Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (4973)	1/16/2009 7:38:41 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 103300

I have seen your future, America, and it doesn’t work James Delingpole Wednesday, 14th January 2009 On the eve of Barack Obama’s inauguration, James Delingpole says that the President-elect is horribly reminiscent of Tony Blair in 1997. He may be a fantastic guy, and look great, but he will bring a ragbag of scuzzballs, communists and eco-loons to power with him No matter how excited you may be about Barack Obama’s inauguration on Tuesday, I bet you’re not as pleased as I am. Never have I wished more devoutly for a presidential victory than the one won by this mighty intellect-cum-healer-cum-fashion-model-cum-general-all-round-Messiah — a man so conscious of his own merit that, unlike any president before him, he plans to swear his inaugural oath on the Lincoln bible. But this wasn’t because I nurtured a burning desire to see the first ever African-American made US president. Nor because I’d bought into his speeches or that lovely, confident, articulate speaking voice he has. Nor yet because I had the remotest faith in Obama’s ability to change America for the better. Quite the opposite, actually. The reason I wanted him to win was because I was halfway through writing a book called Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work. The title just wouldn’t have had the same ring under a President John McCain. When I tell them about the book, most of my Conservative friends go: ‘Wow! That is such a good idea.’ But all the credit here belongs to a brilliant US publishing vice president named Harry Crocker III who contacted me out of the blue one day with the nicest email I’ve ever received. ‘Dear James,’ it went, ‘as a longstanding Spectator reader and fan of your column I wondered whether you might be interested in writing a book for us…’ I’ve been pinching myself in disbelief ever since. Mind you, there were a couple of obstacles which at first seemed insurmount-able. The first was that Harry wanted the book delivered in a month and the second was that, it being published only in America for a US audience, the project seemed to require rather more knowledge about US politics than I have or ever will possess. spectator.co.uk Message 25328947 GZ

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (4973)	1/17/2009 6:21:14 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

The government policy that 'dare not speak it's name': Nationalization. There is very little left in tangible asset value at (for example...) Citibank. This latest round of government bailing out the banks has mostly been designed with a secondary real goal --- not to utter the 'nationalization word'... despite the fact that, from this point on, that is exactly what is being realized.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (4973)	1/17/2009 6:22:27 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Chrysler Financial gets federal loan Automaker to offer new financing deals to boost sales BY TIM HIGGINS • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • January 17, 2009 freep.com Chrysler LLC announced new sales incentives Friday following the U.S. Treasury's decision to lend the automaker's financing arm $1.5 billion, a much-needed cash infusion to finance new consumer auto loans. Chrysler Financial received an initial $100 million Friday, a U.S. government official said. The money is coming from the government's $700-billion financial bailout fund. "This funding will better position us to withstand the current economic challenges until funding becomes available through more traditional commercial sources," Thomas Gilman, Chrysler Financial vice chairman and CEO, said in a statement. The loans follow the Treasury's move to lend up to $6 billion to GMAC. The loans to Chrysler Financial are in addition to the $4 billion Chrysler's automotive business received in federal loans. Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a stake in GMAC, is a majority owner of both Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. Chrysler executives have said that a lack of loans and available credit were severely curtailing sales, which were down more than 50% in December. Chrysler wasted no time in announcing sales incentives following the Treasury's announcement. The automaker is offering zero-percent financing on 11 vehicles for up to five years on selected vehicles. The company will have new advertising next week that highlights the zero-percent financing offer, the company said. "Our dealers have been telling us that maybe 20% of the customers or 25% of the customers that they've had have not been able to buy cars only because of restricted credit," said Jim Press, a Chrysler president and vice chairman. "This really opens the door and we think will have a very positive impact on our sales." Dealers, who have been struggling to find vehicle financing for their customers, were happy to hear the news. "It is amazing what I think the difference that it will make," said Bill Golling of Golling Chrysler Jeep Dodge Inc. in Bloomfield Hills. "I think Chrysler Financial financed something like 3,000 cars" last month "when they normally do 50,000. Don't you think that makes a little bit of an impact?" Chrysler said customers with credit scores of 620 will now be able to get loans. "It's a damn good thing for the dealers," Sheldon Sandler of Bel-Air Partners, a New Jersey consulting firm that specializes in automotive retailing, said of the loan. "They need support to sell cars. One of the big problems that's been going on is that they sell the car but can't get the paper for it." The new loan will be backed by the car loans that Chrysler Financial makes. Contact TIM HIGGINS at 313-222-8784 or thiggins@freepress.com. Business writers Justin Hyde and Brent Snavely contributed to this report.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (4973)	1/17/2009 6:24:28 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

