American consumers hit by a seemingly endless stream of bad news, from vanishing jobs to shrinking retirement accounts, may be in for a small dose of relief: lower prices at stores.
The Consumer Price Index, the country's most closely watched inflation gauge, probably will show a dip of 0.5 percent in October, after being flat in September, when that report is released Wednesday, according to economists' forecasts.
Even with the price reprieve, consumers are in no mood to go on a shopping spree. They have been cutting back sharply on spending because of the strains from job losses, shrinking nest eggs and falling home prices.
The retrenchment jolted the national economy into reverse in the third quarter. Many predict economic activity will continue to shrink through the rest of this year and during the first three months of next year, more than satisfying one definition of a recession. That is, two straight quarters where the economy contracts.
Another report out Wednesday probably will show that the housing market continues to be in a deep funk. Builders are expected to cut back on home construction, one of the economy's weakest spots.
Meanwhile, chiefs from the nation's struggling auto companies were set to return to Capitol Hill to make a fresh plea for financial aid.
Detroit's Big Three automakers begged Congress Tuesday for a $25 billion lifeline to save their teetering companies. They warned of economic upheaval and millions of layoffs if one of the companies were to collapse.
"Our industry ... needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened up before us," General Motors Chief Executive Rick Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday. He blamed the industry's predicament not on failures by management but on the deepening global financial crisis.
The new auto rescue plan, however, appeared stalled on Capitol Hill, opposed by Republicans and the Bush administration not willing to dip into the Treasury Department's $700 billion financial bailout program to come up with the $25 billion in loans.
Faced with exasperated lawmakers upset by shifts in the bailout strategy, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson launched a spirited defense of his handling of the $700 billion program in a separate hearing on Tuesday.
Members of the House Financial Services Committee grilled Paulson for not doing enough to help distressed homeowners and for failing to force banks that get some of the bailout money to specifically use it to bolster lending to customers, one of the prime reasons behind the rescue package.
"It is essential" that some of the bailout money be used to ease foreclosures, said the panel's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a key player in shaping the package that Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law Oct. 3.
In a break with the administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, made a fresh pitch for using $24 billion of the bailout pool to help Americans at risk of losing their homes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is urging Paulson to support the FDIC plan.
Although Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers that in cases of some home loans, the FDIC plan could saddle heavy costs on the government, he said it is still a "very promising approach."
While Paulson was resistant to using some of the bailout money to provide mortgage guarantees, he said the administration will look for ways to provide foreclosure relief.
The Treasury chief found himself on the hot seat just one week after he officially abandoned the original rescue strategy of buying rotten mortgages and other bad assets from financial institutions. That had been the main thrust of the plan Paulson and Bernanke originally pitched to lawmakers.
"It appears that you seem to be flying a $700 billion plane by the seat of your pants," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
Focusing the bailout program on infusing billions into banks — and possibly other types of companies — to pump up their capital and bolster lending to customers was deemed a faster and more effective approach to stabilizing the financial system than the original centerpiece of the plan, Paulson said.
So far, the Treasury Department has pledged $250 billion for banks and has agreed to devote $40 billion to troubled insurer American International Group— its first slice of funds going to a company other than a bank. That leaves just $60 billion available from Congress' first bailout installment of $350 billion.
Paulson said he is not planning to initiate another capital injection program beyond those already announced. Thus he's unlikely to tap the remaining $350 billion before the Bush administration leaves office on Jan. 20.
If it was the "bad paper" that was the core of the problem, as we were told, then what has changed?
Also why is Paulson taking the blame for the United States? This is a global issue. It would appear that banks have not loosened credit. So what does Paulson expect to accomplish?
In addition, the guidelines encourage the banks to set dividend payments for shareholders and compensation for executives with the current crisis in mind.
If this information is not made PUBLIC, then we shouldn't have to pay for it, plain and simple. LET'S see just how much "belt-tightening" the executives and shareholders (risk-takers) are doing...because if I see that the CEO of AIG is still pulling a half a million a year in salary with stock options...I'm going to go ballistic!
And you should too. You now OWN a piece of the banks, of Wall Street, of the insurance criminals. It's time for them to MAKE less...or simply GO OUT OF BUSINESS!
The Bush administration already has committed $250 billion of the $700 billion rescue fund for the purchase of bank stock, giving financial institutions an infusion of cash the government hopes they will use to resume more normal lending operations and address the most severe credit crisis in decades.
This makes me feel a little better. At least we are "investing" in the company and getting stock rather than handing them a wad of cash. Obviously, that is still the case in that they are getting a wad of capital. They need to be prudent with the new found capital and not lose our confidence further by using it to pay year end bonuses and other self serving ventures.
But if they're not required to disclose how that capital infusion is disbursed (as says Hank Paulson)...how are we to know how our money is being used?
This crap has me seeing purple!
This should be good.
I too like many American are trying to cut costs since my employer cut salaries. I asked my bank to lower my loan payment or at least lower the finance charges after THEY called me looking for payment. I got an emphatic NO. When I confronted them about the 23 Billion they already got in bailout money and all I was asking was the same consideration, they couldn't get me off the phone fast enough. I mean it wasn't like I was asking them for free money to help pay off my debt. I just need the payments a little lower. They said NO!!!
Bottom line, since this is an unsecured loan they get nothing from me. I guess the only thing that takes a hit is my credit score which banks created anyway. How ironic or rather hypocritical can they be when they take free money which was supposed to be used to renegotiate loans but instead they lay off workers, pay their CEO 53 million a year and another 94 million in "other pay" and then refused to renegotiate a loan that is only a few thousand dollars.
Basically I was asking them for a little help with money which is technically partially mine as well as every other American's and they decided to keep it for themselves. Where I come from that is called Grand Theft. I am so disgusted. They are not American's. There isn't a word to describe them. They should have been left to drown like they have done to so many other American's and then maybe new more friendlier banks would emerge. Instead we are seeing their greed sky rocket exponentially. Pathetic I pity the fool who calls me again looking for my payment.
Too bad we couldn't organize struggling homeowners to freeze paying their mortgages until a common sense solution is put forth. If I had a failed business, who would give me money or even loan me money? The cabal who is in charge does not have the support of the people, and that is why this is happening when it is; as the administration sneaks out the back door with our money. These companies were in failure mode a couple years ago. But this larceny could not have happened anytime but now. Is it not a coincidence Bush ordered an Army division home to quell a potential uprising just last month after suspending posse comatatis? Get ready folks, no need to wait for the rapture. You get what you vote for.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |