Monday, March 23, 2009

Obama Interviews about Wall Street

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Sunday it isn't "anti-Wall Street" to say that the "best and the brightest" made poor investment decisions that have plunged the nation into economic crisis.
"Because of bad bets made on Wall Street, there have been enormous losses," Obama said during a 60 Minutes interview in which he defended his advocacy of increased federal regulation. "I want them (the people on Wall Street) to do well, but what I also know is that the financial sector was out of balance," he said.
The 60 Minutes interview — taped Friday, broadcast Sunday — was the latest in a string of high-profile television appearances by Obama. They come amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses paid to employees of American International Group, which has received $170 billion in federal bailout money.
Obama, who last week did The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, conducts a prime-time news conference Tuesday.
During his 60 Minutes appearance, Obama also defended Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and hit back at criticism by former vice president Dick Cheney over counterterrorism policies. The president also said he is re-evaluating the war in Afghanistan.

Amid public anger over the AIG bonuses, Geithner has come under increasing fire from some congressional Republicans. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told Fox News Sunday, "My confidence is waning every day."
Obama told 60 Minutes he wouldn't accept Geithner's resignation even if he offered it. "I'd say, 'Sorry, buddy. ... You've still got the job.' "
Before the end of March, Obama's national security staff is scheduled to complete its strategic review of Afghanistan. Obama said the goal in Afghanistan is to make sure that al-Qaeda does not reclaim the country as a base for terrorist operations against the United States. That requires economic and diplomatic initiatives as well as military ones, he said, "and there's got to be an exit strategy."
Obama told 60 Minutes that sending an additional 17,000 U.S. servicemembers to Afghanistan was the hardest decision of his young presidency.
He defended his national security record against Cheney, who said plans to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have made the nation less safe. Obama said policies backed by Cheney created "a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment."
Obama occasionally laughed during discussion of the nation's economic woes, prompting interviewer Steve Kroft to ask, "Are you punch drunk?"
"There's got to be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," Obama said

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Colleges and universities nationwide are preparing to roll out their welcome mats for veterans who will be eligible for the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. It goes into effect Aug. 1.

Now, if only the schools knew exactly what they were getting themselves into.

For public colleges and universities, the terms of the new bill appear to be relatively clear-cut. It essentially covers tuition and fees for any eligible veteran pursuing an undergraduate degree in his or her home state.

Much of the uncertainty to date centers on what happens if a veteran chooses a higher-priced option — a private college, for example, or a graduate program at a public school in another state.

In those cases, the federal government will pay up to what it would have cost to enroll in the highest-priced undergraduate program at an in-state public school. Schools that charge more and agree to put up a certain amount of money toward the difference can get federal matching money to help close the gap.

A spokeswoman for the University of Phoenix, a for-profit institution that enrolled more than 17,000 GI Bill beneficiaries in 2007 — far more than any other college or university — said Wednesday that it intended to participate.

Even with much of the fine print still unwritten, a steady stream of private colleges, including Drew University in Madison, N.J., George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and St. Francis University in Loretto, Pa., have announced that they also intended to participate in the plan, called the Yellow Ribbon Program.

"We said, 'One way or another we will do this,' " says Jon Burdick, dean of admissions and financial aid at the University of Rochester, where 11 veterans (out of 4,400 students) are currently enrolled. He estimates the cost of the maximum benefit to the school, where tuition runs about $36,000 a year, at about $75,000 over four years for one veteran.

But as deadlines near, some schools say they need more answers before they can decide.

Higher-education associations have peppered officials at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with requests for clarification and suggested improvements in proposed regulations on how the GI Bill will work. And some preliminary data posted on the Veterans Administration website has created confusion about what the maximum benefit will be in each state.

"We intend to participate, but we don't know exactly how," says Scott Fleming, associate vice president for federal relations at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Federal lawmakers, too, question whether the federal government will be able to resolve all of its concerns in time to meet the Aug. 1 deadline.

"I think it is fair to say that getting the new GI Bill up and running is proving to be a far more complex task than anyone thought," Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., said at a hearing last month of a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee, where he is the ranking Republican member.

Keith Wilson, director of the education service division of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, said his staff is on schedule. In an interview, he acknowledged being on a "very aggressive timetable for implementation." But he said that despite concerns raised by college officials, "I think we're all in agreement that we want to do the best for veterans."

Susan Hattan, senior consultant at the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, which represents private colleges, agrees. Most members view the Yellow Ribbon Program as "an incredibly positive opportunity," she says.

"There are clearly a lot of questions out there (but) I don't know that that's unusual, given that they're bringing up this entire massive new program in about a year."


I found this story interesting because I never heard of this bill that they refer to in the article. This bill seems like there are many confusing aspects and I am not sure if this is done on purpose to confuse people out of their money or not, but it seems like its a good deed. I am curios to find out more about this so I will start doing research to find out.

Fewer leaving urban centers, moving to sunnier places


Las Vegas, known for its warm climate that lured people from all parts of the USA, is attracting fewer people.
By Jae C. Hong, AP
Las Vegas, known for its warm climate that lured people from all parts of the USA, is attracting fewer people.
Unemployment and the housing meltdown are triggering an about-face in where Americans choose to live.

Booming Sun Belt cities and exurban counties across the USA are not attracting as many people as they once did while older industrial centers that had lost residents for decades are losing fewer, according to Census population estimates out today.

"This is really a migration about-face," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution. "Places that have relied on migrants for their growth are now just puzzled because not nearly as many people are coming, and places that had been bleeding migrants" are getting a break.

Many of the older areas are still attracting fewer people than they're losing, but the losses are much smaller than in previous years. The July 1, 2008, estimates of population in counties and metropolitan areas show dramatic turnabouts: New York registered the smallest outmigration since at least 1990.

The exodus also slowed in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles metros. For the first time in at least 18 years, the San Francisco area attracted more people from other parts of the country than it lost. Even perennial population losers such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Providence saw their outflows diminish.

At the same time, high-fliers in warm climates that lured people from all parts of the USA — Orlando, Tampa and Las Vegas — are attracting fewer people.

The financial crisis clearly is dampening people's desire to move, says Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire Carsey Institute. Some can't sell their homes and others may not want to risk a move as jobs dry up, he says. "In the short term, it's a boon to central cities," he says.

The foreclosure crisis has hit new subdivisions in remote suburbs the hardest and real estate values have plummeted more dramatically away from central cities and their nearby suburbs.

Population growth also is affected by jobless rates, says Mark Mather, demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. Population in counties with jobless rates of 6% or higher grew by 0.3% from 2007 to 2008. In places where unemployment was below 4%, population went up 1.2%.

The estimates also show:

• In Michigan, a state devastated by the troubles of the auto industry, 60 of 83 counties lost population from 2007 to 2008.

• Net migration to Las Vegas from around the USA was a third what it was the previous year.

• Fast-growing suburbs on the edge of metro Chicago grew but more slowly than in previous years. Kendall County gained a net 5,100 people from other parts of the USA in 2008, down from 7,500 the year before. Chicago's Cook County, which had lost a net of more than 65,000 in 2007, cut losses to 43,000.

"Things have sort of stalled because people are not able to sell their homes," says Carol Sonnenschein of the Chicago Metropolis 2020, a non-profit regional planning group. "People are staying in place, waiting this out."

Sunday, March 1, 2009

NFL Free Agency

With the season ending, all NFL are trying to make their team better for the upcoming season. Because of the salary cap that the NFL requires, many players move around to numerous teams throughout their career. Recently, Free Safety Brian Dawkins was released by the Philadelphia Eagles. Many fans, as well as Dawkins himself were not happy about the deciosn of the eagles, "Seven-time Pro Bowl safety Brian Dawkins had a hard time not looking back Saturday after signing with the Denver Broncos following a 13-year run with the Philadelphia Eagles." He gave 13 years to this team and now fans who have grown up with Dawkins on their team will see one of the greatest defensive players in the league travel to another team.

This case is not unique to only Dawkins. Because of salary cap and injury prone players, many other NFL memebers are leaving thier homes to play in a completely new enviroment. Many fans have complained about the frequency in which players are moved around. With the salary cap, superstar players either have to take huge pay cuts because their team cannot afford, or try the free agency. Other leagues such as the MLB do not have such caps, and teams are allowed to spend essentially how much they choose to. Is this a better way to do it? Who should leagues be concerned with, the fans, the players or both?


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/broncos/2009-02-28-brian-dawkins_N.htm