Standard and Poor’s drops credit rating to A from A+, blaming sluggish economy and ineffective government reforms Italy has had its sovereign credit rating cut by Standard and Poor’s , with the ratings agency keeping the country’s outlook on negative in a major surprise that adds to contagion fears in the debt-stressed eurozone. The agency cut Italy’s government debt rating to A from A+ and said Italy’s economic growth prospects were getting weaker, with planned reforms by the government not expected to help much. “We believe the reduced pace of Italy’s economic activity to date will make the government’s revised fiscal targets difficult to achieve,” S&P said in a statement. Italy follows eurozone partners Spain, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus in having its credit rating downgraded this year. Kathy Lien, director of currency research at GFT, said the ratings downgrade would impact heavily on the eurozone. “This is definitely going to put a damper on any recovery in euro/dollar. Italy is a much bigger deal than Greece,” she said. “It’s a much bigger deal because a lot more countries are exposed to Italian debt than they are Greek debt. The greatest concern was never really about Greece but the contagion over to Italy and to Spain.” US stocks fell ahead of S&P’s announcement but staged a late comeback as fears of a near-term Greek debt default faded on news of a possible deal to advance new bailout funds to Athens. The Nikkei average is expected to slip on Tuesday, though it is likely to stick to a narrow range ahead of a US Federal Reserve meeting. “Japanese markets were closed on Monday for a national holiday, meaning investors here have to catch up to all of the developments overseas,” said Kenichi Hirano, operating officer at Tachibana Securities. “Worries about Europe remain but investors are unlikely to take aggressive new positions ahead of the Fed meeting, which will keep the Nikkei trading in a range.” European debt crisis Italy Euro European banks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Report published by Commons committee warns getting the system working properly is likely to cost an additional £85m An attempted reorganisation of the fire service by the last government cost nearly £500m and was one of the worst cases of project failure MPs have ever seen, according to a highly critical report published on Tuesday by the all-party Commons public accounts committee (PAC). It warns that finally getting the system working properly is likely to cost an additional £85m. The damning report – published following an investigation and hearings by the committee this summer – says that the concept of abolishing 46 local fire and rescue control rooms and reorganising them into nine regional control centres was flawed from the start. The FiReControl project was launched too quickly with insufficient consultation, it is claimed. The committee also says a contract for designing, developing and installing an IT infrastructure was awarded three years late, to European Air and Defence Systems, now Cassidian, a company with no experience of dealing with emergency services. The project’s development was heavily reliant on advice from PA Consulting, whose services alone cost £42m. The scheme was terminated last December with no objectives achieved and at least £469m wasted, the MPs say. Margaret Hodge, the Labour chair of the PAC, said the scheme had been a complete failure. “The taxpayer has lost nearly half a billion pounds and eight of the completed regional control centres remain as empty and costly white elephants. “No one has been held to account for this project failure, one of the worst we have seen for many years, and the careers of most of the senior staff responsible have carried on as if nothing had gone wrong at all, and the consultants and contractor continue to work on many other government projects.” The project, launched in 2004, was intended to produce a more co-ordinated response to emergencies such as train crashes and terrorist attacks, but the intention of abolishing local control rooms and replacing them with regional centres was undermined from the start because the Department for Communities and Local Government lacked powers impose such a framework and failed to consult local fire services, despite the costs and potential liabilities they would face from reorganisation. The report says the department pushed ahead without undertaking basic project approval checks, taking decisions before testing the ideas for feasibility. It adds: “The result was hugely unrealistic forecast costs and savings, naive over-optimism on the deliverability of the IT solution and under-appreciation or mitigation of the risks. “The department demonstrated poor judgment in approving the project and failed to provide appropriate checks and challenge. “The new fire control centres were constructed and completed whilst there was considerable delay in even awarding the IT contract, let alone developing the essential IT infrastructure. Consultants made up over half the management team (costing £69m by 2010) but were not managed … The committee considers this an extraordinary failure of leadership. Yet no individuals have been held accountable for the failure and waste.” The MPs say the department now estimates it will cost a further £84.8m to put the project right and is inviting bids from fire and rescue services, but remains unable to say whether that will provide value for money, or provide a more efficient and co-ordinated service in the event of a major emergency. It says the eight empty regional control centres are costing the taxpayer £4m a month to maintain and it is likely that only five of them will ultimately be used. Firefighters Tax and spending House of Commons Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A Republican tea party candidate running for Ohio’s 8th Congressional District declared Monday that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was a “socialist.” David Lewis told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he hopes to defeat Boehner in the Republican primary by running on the tea party platform. “John Boehner is a socialist,” Lewis explained. “I’m not calling him names.” “Socialist!” Cavuto objected. “Now, David, come on. That’s a little extreme.” “It’s an economic policy. I’m not calling names,” Lewis insisted. “Here is someone that refuses to phase out Social Security. What I would do as a U.S. House member is work to phase out Social Security totally. 100 percent. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. These are socialist policies.” “Does the tea party have your back?” Cavuto asked. “I believe so… The tea party is still trying to figure out whether they believe in socialist policies,” Lewis replied. “David, that’s a strong term to use. You know, many have been using it about liberals and those in Congress who want bigger and better government and all of that stuff. But you can call John Boehner probably a lot of things, but the socialist thing, don’t you think that’s a little over the top?” Cavuto wondered. Last September, Cavuto didn’t seem to mind as much when Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus told him that President Barack Obama was a “socialist at heart.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A Republican tea party candidate running for Ohio’s 8th Congressional District declared Monday that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was a “socialist.” David Lewis told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he hopes to defeat Boehner in the Republican primary by running on the tea party platform. “John Boehner is a socialist,” Lewis explained. “I’m not calling him names.” “Socialist!” Cavuto objected. “Now, David, come on. That’s a little extreme.” “It’s an economic policy. I’m not calling names,” Lewis insisted. “Here is someone that refuses to phase out Social Security. What I would do as a U.S. House member is work to phase out Social Security totally. 100 percent. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. These are socialist policies.” “Does the tea party have your back?” Cavuto asked. “I believe so… The tea party is still trying to figure out whether they believe in socialist policies,” Lewis replied. “David, that’s a strong term to use. You know, many have been using it about liberals and those in Congress who want bigger and better government and all of that stuff. But you can call John Boehner probably a lot of things, but the socialist thing, don’t you think that’s a little over the top?” Cavuto wondered. Last September, Cavuto didn’t seem to mind as much when Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus told him that President Barack Obama was a “socialist at heart.”
