[sunnykerr]

House passes stimulus bill, moves to Senate
http://www.fanforum.com/f117/economi...rong-62864036/
http://www.fanforum.com/f117/700-bil...tory-62857273/

Banner by 4N6 DNA

[sunnykerr]

Deal May Be Near in Madoff Fraud Case Prosecutors have filed a motion indicating a plea deal may be in the works for Bernard Madoff, accused of running a sweeping financial fraud. The U.S. Attorney's office indicated Friday in a brief court motion that Madoff is ready to waive an indictment. Such language is often used when plea deals are ready to happen. Madoff is accused of orchestrating one of the biggest financial frauds in history, a scheme that wiped out the life savings of investors around the world. A message left for Madoff's lawyer was not immediately returned. Prosecutor's spokeswoman Rebecca Carmichael declined to comment.

Deal may be near in Madoff fraud case

[vc318]

I wasn't aware that this case was going on but I'm glad that it's coming to a close. Now let's go after the criminals who took advantage of millions of people in shady mortgage loans.

[sunnykerr]

Global Recession to Hurt More Women Than Men More women than men are likely to lose their jobs this year as a result of the global economic crisis, warns the International Labour Office (ILO) in its annual Global Employment Trends for Women report. As the crisis worsens in 2009, the number of unemployed women is expected to rise by up to 22 million, the report predicts. It estimates the global unemployment rate for women could reach as high as 7.4 per cent, compared to 7.0 per cent for men. This would result in an increase of between 24 million and 52 million people unemployed worldwide, of which from 10 million to 22 million would be women. While the current crisis began in the U.S. and European financial sectors -- in jobs traditionally dominated by men -- unemployment is now spreading into sectors typically dominated by women, such as the service industry and the wholesale retail trade, the ILO says. The gender impact of unemployment is expected to be worse for women in most regions of the world, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean. The ILO is especially worried about women in the developing world, working part-time in agriculture, or as domestic servants, on a piecemeal basis. They typically have no social protection and are especially vulnerable during an economic downturn, said ILO Bureau for Gender Equality Director Jane Hodges. "Women's lower employment rates, weaker control over property and resources, concentration in informal and vulnerable forms of employment with lower earnings, and less social protection, all place women in a weaker position than men to weather crises," Hodges said in a statement. She added that "women may cope by engaging in working longer hours or by taking multiple low-income jobs but still having to maintain unpaid care commitments." ILO Director-General Juan Somavia says gender inequality in the working world is nothing new, but will likely be exacerbated by the crisis. "In times of economic upheaval, women often experience the negative consequences more rapidly and are slower to enjoy the benefits of recovery. And already before the crisis, the majority of working women were in the informal economy with lower earnings and less social protection," he noted. He added that the effects of the economic crisis go beyond the workplace and have an impact on the overall stability of society, considering the various roles that women play. The ILO is calling on governments to ensure that new jobs created by economic stimulus packages guarantee fair salaries, and social protection measures. The ILO issued its report in the run-up to International Women's Day, to be marked on March 6.

CTV.ca | Global recession to hurt more women than men

[vc318]

More women than men are likely to lose their jobs this year as a result of the global economic crisis, warns the International Labour Office (ILO) in its annual Global Employment Trends for Women report.

I swear the news can't make up their mind. One minute they're reporting how more women are becoming the breadwinners of the family because most men are unemployed and now they report this. The reality is that if you're working in the government or medical field, you're job is okay. There's always going to be a need for nurses and teachers. I'm not doubting that women in other positions are probably being pushed out by men but I think that they have a better chance than the men out there who were making 6 figures at that top executive job or working for a car company, I guess.

[sunnykerr]

Well, I can sorta see it from both sides. On the one hand, women always make less than men, regardless of the job status, right? This we know. So, when times gets harder, it would seem logical that women would be the first to suffer.

At the same time, I think the thing to take away from all of these stories is that we're ALL screwed. It may just be a slightly more novel thing for men is all.

As to Bernie Madoff... I've been hearing his name all over the place, but I don't think I'll ever get over the sheer nerve of the man who literally swindled thousands of people out of as much money as he could. Like, directly. It wasn't even some sort of pyramic/Ponzi scheme like Enron. He just plain swindled them.

[4N6 DNA]

But on a 3rd hand, if women have lower salaries, wouldn't companies want to keep them?

I recently read an article that I thought was interesting. Good representation or not, its neat to see what happens in a small town project.

Brewton pharmacist launches homegrown economic stimulus with $2 bills BREWTON -- A small-town pharmacist intrigued by the government's economic stimulus plan decided to launch his own version with $16,000 in $2 bills, and area stores have already felt the impact. Danny Cottrell gave each of his full-time employees $700 and part-timers $300. He asked them to donate 15 percent to charity and spend the rest locally, particularly downtown, where store owners say that business has been lean. "I wanted to do something for my employees, let them know our business is not in jeopardy, and for the local merchants," said Danny Cottrell, owner of The Medical Center Pharmacy with its main store in Brewton and a second in Atmore. "This seemed like a good way to do it." Full article and results.

[vc318]

^ I wonder how many of them will really donate any part of that money to charity.

And Jessie, I agree with you on the salary thing - that would make more sense for the company to keep the women since our salaries aren't as great as most men.

[sunnykerr]

It would make sense to keep women when they don't earn as much, but maybe that's part of how women feel the pain of the economic crisis as well.

Just looking at my own pay increase this year, it really wasn't much to call home about. Yet, the same percentage applied to a higher salary would have had a much more important impact.

There is such a thing as the working poor. So you can be a woman, not making very much at a very demanding job where you get to keep your job because it pays less than men, and yet the paycheque is almost not worth it at the end of the day.

[4N6 DNA]

In the papers today, they are calling Obama's Tax plan the "Robin Hood budget". The spending plan the President sent to congress last week would take nearly 1 trillion from the rich in taxes.

I was at the grocery store this morning and overheard a conversation with a shopper and an employee. They were making small talk and the shopper who obviously has no money problems was complaining about the President's new Tax plan saying "the idea is socialist and class warfare". And the employee, who is most likely working 2 or 3 job and struggling to get by is nodding her head with a nervous smile and the shopper had no idea how the plan could help the person he was talking to. No idea and no concern. One thing that really bothers me is when people think that there is one solution that could make everyone happy. There isn't.

I read the Washington Post, because I live in the area and they are reporting that one in seven area families here would face tax increases. McLean and Potomac, nearly 45% would see tax increases. I can see how angry people in my area are, but there are also people in this area close to homeless. So the distribution of wealth is so uneven that you've got some cities that are seeing the worst of the economic crisis while in other cities in the same state, a majority aren't even suffering a bit. And I am not saying that everyone should have the same amount of money, what I am saying it that there will be no way to please everyone with any one way. And unless for example, all of Maryland was suffering, and maybe ALL of Virginia was not, it'd be more straight forward, but its not. Having only representatives in power on the State levels when the difference is on the city level is unhelpful.

I can see where critics of the plan are coming from. I don't even pretend to know much about how the stimulus will specifically effect everyone. But perhaps we can be confident in the fact that the Obama administration is taking pointers our of Clintons playbook. Much of Obamas economic team, Summers and Sperling for example were from Clintons Administration. When you are unsure what to do, its always good to step back to when things worked and go from there. Granted, the economy was not as bad as during the Clinton Administration, but its a start, yea?

We gave the trickle down process the last 8 years to prove itself, and this is where we ended up. Perhaps its time for the process to trickle up.

[ceilirose]

It's all in how it's framed. When the tax cuts end in 2010 (I believe) then income over $250,000 gets taxed at the level it was in the Clinton years. In those years everyone did pretty well - the middle class and those making 6 figures and above.

I lived through trickle down economy in the 80's under Reagan and it ended with a recession (not as bad as this one), a housing bubble and Bush 41 having to raise taxes. People talk about " trickle down" as gospel but at the end of the day it's just a theory - that's all.

[4N6 DNA]

As Obama mentioned in his budget request, the average income of the nations top 400 taxpayers has nearly quadrupled since 92 while the middle class has stagnated. This is the result of huge tax cuts to the nations most wealthy from the Bush Admin. But I am glad to see that Obama is keeping some of the changes that Bush enacted particularly the 10% tax bracket and the lower tax rate on investment income then ordinary income. That means top earners would actually pay lower taxes than they did in the 90's but still in that way, the President is not going to continue to let the most well off have multiple tax breaks compared to the typical family. Glad to see he is trying to work things out and not just enact a shiny new plan atop the old.

What gets my attention, is that half of the trillion dollars in new taxes would be generated by letting Bush tax cuts expire for higher earners.

[ceilirose]

Also I heard on NPR this week that that while the national GDP has increased over the last 8 years the average median income has stagnated. Real wages for the middle class haven't increased but health care, food and other essentials have risen.

[4N6 DNA]

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post) It's all in how it's framed. When the tax cuts end in 2010 (I believe) then income over $250,000 gets taxed at the level it was in the Clinton years. In those years everyone did pretty well - the middle class and those making 6 figures and above.

The taxpayers would see the difference when they file their 2011 taxes. If a family has an income of at least 234K they would:

See their top rate rise 3% to 36%
Pay 20 instead of 15 percent on investment income

If they make at least 378K (in taxable income) they would pay a top rate of 39.6% instead of 35.

And I believe that Obama is going to cap the overall value of itemized deductions and supposedly raise 300 Billion or so dollars through that. Could someone correct me if I am wrong on that? Its a lot of money, but I am sure that it will also negatively impact the amount of charitable donations and make home sales worse with regards to limiting the deduct-ability of mortgage interest.

I guess you have to make big sacrifices to make big changes.

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post) I lived through trickle down economy in the 80's under Reagan and it ended with a recession (not as bad as this one), a housing bubble and Bush 41 having to raise taxes.

On that note, Republicans who are opposed to the plan are is terrified and call the President "socialist". Spending in 09 will increase more than 5% and yes that seems scary, but you have to look at the proposal. We have to look at this by examining spending, taxes and deficits as a percentage of our GDP. With the 10 year spending average proposed by Obamas plan, will be about 22% of GDP, and with his itemized deductions for mortgage interest plans, it will be the same as under the Reagan Admin. None of them would call Reagan a socialist, would they?

[sunnykerr]

I have to say that I am bewildered at this weird hatred for anything that can be labelled "socialist." Are we still in the '50s? Is this the McCarthy era? There is nothing wrong with having social programs. It doesn't mean anyone anywhere is trying to channel Lenin!!!!

And, let's face it, if the middle-class income has stagnated over the past eight to ten years, then obviously the so-called trickling down effect of implementing tax cuts to the rich and their businesses is NOT working out.