83 Percent of Companies Had Tax-Haven Units, GAO Says (Update1) By Ryan J. Donmoyer bloomberg.com Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. companies, including Citigroup Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and General Motors Corp., had units in multiple tax havens in 2007, a government study said. Among those companies were some recipients of federal bailout money. The Government Accountability Office said in a report dated Dec. 18 and released today by two senators that four companies, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., and News Corp., had more than 100 subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax countries. The first three companies received or will receive shares of a $700 billion financial rescue package approved by Congress. “We should take action to shut down these tax dodgers and we will be introducing legislation to do just that,” said North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat who released the report with Michigan Senator Carl Levin, also a Democrat. Companies have many reasons for establishing units in low- tax countries such as the Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, or Liechtenstein, many of which also have strict financial-privacy protections, the GAO said. “The existence of a subsidiary in a jurisdiction listed as a tax haven or financial privacy jurisdiction does not signify that a corporation or contractor established that subsidiary for the purpose of reducing its tax burden,” the report said. “We did not attempt to determine if corporations or contractors engaged in transactions with their subsidiaries in order to reduce their tax burden.” 427 Subsidiaries Citigroup had 427 subsidiaries in tax-haven countries and Morgan Stanley had 273, the GAO said. News Corp. and Bank of America had 152 and 115, respectively. In some cases, such as in the soda industry, competitors varied on their presence in tax havens. Pepsi had 70 subsidiaries in tax havens, compared with eight for Coca Cola Inc., the GAO said. Of the 83 companies, 74 held federal contracts, including General Motors with 11 subsidiaries in countries such as Barbados, Bermuda, Ireland, Switzerland, Singapore and the Cayman Islands. The companies identified by the GAO generally declined to comment. PepsiCo said it wasn’t trying to evade taxes with its international presence. “Our subsidiaries are to support the sale of our products,” PepsiCo spokeswoman Jenny Schiavone said. “We operate or sell our products in the majority of the countries considered in the GAO analysis.” Some of the companies identified by the GAO, including Oracle Corp., which has 77 subsidiaries in foreign tax havens, are urging Congress to renew a former tax holiday that would let them pay an effective rate of 5.25 percent on foreign profits they import to the U.S., instead of rates as high as 35 percent that otherwise would be due. -- With reporting by Duane Stanford in Atlanta. Editors: Robin Meszoly, Laurie Asseo. To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net Last Updated: January 16, 2009 18:39 EST

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (4973)	1/17/2009 8:33:53 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Let's Fast-Forward to a New RTC by: Tom Lindmark January 16, 2009 seekingalpha.com As the banking crisis worsens, the government steps up its attempt to creatively keep those who are perceived as survivors alive. The weak are merged into the strong in order to avoid further strain on the deposit insurance fund but the strong turn out to be paper tigers. And so it goes for years. You have probably already figured out that depiction is not of the current situation or the early 1930’s but rather of the period from roughly 1987 to 1990. It all seems to be playing out the same way again, though, and unfortunately our leaders, such as they are, don’t seem to be focused on that time period. I don’t know if its hubris, a belief that they can do it their way and better than it was done before or if they are so fixated on the Depression that they can’t see beyond that experience, but there is a path that worked before and we still have some of the human resources around that know how to execute it once more. I’m speaking, of course, of a Resolution Trust Corporation sort of solution to this crisis. The RTC was created when it finally became obvious that propping up banks was not a viable solution. At that time capital was created out of thin air and weaker institutions were merged into supposedly stronger ones in the belief that they would be able to resolve the problem with toxic assets and emerge as viable financial players. It didn’t work because then like now the poison had seeped throughout the entire system. The supposedly stronger institutions weren’t strong at all, just able to hide their weakness better than the others. Ultimately, the futility of the plan was so obvious that the political smoke and mirror game could go no farther and reality had to be faced. Fortunately, a few pretty bright men were brought into the game and proceeded to do what properly should have been done several years before. They took over the banks and they proceeded to strip out the saleable assets and then, logically, sell those assets in order to limit the overall cost of the debacle. To no ones surprise the assets were snapped up as there was plenty of money waiting on the sidelines ready to buy at a price that made sense. Early on in our current crisis there was a lot of talk about resurrecting this model. It made sense but the idea seemed to drift away. Why that happened I don’t know but at this point in time the fact that it did is immaterial. We probably have gone past the point at which we should have brought the program out of mothballs. So let’s get on with it. Forget all the financial engineering talk about nationalizing Citi (C) and Bank of America (BAC) and just put them into FDIC receivership. Make it plain that the FDIC has a blank check from the federal government, hire the best you can find to run and staff it and then proceed to restructure both. Wipe out the right side of the balance sheet, sell off the dicey stuff - there is plenty of money out there waiting to jump at a bargain - and figure out how to create a new, clean bank or banks that would probably fetch a pretty penny in an IPO. This is not the rocket science that everyone is trying to make it out to be. Bill Seidman and Paul Volker are still around and could probably help a few good people get to the bottom of this much more quickly than we will at our current pace. Let’s not wait for another year or two to do what we will end up doing anyway.