Has Treasury Sec’y Henry Paulson had anything to say today about ANYthing that’s happened in re the financial world, such as still more tax cuts or maybe Dow dives? just to name two

btw I thought I knew a fair amount about the guy, but I had NO idea he’s a Christian Scientist. Revealing.

The Treasury Secretary no longer deals with the economy…since Bush’s Executive Orders he is now only dealing with capturing asset forfeitures of those HE ACCUSES of being associated with terrorists.

And apparently Gonzo no longer determines such law enforcement issues. Instead Gonzo’s job is to forget.

sofistic @ 176

Any interest rate over 10% should be illegal under usury laws.

To our great misfortune, not in BushCo World.

In an economic world where CEOs don’t take all the company’s profits there would be reason to allow companies to make greater profits than 10%. It allows capital to flow to that company and that industry for it’s growth.

But, and it’s a huge BUT, if the capital runs out of the company like it’s leaking water, then how’s the company grow.

Instead, what we need is some kind of change in the way CEOs (and I suppose other execs) are compensated (funny use that word) which is less salary and probably less stock options (which dilute the stock for other people) and more stock which makes them rich if the company does well.

How you ensure they don’t just ‘pump & dump’ is another question. You’d probably have to disallow their stock sales for some time, so they would have an interest in the longer-term.

But, I’d guess corp. directors & stockholders could already do this. Why they don’t is a mystery. There’s clearly an imbalance in power and it’s shifted away from the stakeholders, away from stockholders and into the hands of a very very few people.

selise @ 171

thanks! probably most everyone here has already seen it… but a comment or two couldn’t hurt.

here it is.

Commented and rec’d

thanks teddy, the last time i wrote a diary was over a year ago when pach asked me to write up one of our roots actions.

The argument goes that if you raise corporate tax rates, corporations simply pass their tax increase along to customers in the form of higher prices.

Separating corporate from income tax only pushes people to collect their income in the form that’s taxed less.

We should have one income or capital gains tax rate and perhaps one consumption tax rate.

I’d like to see some part of people’s income going into long-term savings plans like IRAs or 401Ks and the like. There should be a way for everyone to share more in the country’s prosperity without it going straight into their pockets and then straight out to the retailers.

But, in any event, one tax rate kept relatively low should be our goal.

So be prepared for this argument: Lowering corporate tax rates will lead to lower prices for consumers.

hackworth @ 222

Yet, this guy that will turn around and tell you in the same breath that the United States is the most technologically advanced, most superior and stupendous nation on earth without socialized medicine.

One would think that if that were the case, our bridges wouldn’t collapse so much.

And, consider the same government you want to take over our health-care gave us FEMA after Katrina ; )

Hey, that’s like saying nobody can hit a home run just because you can’t hit a home run. You can’t hit a home run because you suck at baseball. By the same token, right-wing political hacks suck at running governments. That doesn’t mean everyone else does. :-)

Hedge funds skim as much as 2 percent off the top of the asset pool: Carl Icahn, the famed corporate raider, who—him too—recently launched a hedge fund, takes 2.5 percent. If you have a $1 billion fund, then, as one manager explains, “it’s January 1st. Welcome to work. You’ve got $20 million in the bank.” (And hedge funds don’t have many costs.) But the real money and the real defining characteristic of hedge funds, no matter their strategy, is this: They take a portion of the profits, usually 20 percent.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/…..res/10426/

FEMA wasn’t broken when Bush got appointed preznit. In fact, I’ve heard people saying it was almost doing too much for them before that.

EvilDrPuma @ 114

Just one more reason not to pay for cable.

What’s so funny about bankrupting the USA? Why do pundit assclowns hate America?

It’s contempt. They all look down their noses at people actually have to work for a living.

I can’t stand it anymore.

The argument goes that if you raise corporate tax rates, corporations simply pass their tax increase along to customers in the form of higher prices.

So be prepared for this argument: Lowering corporate tax rates will lead to lower prices for consumers.

But, if the tax rate is significantly (perhaps ANY) lower than the personal income tax rate, then all kinds of individuals will find ways to earn zero income and use their corporations to hold all the income. It’s a very old dodge to shelter income from the higher tax rate(s).

No, we’ve gotta find a way to keep everybody’s rate low and yet raise the money we need to run government. It’s a balancing act.

“Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. … I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: “How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..r-weapons/