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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (875417)	7/26/2015 3:28:10 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1576587

"when you are forced to call Obama another Hitler or Mussolini, you've lost the argument." like how you call all conservatives and republicans. god you are an idiot. really did the doctor slap your mother when you were born

To: tejek who wrote (875417)	7/26/2015 3:34:20 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1576587

Instead, he prosecuted the banks and got significant revenue for the country at a time when it needed every penny. You post orwellian lies with a straight face

To: tejek who wrote (875417)	7/26/2015 3:36:39 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1576587

ACA is too health care as summer vacations are to Nazi death camps You're unable to discern between insurance and care….still!

To: tejek who wrote (875417)	7/26/2015 3:37:38 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1576587

Reagan wannabe Rham gets spanked when to tries to bust Chicago Unions ++++++++++ In Key Decision, Junk-Rated Chicago's Pension Reform Bid Ruled Unconstitutional Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/25/2015 19:05 -0400 On Thursday, we previewed a critical court ruling involving Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s effort to cut pension expenses and plug a yawning budget gap. Here’s a brief recap of the story so far: Back in May, the Illinois Supreme Court set a de facto precedent for lawmakers across the country when a bid to cut pension benefits was struck down in a unanimous ruling. Anyone who might have been confused as to the significance of the decision got a wake up call from Moody’s when the ratings agency, citing the read-through for Chicago’s fiscal situation, downgraded the city to junk. This is part of a larger fiscal crisis in the country which has left almost half of US states facing funding gaps for the upcoming fiscal year. All told, the total pension shortfall across states and cities is anywhere between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion depending on who you ask. And here’s a recap of what was at stake in Friday’s ruling, courtesy of the Illinois Policy Institute: A Cook County judge will rule on the legality of a 2014 pension law aimed at reforming two of Chicago’s underfunded city retirement systems. While the pension law included some much-needed reforms, such as an increase in the retirement age, if upheld the law ultimately would put Chicago residents on the hook for millions of dollars of tax increases. Well, those residents can relax for now, because as expected, Emanuel’s plan was determined to be unconstitutional by Rita M. Novak of the Cook County Circuit Court. The New York Times has more: A judge in Chicago ruled on Friday that a plan to change city workers’ pensions was unconstitutional. The case is being closely watched for its effect on the city’s uncertain finances. "This principle is particularly compelling where the Supreme Court’s decision is so recent, deals with such closely parallel issues and provides crystal-clear direction on the proper interpretation of the law," Judge Novak wrote. The Constitution of Illinois provides that public pensions "shall not be diminished or impaired." Pension costs in many American states and cities are growing much faster than the money available to pay them, causing a painful squeeze.Officials who try to restore balance by reducing pensions in some way are almost always sued; outcomes of these lawsuits vary widely from state to state. Some of the worst problems have been brewing for years in Illinois, particularly in Chicago, where the city’s pension contributions have long been set artificially low by lawmakers in Springfield, the state capital. With more and more city workers now retiring, a $20 billion deficit has materialized, and Friday’s ruling is seen as a setback to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s efforts to close this gap and rescue Chicago’s credit rating. Officials in the mayor’s office said the city would appeal. “While we are disappointed by the trial court’s ruling, we have always recognized that this matter will ultimately be resolved by the Illinois Supreme Court," said Chicago’s legal counsel, Stephen Patton, in a statement. "We now look forward to having our arguments heard there." While we certainly understand the idea that cutting pension benefits amounts a breach of the so-called "implicit contract" between public sector employees and state and local governments, it seems as though the logic employed both by the workers and by the courts suffers from the same myopia and denial of economic realities that has helped saddle the world with a combined $19 trillion in debt. Put simply: if the pension system isn't reformed, it will run out of money and no one will get anything. Here's The Times again: "All city residents can be reassured that the Constitution — our state’s highest law — means what it says and will be respected, while city employees and retirees can be assured that their modest retirement income is protected," said Ms. Lynch, the executive director of Afscme’s Council 31 in Chicago. Chicago said its pension overhaul would provide "massive net benefits" to workers if allowed to proceed. That was because the two pension funds at issue — one for laborers and one for general city workers — were heading toward certain insolvency. An insolvent system would be able to pay retirees only about 30 percent of their benefits. So for now, delay-and-pray wins and in all likelihood, Chicago will lose on appeal, meaning the city will sink further into insolvency while those that will be most affected when the pension ponzi finally collapses continue to object to the very reform measures that might save them. Full decision below.