Continue reading …Media Myth Debunked: Millionaires Don’t Pay Less Tax as Percent of Income Than Lower Earners
September 19, 2011 No Comment
As President Obama trots out his new “Buffett Rule” to raise taxes on millionaires, the media are predictably assisting his efforts by spreading misinformation about the wealthy paying less taxes than lower wage earners as a percent of income. 2009 tax figures recently released by the Internal Revenue Service thoroughly refute this assertion: The chart above is an abbreviated version of the IRS's 2009 Table 1.1 “Selected Income and Tax Items.” Unfortunately, I wasn't able to include in this picture data for folks making under $10,000 due to spacial limitations. For those interested, people making “$1 under $5,000″ paid 11.9 percent of taxable income and 4.8 percent of Adjusted Gross Income less deficit. “$5,000 under $10,000″ was 10.2 percent and 4.8 percent respectively. For those wondering what the “less deficit” means, from the research I've done, it appears that for the purposes of these tables, the IRS subtracts AGI losses – those returns that actually showed a loss on line 37 of form 1040 – from all of the gains to give an accurate reading of the AGI in each income bracket. That said, readers should notice that folks with AGIs and taxable incomes of “$75,000 under $100,000″ paid 8.5 percent and 12.3 percent respectively. Even at the $100,000 under $200,000″ level, taxes were 11.9 percent and 16.3 percent respectively. Yet when you get to $500,000 and over, the numbers jump to as high as 25.8 percent and 29.7 percent respectively. That certainly isn't what the media are telling you, is it? To be sure, at the $10 million and over number, taxes drop a bit because these folks clearly make more of their total income in investments than most people. However, even these folks paid higher percentages than anyone making less than $500,000 AGI or TI. Wouldn't it be nice if so-called journalists actually shared this information with the public rather than the “rich aren't paying their fare share” nonsense we constantly hearing and read?
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Click here to view this media There are moments where I despair for the fate of this country, because it seems to me that we operate from completely different sets of realities based on the same set of facts. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer exemplifies this kind of “make-your-own-reality” within the media. You’d think he’d have learned after his humiliation on The Daily Show . But no, Jim Cramer unabashedly keeps blurring the lines between business reporting and market advocacy . Cramer came on Hardball on Friday to insist that Wall Street just hates Obama’s guts and they’re just waiting for that cuddly Republican to get into office before they unleash all those jobs we all know they have. It’s all that taxation and regulations that mean ol’ Barack Obama insists on inflicting on Wall Street. CRAMER: Okay, first, I’m going to agree with you, that the market has been fabulous, which is one of the reasons I’m always so astonished when people tell me that the problem is Obama. I mean, it’s clear Washington can be dysfunctional, but Democrats and Republicans not getting together. But when you get offline with CEOs, it’s not just Wall Street, but Industrial America, what they tend to say is, listen, we want to add, we want to hire, we want to grow in the United States, but everything is so up in the air and when it gets to the point where we’re thinking about what Washington’s going to do, we know we’re going to be the loser if President Obama is making the decision, because President Obama does not favor wealth creation and corporate profits. Not, the profits are huge. People have made a lot of money, but that is the rap that I hear. MATTHEWS: What is it particularly when a banker or a rich guy, anybody who’s got to make thse big decisions—well, let’s look at some of these numbers first, because I think they’re really informative. When President Obama took office January 20th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7949. Today, it closed at 11, 509, up from yesterday. That’s a 31% increase since Obama’s been president. Well, that alone sould be, wow, this guy’s good. And then there’s corporate profits. The New York Times cites a study by Northeastern University, and economist reports, “since the recovery began in June of 2009, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of that growth.” This is the stuff that causes revolutions, from the bottom, not from the top. [..] CRAMER: Look, I’m telling you that when you get off the desk with them, they really just feel like, look, if we got a Republican in there, we could really do a great thing in this country by hiring a lot of people. My rage meter at Cramer’s gleeful dishonesty is just redlining. CEOs are telling him privately that they’re just waiting for a Republican in the White House to hire people while Americans suffer through massive unemployment? Well then NAME NAMES, Cramer, you dishonest jerk, and tell us just which CEOs are telling you this and who are acting so treasonously. Because Chris Matthews–to his credit, since you apparently don’t believe in offering up these facts to these business owners–pointed out all the reasons that Obama could hardly be considered anti-business. These asses were bailed out by American taxpayers, posted record profits, pocketed nice little bonuses…but they need a Republican in the White House to pass that largesse back to the Americans? Well to put it bluntly, eff that. And eff Cramer and his ridiculous advocacy for Republican lies. But I have to give kudos to Chris Matthews for having facts on hand to show the lies and propaganda of Cramer’s statements. Look how very differently Cramer was received earlier that day on Morning Joe. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …