Gosh, what's a bigger story — that to the extent it was ever happening at all the housing recovery “seems to have been aborted,” or that according to the government there was very little inflation in October? read more
More:
Psst! Housing Market News Was Really Bad Wednesday; To AP, That Means It Was Really Good
Comments Off on Psst! Housing Market News Was Really Bad Wednesday; To AP, That Means It Was Really Good
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged banking/finance, bigger-story, celeb news, economy, housing, media bias debate, politics, stars, the-extent, the-government, TMZ, very-little
On Monday’s Good Morning America, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos played up how President Obama “blamed many in the media for perpetuating…myths” such as he was born outside the United States, isn’t a Christian, and/or is a Muslim. “You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away.” Stephanopoulos raised the President’s remarks about “these kind of myths,” as he put it, near the end of a panel discussion with Democratic strategist James Carville and Charles Schwab chief investment strategist Liz Ann Sonders eight minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. He noted how “a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim” before playing a clip of Mr. Obama from his recent interview with NBC’s Brian Williams , where the Democrat gave a light reply to Williams’s statement referencing these poll numbers: “Mr. President, you’re an American-born Christian, and yet, increasing and now significant numbers of American in polls…are claiming you are neither.” The President answered, in part, “I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Moments earlier in the interview, Obama stated that “there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation, that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” and this is the remark that the ABC anchor zeroed-in on: “You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away?” Somewhat predictably, Carville lashed out against those who believed in any of those: “That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there.” Exactly two months earlier, on June 30, Stephanopoulos brought on liberal columnist Maureen Dowd who bashed the President as “thin-skinned” and unhappy with his media coverage. This prompted the anchor to acknowledge, ” And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks .” One wonders if the former Clinton communications director would still admit that. The transcript of the relevant portion of the segment from Monday’s Good Morning America, starting at the 12 minutes into the 7 am hour mark: STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring James Carville back in here. James, before we go, the President did get those questions from Brian Williams about how- you know, a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim. Let’s show again what the President said. OBAMA (from NBC News interview): Well- look, Brian, I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead. (laughs) It is what- the facts are the facts. And so, it’s not something that I can, I think, spend all my time worrying about. STEPHANOPOULOS: You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away? CARVILLE: I think Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect that we know that the Lord loves poor people because he made so many of them. I think the President should have said we know the Lord loves stupid people because he made so many of them. (laughs) I mean, what can you do, if somebody like- contrary to every piece of evidence known to man, doesn’t think that he was born in the United States, or, contrary to all the evidence known, that he’s not a Christian. There’s nothing that can be done, and I think he was saying as much to that. That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there. STEPHANOPOULOS: All right. James Carville, Liz Ann Sonders, thanks very much.
More:
ABC’s Stephanopoulos Highlights Obama Blaming Media For Muslim Myth
To the surprise of CNNMoney.com’s Tami Luhby, the market is doing something more efficiently than a government program . While this isn’t news to many, at CNN, it’s a revelation. It seems “banks are doing nearly twice as many modifications under their own foreclosure prevention initiatives than under the Obama administration’s signature Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP,” Luhbi wrote in her Aug. 30 article. Banks made 644,000 “proprietary permanent modifications” in the first half of 2010, almost twice the 332,000 under HAMP. Loan modifications are an alternative to foreclosures, in which the debtors usually receive “interest rate and principal reductions.” The HAMP program, according to Luhby, “lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.” Luhby’s surprise stems from her assertion that: “Banks have long come under fire not doing enough to help troubled homeowners, particularly when the mortgage crisis started spinning out of control in 2007. Many loan servicers initially addressed the problem by tacking on the missed payments, which only increased strapped homeowners’ monthly burden.” So banks were at fault for operating on the creditor-debtor model that has existed almost since there’s been money: a creditor provides a loan expecting repayment plus (reasonable) interest; a debtor repays according to a set schedule, and failure to pay brings penalties or foreclosure. However, market conditions changed and banks have changed with them. As Luhby wrote, “Banks have realized that foreclosing on home after home after home may not be in anyone’s best interest – least of all their own.” But banks aren’t off CNN’s hook, since they still are trying to get the most favorable terms for the business that they can. “Before homeowners rejoice, they should take a close look at the terms of their bank modification offers, consumer advocates say. Many may not be as good as HAMP, which lowers monthly payments to 31% of pre-tax income.” Luhby had no trouble finding mortgagee to complain about a proprietary modification. Ida Ward, an Atlanta middle school teacher, had her monthly payment cut nearly in half in a HAMP trial modification. When she received her permanent modification from Chase, the reduction was about half as much as under HAMP. “‘These banks should be ashamed of the terms that they are giving to borrowers,’ said Ward, who said she had no choice but to accept the offer. ‘The loan modification process is flawed and deceptive to borrowers.’” No mention in the article of the “flawed and deceptive” loan origination process that put borrowers in homes they couldn’t afford, or the shame of borrowers who can’t meet the terms they agreed to when they contracted with the bank.
Go here to see the original:
Shock at CNN: Banks Doing More than Obama for Homeowners
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged article, banking/finance, bennyhollywood, Cnn, known-as-hamp, meet-the-terms, personal finance, twice-the-332
There are quite a few shaky assertions in Alan Zibel’s Associated Press report yesterday about Freddie Mac’s latest quarterly loss ($6 billion), its latest bailout installment request to the U.S. Treasury ($1.8 billion), and the cumulative taxpayer bailout amounts that have been paid out to Freddie Mac and big sister Fannie Mae thus far ($148.2 billion) — too many to cover in a blog post. So I’ll concentrate on the howlers present in just a single paragraph near the end, wherein the AP reporter attempts to explain why the two formerly government-sponsored mortgage giants that are now government-bailout enterprises ran into the ditch. The verbiage pretty much states the meme that the establishment press seems to want the public to swallow about what went down, and who’s to blame: During the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie faced political pressure to expand homeownership and competitive pressure from Wall Street to back ever-riskier loans. When the market went bust, defaults and foreclosures piled up, and the government had to take them over. Zibel treats the two giants as if they were innocent bystanders in a boom that “just so happened” to coincide with the political pressures it faced. Nonsense. It’s more accurate to say that Fan and Fred fed the boom to the point of being its major cause . Many already know that in 1999, Fannie Mae announced looser lending standards (Fred soon followed; go here to see what this specifically meant). Even the New York Times was a bit concerned at the time: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s. ”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” Probably much more important is something that is about the best-kept secret outside of the Wall Street Journal in the establishment press. In a December 29, 2009 article, the aforementioned Wallison conveyed an assertion by Edward Pinto, who is certainly in a position to know, that, as far back as 1993, Fan and Fred “routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.” In other words, they deceived the financial markets and the ratings agencies on a massive scale about the underlying quality ofhundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of securitized mortgages. If Zibel isn’t aware of this, he should be. If this has anything to do with “competitive pressure,” I’d like him to explain how that’s the case. It’s also not written in stone that “the government had to take them over.” Perhaps it felt obligated because of the implicit guarantees against default (they were not explicit, despite Zibel’s claim that they were), but the legal requirement for Uncle Sam to take over Fan and Fred in troubled circumstances was not there. Zibel wants readers to believe that Fan and Fred were really just victims of a “market (that) went bust” during the final year of the Bush administration. No sir, it has become painfully apparent that they sowed the seeds of that bust by committing fraud on what may be an unprecedented scale all the way back to the early Clinton years. Taxpayers are now reaping the whirlwind. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continued here:
As Freddie Begs for More Cash, AP’s Zibel Perpetuates Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Myths
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged aforementioned, alan zibel, Associated Press, banking/finance, bennyhollywood, bush, chairman, Hollywood, peter-wallison, ratings, specifically, thrift, zibel
Bad economic news just keeps piling up. Today, the news about jobless claims from the AP : Initial requests for jobless benefits rose last week to their highest level since April, a sign that hiring remains weak and some companies are still cutting workers. The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 479,000. Analysts had expected a small drop. Claims have risen twice in the past three weeks. Surprise! And then, there’s Gallup’s small business indicator which would portend bad news in the next year: The Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index – which measures small-business owners’ perceptions of six measures of their current operating environment and future expectations – fell 17 points to -28 in July. This is its lowest level since the index’s inception in August 2003. (See full index results on page 2.) That means, of course, that business are contracting and not expanding and therefore will not be hiring and may be firing. Here’s the thing: The bank bailouts delayed the inevitable. Every Friday afternoon, more bank failures are mentioned. And big business and big banks have been propped up, and favored, and the small guys suffer. Oh, and don’t forget social security. NPR has this rosy report : “Social Security is set to run a $41 billion deficit excluding interest income due to the downturn and corrections of excess revenue created to trust funds in past years, the first shortfall since 1983,” Reuters reports. Their combined assets of those trust funds “will be exhausted in 2037,” when the number of beneficiaries will surpass the number of workers who pay into program. What happens then? “At that time, there will be sufficient tax revenue coming in to pay about 78 percent of benefits,” the Social Security Board of Trustees says. It also projects “that the program costs will exceed tax revenues in 2010 and 2011, be less than tax revenues in 2012 and 2014, and then permanently exceed tax revenues beginning 2015, one year earlier than estimated in last year’s report.” The outlook is so grim, in part, because of the economic recession, the board reports. The Democrats are in a bind. They want to expand government at the exact time when there is no money to do so. They want to restructure America into a socialist dream just as the demographics spell implosion and permanent mediocrity should their dream be fulfilled. Americans are still waking up to the “grim reality”. I’m not sure they’ve grasped what it will mean for them. They are cutting back and being prudent in these tough times, unlike the government which makes them more in touch with reality than the Democrats. Crossposted at Liberty Pundits .
The rest is here:
More Unexpected Economic News, But Only If You’re an Economist in D.C.
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged banking/finance, cnn.com, number, real estate, results-on-page
It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington. Last Wednesday I wrote about how the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill Obama signed into law last month contains a provision exempting the Securities and Exchange Commission from Freedom of Information Act requests. Such an exemption would surely have been grounds for a media outcry during the Bush administration, yet apart from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, only blogs have been following the developments. The latter opted simply to parrot the administration’s claims without challenge. Other media ouetlets, such as National Public Radio and MSNBC, completely ignored the controversy, in stark contrast to their extensive coverage of the Bush administration’s attempts to curtail the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. NPR’s Don Gonyea said “When conflicts arise over what should or should not be open, the administration does not hesitate to invoke the memory of 9/11. And while it’s true that 9/11 changed the security landscape, it’s also true that the administration was tightening the control of information much earlier . . .” Some journalists are simply accepting the official SEC double-talk at face value. Unlike The Wall Street Journal , which actually bothered to talk to people familiar with the SEC and the bill, CNN just repeated what Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in her letters, starting off their story with: “The Securities and Exchange Commission was not seeking a blanket exemption from public information laws . . .” Contrast this “see no evil” approach with CNN’s coverage of similar controversies during the Bush administration. In August of 2007, CNN’s Jack Cafferty covered the Bush administration’s attempt to exempt the White House Office of Administration from FOIA, noting the administration’s claims that certain federal officers were exempt from the law. “What do you suppose is in the millions of missing White House e-mails that President Bush doesn’t want anyone to see?” Cafferty asked, rhetorically. And in March of 2004, CNN analyst Ron Brownstein hammered home the alleged lack of transparency in the Bush administration, as evinced by its stance on FOIA. “They’re [the Bush administration] very tough on executive privilege in general, and on the flow of information more broadly than that,” Brownstein claimed. “Everything from the Freedom of Information Act to the Cheney Commission on Energy.” But with Obama in office, CNN doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned about the SEC’s apparent disdain for transparency. All it’s doing is reprinting talking points, after all. MSNBC, another news outlet that has yet to devote a single word to the SEC exemption, was also far more concerned with openness during the previous administration. Mike Barnicle, guest-hosting Hardball in 2007, said in reference to Bush’s Office of Administration: “The White House says the Freedom of Information act doesn’t apply to the office that handles their e-mails, even though their Web site says it does. Are they breaking the law?” Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow claimed on the day after Obama’s inauguration that secrecy was “the hallmark of the Bush years, the thing that often made Bush administration law-breaking possible because nobody knew it was happening. The best tool that we, the people, have to break through government secrecy is often the Freedom of Information Act. It was treated as an annoyance, an obstacle to be overcome by the Bush administration.” Again, these are a concerns this cable network has yet to extend to the SEC. Chairwoman Schapiro has written letters to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) explaining that the law doesn’t really exempt them from responding to FOIA requests. She asserted that entities regulated by her agency under the new financial “reform” legislation must “be able to provide us with access to confidential information without concern that the information will later be made public.” Schapiro claimed in her letter that the provisions in question are “not designed to protect the SEC as an agency from public oversight and accountability.” The mainstream press has apparently decided to take her word for it. How nice of them. It’s not like federal bureaucrats have ever failed to follow their agency’s guidelines . . . This press’s attitude, of course, stands in sharp contrast to just a few years ago, when members of the media were outraged by Republican attempts to restrict FOIA requests. Many in the media have, like NPR, decried the Bush administration’s use of 9/11 to curtail transparency, but thus far no one has criticized the current administration’s use of financial reform for the same goals. The double standard is telling.
Read the original here:
SEC Claims Information Opacity, But Media No Longer So Concerned With Transparency
On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill cheered the passage of financial reform legislation as “another huge milestone for President Obama.” Hill went on to explain: “The first was when he signed the historic health care bill back in March. Today he is set to sign a bill aimed at completely overhauling Wall Street.” White House correspondent Chip Reid began a report on the new bill by proclaiming: “It’s being hailed as the biggest shakeup of Wall Street since the Great Depression.” Reid enthusiastically touted provisions in the legislation: “The bill’s centerpiece is the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection….charged with regulating financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, and student loans. The legislation also gives broad new powers to the federal government, allowing it to take control of and shut down large financial institutions…” Reid pointed out criticism of the legislation: “But critics say the bill fails to reform mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, does not create a fund to help shut down big banks when they fail, and gives too much power to federal regulators to create reams of new rules.” After noting GOP concern that bill “will curb growth and kill jobs,” Reid turned to an analyst from the left-leaning Brookings Institution for reassurance: “Still, former investment banker Douglas Elliott believes the bill is better than doing nothing.” Elliott argued: “The bill addresses most of the problems and makes a good start. It’s not perfection, but in the real world, we don’t get perfection.” Reid concluded his report by declaring: “And adding to his accomplishments, later this week the President is expected to sign a bill extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans.” During a report on the July 15 Evening News , Reid celebrated the financial reform bill as a “big win” for Obama and that “he’ll add it to a long list, headlined by health care reform and the stimulus.” On Tuesday’s Early Show , Reid described the extension of unemployment benefits in similar terms: “Democrats appear to have won a major battle in the long fight to extend unemployment benefits.” Here is a full transcript of the July 21 Early Show segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Financial reform. President Obama set to sign a bill that will radically alter the way Wall Street does business. But does it go far enough? 7:04AM SEGMENT HILL: It is another huge milestone for President Obama. The first was when he signed the historic health care bill back in March. Today he is set to sign a bill aimed at completely overhauling Wall Street. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid joins us this morning with more. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Erica. It’s being hailed as the biggest shakeup of Wall Street since the Great Depression. And while this bill does have teeth, some critics say it doesn’t have a big enough bite. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform Bill Becomes Law; Obama to Sign Sweeping Legislation Today] The bill’s centerpiece is the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that will be housed within the Federal Reserve. It’s charged with regulating financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, and student loans. The legislation also gives broad new powers to the federal government, allowing it to take control of and shut down large financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, which went bankrupt in 2008. President Obama hailed its passage. BARACK OBAMA: Because of this reform, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts, period. REID: But critics say the bill fails to reform mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, does not create a fund to help shut down big banks when they fail, and gives too much power to federal regulators to create reams of new rules. Republicans, who almost universally opposed this legislation, argue it will curb growth and kill jobs at a time when the nation can least afford it. JOHN BOEHNER: I think it ought to be repealed. REID: Still, former investment banker Douglas Elliott believes the bill is better than doing nothing. DOUGLAS ELLIOT [FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: The bill addresses most of the problems and makes a good start. It’s not perfection, but in the real world, we don’t get perfection. REID: And adding to his accomplishments, later this week the President is expected to sign a bill extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans. Erica. HILL: Chip Reid this morning. Chip, thanks. REID: Joining us now CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis with a closer look at how these changes could affect you and me, the average consumer, everybody at home. So first up, we know this law is establishing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, that’s going to regulate mortgages, credit cards, student loans. What does it really mean? REBECCA JARVIS: All the things, Erica, that we deal with on a daily basis as consumers are now going to fall under the jurisdiction of this consumer protection bureau. And there are a lot of things that we’ll see as changes in our lives as a result. For example, mortgages, clearly a big problem with the crisis that we faced have been housing prices as well as mortgage crises. And we will see, as consumers, big relief for mortgages. So for example, if you got an adjustable rate mortgage, it used to be that you couldn’t pay it back without paying a big penalty – pay it back early – without paying a big penalty. Now, you will see the relief in that you can save those thousands of dollars in penalties because you can pay it back without – early – without paying the penalty on top of that. Banks now, they are forbidden from giving out bonuses for particular types of mortgages. So, in some cases, back in the crisis, they would give out a mortgage that was bad for us but good for them. They can’t do that anymore. HILL: Because they would make a little extra money off of it. I know credit scores are also going to be effected here. Talk to me about how, because that’s always so confusing. JARVIS: Well, of course, our credit score is the thing that gives us every opportunity in the financial world. The way credit scores will be impacted is that we will be able to learn our credit score. If you go out and apply for a loan, you apply for a credit card, you apply for an apartment, and you get turned down for that, you have every right to ask for a free credit score and to understand the reason that the vendor turned you down. HILL: What a novel concept. You get access to your own information. I love that. There’s also a change about how you pay for things at the register. JARVIS: Yes, there will be some big changes at the register. First of all, you probably are going to have to carry a little more cash on hand if you want to go out and get a cup of java, for example, because merchants, under new regulations, are allowed to set limits on the amount that you can spend with a credit card. So for example, you walk up to the register, they say, no purchases with a credit card under $10, they’re allowed to do that. HILL: Which you actually see a lot of now, or they ask you not to. JARVIS: You do and now it’s legal. HILL: And they also, in some – I’ve noticed in some stores – some stores charge you less, or a gas station, if you pay with cash or a debit card, as opposed to a credit card. That’s going to be more permissible as well. JARVIS: That’s permissible. What is not permissible, Erica, is if they try and say you get a deal for using one credit card over another. You can’t have one credit card be – for example, Amex a better deal than Visa. HILL: Got you. Rebecca, good to have you here, as always. JARVIS: Thanks, Erica. HILL: Thanks for breaking it down.
Read more from the original source:
CBS: Financial Reform ‘Another Huge Milestone For President Obama’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged accomplishments, banking/finance, bennyhollywood, celeb news, crisis, erica-hill, federal, Matt Lauer, naacp, regulation, stars, Street, white
Don’t be surprised if you open up the June 24 USA Today and find pom poms in the ‘Money’ section. Reporters-turned-cheerleaders Paul Wiseman, Jayne O’Donnell and Christine Dugas wrote a glowing 38-paragraph story about the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The story even included a section called “keys to a new agency’s success” with quotes from “experts” at a wide variety of government agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration. USA Today’s story began by praising the creation of the EPA in 1970 and the way it hit the ground running by ordered city mayors to clean up their water. They included 10 “expert” voices in favor of government agencies (proposed or current) many of whom were former regulators, against only three voices of opposition – all politicians. “It’s exciting to think about building an agency that could make a real contribution, a real difference in the lives of millions of families,’ Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren told USA Today. Warren “proposed the consumer financial regulator in 2007 and is considered a top candidate to be the agency’s first director,” according to the story. The paper barely mentioned Warren’s pro-regulation history which included compensation limits for large corporations. Warren also chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel that babysits companies bailed out by TARP funds. Only three paragraphs were devoted to opposition to the new government agency. Critics were labeled by USA Today as “Republican” or “financial industry lobbyists.” No economists or academics who oppose additional regulation were consulted. Some of the “keys to success” USA Today offered were “hiring motivated career staffers with diverse talents who will outlast political appointees at the top of the organization” and “making a big splash early on to establish your credibility.” However, William Galston of the liberal Brookings Institute feared that the BCFP would “get their knuckles rapped” if they go to far. “If they make a mistake, it will more likely be on the side of excess. They will go too far and get their knuckles rapped, but I don’t expect them to be asleep at the switch like (BP regulator Minerals Management Service) was,” Galston said. Of course the article failed to mention the past ineffectiveness of government regulators and didn’t mention any details of the Democrat-sponsored “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” other than the proposed BCFP. John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute the entire bill will have more negative effects on consumers than positive ones. “It will set up a nanny state with unintended consequences,” Berlau said. “You’re punishing the many because of a few stupid people and the costs will just be passed on to consumers.” Brian Johnson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, also criticized the proposal telling BMI that the bill is “one of the first steps towards nationalizing the banking system.” “The BCFP is one of the worst things in this bill,” Johnson said. “They’re operating with a fat budget and can monitor personal transactions and map out grids with purchasing patterns.” This isn’t the first time the media has pulled out its pom poms for liberal reforms or increased financial regulation . Perhaps next time the reporters will save their act for a football halftime show as opposed to a major newspaper. Like this article? Sign up for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.
Continued here:
USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged article, banking, banking/finance, christine-dugas, congressional, consumer, food, liberal, media, minerals, News, president-obama, proposed, rank, Water
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