To: tejek who wrote (875417)	7/31/2015 10:23:52 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By bull_dozer Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576587

You think anything the Fed has done has benefitted the 99%? This is the biggest lie of all. Pay attention. The truth is right in front of you. ----------- Who Really Benefits From Bailouts? 21 JUL 31, 2015 10:53 AM EDT By Barry Ritholtz I always find it amusing whenever someone expresses surprise that the financial bailouts for Greece haven't benefited Greek citizens. " Bailout Money Goes to Greece, Only to Flow Out Again" in the New York Times is just the latest example. "The cash exodus is a small piece of a bigger puzzle over why — despite two major international bailouts — the Greek economy is in worse shape and more deeply in debt." Unfortunately, this is a feature of bailout, not a bug. A plethora of financial rescues during the past decades has proven quite convincingly that this isn't an aberration. Follow the money instead of following the headlines. That's how you learn who profits from a bailout. Look around the world -- Japan, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, Ireland, the U.S. and now Greece to learn who is and isn't helped by these enormous government-backed bailouts. No, it isn't the Greek people, nor even their banks. They never were the intended beneficiaries of the bailouts, nor were Irish citizens in that bailout. Indeed, homeowners in the U.S. were little more that incidental recipients of aid as a percentage of total rescue spending. You probably learned the phrase "moral hazard" during the financial crisis. In short, what it means is that the bailouts rescued leveraged, reckless speculators from the results of their unwise professional folly and gave them an incentive to do it all over again. They were and the intended rescuees. Do you think I am exaggerating? Consider the U.S. bailout in its manifold forms, from TARP to ZIRP to QE. How many bondholders suffered losses from their poor investment decisions? With the exception of holders of Lehman Brothers' debt and a handful of banks that weren't deemed too big to fail, just about every other bondholder was made whole, 100 cents on the dollar. Thanks to rescue plans such as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, holders of bonds from a diverse assortment of failed and failing companies suffered literally no losses. American International Group? Zero losses. Government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Zero losses. Banking giants Citigroup and Bank of America? Zero losses. Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns? Zero losses. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s actions were rare exceptions to this rule: Its bailouts actually benefitted consumers -- savings and checking account holders. When banks such as Indy Mac, Wachovia, Washington Mutual went belly up, the FDIC arranged a shotgun marriages. WaMu went to JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia went to Wells Fargo, Indy Mac went to OneWest Bank. Once it was certain the account holders were made whole, whatever assets were left went to the most senior creditors -- typically bond holders. (Equity holders usually get wiped out). In Washington Mutual's case, bond owners received between 20 and 28 cents on the dollar. Other FDIC resolutions yielded similar amounts. Even the Federal Reserve's zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), in place for so long that there hasn't been a rate increase in more than nine years, is there to help rescued banks. For years after the financial crisis, their balance sheets remain festooned with so many bad mortgages and soured loans that an early increase in rates would have put those portfolios at huge risk. Now that prices have mostly returned to pre-crisis levels, it is considered safe to increase the fed funds rates, which we all know will have a significant impact on mortgage rates. With foreclosures down tremendously from their peak, the banks can tolerate interest increases. Despite plenty of evidence that the economy could have absorbed interest rates increases almost two year ago -- the economy met the Fed’s own parameters at that time -- bank mortgage portfolios were still shaky, and not in shape to deal with rate increases. More losses that could have compromised the banking industry's health were likely. So if you think that it is just a coincidence that rates are likely to rise only now, when bank balance sheets can tolerate them, you haven't been paying close attention. History teaches us that when companies fail, they file either a reorganization or liquidation in a bankruptcy court. The exceptions are when well-placed executives are friendly with Congress (Chrysler 1980) or members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Lockheed 1972) or Treasury secretaries (all of Wall Street except Dick Fuld in 2008-09). Having well-connected corporate executives on your board or in senior management sure comes in handy during an emergency. Which brings us back to Greece. Its leaders never learned the lesson that Ireland eventually figured out and tiny Iceland understood from the start. The phrase systemic risk is nothing more than code; what it actually means is that a politically connected banker wants the government to cover losses on bad investments. In the case of Greece, the money flows in large part from European governments and the International Monetary Fund through Greece, and then to various private-sector lenders. We all call it a Greek bailout, because if it were called the "Rescue of German bankers from the results of their Athenian lending folly," who would support it? Our moral compass informs us that bailouts shouldn't work to the benefit of the reckless and irresponsible. Reality teaches us a very different lesson.