Republicans worked on that compromise, other lawmakers are saying that the stimulus package amounts to little more than "theft."
Does the stimulus plan amount to theft?
Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan points out this is more money than has "ever been contemplated in the history of our country." He's proposing that the government come up with a system to show how every penny is spent, adding the real scandal is not knowing how the money is being managed. Said Dorgan, "Letting the banks be run like casinos on their own account, is that theft? You're damn right it is."
Then there's Republican Senator John "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" McCain who is calling the bailout "generational theft." He says we're robbing future generations by laying such astronomical debt on their shoulders.
These critics are right that the numbers are staggering. The president's package is more than $800 billion. That's on top of the $700 billion Bush bailout plan. Then tack on trillions of dollars the government has promised in loans and potential spending to loosen up credit markets.
But here's the catch: many of the brightest economic minds suggest that the risk of doing nothing is more costly than this mind-boggling price tag.
Here’s my question to you: Do you agree with lawmakers who say the stimulus plan is "theft"?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will economy shorten Pres. Obama’s honeymoon?
A Financial Times columnist wonders if Barack Obama's presidency has already failed. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Getting the stimulus bill passed is one thing, but before we break out the champagne we might want to see if it works. And nobody is offering a guarantee on that. In fact, there are folks out there who are suggesting that if the economy doesn’t show some signs of life pretty soon, the American public might begin to sour on the euphoria surrounding the man from Illinois.
For example, here’s a headline: "Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed?” That's a rather startling question posed in the Financial Times by columnist Martin Wolf. He writes how in normal times, this would be a ludicrous statement. But because we're living in times of "great danger”, it's worth taking a look.
He says that right now a lot of the blame is still being heaped on the previous administration. But if the Obama administration doesn't act swiftly and strongly enough, it will inherit the blame. He says "doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much" and suggests that if the president can't fix the economic meltdown, the rest of his presidency is pretty much over.
According to Wolf's column, both the stimulus package and Tim Geithner's banking plan seem to be hoping for the best, when what they really need to do is expect the worst. Wolf says he's surprised that the new president let Congress pretty much write the stimulus package, and he sees the new banking proposal as too indecisive and optimistic.
Meanwhile, a CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll out this week shows an American public looking very favorably on the new president, with an approval rating of 76%. That includes a whopping 97% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans.
But people aren't nearly as fond of the president's stimulus package, with only 54% supporting the Senate bill. If more and more Americans continue to lose their jobs, it's unclear how long Mr. Obama can keep those numbers up.
Here’s my question to you: If the economy doesn't start to improve, how long does President Obama have before the public turns on him?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How concerned are you about the banking system?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
So Tim Geithner, the wunderkind who didn't bother to pay all his taxes and kept the nation waiting breathlessly for an extra 24 hours, finally unveiled his plan to save the world today.
The Dow dropped 300 points minutes after Geithner's plan was unveiled.
Well actually it's the banking system. But if he doesn't save that, then somebody is going to have to save the world. The plan he announced is like a Chinese crossword puzzle unless you have a PhD in economics and finance. So let us try to simplify; it may cost another trillion dollars to keep the banking system afloat and get credit flowing again.
When Wall Street heard the news, it immediately threw up on itself, with the Dow dropping 300 points in a matter of minutes. And if Wall Street doesn't like it, I find it difficult to imagine why the rest of us should get too excited.
Nevertheless, at this point, we have little choice but to pull for Geithner- 34 banks have failed in the last year.
As the cost of dealing with our financial crisis soars into the trillions of dollars, I have this nagging feeling that we were never told the truth about how bad things were getting last year right up until Lehman Brothers went belly up in September. I still don't think we know.
Here’s my question to you: How concerned are you about the nation’s banking system?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How would you live on $500,000 a year?
Wall Street and financial firms argue that limiting executive pay to $500,000 is unfair. (PHOTO CREDIT:GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
So this week President Obama said executives at companies that get bailout money will not be allowed to earn more than $500,000 per year. Poor things. And if the companies want to pay them more than that, it has to be in the form of stock that cannot be sold until the loans are repaid to the federal government.
The Wall Street and financial firms argue that is unfair. They say talented executives will leave for greener pastures and fatter paychecks at companies that don't take bailout money. Maybe. We'll have to see how many of those are still around if and when this stimulus package gets through Congress. And at this moment that's far from a sure thing either.
But I digress. Back to how to make it on $500 grand a year. Cancel the country club membership? Sell the yacht and the vacation home - homes. Maybe have junior apply somewhere besides the Ivy League where college goes for upwards of $60 grand a year. List the Hummer and the all-terrain vehicles on E-Bay. Maybe check into the cost of a membership in Costco. It's not going to be easy.
Here’s my question to you: How would your life change if you were forced to live on $500,000 a year?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Can government head off depression?
A man waiting at a breadline in San Francisco during the Winter of 1933. (PHOTO CREDIT: DOROTHEA LANGE/NATIONAL ARCHIVES/NEWSMAKERS)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. economy is in its worst shape since the recession of the 1970s, and perhaps soon it will match the Great Depression. So says the CEO of General Electric.
Jeff Immelt says that unlike other downturns, this one is faced with limited liquidity. He stressed that governments around the world have gone "all in”… "firing as many bullets" as they can to stimulate their economies, and eventually "government always wins". Immelt says it's more important to move forward quickly with a large stimulus package than to worry about the details. Congress - are you listening?
And there's more. Another top economic mind, the co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co – or PIMCO – says the U.S. might head into a "mini depression" unless government spends trillions of dollars. That's trillions, with a "T." Bill Gross told Bloomberg TV "there is a potential catastrophe if the U.S. government continues to focus on billions of dollars". While Congress bickers about mere hundreds of billions, a couple of the brighter bulbs in the private sector suggest it's going to take much, much more.
Gross says that the Fed is going to have to buy Treasuries. That's because some believe that as China's economy slows, it may start buying less of our debt. Goldman Sachs estimates that government borrowing will reach $2.5 trillion this fiscal year.
Meanwhile, these grim assessments came right before today's report that employers cut another 598,000 jobs in January – the worse job loss since December 1974. It brings the unemployment rate to 7.6%. Happy Friday.
Here’s my question to you: Is the U.S. government capable of heading off a full-blown depression?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should government limit executive pay?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama is promising to take "the air out of golden parachutes” by capping how much executives whose companies are getting bailout money can earn.
The president wants to cap how much executives whose companies received bailout money can earn.
The president set a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay at those institutions that are in the worst shape and get money from the government in the future.
Mr. Obama highlighted last year's handout of $18 billion in Wall Street bonuses – something he called "shameful"... saying that's the kind of disregard that brought about our current crisis.
Under his plan, companies that want to pay their executives more will have to do it through shares of stock that can't be sold until the companies pay back the government.
There's more. The new rules also require that shareholders have more say about how much the executives get paid. And, companies will have to show more transparency when it comes to costs for things like holiday parties and office renovations. The president also promised more reforms to come, as his administration cracks down on a quote "reckless culture."
This all is starting to sound a bit like socialism. We either have a "free enterprise" system or we don't. Granted abuses by certain CEOs have invited this, but where are we going when the government starts dictating how much people are allowed to earn?
Here’s my question to you: Should the government dictate executive compensation at companies that get bailout money?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does quitting smoking stimulate the economy?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As you know, the House passed an $819-billion stimulus package yesterday. Now a different version of the legislation will make its way through the Senate.
A version of the stimulus bill includes $75 million to get people to quit smoking.
That version includes $75-million to get people to quit smoking. It was sponsored by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin who says the idea is to ultimately reduce health-care costs.
To make his case, Harkin cited reports that show smoking is the leading cause of preventable diseases and costs $110-billion a year in health costs.
Seems straight forward: Get people to quit smoking and they won't drain the health care system. Perhaps that's the same line of thinking that went into the $400-million the Senate included to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The House version included $335-million for that.
Some of the $75-million to get people to kick cigarettes will go to the Department of Health and Human Services to bolster anti-smoking campaigns that already exist. Another chunk will go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for equipment that tests the contents in cigarettes. Do we need this? Cigarette packages plainly tell you smoking will probably eventually kill you. And I find it very hard to believe we need additional equipment to test the contents in cigarettes. Tobacco and carcinogens would seem to cover it.
Here’s my question to you: How does getting people to stop smoking stimulate the economy?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How secure is your job?
An unemployed Coloradoan signs up at a job fair in Denver, Colorado on January 22, 2009. Unemployment in the United States, now more than seven percent nationally, is at its highest level in many years. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If you want proof this recession has legs, you need look no farther than a series of announcements this Monday morning that companies continue to slash jobs right and left.
It started with construction giant Caterpillar announcing plans to cut 20,000 jobs.
Home Depot said they're cutting 7,000 employees and will close their high-end EXPO stores.
Sprint-Nextel said they are cutting 8,000 jobs.
And there are reports that Starbucks is going to slash 1,000 jobs. That's in addition to previously announced cuts.
There was also the announcement that pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is buying competitor Wyeth, a move that will cut more than 19,000 jobs.
And this afternoon GM announced plans to cut 2,000 jobs.
ING and Philips Electronics, both based in the Netherlands with employees in the U.S., plan to cut 7,000 and 6,000 jobs respectively. One estimate is that 56,000 jobs were cut today alone.
Last week it was Microsoft and before that Circuit City. These days just about everybody knows somebody who has lost a job.
The National Association for Business Economics, a trade group for private companies, says 39% of their companies plan to cut their payroll within 6 months.
Here’s my question to you: How secure do you feel about your job?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Extravagant Inauguration: Does it send the wrong message?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Barack Obama is hosting the party of a lifetime, and it seems that there's no penny pinching going on in spite of the recession.
US President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle wave during yesterday's 'We Are One' concert, one of the events of Obama's inauguration celebrations.
Estimates are that total costs for Obama's inauguration celebration could reach, or even exceed, $160 million. Obama has raised an estimated $41 million to help cover the costs of things like the train ride from Philadelphia to Washington on Saturday, and the star studded concert featuring U2, Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen and others yesterday. There's also the actual swearing in ceremony tomorrow with a price tag of $1.24 million and 10 official inaugural balls. Not to mention the cost of security and those 5,000 port-a-potties.
Four years ago, Democrats warned President Bush about an extravagant inauguration calling it inappropriate during a time of war. Today, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, the unemployment rate is the worst since 1945, consumer confidence is down along with the stock market and companies announce daily they are laying off people, closing stores or going out of business altogether.
But not a peep from the Democrats about the costs of Obama's inauguration. See, he's one of theirs.
And if you want to lose your appetite for dinner, consider this. The biggest donors for the inaugural festivities are recently bailed out Wall Streeters. Is this a great country or what?
Here’s my question to you: In light of the sour economy, does an extravagant inauguration celebration send the wrong message?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments