July 29, 2011

Bits Bucket for July 29, 2011

Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.




RSS feed

331 Comments »

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 02:47:21

Realtors are prone to have dishonest tendencies.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 06:50:33

This said “tendency”, is it influenced by monie$ & fee$ perhaps?
How does the effect of “ProFEE$ionalism” moderate such learned tendencies?

Comment by michael
2011-07-29 07:16:13

the AICPA has been getting away with it for years…maybe realtors should borrow from their playbook.

 
 
 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 02:53:20
Comment by Left Ohio
2011-07-29 07:43:34

As I said before, Stagflation: it’s what’s for breakfast

These are the ‘new normal’ prices at King Soopers (Kroger) here in Denver:

Bananas: 0.55/lb, not as noticable but a 12% increase
Whole wheat bread (without high-fructose corn poison): 3.00/loaf
Milk: range from 2.19-2.69/gallon
Boneless-skinless chicken breasts: 2.29/lb, a 15% increase
Apples: range from 1.49-2.49/lb

I don’t buy much packaged/processed garbage but have noticed the prices of much of that are up 10-25% in the past year. Fresh produce (with seasonal exceptions) has gone up 10-50%.

We have some of the cheapest gas in the country but the trend is away from big roadtrips toward daytrips to the Front Range mountains from Denver. People that used to get season ski passes now buy 4-packs or stop going at all.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 08:02:05

A few days ago Whole Foods posted record profits/revs with a rosy outlook. What gives? The most over-priced food at a time of historically inflated prices selling like crazy? Are the banksters all shopping there?

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 09:22:57

Maybe folks who used to eat out?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:05:55

Liz, those profits are BECAUSE they raised prices, not from volume sales.

What do I keep saying about voodoo, er, supply side economics?

Raise prices in good times and claim scarcity of product/services. Raise prices in hard times claim scarcity of profit.

I wasn’t joking.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:06:26

And as long as people keep shopping there, they’ll keep raising prices.

When people ask a business “how much do you charge”, the only honest answer is “as much as I can”.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 14:37:03

No Rental, that’s not how stagflation works.

People cannot just go back to farming the land reading by candlelight. These profits are STRICTLY from raising prices when there is no real shortage.

In case you missed yesterday’s news here, retail’s fall and Christmas orders are WAY down. People ARE cutting back, but you can’t back on necessities.

Food, shelter and transport have NO wiggle room for most people.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 16:42:12

Eco, there IS wiggle room. People have the option to choose another store than Whole Paycheck. Kroger, Aldi’s, the dollar stores, or if need be, the food bank.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 17:24:52

And, judging from the size of the average American, people are getting PLENTY of food. If they wanted to buy less, they could certainly do so and still be more than adequately fed.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 18:24:46

Uh… no.

The prices of ALL those things continues to go up. Even the food bank. (how? it’s harder to qualify and if you do, you get less)

What, you don’t they raise prices even in the ghetto? They raise prices ESPECIALLY in the ghetto.

Some of ya’ll need to git out more.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 18:25:52

“…you don’t THINK they raise…”

(This drought is killing my eyes)

 
 
 
Comment by Montana
2011-07-29 08:51:36

I can’t believe all the processed packaged food in the supermkt freezers nowadays. It’s gone way beyond TV dinners and Tater Tots, and it’s not cheap…who buys that stuff?

Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:18:12

You can’t beat a $0.99 frozen Mexican dinner.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 11:53:50

“You can’t beat a $0.99 frozen Mexican dinner.”

You can’t eat a $0.99 frozen Mexican dinner. Might as well just skip the middle man and throw it in the toilet directly.

 
Comment by ahansen
2011-07-29 21:12:02

Snort.

 
 
Comment by wolfgirl
2011-07-29 09:53:52

My husband often takes frozen dinners to work, especially when our son is home. We have very few leftovers then And when he isn’t, we eat mainly salads or rice based dishes. things like steak and pork chops are reserved for when he is home since we aren’t big meat eaters.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 08:57:50

Denver has cheap gas because the high altitude allows them to mix a fuel with lower octane (83 instead of 85, I think). If they bought regular Regular, so to speak, they would pay the same price as the rest of the country. But you gotta love the little green dinosaur…

Something is wrong when boneless chicken breast costs the same price as bread. Milk and apples sound about right. I’ve heard that some dairies don’t like to sell milk because it’s a commodity and there are price controls and stores don’t like to pay because milk is a loss leader. So they’ve taken to using the milk to make cheese, which is huge value added.

 
Comment by Spokaneman
2011-07-29 10:20:45

The thing that cheeses me the most is corn on the cob, a summer time staple for as long as I can remember. These days 2 ears for a buck seems to be the norm. Too expensive to enjoy.

I’m pretty sure last summer it was three ears for a buck, and you could always fine a sale to get it for four or five for a buck.

Comment by Bad Chile
2011-07-29 11:49:31

I just bought it at 10 ears for a buck here in MA. Anything less than 4 ears for a buck is not worth it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:07:42

Same here in CA.

 
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:09:47

Most people don’t realize it, but we’ve been living in stagflation for the last 30 years, it’s just more noticeable when unemployment is high and wages are frozen.

Comment by Left Ohio
2011-07-29 12:14:04

The UK Guardian gets it:

“The so-called economic “recovery” since mid-2009 was chiefly hype, a veneer of good news to disguise and minimise the awful underlying economic realities. The few (large corporations and the rich) who bear much of the responsibility for the crisis made sure that the government they finance used massive amounts of public money to support a recovery for them. The mass of the population was excluded from the government-financed recovery for the few. We now have the summary official statistics to expose this grotesque injustice.”

US corporate MSM does not get it.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 14:50:02

Oh they get it alright. Don’t you believe otherwise. That’s EXACTLY why they say as little as possible. They were the cheerleaders.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 03:01:27

Debt deal or not, weak economy is likely to suffer
Pick your poison: However Washington handles the debt dispute, the economy is likely to suffer

WASHINGTON (AP) — No matter how the debt crisis ends, the economy will probably take a hit. The question is how big.

Failing to raise the federal borrowing limit would force the government to slash spending immediately and possibly cause a default, frightening financial markets and sending interest rates up.

If Washington reaches a deal and does raise the limit, it will probably include long-term spending cuts. The cuts would withdraw government stimulus at a time of weak economic growth and damage the already feeble recovery, at least in the short term.

“Pick your poison,” says Ben Herzon, senior economist at Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic forecasting firm.

Macroeconomic Advisers studied the impact of the $2.2 trillion in spending cuts proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and $916 billion in cuts proposed by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Both would be spread over a decade.

It estimates Reid’s plan would cut annual economic growth by one-fourth of a percentage point through September 2015. It estimates Boehner’s would shave annual growth by a tenth of a point over the same period.

Neither of those is huge. But economic growth has already slowed to its weakest since the recession ended two years ago.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other economists agree that cutting the government’s massive debts is critical to the long-term health of the U.S. economy. Republicans argue the cuts should be imposed sooner.

But many, including Bernanke, worry about cutting so soon.

Analysts estimate the economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the April-June quarter, held back by weak consumer spending and high unemployment.

It takes 2.5 percent growth just to keep unemployment from rising, and 5 percent to lower it significantly. Economists foresee only slightly stronger expansion in the current July-September quarter.

“The economy is still fragile and cannot afford a policy mistake,” economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote in a research note last week.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 06:40:23

Our borrow to stimulate runaway spending isn’t going to create jobs here. All this talk about default on our debt payments by the White House talking heads is sickening. That’s not what is on the table. I almost get the impression that it is simply impossible for any of them to tell the simple truth. Congress has an (admittedly weak) mandate from the voters to stop spending money we don’t have on stuff we don’t need. I haven’t heard one of them say that so far.

 
Comment by Doghouse Riley
2011-07-29 06:40:56

What outcome would get the interest rates on my CD’s up to, maybe, one third of the inflation rate? I’m for that outcome.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 07:08:02

They keep saying a failure to raise the debt ceiling would result in higher interest rates, but if paying interest on Treasurys has first priority over other payments, I am failing to see why, especially given the economic slowdown that is likely to ensue if the debt ceiling is not raised.

My guess is that the pundits are wrong and interest rates would go down, but that is just a guess, based on the fact that inflation was running rampant back in 1979, the last time they failed to raise the debt ceiling; this time it isn’t.

Comment by CharlieTango
2011-07-29 09:04:37

you are acting like interest rates are set by the market, they are not they are set by the fed.

rates will go where the fed sets them, at least for now

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 14:45:20

How is it that the Fed controls interest rates, especially now that they are no longer quantitatively easing?

 
 
 
 
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 07:19:58

i find it hard to believe that $ 2.2 trillion is only propping the economy up a mere one-fourth of a percentage point.

i would think it would be much more.

if that is all it’s propping…then cut it.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 07:47:19

It might be a realistic fear that any significant reduction in spending would be like the tide going out, leaving us all naked in the sun. Personally, I am already there, so it sounds good to me.

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2011-07-29 09:05:50

Put some pants on. Please.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 03:08:23

Republicans postpone vote on debt bill- AP

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, facing a conservative revolt, unexpectedly put off a vote Thursday night on a bill to increase the U.S. debt limit, creating more turmoil as a deadline for avoiding a government default was only days away.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 05:44:41

We should fire all of those losers. Just send DC a blanket pink-slip for anyone employed inside the beltway…

Comment by skroodle
2011-07-29 06:17:48

The politicians in DC accurately reflect the Americans they represent.

Comment by Doghouse Riley
2011-07-29 06:41:58

Exactly right. The polls which ask “who is to blame, GOP or Dem?” never have a third option. The voters.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Kim
2011-07-29 09:21:04

+100

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 09:47:14

The polls which ask “who is to blame, GOP or Dem?” never have a third option. The voters.

“The roots of democratic decay…are deeper than personalities or parties and the familiar ideological arguments; the system will not be cured by an election or two that change the officers of government. Furthermore, the nature of the civic breakdown is peculiar to our own time, reflecting our contemporary conditions and failures; the questions cannot be answered by reciting the shortcomings of previous eras.”

William Greider, Who Will tell the People Simon and Shuster

 
 
Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 06:44:59

“We know what the people want!” What they want is a large variety of services from the government: healthcare, old age pensions, highways, protection from terrorists, etc, and they don’t want to pay enough taxes to pay for those services. What’s more, they’ll vote anybody out of office who tells them that they can’t have a whole lot for not much. I want a pony, but I don’t want to shovel cr@p.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 07:22:59

We want free $hit. This is America. We have rights!

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:15:35

We could easily have all that.

How much did we GIVE those welfare queens on Wall St to fix THEIR mistake?

How much do we overpay defense contractors?

How in debt to Wall St. are our local governments?

How many political favor/backrooms deals are made everyday that we taxpayers pay for?

 
Comment by measton
2011-07-29 14:59:58

not only that but we did have all that. Even before the credit bubble.
We let the elite fleece the country by outsourcing labor.
We crushed unions.
We allowed consolidation oligopoly and manipulation of markets.
We allow the elite to pay 14% effective tax rates ie much less than under Reagan.

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 07:05:56

“TrueAnger!™” + “TrueReducetheDeficitNow! Today!!™” = But, but, but… :-)

Criticizing government fiscal irresponsibility should in turn lead us to honest self examination. At the heart of this audit should be the confrontation of personal debt

Strangely, as the U.S. citizenry passionately criticizes their government for running up the budget deficit, a greater irony is afoot: When it comes to debt management, Americans are sadly worse than their government.

Americans Are More Indebted Than the U.S. Government:
Steve Beck, On Thursday July 28, 2011

While government debt sits at 94 percent of national revenue, U.S. household debt sits at a whopping 107 percent of personal income. The household balance sheets of Americans are in worse condition than anytime since the Great Depression. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP is greater than anytime since 1929. And while we all are trying to comprehend a poorer nation, many American’s have not yet comprehended their own personal poverty.

Over the coming decades, American household debt ballooned, eventually doubling from $7 trillion to $14 trillion between 2001 and 2007. Debt fears, however, were assuaged by the rapidly growing value of real estate as homeowners used equity lines to buy more property, cars, and pay for vacations and toys.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 09:52:59

How do they define “debt” in this case? Are they by any chance referring to a crapshack that they paid $430K for and is now worth $210K? In that case, 107% is low. If they leave out housing altogether, then we’re screwed.

 
Comment by Spokaneman
2011-07-29 10:29:07

The local paper publishes “Federal Bankruptcy Petitions” and “Wage Earner Petitions” in the legal notice section several times a week. I am astounded by first the sheer number of filings, earlier this week one day had just over 35 filings listed, and second the size of the debts, which range from less than $10 grand to well over a $ million. These are almost always personal bankruptices, just judging from the name of the filer.
I believe that these filings are from all of Eastern WA, but that is still a fairly small population base.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 07:08:11

The politicians in DC accurately reflect the Americans they represent.

Americans are no longer reflected by their politicians.
Three glaring examples:

At one point, almost 70% of Americans wanted a public health-care option. We didn’t get it.

Most Americans were against TARP. We got it.

A majority of Americans want increased revenue to help cut the deficit. Are we going to get it?

These are three major issues where Americans were and are not properly represented by our elected officials. Major. Our system has been captured.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by butters
2011-07-29 07:29:24

A vast majority wanted to bomb Afghanistan - we got it.
A slight manority wanted war with Iraq - we got it.

 
Comment by CrackerJim
2011-07-29 07:38:00

“A majority of Americans want increased revenue to help cut the deficit. Are we going to get it?’

They wanted increased revenue from other people; not themselves.

 
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 08:25:38

a majority wants to stop illegal immigration.

they will not get.

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:24:21

He didn’t say they reflect the wishes of the people they represent, but rather the people they represent.

Self serving egotistical morons.

 
Comment by Pete
2011-07-29 12:15:18

“A slight manority wanted war with Iraq - we got it.”

A HUGE majority wanted to go into Iraq at the time. And it wasn’t just a blip in the polls.

From February of 2003:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7891/public-support-invasion-iraq-holds-steady.aspx
Public Support for Invasion of Iraq Holds Steady
Fifty-nine percent in favor of invading Iraq

 
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 13:17:18

i was in the “if they go to war with iraq they better find WMD whether they are there…or not” camp.

 
Comment by measton
2011-07-29 15:03:26

A majority wanted war in Iraq after

Our gov linked Iraq to 9/11

Our gov told them Iraq was minutes away from nuclear bomb.

Our gov lied about the cost and the scope of the mission. We were told that oil revenue would pay for it all and that there would be parades for the Americans.

All lies. All BS

 
Comment by Pete
2011-07-29 15:43:31

“A majority wanted war in Iraq after
Our gov linked Iraq to 9/11
Our gov told them Iraq was minutes away from nuclear bomb.:

True, the BS was high. But the administration was only playing off of what they perceived the majority of people to already be thinking. It wasn’t a hard sale to make.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 16:47:38

they perceived the majority of people to already be thinking.

And did that majority come to “already be thinking” that? The majority “thought” that Iraq had nukes and was tied to 9/11, because that’s what the lying government told them!!

 
Comment by Pete
2011-07-29 18:27:44

“And how did that majority come to “already be thinking” that? The majority “thought” that Iraq had nukes and was tied to 9/11, because that’s what the lying government told them!!”

They came to think that because they had already been conditioned by the media/govt to think “Saddam” before anyone else. The government telling us that later merely brought a few extra people on board. I don’t have the data, but I’d argue that those poll results would have been similar before Powell’s unfortunate demo.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 03:09:52

PulteGroup, D.R. Horton expect profitable turn
Homebuilders see demand for homes stabilizing now, but recovery hinges on lift in economy

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The CEOs of the nation’s two largest homebuilders say demand for new homes appears to be stabilizing, if still at very low levels.

PulteGroup Inc.’s Richard Dugas and Donald Tomnitz of D.R. Horton Inc. weighed in on the market trends Thursday after each company reported financial results for the April-to-June quarter.

The builders reported lower home closings for the quarter and contracts for new homes that landed just about even with their prior-year results.

They also reported increases in their backlog of homes under contracts — a positive indicator of future activity.

Tomnitz said demand is back to a normal seasonal pattern following last year’s homebuyer tax credit, which expired last spring and led to a drop off in sales later in the year. He also said D.R. Horton is now solidly in position to be profitable for its full fiscal year.

Dugas said demand for new homes remains stable, if at a low level. The executive also said his company is on track to return to profitability in the second half of the year.

The sales trends and executives’ remarks are positive in light of this year’s spring home-selling season, which ended up being a disappointment despite increases in traffic by prospective buyers.

But neither builder was bullish on a more robust pickup in sales just yet.

“To be frank, most all of our markets are soft, softer and softest,” Tomnitz said. “Nothing’s really strong out there.”

He added he doesn’t anticipate much of a turnaround this year, or next.

“I would anticipate that 2012 will be better than 2011, but I don’t expect it to be significantly better,” Tomnitz said.

Comment by Spokaneman
2011-07-29 10:30:45

I suppose if a terminally ill patient dies, by definition, his condition has stabilized.

Just say’n.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 03:17:45

Obama faces legal bind if time runs out
By Robin Harding in Washington - FT.com

If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling on time then President Barack Obama and the Treasury will struggle not to break one or other law passed by Congress.

The law will fence the administration in; but the ambiguity of the situation might also free it to invoke all manner of creative legal arguments, including a claim that the debt ceiling is illegal under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

If there is no increase in the debt ceiling by August 2, then the Treasury will not have enough money to meet all its commitments without borrowing more money, which it will not be able to do without breaking a wartime law from 1917 that created the debt ceiling.

But it is also bound by laws that tell it to make various payments, including the latest appropriations act passed by Congress in the spring, as well as an apparent instruction in the constitution to keep paying US debts.

The 14th amendment, adopted in 1868, says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned”.

The purpose of the clause – originally formed to settle any doubt that the US would pay debts it incurred during the civil war – was tested in a Supreme Court case after the US left the gold standard to fight the Great Depression in 1933.

The court said that Congress could not tear up its promise to bondholders to pay them in gold and interpreted the 14th amendment as applying to “whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations”.

“The Supreme Court, citing the 14th amendment among other law, has made it clear that Congress does not have the power to alter its own contracts,” said Michael Bradfield, former general counsel of the Federal Reserve Board and author of a memorandum being circulated among Capitol Hill staffers looking to bypass a congressional vote on the debt ceiling.

By that logic, Mr Bradfield said, “if an impasse were to occur, the legal case for invoking the 14th Amendment would be very strong”.

There are legal, political and practical counter-arguments, however. A practical argument is that doubt would hang over any Treasury bonds issued in defiance of the debt limit pending a Supreme Court review.

Bill Clinton, former president, has said he supports using the 14th amendment, but how it would play politically if Mr Obama were to override Congress to keep on borrowing is unclear. Mr Obama’s advisers have suggested that they do not think invoking the 14th amendment is an option. At least one Republican congressman has said that such a decision would be an impeachable act.

A legal counter-argument is that, if Mr Obama were to prioritise debt payments, then he could satisfy both the 14th amendment and the debt ceiling law.

It is not certain, however, that Mr Obama has the power to prioritize payments. “On the question of legality, I think it’s very unclear that the administration has the legal power to choose between Congress’s spending priorities,” says Jay Powell, visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Centre in Washington. The Treasury might be obliged simply to pay what bills it can as they come due.

Even if the president decided that a debt ceiling crisis would allow him to use emergency powers to prioritize payments, then he would have few good options to make the necessary cuts of 40 to 45 per cent.

According to simulations run by Mr Powell, if the administration chose to prioritize big spending programmes such as Social Security and Medicare, then it would have to shut down almost everything else – from nuclear security to federal prisons.

Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 07:16:52

One problem with prioritizing is that whosoever DOESN’T get priority will sue. Another problem is that those same people will be inclined to “punish” the party in control of the White House come election time. Whenever you anoint winners, you also pick losers. There is really no way to deal with the lack of borrowing authority without breaking one law or the other of congress. Now invoking the 14th amendment MIGHT lead to a ruling that the debt limit is null and void. But it would also be politically quite bad for the president. The same is true for the “giant platinum coin,” idea. Notwitstanding the theoretical legality of it, it DOES constitute ignoring the express intent of Congress.

Comment by Spokaneman
2011-07-29 10:33:01

Bill Clinton, AKA the big dog, said in an interview the other day that he would without doubt authorize continuing borrowing and fight it out in the Supreme Court.

I believe he just might have.

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 12:19:39

And they’d have loved him for it. Obama doesn’t seem to be getting as much of a pass from the center so far…but maybe they’re just waiting for him to step up.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 07:29:37

At least one Repubican congressman has said that such a decision would be an impeachable act. ;-)

heheeeheeeheehaahaaahaaheeehaahaaa… (Hwy50™)

“lil’ Opie…get ‘em!”

Gene Hackman, Unforgiven’s lil’ Bill: “Now next time I whip ya, it won’t be gentle, like before…”

Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 07:47:49

Well at it’s core, impeachment is a POLITICAL act. If congress decides that jaywalking constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor,” than it is.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 08:01:11

Ha, climbing over the backs of the “TrueReducetheDeficitNow! Today!!™” + “TrueAnger™” to pay monie$ for America’s debt promises, (including Cheney-$hrubs)…”Evil” :-)

lil Opie, maybe one day they’ll name a Navy Destroyer after him! The USS Kenyan.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by wolfgirl
2011-07-29 08:08:42

The harder part is getting a conviction on impeachment. Otherwise it means very little.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 03:38:14

Some points are worth further discussion, so as to bring culture and refinement where knowledge is lacking.

“Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-28 19:33:24
“My mother, the Home Economics teacher, would explain to you in detail, and at length, that the tomato is a vegatable”

And, alas, she would be wrong. Have her ask the biology teachers.”

Alpha, it’s a riddle. The fruit of all plants is vegetable by nature. Things vegetable bear fruit. When is something vegetable a fruit and when is fruit a vegetable?

Comment by TCM-guy
2011-07-29 04:11:00

This debate was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1893, Nix vs. Hedden.

There was a tariff on imported vegetables. The importer claimed that tomatoes are fruit and not subject to the tax. The court ruled tomatoes are vegetables.

http://tinyurl.com/kewk3

Comment by skroodle
2011-07-29 06:19:47

Tomatoes where thought to be poisonous when first discovered.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 06:24:54

So if the Supremes rule that that the Earth is flat, would that make it true?

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 06:32:42

Why of course it would. In the warped world of legalistic nutjobs. (You know that better than anyone here Color)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 07:32:59

Brawndo is what plants crave.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:20:06

:lol:

 
 
Comment by Left Ohio
2011-07-29 12:22:25

Expect the Kansas State Board of Education to be the plaintiff in this one.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 04:24:29

His point was that a packet of ketchup should not be counted as a serving of vegitables when looking at recommended daily diet.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 06:54:15

It’s not a “serving” of fruit either.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 07:12:55

a packet of ketchup should not be counted as a serving of vegitables

But two packets of ketchup should be counted as a dessert. :)

Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 07:49:09

In some parts of Mexico, ketchup/catsup is called “salsa dulce”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2011-07-29 09:13:23

Dulce means sweet.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 09:25:08

Brazilians laugh at how much ketchup Americans use but Brazilians use ketchup on pizza all the time and that’s when I laugh.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 10:01:43

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Mexican style salsas outsell ketchup in the US.

That said, I like ketchup on fries.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-29 18:04:06

“ketchup/catsup is called salsa dulce”

And Worcestershire cause is called ’salsa inglesa’ (English sauce) in Mexico. It’s a common ingredient in micheladas- their bloody mary beer- particularly the michelada cubana.

 
 
 
 
Comment by palmetto
2011-07-29 04:42:14

“when is fruit a vegetable?”

When you’re George W. Bush.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 05:12:49

Can Biden even spell potatoe?

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2011-07-29 07:51:20

Wiki:

Botanically, a tomato is a fruit: the ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant. However, the tomato has a much lower sugar content than other fruits, and is therefore not as sweet. Typically served as part of a salad or main course of a meal, rather than at dessert, it is considered a vegetable for most culinary purposes. One exception is that tomatoes are treated as a fruit in home canning practices: they are acidic enough to be processed in a water bath rather than a pressure cooker as “vegetables” require. Tomatoes are not the only foodstuff with this ambiguity: eggplants, cucumbers, and squashes of all kinds (such as zucchini and pumpkins) are all botanically fruits, yet cooked as vegetables.

This argument has had legal implications in the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on vegetables, but not on fruits, caused the tomato’s status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the controversy on May 10, 1893, by declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)).[48] The holding of the case applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, and the court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or other purposes.

Comment by michael
2011-07-29 08:27:58

momma always told me if it has seeds…it’s a fruit.

Comment by Kim
2011-07-29 09:35:21

Even cucumbers?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 10:12:50

“Tomatoes are not the only foodstuff with this ambiguity: eggplants, cucumbers, and squashes of all kinds (such as zucchini and pumpkins) are all botanically fruits, yet cooked as vegetables.”

from the above.

 
Comment by Kim
2011-07-29 11:31:52

Duh! (smacking head)

Sorry… I am not firing on all cylinders today.

 
 
Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:37:14

So corn is a fruit??

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 10:16:48

Corn is a botanical cereal fruit like rice and wheat. It’s scientific name is Zea maize.

Botanically, the matured infloroscence is called a Cob.

If you isolate the grains from their cob, you will get seeds inside each grain.

Each grain has the ability to germinate and produce individual maize plant under favourable climatic conditions.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 09:59:50

That makes ME a fruit…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 10:13:21

It depends on how you’re served Oxide.

 
 
 
 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-29 17:29:05

When is something vegetable a fruit and when is fruit a vegetable?

“The noun vegetable usually means an edible plant or part of a plant other than a sweet fruit or seed.”
-our old friend wikipedia

Ah, the old tomato is a fruit/vegetable argument. How many times have I seen that one degenerate into a fistfight? (’You wanna step outside and tell me a tomato is a fruit, bucko?’)

Anyway, I’ll risk a dust-up by pointing out that in generalif it has seeds and is fleshy and tasty, it’s a fruit. Oxide, if your ovaries became swollen, sweet, and tasty when you were with child, then you would be a fruit producing vegetable, as BlueSky points out. (Unless you were a fungus, like the mushroom- another point of contention in the eternal fruit/veggie war. A mushroom is of course a tasty thing that grows, contains ’seeds’, but is neither fruit nor vegetable, according to the ‘experts’.)

An interesting and educational way to think of the difference is that in general the fruit is the part of the plant that the plant wants you to eat. That’s how it spreads its seeds. For that reason, fruits are generally tasty raw, and- important nutritional distinction- the fruit’s nutrients are generally easily digested and absorbed when the fruit is eaten raw.

A vegetable is generally a part of the plant that the plant does not want you to eat- its roots, leaves, stems, etc. For this reason, the nutrients in vegetables are often not easily absorbed by a consumer unless they are cooked first, which breaks down many ingredients (chemicals, fiber) that are designed (?) to impede the absorption of the nutrients in order to discourage their being eaten.

Spinach is a good example of this phenomenon. Spinach, eaten raw, contains ingredients that impede the absorption of not only its own iron and vitamin C, but even that from other foods eaten at the same time. When cooked, these ingredient break down, thus allowing the absorption of said nutrients.

Connected to this distinction, and taking veganism’s ‘I don’t eat dead things or the products of slavery’ (honey, cheese, etc) ideal a step further, there are fruititarians who eat only fruits that fall naturally from plants. So no one or thing gets hurt or ‘ripped off’ in the preparation of their meal.

Maybe they should form a political party?

Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-29 17:33:21

But a chicken ain’t nothing but a bird.

 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 03:43:10

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

from Forbes via Yahoo

Apparently, the word “alarmist” has to work extra hard to catch up to the word “denier”.

Comment by CharlieTango
2011-07-29 05:34:47

But the supreme court ruled that co2 is a pollutant. Co2 is plant food and virtually all life on the planet depends on it. More co2 = more and bigger plants and animals, doesn’t sound like a pollutant to me.

Now we know it doesn’t even hold in the earths heat like algore taught us, anyone want to buy some carbon credits?

Comment by michael
2011-07-29 06:07:26

i thought i saw manbearpig the other day. i ran like hell!

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 07:34:32

Was it in Goldenman$ucks lobby, this sighting? ;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2011-07-29 09:04:32

the supreme court ruled that co2 is a pollutant.

I guess O2 is also a pollutant then, since it feeds animals and causes them to exhale CO2.

And don’t even get me started about dihydrogen monoxide.

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2011-07-29 09:16:12

dihydrogen monoxide + carbon dioxide = seltzer

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 09:48:52

He’s talking about spring water. It is more of a “greenhouse gas” than CO2. Just harder to conjure up a tax scheme around it.

 
 
Comment by wolfgirl
2011-07-29 10:19:21

Most of the people in this country wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2011-07-29 16:31:51

dihydrogen oxide is water.
carbon dioxide is the gas you find in carbonated beverages, like Coke, Pepsi, and seltzer water.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 19:00:22

That’s called sequestering.

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 10:58:50

A universal solvent.

A major component of acid rain!

Ban it! Ban it!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by cactus
2011-07-29 12:06:31

two hydrogens one oxygen like H2O

I think its what al gore used to kill manbearpig quite deadly unless you’re a fish

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 12:21:17

“More co2 = more and bigger plants and animals, doesn’t sound like a pollutant to me.”

Is doesn’t work that simply. Photosynthetic rates are controlled by CO2, heat, solar input, water, etc. As atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, some of these inputs will be negatively impacted in certain areas. My former research group is trying to see what was happening with climate in the Cenozoic and as C4 plants came to the fore.

When you start messing with a system (and yes, doubling CO2 concentration in 100 years is), beware of unintended consequences. And you must know that when you write things like this you sound like, “It’s got ELECTROLYTES, it’s what plants crave.”

“guess O2 is also a pollutant then”

It is. See also, “rust”.
“harder to conjure up a tax scheme around it.” It is foolhardy to conflate science with policy.

Oh gawd, I just looked up the article written by some rube at The Heartland Institute. He wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear — and it compromises what he called a “central premise of alarmist global warming theory.”

We’ve been over The Heartland Institute before people. Did you forget about their lack of credibility so soon?

“truth of climate change remains murky” Ah, Faux News. Nice slant. It does not remain murky. That is a lie. Amongst the great majority of reputable scientists (>95%), it is crystal clear.

MrBubble

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 13:25:21

It is murky. It’s been murked up by corrupt researchers, like a lot of other things. The worst part, from my perspective, is that honest intelligent and well trained people in the science community who have a different opinion are shouted down. There is not a free exchange of thought, information.

Case in point, your post infers that doubters are not reputable or that they are liars. 95% of people are almost always wrong anyway, especially when they are paid to be.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 14:44:14

“It is murky.”

Again, it’s not. Just read the literature, not the junk that non-scientists write and not only the papers by those scientists who have quibbles with global warming. If you did that, you would see that 1) most scientists who disagree and merely disagreeing around the margins and 2) non-scientists opinions aren’t worth much.

“It’s been murked up by corrupt researchers, like a lot of other things.”

Any murkiness has been muckraked on purpose by monied interests. Real monied interests. Scientists are not money grubbers. They wear crummy sport coats and need haircuts. But they are ego-hogs. And if there were an ego boost/fame to be had by disproving AGW, they would do it. In a second.

“The worst part, from my perspective, is that honest intelligent and well trained people in the science community who have a different opinion are shouted down. There is not a free exchange of thought, information.”

Being that you aren’t from the scientific community, you don’t fully understand the process of how it gets done. That’s cool. Even though I have seen boats and ride on one in the afternoons, I don’t give piloting opinions to the captain, because that’s not in my wheelhouse. I remember a famous clay mineralogist asking, “Whatever happened to just plain stupid” after a student conjured up another learning disability. It can get harsh when people are carrying bags full of stupid.

“Case in point, your post infers that doubters are not reputable or that they are liars.”

Some of the 5% are not reputable, some are liars and some have legitimate concerns over the science. These concerns are being answered by new research. That’s how it works.

“95% of people are almost always wrong anyway, especially when they are paid to be.”

That’s just silly and does not warrant further analysis.

MrBubble

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-29 18:30:59

‘It is murky’ the same way that the tobacco/disease connection was supposedly ‘murky’ for years- because the tobacco companies paid researchers and scientists (sound familiar?) to come up with studies that tried to cast doubt on the tobacco/disease connection.

How did that work out in the end? Tobacco companies finally surrendered and admitted the truth.

If big business (whose profits depend on it) says one thing, and the vast majority of the scientific community says the other, who really believes that big biz is telling the truth?

Can anyone think of an example of when big biz was right and the overall scientific community was wrong about such an issue?

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-07-29 18:46:25

LOL- I was even closer to the truth than I realized! The global warming study was from the Heartland Institute? Well, check this out:

“In the 1990s, the group [The Heartland Institute] worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]”

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[14] By 2008, ExxonMobil had stopped funding to Heartland. [dubious-discuss] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[23]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris.[15]

The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link”…”between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health.”[6]
-wikipedia

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 19:10:49

Mr. B. It is plain that you are a bully. You look down your nose at me because I am a boater whose training and experience you know nothing of, and you are part of a team that is discovering stuff about C4. Lots of smart joiners are swept up, so just check yourself and don’t be so cock sure.

 
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:24:26

Posted yesterday.

There is something fishy about this. Is does not square up with the fact that global temperatures have nonetheless, still been steadily rising.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 12:46:43

As is the sea level.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 13:20:05

Only in certain places apparently.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 14:33:40

You might want to explain that one M.eng.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 14:48:13

The effects of global warming are not equally distributed over the globe and will be felt more at the poles than the equator. Non-linearity doesn’t help either.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 15:46:21

Mr. Bubble, most people don’t understand disturbance of an symmetric system creating an asymmetric oscillation.

Many people can’t even spell those words. (some days, neither can I) :lol:

 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 16:51:27

RAL is talking about the sea leve rising only in certain places, not global warming.

 
 
 
Comment by bink
2011-07-29 13:17:28

Just to play devil’s advocate here… they’d argue that was a natural phenomenon unaffected by man.

Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 14:51:57

“Only in certain places apparently.”

The effects of global warming are not equally distributed over the globe and will be felt more at the poles than the equator. Non-linearity doesn’t help either.

“Natural phenomenon”

Solar insolation is the likelist suspect but solar insolation and SSTs have been diverging for years now. The smoking gun is CO2 and the CO2 (as shown by the stable isotopic ratios) is fossil in provenance. Fractionation’ll get you every time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 15:41:25

The Heartland Institute?

Knew it smelled fishy.

I’ll bet a donut that he pulled the data out of context and/or interpreted it wrong.

 
 
 
Comment by Hard Rain
2011-07-29 04:03:20

comotechie’s deflation rears it’s head. Sony and other major electronics makers have also warned. Word of caution to Apple philes, at some point people will choose food over apps …..

TOKYO (AP) — Shares of Nintendo Co. took a beating Friday, losing more than a fifth of their value at one point, after the Japanese video game giant announced a worldwide price cut for its new 3DS in an effort to salvage poor sale.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nintendo-shares-plunge-after-apf-3763915429.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 05:43:02

“At some point people will choose food over apps …”

And there are a lot of jobs associated with selling apps in our consumer-based economy, which means if these apps do not get sold then the unemployment rate will rise.

Employment in a consumer-based economy rises when consumers cut back on their consumption. This no-brainer of a statement suggests the consumer-based economy will contract. And a contracting economy is a DEFLATING economy.

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2011-07-29 06:01:43

“Employment in a consumer-based economy rises when consumers cut back on their consumption.”

Did you mean to say UNemployment?

Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 06:09:49

Yeah, I meant UNemployment. Sorry.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 07:52:21

Meh. How many retail jobs will be lost if Apple sells 10-20% fewer iToys?

I’ll bet most if them are being sold online anyway. The last time I bought an iPod for a gift (straight from Apple) it was drop shipped straight from Asia. And if you buy it at WalMart or Target there still has to be a guy to unlock the cabinet.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:27:51

Still waiting on that deflation at the grocery store, landlord, gas pump, phone bill, insurance, electricity, etc.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 12:34:58

Don’t hold your breath.

I remember during the 70’s there were also deflationistas shouting from the rooftops that falling prices were imminent.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 15:49:27

Same here. This ain’t my first rodeo. :lol:

That’s when I realized that voodoo economics was bunk and we were effed.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Hard Rain
2011-07-29 04:20:11

I’d be willing to bet that Palin 2.0’s shelf life will be substantially shorter than the original.

Bachmann says she, not husband, running for office

“I’m running for the presidency of the United States. My husband is not running for the presidency. Neither are my children. Neither is our business,” she said.

“I am more than happy to stand for questions on running for the presidency of the United States,” she continued. “I have no doubt that every jot and tittle of my life will be fully looked at and inspected prior to November of 2012.”

http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-says-she-not-husband-running-office-201319758.html

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 06:16:16

Gosh I’m glad I didn’t vote for Reverend Wright!

 
Comment by skroodle
2011-07-29 06:21:05

It would be kinda cool of if the “turn the gay man straight on the government dime” business ran for president. It would make Ron Paul seem normal.

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 06:37:24

“My husband is not running for the presidency. Neither are my children. Neither is our business,”

Then quit wheeling them out on the campaign platform like Palin did with here brood of sloths. And then have the audacity to cry foul and play the victim for the rest of the campaign.

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 11:01:37

Ask Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton if spouses are a campaign issue.

 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 04:22:11

Dynasty Trusts Let U.S. Wealthy Duck Estate, Gift Taxes Forever
By Elizabeth Ody - Jul 28, 2011 12:32 PM ET
(bloomibergi)

“Dynasty trusts have gained popularity since 1986 when Congress overhauled the generation-skipping transfer tax and since then several states, including Delaware, have eliminated their rules against perpetuities.

Thomasson, who lives in Indianapolis, said he’s funding a so-called dynasty trust set up in Delaware with $8 million of equity from the expanding financial advisory business he owns, Oxford Financial Group. Putting the assets in a trust, which he figures could be worth more than $100 million by the time he dies, means the money should go to his heirs without triggering federal gift, estate or generation-skipping transfer taxes.

A dynasty trust is used to pass money on to multiple generations of descendants while paying as little in taxes as possible. The trusts have no expiration date and there are no required minimum distributions, meaning their assets may grow for an unlimited number of future generations. While the trusts can be set up in many states, Delaware offers extra breaks, including stronger protection from creditors and potential exclusion of assets in divorce proceedings. ”

[the article goes on to describe how families may borrow from a trust to buy stock or gain rates within of return which is put back into the trust at only 2% tax. This works for family-owned businesses.]
————–

The playing field has tipped so far that it’s a cliff…

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 07:10:50

Savins vehicles are available to anyone who actually saves something, at any level of wealth. The spend more than you have crowd thinks this is evil though.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:32:45

Surely you aren’t referring to the 72 MILLION people (HALF the workforce) who make $500 or less a week, are you?

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 11:59:32

Why not? I live on significantly less than $500 per week. That is strategic, not by necessity. If I can intentionally give up things cable TV, beer and cocopuffs to save, why can not someone who only earns $500?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2011-07-29 15:16:41

Blue Skye, since you brought it up:

Care to share approximately what it costs you to live per year on your boat? Contemplating a possible similar choice myself one day, so would love to know… Thanks!

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 15:51:48

They already DO.

BTW, anecdotal is not good enough.

Honestly good for you. I’m glad you can do this. But to think that most people have a choice is simply not true.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2011-07-29 16:05:14

eco, your comment reminds me of a good anecdote: my ex-in-laws were having financial trouble, and my ex-wife and I sat down with them to try to figure out where they could cut.

Just to set the scene, we had already been paying their living expenses for a couple of months—their drop in income was that bad.

So, we started talking through their expenses, and we came to the cable TV, which seemed to us both like a no-brainer to cut. My ex-MIL exclaimed “Oh, but I _LIKE_ cable!” and at that point I realized just how hard this conversation was going to be.

I agree with Blue Skye; most people could live on less than they currently live on, and many of the things we consider “needs” are not needs at all, but “wants”.

Blue Skye is just doing a better job of differentiating than most people are.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 18:17:32

Most poor people know don’t have cable TV. (if they even have a TV)

Most poor people I know have sold everything they could to make the rent.

Most poor people I know drive VERY used cars that are their only means of getting to work. When it runs, that is.

They don’t have medical insurance. They don’t eat steak dinners. They don’t go out except as a very special treat.

The people you and Blue Sky use as an example are NOT poor, but I will agree they are not very smart.

But poor? I don’t think you folks really know any truly poor people.

I’ve literally known thousands.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 18:53:35

Prime, I probably have the cheapest arrangements for living on a boat possible. The boat cost me $10K. 32ft x 12. Dock and dues about $1500/yr. Includes utilities, showers, cable (if one hookd up) and parties, if one hooks up to that. Lasts me 8 months here in NY. Winter storage on the hard about $400. Last year I paid $600/mo for a primo winter appartment, off season in a B&B and got some nice meals as a bonus. I’ve spent about $2K per yr for a few years bringing the boat up to standard and am about done for a decade i expect.

My luxury is cruising in the summer. Budget is $3K. This is totally extra above living cost.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2011-07-30 11:50:44

Thanks much for sharing, Blue!

 
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:30:28

I once had a coworker at a factory I was working at actually defend raising the limit on the inheritance tax.

They were making less than $14, no rich relatives, but was vigorously defending more generous tax breaks for million dollar inheritances.

You can’t fix that kind of stupid.

Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:46:32

I see the tricks played by the wealthy first-hand. They spend lots of time/effort, etc. in terms of attorneys, accountants, etc. in planning for their families in the event of their passing.

In my opinion, the 50% estate tax is the Laffer curve in full force and effect. The tricks used are not simple, and the time spent by the wealthy is not insignificant.

If instead, the rate was lower, 20%, with a lower exemption, many wealthy that I know would stop bleeding money on professionals and time every year for decades (with trusts, trustees, keeping up with laws, etc.), and simply keep 20% of their net worth in cash to pay the piper.

The amount of sustained resources dedicated to avoid estate tax is staggering because the cost of the estate tax is staggering. People on this board may not believe that lowering the rate and exemption would raise tax revenue, but I personally know people that would simplify their lives in a second if they knew the estate tax wasn’t going to be significantly lower.

Comment by measton
2011-07-29 15:21:51

BS

If they can skirt 20% they will skirt 20%.


“The sustained resources dedicated to avoiding the estate tax is staggering.”

BS again a tiny tiny fraction. I’ll bet you can set up a trust like this for thousands of dollars. It will protect 10’s and 100’s of millions.

Note that those with under 5million are not affected by it. 10million if married I believe.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164871,00.html

So rental watch how many do you know with 5-10 million that they just can’t hide??

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 17:50:50

I know a few in that category fairly well (not tens of people, but probably 5-10 or more). It is not as simple as calling an attorney and spending a few thousand dollars.

It is setting up and managing the entities that hold the assets that your trust may own a fraction of, the ongoing accounting each year when you decide that you want to transfer a few more assets into/out of those entities, the valuation experts that you hire to value the illiquid portions of your portfolio, the interest calculations that you make in the event you lend money to the trust so that they can buy the assets to avoid the gift tax issues, etc., etc., etc.

AND the time that one needs to take away from their primary business to make sure all of this will work as expected.

AND adjusting the strategy every time Congress decides to change the laws.

AND factoring in the potential that the IRS can sue your estate after you die to try to claim what you did was illegal (I know one family this happened to…the family won, but it was an expensive and time consuming ordeal).

Believing that one can protect tens of millions of dollars with a few thousand dollars and no management time is incredibly naive. You can’t simply transfer your wealth to a trust whenever you want and say “voila, no estate tax”. If so, EVERYONE would do it and the estate tax received by the US would be a big fat $0. It takes years of moving wealth into these entities in dribs and drabs.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 15:54:36

Not only do I not believe it, but we have MORE than ample evidence it would not, has not and never will, happen.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Hard Rain
2011-07-29 04:26:03

How ’bout we hire Irving Picard as trustee of TARP?

Madoff clients get $1b in deal
Settlement with MassMutual unit among largest

A hedge fund group owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. has agreed to pay more than $1 billion to customers of the now-imprisoned Bernard Madoff, in one of the largest settlements with the trustee in the bankruptcy case that resulted from the largest investment fraud in US history.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/07/29/massmutual_unit_to_pay_1b_to_fund_for_madoff_clients/

 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 04:28:38

This is not a cyclical slowdown. We’ve reached the structural dead end of the debt based economy.

The housing bubble is a symptom of efforts to shove ever more debt into an already debt saturated economy.

Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 05:51:50

“This is not a cyclical slowdown.”

It is in the sense that it is synched with the Grand Cycle of a debt crisis rather than the less-than-grand cycle of a liquidity crisis.

The recessions we all got to experience now and then have been issues of liquidity. The depression our parents got to experience was an issue of solvency.

This slowdown is more akin to what our parents had to experience, not what what we are used to experiencing - and it’s not what many of us are expecting to experience.

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 06:22:14

My parents never had to watch our industries and intellectual property bleed to other countries.

Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 06:41:12

No, your parents got to watch the factories close right before their eyes. Now we only get to hear reports of factories closing somewhere else.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 06:43:49

your parents got to watch the factories close right before their eyes. Now we only get to hear reports of factories closing somewhere else.

See? We’ve made progress.

 
Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 06:48:30

IMO there are really two issues at work:

1. There is the Globalization issue whereby our jobs were shipped out somewhere else where it is cheaper to produce.

2. And then there is the solvency issue, which is global.

 
Comment by combotechie
2011-07-29 07:07:46

The Globalization issue emerged slowly and was accompanied by words describing how wonderful it all was. We Americans would leave the heavy lifting to others; We would instead spend our energies on getting “educated”.

They would do the work, we would do the consuming. They loved the idea, we were too stupid to see how we were getting screwed.

Then the debt crisis hit and everybody got screwed.

The PTB answer to the debt crisis is to pour more money into the economy. But this won’t work because production is based somewhere else and thus the money will leak out of our economy and end up somewhere else - somewhere where the production is based.

 
Comment by redrum
2011-07-29 08:08:07

There’s also the issue of technology and automation replacing jobs. How many record stores are left in your town? How many book stores has Amazon replaced? How many factory jobs are now done by robots? etc.

I remember reading, years ago, predictions of how we’d all have an abundance of free/leisure time; as machines and robots did the mundane work of society. What wasn’t predicted was that the benefits would all be concentrated at the corporate ownership level.

Former workers got their leisure time I guess… they just can’t afford to feed their families.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 08:22:44

Former workers got their leisure time I guess… they just can’t afford to feed their families.

I’ve tried to pose this question before: If somebody invented a machine that could make everything that anybody could ever want or need for free, is it more likely that a)it would be used to create some sort of utopian society where everyone was free to spend their time however they wanted OR b)it would be bought or taken and controlled by TPTB and its output carefully controlled and rationed in order to get the maximum possible labor from those not in control in return for those controlled and rationed goods?

Since it could produce all the goods anybody could ever want, the only labor that would have any value would be service-related, but I still think that b) is what would happen.

Provide a useful service to the owner of the machine (TPTB) or starve. And if you try to simply go off and live independent of their system they’ll raise an army to eradicate you from “their” planet. And pay that army in the goods the machine produces for free.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 08:29:51

I remember reading, years ago, predictions of how we’d all have an abundance of free/leisure time; as machines and robots did the mundane work of society. What wasn’t predicted was that the benefits would all be concentrated at the corporate ownership level.

That is it in a nutshell. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds the past 40 years in the USA….but…..but….most Americans have not gained at all from this increased productivity.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/10/08/robert-reich-aftershock/

The landmark study by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty has been cited by many in helping to explain what went wrong with our economy. The productivity gains of American workers were not shared with the workers but were transferred to the wealthiest Americans. Robert Reich explains that the economy falters when the masses to not have the funds to purchase the products and services made possible by their own productivity.

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:40:00

Think of how many payroll clerks and typist/stenographers companies had before computers.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:35:25

If it’s cheaper to send out jobs overseas, HOW COME THEY NEED TAX BREAKS TO DO SO?

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:37:28

Exactly Rio. American workers have THE highest productivity in the world, yet it’s cheaper to offshore our jobs?

What’s wrong with this picture?

(hint: tax breaks to offshore our jobs)

 
Comment by measton
2011-07-29 15:27:19

This should be pointed out again and again Rio when people shout that we can’t tax the job creators. Why not they have been given Every benefit. This stripping of wealth from teh middle class via trade policy and tax policy and regulation has concentrated wealth to the extreme. The only solution is to tax the wealth and use it to create jobs. To change our trade policy to create jobs. Otherwise we are on the fast road to hell. The elite are at the back of the train but most of them will be burned as well.

 
 
 
Comment by cactus
2011-07-29 08:55:32

“This is not a cyclical slowdown.”

secular slowdown I like that word secular meaning long term

like secular bear market sounds cool plus its true

 
 
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 05:55:24

they will fight to the bitter end to save the FIRE economy.

what we really need is a stateman…a leader that is willing to “let go” and develop economic policies that prepares us for a “new economy”.

it will be painful…but there simply is no other solution.

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 07:42:34

Presidents in their second term make excellent statesmen. They don’t care about being re-elected.

Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:41:11

I think W pretty much blew that theory.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:39:59

Got that right.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 04:45:33

Microsoft’s Use Of Low-Tax Havens Drives Tax Bill To 7 Percent Of Profit
Microsoft Taxes

FAIRFIELD, Connecticut (Lynnley Browning) - If you want to know why tax from surging corporate profits isn’t making much of a dent in the United States’ crippling budget deficit, a glance at Microsoft Corp’s recent results provides some clues.

Things were rosy in the giant software company’s just-ended fiscal fourth quarter, which produced record sales of nearly $17.4 billion, a 30 percent increase in after-tax profit, and a 35 percent gain in earnings per share.

But for the Internal Revenue Service and foreign tax authorities, things weren’t so rosy. Microsoft reported only $445 million in taxes in the U.S. and other foreign countries, just 7 percent of its $6.32 billion in pre-tax profit.

Given the rancor in Congress and in the country about how to tackle the nation’s budget deficit and debt, including how companies stash profits overseas and enjoy lucrative tax breaks, it is instructive to see how the top brass at Microsoft’s Redmond, Washington, headquarters achieved this eye-popping tax result.

Partly it was because the company had a one-time refund of $461 million from the IRS for previous overpayments and because of its over-estimation of tax rates in previous quarters. There may be increased sales of products to consumers overseas, though it is not clear from company disclosures how much of a factor this might be.

But Microsoft is straightforward about the core reason for its lower tax bill: It is increasingly channeling earnings from sales to customers throughout the world through the low-tax havens of Ireland, Puerto Rico and Singapore.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 06:54:07

tax from surging corporate profits isn’t making much of a dent in the United States’ crippling budget deficit,

We have in America, rich man and corporatist socialism.

The middle-class’s wealth has been confiscated and redistributed to the very rich and the corporations.

Our hated, “evil middle-class” has been punished even after we worked hard, towed the line, bought into globalization and supply-side economics and believed the politicians and the elite.

We now live in a world of corporate and rich man’s socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

Power to the middle-class!

Comment by butters
2011-07-29 07:19:00

That’s why we need a tax raise on the middle class.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 07:21:46

The so-called middle class gave away their collective prosperity. They borrowed money from those who had lots, to give away to the “less fortunate”, to buy things that they could not afford for themselves and to build the economies of our comptetitors. All this based on debt at interest. Now they are slaves to that debt, and we call it the fault of the rich. Until the average person in the USA crosses the philosophical divide to sustainability and responsible finances, there will be no prosperity for them, only indenturement.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 08:00:43

Even if we were all debt free, it’s still a socialism for the rich scenario.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 10:11:38

Right, and they don’t deserve it and we shouldn’t pay for it. Still, if we didn’t think debt was the way to live, we wouldn’t owe them anything and we wouldn’t elect politicians who think debt is the only way for the country to live.

“We’re trying to save life on the planet as we know it.” or some such.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:42:15

Blue Sky, many made the choice consciously, but most had NO CHOICE.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 11:53:46

No Choice. That is hard for me to accept. I have been in debt and I have lived without things I really didn’t need to gain my release. It is possible to live on very little in the US if you throw off the commonly accepted “necessities”. Exceptions, sure but most?

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 13:58:53

I can choose my actions, but I can’t choose the actions of Congress or CEOs.

I can choose to not have personal debt, but I can’t choose how our government spends my money. I can only vote for folks who represent my district or state. And once elected, they may be more influenced by lobbyists who are paid to bend their ear.

And I can’t choose whether the CEO of GE ships jobs overseas. I don’t work for GE nor own its stock, so I have no direct influence. The best I can do is refuse to buy GE products and that has a microscopic effect on its bottom line.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:00:44

Yes. Most.

You may not remember, but the middle class used to be the majority in this nation. Now they are a minority.

The poor have become the largest group. That didn’t happen by personal choice among the poor.

It happened for the reasons and then some, that Happy2BeHeard just stated.

Who had control over inflation? Wage freezes? Jobs sent overseas every decade? Medical costs?

Those who are now a minority and getting fewer all the time.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 16:18:34

I may not remember? You are joking. Perhaps you do not remember, that the middle class scratched and clawed and scrimped and saved for what now passes as poor and entitled. Oh yes, there came a time that they all had expensive toys and such, but that wasn’t the situation of the “back-bone of America”.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 18:08:48

Poor is poor. And the poor now outnumber the middle class. Your stereotypes are almost neocon talking points. “Entitled poor?” You have to be kidding me.

Everything cost 100x as much as it used to, but wages didn’t keep up.

$3hr was the min wage in 1980. In order to keep up with just the most conservative figure of inflation, min wage would now have to be $9hr.

It isn’t even that, is it?

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 18:33:20

Stereotypes? Maybe, but those are my impressions. 100X, what are you 100 years old? 10 x + something since I was a teenager. Minimum wage should be (if there is such a should) something like $17.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 08:23:52

The so-called middle class gave away their collective prosperity. They borrowed money from those who had lots, to give away to the “less fortunate”, to buy things that they could not afford for themselves and to build the economies of our comptetitors. All this based on debt at interest.

A little bit right but mostly wrong, overly simplistic and missing the big picture:

Look at income trends the past 40 years. In constant dollars, income for 90% of Americans has fallen in real inflation terms while their expenses have risen. Housing, health insurance etc have risen, benefits have been cut. etc

In contrast, the rich’s income has skyrocketed and their share of the wealth had risen rapidly. In addition, tax burdens on the middle-class, ie payroll taxes in the 80’s have risen or remained constant while the taxes on the rich have fallen markedly. None of these facts, trends and truths are addressed in your, “it’s the middle class’s fault because they borrow too much” argument.

In addition, much of the debt the middle-class has piled on is mortgage debt that was peddled to them like crack by unregulated banks who disregarded 70 years of prudent lending standards. So the middle-class was hammered from the income side, the expense side, the benefits side while being constantly bombarded by materialistic propaganda while being pushed the unregulated debt with which to hang themselves.

You will not find me bashing the American middle-class (who have already been bashed) in defense of their overlord bashers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 09:46:54

I agree with the trends you point to, but I see something else in this, and since I’ve lived through this entire period as one of those middlers, paying taxes and buying things, I have an opinion that goes past the simple statistics.

It was the greed of my middle class generation that allowed all these things to happen. Greedy people can easily be taken to the cleaners. Jobs would not have been offshored if we had not cared more about getting something for nothing now and paying the piper later. The price of everything would not have climbed to the roof if we had had any restraint. We borrowed away our future. My rich banker Great Uncle on Long Island did not cause this, he only facilitated it.

I only harp on this because I think the path to recovery goes back along the same ground that got us here.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:44:47

Blue Sky, Rio and I have posted fact after fact that the middle class DID NOT have a choice in the matter, yet you still fail to recognize those facts.

Amazing.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 12:20:28

No offence to you and young Rio, but there are different views available to those who have walked around a thing and not just view them in the prepared for quick digestion two dimensional world.

These victims bought big houses that they could not afford, cars that they could not afford (made somewhere that does not pay taxes into US benefits for the needy), subscriptions and memberships and snow mobiles and i-toys, all with borrowed money. They pay interest to the bank and their collective wealth goes overseas. 99% of the people I grew up with never gave this a second thought. So, your facts that the rich people took away the punch bowl just don’t convince me. I have rich people in my family. They may not be nice people, but they didn’t steal anything from you.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 12:29:49

“They may not be nice people…”

Agree.

“…but they didn’t steal anything from you.”

Disagree.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 13:27:50

You think that my cousin, who made a million for a few years playing center, and his widow, who cared for him through eight horrific years of concussion induced alzhimers (but still has money left) stole your cereal.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 14:56:42

Is that straw man afraid of fire?

 
Comment by measton
2011-07-29 15:40:25

These victims bought big houses that they could not afford, cars that they could not afford (made somewhere that does not pay taxes into US benefits for the needy), subscriptions and memberships and snow mobiles and i-toys, all with borrowed money.

1. Many bought these things with jobs created by a credit bubble they didn’t understand. The corporate owned MSM realtors even teh president and FED told them things were OK. Even those that didn’t borrow beyond their means have been destroyed by collapsing hosing values and job losses and WS theft and tax policy.

2. Free Trade Free Trade Free Trade, a rising tide lifts all boats. This has been sung in every paper and by most politicians. Well the people were lied to. We know the rich create think tanks to push these ideas into the mainstreme. They own the press as well.

The elite have scewed tax policy so the top 0.1% pay 14% effective tax rates, they create loopholes by buying off politicians so corporations pay little or no tax, they pay politicians to allow oligopolies and manipulation of markets.

You kid yourself if you think that the elite in this country have not stolen their wealth. The vast majority have. Every WS CEO and upper level management is guilty.

NOte your cousin who played center isn’t the elite. Not by a long shot. His paycheck came in the form of a W2 guaranteeing he paid a very high tax rate. He did not tell customers that he was selling them gold when in reality it was BS covered in paint. He didn’t steal from the tax payer with no bid contracts. He didn’t make his money outsourcing jobs or slashing benefits. People can easily decide if they want to buy a foot ball ticket, it’s a bit harder for them to take a look at their retirement account and find out what kind of mbs bs they are invested in.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 16:14:02

measton, I agree with you. I can’t agree with those here who echo the “get those who have something” like they all are criminals. They make me feel like Cuba redux is breathing down our necks.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-07-29 17:23:04

You’ve misinterpreted my statement.

When I read “They pay interest to the bank and their collective wealth goes overseas.”, I immediately conjured a tassel loafered wearing pig man who collected usurious interest and shipped all of the jobs over seas. I was not talking about freakishly tall people who get paid ludicrous sums of money to “dribble”, ridiculous as that is.

You’re fear of Cube made me think of the silly arguments of my neo-con friends and this Dan Reeder song. Good chord progression.

If I had a pistol
I could join a revolution
Just like Che
Imagine me
Hunkered down low in the sugarcane
Watchin’
Havana burnin’

They might say listen here
We got no soap and we got no beer
We fight for the truth
And the truth is clear
I say, “Who you gotta know to get a gun around here?
I wanna see
Havana burnin’”

And if you’d let me join in
me and Che
would be the best of friends
We’d wait for the day
Someone would say,
“Put on your camouflage vest and your black beret
And let’s go watch
Havana burnin’”

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 17:59:43

For me, it is not “get those who have something” that is the driving reason. It is that we are being sold “shared sacrifice” by those who have the means to sacrifice and yet are unwilling to sacrifice themselves.

I say roll back the Bush tax cuts for everyone. They were a disaster for this country.

 
 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2011-07-29 07:55:41

This is exactly why I like the idea of NO corporate income taxes…it eliminates refunds because there are no taxes to refund…

And businesses will not be bought and sold for their tax benefits on accumulated losses

And then we eliminate the Mortgage interest deduction and it will closely balance out

—————
Partly it was because the company had a one-time refund of $461 million from the IRS for previous overpayments and because of its over-estimation of tax rates in previous quarters

 
Comment by Robin
2011-07-29 19:34:38

At least Microsoft pays something. GE, no way - only to their tax-avoiding lawyers. Grrr….

 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 04:59:41

Today’s houses.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10-Plummer-Ct-Germantown-MD-20876/37218641_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-list-address}

It’s a nice 4/3 2278 sq ft from the 1970’s. Beautiful lot. Granite and hardwood floors, but “needs work.” Strange price history.

Sold 2000 for $230K.
Sold 6 months ago for $275K.
Now listed for $229K.
Zestimate: $432K (WTF)
Days on Zillow: 7

I wonder what happened? Serial refiance/foreclose/cement in the toilet? I expect this one to be snapped up and fixed and flipped.

Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 07:26:45

new floors, but a plastic tarp on the roof in the back. Missing major appliance in the kitchen. Failed rehab?

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 07:47:32

Even thought the Zestimate is out of whck, based on the current market, this is probably a $320K house. I don’t know of any appliances or roofs that cost $90K. It must be a bunch of things together. My guess is failed rehab and a trashed foreclosure. That’s why I think this one will be snapped up. It wouldn’t be difficult to fix it up for a profit.

Comment by Robin
2011-07-29 14:35:15

Notice the black mold!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 05:10:21

We’ve given up on a grand bargain and are now arguing about whether the next debt extension will be in the middle of the next election or not until after.

So, what possible compromise?

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 14:11:52

The Tea Party Republicans will not compromise. Their strength is in taking a hard line.

Going through this again before the next election would be disastrous for the country. Let the next Congress resolve the issue. If the Tea Party folks can gain members, then they will have more clout to force their agenda. If they lose members, then the country was not with them.

If we do end up with a short term solution, then it could hurt the Tea Party as much as the Democrats. The Republicans could win the White House and lose the Congress.

Unfortunately, the country has already lost. Our great advantage over emerging countries was our stability and we have lost that in this fight.

 
 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 05:21:20

Wow… CNBC just had Ben Quayle on… followed by Steny Hoyer. OMG the way the anchors handled them was disgraceful.

They let Ben Quayle talk. Hoyer, they will hardly let him get a word in edgewise.

Quayle question: Would you be willing to accept broadening the base and lowering rates if it was revenue positive instead of revenue neutral?

His answer, and they let it go… “Well, growing the economy is revenue positive.”

Hoyer kept explaining that it is the Tea Party wing of the Republican party that is refusing to compromise, and they kept interrupting him to ask why the Democrats won’t compromise. He tried to list all tehy were willing to give up, and then they interupt to ask why he won’t compromise. He tried to explain all the the bipartisan work that has been done, that fell apart becuase the Tea Party Republicans would not go along, and they interrupted to ask why the democrats won’t compromise.

Really disgusting.

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 07:53:31

And par for the course. I spend my Sunday mornings out of the house specifically to avoid the political shows, generally at a you-pick or a farmer’s market.

 
Comment by Kim
2011-07-29 11:39:50

I watched it. In its entirety.

Then I flipped on the computer while I started breakfast. Had to eat while fending off Dad and uncle sending me right-wingnut emails (false rumors, but neither of them bothered to check snopes before forwarding this trash).

It was a tough morning to be a middle-of-the-road-conservative. I feel damn embarrassed for both political parties at this point.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 05:23:35

“Politics has no relation to morals.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 07:40:57

What is…IS? :-)

 
 
Comment by whyoung
2011-07-29 05:29:06

For anyone needing a few laughs and with 1/2 hour to “waste”… check out season 3 episode 7 of Tracey Ullman State of the Union @ Hulu.

From March 2010, but with some great housing bubble related humor.

 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 05:43:09

GDP 1.2%

I’m afraid that the USA without trillions of dollars of borrowed government “stimulus” would have NO ECONOMY WHATSOEVER.

Comment by Mike in Miami
2011-07-29 06:11:01

It makes me sick to think about all the funds that were blown out with little or nothing to show for.
2 wars ($1+ trillion)
TARP $700 billion
stimulus that didn’t stimulate $800 billion
That’s $2.5 trillion that we just flushed down the drain by an army of impulse shoppers. We have nothing to show for that money except more debt and 2.5 unfinished wars. The money was spend on BS and hot air. Now the same clowns that blew that money are whining over a maxed out credit card. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 06:35:13

2 wars that cost $1 trillion over 10 years. That is $100B a year… or 1/12th what we spend on Medicare and Social Security.

$700B in TARP has been mostly paid back. $2.1T in receipts this year includes $100B TARP repayment.

We were losing 750K jobs a month leading up to stimulus. The underlying math was that stimulus would reduce this by 150K jobs per month, per month, for the first 6 months after it passed… which is exacly what happened. The failure was BLS reports were wrong. We throught we were starting from 600K jobs being lost per month, and we were actually starting from 750K job losses per month. And, the stimulus was more than half tax cuts. If we are going to lament the loss if tax cuts that didn’t stimulate, let’s start with the Bush era tax cuts.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 08:04:40

So what exactly is DoD spending the 900B on each year?

I don’t see how we’re only spending 100B a year on the two wars. We’re spending 20B on A/C fuel alone in Afghanistan.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:52:18

In round $10’s of Billions From the US Budget:

Personell - $140B
Operations and Maintenance - $200B
Procurement - $110B
R&D - $70B
Construction - $10B
Other Stuff - $20B

Discretionary Overseas Contingency Operations (Wars): $160B in 2010 and 2011, $120B in 2012

The number is about $700B in total in the DoD line item in the budget.

 
 
Comment by Mike in Miami
2011-07-29 08:25:59

Nope, on TARP you’re way off. Don’t have time to go into it right now. If I would get money at 0% from the FED and be able to loan it at 3% to the government/taxpayer I would also be able to pay back $700 billion. It’s simply accounting fraud.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 09:38:17

Is there a limit on how much a megabank criminal enterprise like Goldman or JPM can borrow at 0%? Why not borrow all the money in the world? Why not borrow ten zillion gazillion dollars and loan it to broke-ass USA? You could buy every megayacht in the world to stimulate the economy…

 
 
 
 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2011-07-29 06:36:55

We will find out hwo stimulating the stimulus was, when it ends and we’re back in deep recession.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 07:27:35

It was like putting a giant bilge-pump in the Titanic without fixing the hole in the hull. Take away even a small amount of pumping effort and she starts settling again.

 
 
Comment by rms
2011-07-29 06:54:47

“GDP 1.2%”

That’s not re-election material.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 07:13:48

Just wait until the aftermath of the debt ceiling negotiations hammers GDP a bit lower; things are not looking good over the next 12 months.

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 17:34:22

Which was the prime objective of all the fuss and bother - make Obama look bad.

 
 
 
Comment by Mike in Miami
2011-07-29 05:45:52

Stocks up or down upon “default”?
First of all, the US is not going to default on their debt obligations. There’s still plenty of tax $$ coming in to pay for interest and SS plus some other essentials. “We” will still be able to pay about 60% of expenditures. Some programs that were appropriated by big spenders might no longer see funding. Wars (wishful thinking), ridiculous subsidies (ethanol, farming, oil), department of “sitting on my butt and picking my nose” (justice, homeland security, agriculture, education and energy come to mind), etc.
What will stocks do? I know, futures are down this morning. But I am looking past this morning to the weeks that will follow. If the AAA credit rating is under attack then long term US treasuries are most definitely not the place to be. Neither are EURO-bonds. Cash in the bank? That’s risky in case big banks default and you get a bank run. High quality corporate bonds, but the supply is rather limited. I could see gold and good quality stocks that pay dividends be considered a save haven. I am looking at INTC, MO, XOM, LO, COP, DUK and similar stocks. Most of them pay higher dividends than 10 year US treasuries and have so for over a decade. If not stocks and sovereign debt, then what? Real estate? Beanie Babies? Sports cards? Guns ‘n ammo?
“The money has to go somewhere.” Does it? Can everything crash all at once? Somebody always owns part of that everything and the amount of cash doesn’t really change by trading assets. For every buyer there is a seller. So some people prefer to hold low priced assets (stocks, bonds, gold, real estate, etc.) while others prefer to hold cash. Cash in the bank? Very risky indeed, the FDIC will be overwhelmed by another banking crisis. Cash under the matress also has some drawbacks. Personally I am more leaning towards holding asset instead of cash. Any thoughts?

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 06:14:29

Consumer staples, medical staples,* food, and, if you’re up to it, vice funds like tobacco/alcohol/guns. Unfortunately, all these fields are dominated by some multinational or another. It’s hard to invest in frozen pea funds without running into Cargill.

————-
*Syringes and bedsheets and disinfectants and other basic medical supplies. Avoid health care “delivery,” which is a euphamism for the death panel corporations like Wellpoint and Aetna.

 
Comment by skroodle
2011-07-29 06:23:13

Invest in something portable.

Comment by yensoy
2011-07-29 08:03:36

Even better, invest in something potable.

 
 
Comment by cactus
2011-07-29 09:01:16

This is kinda old but you can see I like utilities I only own AEP at this time waiting for a lower price to get back in

Consolidated Edison (ED) 5.0%
Duke Energy (DUK) 5.7%
Southern Company (SO) 5.0%
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) 3.6%
Merck & Co. (MRK) 4.4%
Novartis AG (NVS) 3.2%
Altria (MO) 6.1%
Diageo (DEO) 2.6%
McDonald’s (MCD) 3.1%
Annaly Capital Management (NLY) 15.8%
Automatic Data Processing (ADP) 3.4%
General Mills (GIS) 3.1%
Kellogg (K) 3.2%
Procter & Gamble (PG) 3.2%
entergy (ETR) 4.2%
exelon (EXC) 5.1%
Pacific gas & elecrtic (PCG) 4.0%
AEP American electric Power co. 4.8%
Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OGE) 3.7%
Constellation Energy Group (CEG) 2.8%

AGL Resources (AGL) - yield 4.6%
Avista (AVA) - yield 4.7%
Cleco (CNL) - yield 3.4%
DPL (DPL) - yield 4.7%
DTE Energy (DTE) - yield 4.8%
Energen (EGN) - yield 1.2%
Entergy (ETR) - yield 4.2%
Exelon (EXC) - yield 5.0%
IDACORP (IDA) - yield 3.4%
NextEra Energy (NEE) - yield 3.7%
OGE Energy (OGE) - yield 3.6%
Oneok (OKE) - yield 3.9%
Public Service Enterprises (PEG) - yield 4.1%
UGI (UGI) - yield 3.7%
UniSource Energy (UNS) - yield 4.8%

Comment by Kim
2011-07-29 11:42:43

Maybe add MMM to that list.

Comment by cactus
2011-07-29 12:16:05

Added thanks

3M (MMM) – This conglomerate has been on a sharp decline of late due to a poor earnings report. Numerous reasons were cited for the poor performance, including a sluggish U.S. economy and Japan’s recent catastrophe. However, 3M may benefit as Japan rebuilds due to need for basic industrial goods. Rising supply costs are another factor hurting 3M, but chief financial officer David Meline explained that the company has a plan to gradually increase prices to make up for this. Also, shareholders are looking forward to the company’s Transportation Manufacturers Summit for news about its latest products. Some shareholders have been worried about insider selling, but this should not be taken too seriously. In fact, MMM is trading at a rather low PEG compared to some of its competitors. Note that MMM’s PEG is 1.13, compared to 1.80 for Avery Dennison (AVY), 1.39 for DuPont (DD), and 2.18 for Johnson & Johnson. Operating margin is also strong compared to the rest of the industry – 3M’s is currently 21.90%. Another thing that can’t hurt is that 3M is in a position of support right now. It’s hard to imagine the stock falling further, and it is likely that investors are overreacting to recent news that 3M’s sales are declining due to a changing TV market.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by TCM-guy
2011-07-29 13:16:31

It’s hard to imagine the stock falling further

It can go to zero.

 
 
Comment by Robin
2011-07-29 19:52:24

And SCE/PRE

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by skroodle
2011-07-29 06:15:09

Narrow-minded architecture: The Keret House
The Keret House by Polish architect Jakub Szczęsny measures only 4 feet across at its widest, making it not only the skinniest home in Warsaw but perhaps in the entire world.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/remodeling-design/blogs/narrow-minded-architecture-the-keret-house

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 08:26:07

“And get this: this isn’t just a space for Keret alone to work, sleep, eat, and potentially have panic attacks. The space, accessible via a remote-control staircase that folds up into the floor when not in use, is designed as a salon of sorts for visiting artists — or “young creators and intellectualists from all over the world” as the Keret House’s architect puts it. Good lord. Here’s hoping all these “young intellectualists” have the builds of Lara Flynn Boyle.”

Ah, the folding staircase. So that’s how you get to the green beanbag chair in the corner. This may work as a dorm rooms or hotel rooms, but not as single homes. Too much wall material to enclose that little volume. And ONLY for young people who like ladders.

If you have time, click on the link for the small apartment in Hong Kong. Four people in 150 sq ft and they’re paying $460 or so a month! I really wonder how (or if) they do birth control in countries like this.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 11:49:51

This is just plain stupid. What a waste of time, energy and materials.

 
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 06:21:10

Tomorrow morning I leave for Poland for two weeks to visit the ancestral homeland for 2 weeks. Since 2006 any time I took a vacation I went back and read all the HBB posts that I missed after I got back home. Not sure if this one will end that habit or not. I kinda already know everything that will be said, but it’s still hard to resist…

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 06:23:26

We expect a full report! :-)

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 08:11:39

For anyone unaware, there is a mostly-inactive Facebook group dedicated to the HBB and I can be found there if anybody wants to see pictures and such.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2011-07-29 15:45:39

At last! Our collective opinion of Facebook is revealed!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 06:29:59

Realtors Are Liars®

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2011-07-29 06:38:26

Hey Muggy,

Per yestedays comment, give us a road report.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 07:15:59

THE MORNING LINE — July 29, 2011 at 8:35 AM EDT
Decision to Delay Debt Vote Produces Only Losers
By: David Chalian and Terence Burlij

Thursday night’s decision by Republican leaders to scrap a vote to raise the debt ceiling dealt House Speaker John Boehner a stunning — albeit, perhaps, temporary — loss, despite the fact that the plan’s prospects had been uncertain given the strident opposition among GOP conservatives and a united wall of Democratic dissent.

While the outcome may have been an initial defeat for Rep. Boehner, it’s hard to imagine the result produced any winners with the country now standing on the precipice of a potential default on its financial obligations in just four days.

Republican leaders hoped to bring the Boehner plan back to the floor for a vote Friday, but only if they have the 217 members in hand to deliver a victory. The math is likely to get sorted out at 10 a.m. ET Friday, when all 240 House Republicans meet at the Capitol for a closed-door conference session.

Reports indicate that Speaker Boehner and his leadership team engaged in a good amount of arm-twisting Thursday night to try to pick up votes.

The Washington Post’s Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane write:

“Outside the House chamber, Boehner summoned members of the holdout GOP South Carolina delegation to his second-floor office just off the Capitol Rotunda. But he appeared to make little headway and, within minutes, freshman Reps. Mick Mulvaney and Jeff Duncan left the meeting, saying they were heading to a nearby chapel to pray for their leaders.

“Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) later joined them, and the trio, stalwart conservatives who have steadfastly opposed efforts to grant the Treasury additional borrowing authority, told reporters that Boehner’s pitch had not been persuasive.”

Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 07:34:49

The thing is, spending all this time on appeasing a tiny number of tea party types is all about making sure that you can assign the blame for default on somebody else and not at all about getting to a final deal. These guys are unlikely to vote for any deal that can get through the Senate. Any deal that can get through the Senate and and the the President won’t veto can get some Democratic votes in the House. Therefore spending precious time appealing to tea party people is a waste of time at this point, unless you think no deal will get done in time anyway.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2011-07-29 07:56:47

These guys are unlikely to vote for any deal that can get through the Senate.

That’s what I was thinking last night. If this was about finding a solution and not just scoring some political points, they’d be cobbling something together that had hopes of passing in the Senate. As it is, they’re still stuck in gamemanship mode.

….which makes you wonder if a default is even something to be worried about. Or is it just the usual political brinkmanship?

Comment by Insurance Guy
2011-07-29 11:30:51

There are people who want to spend this country into bankruptcy. They are the ones who want a “solution”.

The folks from South Carolina are not playing along with that “solution”. Just stop with the debt thing.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 14:41:48

Does the “solution” really have to be in place by next Tuesday, though? Wouldn’t a more reasonable approach be to set forth a schedule of issues to work out with a timeline, rather than risking a serious economic disruption in the interest of party politics?

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 14:41:43

For Boehner, this is about salvaging his Speakership. If he can’t get enough Republicans on board and has to work with the Democrats in the House, he will lose and the Republicans will elect someone else.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:05:27

Ask ol’ Newt about what happens when you don’t arrive at a solution and have to shut down the government.

A lot of welfare for the hypocrite Repubs stop flowing and that makes ‘em mad.

There is no honor among thieves and I just loves poetic justice!

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 08:03:29

The basic issue here is very simple: The minority Tea Party faction of the Republican Party scores points by blocking any agreement the rest of the Congress finds acceptable.

Good luck at fixing the situation by next Tuesday!

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 08:05:21

“…they were heading to a nearby chapel to pray for their leaders.”

What god do Tea Party types worship?

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-07-29 08:35:07

“…they were heading to a nearby chapel to pray for their leaders.”

I’ll ask someone down here to kill a chicken.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 08:37:37

Grover Norquist?

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:44:36

They pray in front of a mirror.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:06:34

That would be funny if it weren’t so true.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by butters
2011-07-29 10:06:14

I like them sticking it to Bohner. In a Non-Orwellian world, they would be correct. But since we live in “debt is money” word, they get villiefied.

With that said, I lost a little respect for them with this “praying stuff”….

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 13:48:07

All U.S. politicians pander to religious adherents; these guys just pandered a bit more blatantly than the average.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 07:21:59

They keep saying that the growth rate was the lowest since “the recession ended.” Methinks their dashboard indicators for recession are not correct.

I’m reminded of the Airbus Air France Flight 447 crash. The crew could not interpret the inputs they were receiving from the instruments. They thought they were climbing, with the engines on full blast and the aircraft in a climbing attitude. Yet they were falling flat. The computers dutifully kept the aircraft flat and stable during the rapid descent, till they slammed into the ocean.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-07-29 07:31:14

But those were computers. We have highly-trained Economists. Some of the brightest minds of our generation…

…Led by some of the greatest, strongest leaders in Ameican history. Just ask them how great they are.

 
Comment by Jim A
2011-07-29 07:38:40

They’re looking at the gauges that the 1%ers care about. The fact that the rest of the economy is limping along with employment unable to keep up with population growth doesn’t matter to them so long at the treasury and fed pump enough money into wall street to rebound the stock market, and bring back the big bonuses.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 08:07:24

“The computers dutifully kept the aircraft flat and stable during the rapid descent, till they slammed into the ocean.”

Which is why I hate the idea of fly by wire airliners.

Speaking of which, IIRC the 787 will have a single computer controlling everything (with backups of course), and the software was written in India.

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 08:39:23

Thank you for telling me that. Are they even going to bother with a pilot?

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-07-29 09:46:02

Airplanes never have a single of anything.

Redundancy is key.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 09:59:49

What I meant was:

Previous fly by wire airliners had multiple computers (with redundant backups) for different subsystems. From what I read about the 787, it will have a single machine controlling everything (engines, wing surfaces, the works).

Sure, if that computer were to have a hardware failure there are backups.

My concern is that a single computer controls everything. A bug in one subsystem could potentially affect the others (say by gobbling up too much memory).

I’m sure there are all sorts of fail safes in place, but with software this complex I would feel better if there were dedicated computers for each subsystem. IIRC, even the entertainment system will be controlled by the main computer.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 12:25:58

even the entertainment system will be controlled by the main computer.

Sounds like entertainment updates would be a great entry point for a virus of some type.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:09:44

This is as bad as the Navy using Microsoft on board their ships.

What the HELL were they thinking?!

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2011-07-29 17:05:36

This is as bad as the Navy using Microsoft on board their ships.

Didn’t they end up having to get a big ship towed back to port? And the problem was caused by some MS software problem?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 07:32:18

I posted some time ago on virtual economic items versus actual goods and services. Virtual economic items are logical constructs, while actual goods and services are physical goods and services.

I don’t want to make it sound like virtual economic items are bad things - the earliest virtual item was currency. Why would someone accept a coin in return for something physical. Why would a coin be worth a basket? Because currency is a logical construct. Enough people accept the construct, so it has value to them.

Why does a subset of people pay big money for beanie babies? Because these too have a currency-esque type logical construct associated with them.

I think there is a spectrum of products, ranging from pure logical construct, to pure physical good/service.

For example, debt was probably the second logical construct, and stocks the third. Debt, if properly collateralized, leans toward the physical side of the spectrum. If you don’t pay, the physical asset worth the value of the debt is taken by the lender. A NINJA loan (No Income No Job or Assets) is a purely logical construct - a promise to pay only.

Individual stocks are logical constructs - shares of ownership with no practical value other than what someone else would pay. They become more physical as one amasses more stocks and more ownership value in a company.

Just something I’ve been mulling over.

Comment by drumminj
2011-07-29 09:41:01

Individual stocks are logical constructs - shares of ownership with no practical value other than what someone else would pay.

I think that’s true only for stocks that don’t pay a dividend. Otherwise, that’s a factor, but the share is also a claim on future revenues/profits, no?

Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 10:39:08

Otherwise, that’s a factor, but the share is also a claim on future revenues/profits, no?

Only in that someone will (hopefully) pay more for the stock - the construct - in the future if they think that the future revenues/profits warrant it.

I see a spectrum when I look at virtual items - at one end (fully transparent), is a pure logical construct. On the other end (fully opaque) is a physical good or service.

Stocks have a variable nature, depending on how many of them you have. More stocks = less transparent/less solely virtual, as one starts to get a say in the direction of the company. And of course, as you noted, whether they pay a dividend or not.

 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 07:38:48

Oxide: Could you please post the regulations.gov link for credit risk retention?

I’ve been on the site, found the credit risk retention entry, but when I last checked, there were list of comments one could browse. I didn’t see that this time.

I want to add my $0.02 briefly, before the comment period is done.

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 08:49:45

Yes, it’s here. My original link disappeared, but if you go to regulations dot gov and search for “credit risk retention” it will pop up.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=10;po=0;s=credit+risk+retention

Scroll down about half way and find the line where the “Agency” is OCC (office of the comptroller of the currency).

There’s a link to post a comment right there.

If you want to see other public comments, you have to:

1. Make sure you’re at the entry where Agency is OCC.
2. Click on “open docket folder” in the chart.
3. Look for “document type” in orange print. Right under that there’s a box which says “Public Submission.” Check-mark on that box. That will bring up the comments.
4. Most commenters uploaded their comment as an attachment, as denoted by a paper clip. To see the comment, click on the commenters name. It will bring up another screen. There’s a box labeled “attachments.” Look to the right for a blue “DOC” or an orange “PDF” icon. Click on that.

I highly recommend that you browse the comment from “MBA.” (mortgage bankers association) Enjoy.

Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 10:32:57

Oxide, thanks again!

 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 07:44:12

Economic policy seeks to shape human behavior as it pertains to economic activity.

How then, is rewarding bad behavior (moral hazard) going to encourage anything but more of the same? The bad behavior which led to the recession (the creation of vast amounts of bad debt) is rewarded with bailouts and bonuses.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:12:31

This is a trick question, right?

Because right now, all I see is the most corrupt nation on the planet going off the cliff and not even realizing it.

Comment by Robin
2011-07-29 20:52:23

Many Realtors are starving or are in foreclosure or bankruptcy - :)

 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-07-29 07:52:20

A mug shot picture is worth a thousand exclamations! :-/

she routinely slept in the shower with no pillow or cover after having wet her bed.

The incident in which the girl died was discipline for her having taken a popsicle without asking permission

Girl found suffocated was locked in box as punishment:
By David Schwartz / PHOENIX | Thu Jul 28, 2011

Police said the child was 4 feet, 2 inches tall and weighed just 59 pounds. The box she was locked in was less than 3 feet long, 14 inches wide and about a foot deep.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:13:31

And there are plenty more parents just like hers out there.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 08:08:28

African-American Middle Class Eroding As Unemployment Rate Soars
By John Roberts July 28, 2011| FoxNews.com

The unemployment situation across America is bad, no doubt. But for African-Americans in some cities, this is not the great recession. It’s the Great Depression.

Take Charlotte, N.C., for example. It is a jewel of the “new South.” The largest financial center outside of New York City, it’s the showcase for next year’s Democratic National Convention. It was a land of hope and opportunity for many blacks with a four-year college degree or higher.

According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, in Charlotte, N.C., the unemployment rate for African-Americans is 19.2 percent. If you add in people who have given up looking for jobs, that number exceeds 20 percent, which, according to economists Algernon Austin and William Darity, has effectively mired blacks in a depression.

“You’re looking at a community that is economically depressed in my opinion,” Austin said. “And we need action that will address that scale of joblessness.”

Vanessa Parker worked hard to get ahead. She was an administrative assistant at IBM in Charlotte. She went to night school to better herself, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in finance. Parker and her husband saved up enough money to move from a bad neighborhood to a quiet, middle-class street. But instead of moving up in the company, IBM moved out. Now she works at a big-box store for minimum wage.

“It’s very frustrating and it makes you wonder why are you doing it,” she told me. “Because it seems like the more that you try to get ahead, seems like you’re falling back.”

“It takes time to build anything. But it doesn’t take very long to destroy it,” says Patrick Graham of the Urban League of Central Carolina.

His organization runs classes on empowerment, hoping to raise the self-esteem of the unemployed and give them the confidence to take charge of their lives.

“It’s heartbreaking,” he told me. “In a sense that you watch people who are viable who have talent who can’t necessarily find the job opportunity that they need.”

Derrick Foxx is another example of how deeply this recession has affected the black middle class. Foxx was laid off from Phillip Morris Tobacco 2 years ago and hasn’t worked a day since.

Like Vanessa Parker, Foxx was trying to better himself, attaining an MBA. Though he has sent out more than 1,000 resumes, and contacted more than 1,000 companies, he is still unemployed.

“I got out of school and didn’t get the job I was looking for,” he says. “Then I went back, got an MBA degree, you know, and I’m almost like – wow – was this really worth it?”

It’s quite a sign of the times that people are questioning whether their education was worth all the time, effort and expense. Education is supposed to be the gateway to prosperity. But according to economist William Darity from Duke University, education does not provide the same key for African-Americans to open that gate as it does for others.

“It’s really, actually, a tragedy because people have invested a tremendous amount of effort – devoted the motivation and time to acquire degrees,” he said. “But it doesn’t provide them with the same degree of protection that it provides others in this society.”

There are jobs to be had in Charlotte. But African-Americans are not sharing in the recovery in the way others are.

Devah Pager, a sociologist at Princeton University, conducted groundbreaking research in Wisconsin and found that black men were less likely to be called back on a job application than white men with a criminal record. The statistics went like this:

Job call-backs:
White non-criminal: 34%
White criminal: 17%
Black non-criminal: 14%
Black criminal: 5%

According to Darity, “The differential in unemployment between blacks and non-blacks in the U.S. is perhaps one of the most dramatic indicators of discrimination in this society.”

So – what to do about it?

The Congressional Black Caucus has been leaning on President Obama to address the epidemic of black unemployment on his watch. So far, the president has resisted the notion of job programs specifically targeting African-Americans. His position is that a rising tide will lift all boats. But the tide remains out as far as job creation goes.

The Urban League’s Patrick Graham believes small business should be the major driver to employ African-Americans.

“It’s gonna really not just take hard work, but it’s gonna really take some creative thinking in terms of entrepreneurship and other things to really get us out of this,” he said.

The recession – or depression — in the black community is rapidly eroding the black middle class.

At its convention in Boston this week, the National Urban League released a troubling report on that topic. It found that the recession has virtually wiped out all of the economic gains blacks made in the past 30 years.

And a new report from the Pew Research Center drives home just how bad things are out there.

It found that in 2005, the average net worth for white households was $134, 992. For black households, it was $12,124. (That’s not a typo.)

In 2009, the number dropped to $113,149 for whites and a paltry $5,700 for blacks.

Comment by cactus
2011-07-29 09:10:59

The Congressional Black Caucus has been leaning on President Obama to address the epidemic of black unemployment on his watch. So far, the president has resisted the notion of job programs specifically targeting African-Americans. His position is that a rising tide will lift all boats. But the tide remains out as far as job creation goes.”

whats Obama supposed to do ? really ? special jobs for Blacks ?

the president’s right to resist this

Comment by Arizona Slim
2011-07-29 15:51:00

I’m with Van Jones on the notion of training inner city people for green jobs. Specifically, weatherization jobs. The housing stock of the inner city, although at times run-down, tends to be older and well built. It still has quite a bit of life in it.

Yes, I know. Wielding a caulking gun and installing insulation isn’t exactly rocket science. Nor is window replacement.

But we’re dealing with people who may not have any legit job experience at all. They may have prison records, often because of drug offenses.

The green jobs that I just mentioned are a stepping stone on the path to being a productive member of society.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 09:14:49

This isn’t a race issue. You can boil this whole article down to one sentence:

But instead of moving up in the company, IBM moved out.

Take out that sentence, and the rest of the article never happens.

Comment by aNYCdj
2011-07-29 09:51:22

and that begs a second question… why didn’t she move?

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 12:05:40

They likely moved overseas.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 16:09:28

She bought a house and got stucco? She has family to provide a support system (we all know the government’s support system is being trashed)? She applied across the country and got a “local candidates only” response?

Picking up and moving is not a trivial decision, especially if it also means uprooting children. You may end up destitute in a place where you have no friends or relations.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:15:47

But instead of moving up in the company, IBM moved out.

Says it all right there.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2011-07-29 16:27:33

“This isn’t a race issue.”

“Devah Pager, a sociologist at Princeton University, conducted groundbreaking research in Wisconsin and found that black men were less likely to be called back on a job application than white men with a criminal record. The statistics went like this:

Job call-backs:
White non-criminal: 34%
White criminal: 17%
Black non-criminal: 14%
Black criminal: 5%”

IBM leaving Charlotte may not be a race issue, but these stats are astounding. I would like to see further analysis. Were whites and blacks applying to the same companies in the same locations? Or is some of the difference caused by whites applying in rural and suburban locations and blacks applying in urban areas? Is there just more job opportunity outside of large cities? Is there some skewing of the stats caused by union vs non-union jobs? Is there any shift based on educational or experience levels of the groups?

If these stats hold up under similar conditions, then this is a sad commentary on the state of our nation. White criminals have a better callback rate than black non-criminals.

 
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 09:45:43

Education is supposed to be the gateway to prosperity. But according to economist William Darity from Duke University, education does not provide the same key for African-Americans to open that gate as it does for others.

They keep talking about MBAs. For most people those don’t open gates, they just provide a bit of useful information for people trying to start their own business. There are a few for whom it may appear to open a gate, but it’s a club and none of us are in it regardless of color. For those in the club the MBA didn’t actually open the gate, it was just a token to keep up appearances of merit being involved.

Comment by Robin
2011-07-29 21:19:31

My MBA served me well in three instances since I earned it in 1988. After semi-retiring 7 years ago, it has become a detriment. Willing to work a part-time job at $10/hr., but age and education continue to shoot me down. Never expected, but as a spendthrift, thankfully covered. With huge thanks to my still-working wife!

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 08:17:43

Hey Christine! Quick question? Where does your IMF get the bulk of it’s funding? In case you forgot…it’s none other than the U.S.of A.

IMF’s Lagarde Says U.S. Dollar May Lose ‘Privilege’ Amid Debt-Limit Crisis (Bloomberg)

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde said the dollar’s standing as the world’s main reserve currency may be diminished as U.S. lawmakers fail to lift the nation’s debt limit.

The U.S. currency has had an “exorbitant privilege because it was the reserve currency that most central banks had,” Lagarde said in an interview on PBS’s “Newshour” yesterday. “If there was a dent in this exorbitant privilege and the confidence that most people have towards the dollar, it would probably entail a decline of the dollar relative to other currencies.”

 
Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 09:47:55

And now for some off-topic news:

2012 Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid - First Drive Review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q2/2012_toyota_prius_plug-in_hybrid-first_drive_review

“The Prius PHV is essentially just a Prius whose nickel-metal hydride battery pack has been swapped for a far pricier, far heavier, and far more potent lithium-ion pack. The new batteries can be fully charged in three hours from a simple household 110-volt outlet or an hour and a half from a 220-volt plug. The battery swap allows for more miles on electricity alone and a commensurate boost in real-world fuel economy… Keep your driving grandmotherly, though, and a Prius PHV with a full charge can travel up to 13 miles in electric mode.”

No wonder Toyota is keeping this low-key. 13 miles to a charge is almost not worth it, but then again, Orville’s Wrights contraption didn’t go very far either.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-07-29 09:56:00

Wouldn’t a golf cart get the same range?

Comment by Max Power
2011-07-29 12:49:02

My golf cart gets about 25 miles on a single charge…

Comment by measton
2011-07-29 15:49:35

Does it go 60mph carry 4 plus luggage and meet safety requirements??

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-07-29 11:00:01

What? Mighty, can never do wrong Toyota couldn’t make a plug in with at least the same range as a lousy Chevy?

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-07-29 12:31:26

I’ve driven a Volt. Despite the advantage the Volt has from being designed to run all-electric for a much longer distance, I would expect the Prius to outsell it, and with this feature even more so. I did not like the Volt for the price, but would actually consider the Prius if I wanted that kind of car.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 10:40:06

So what’s wrong with 20% down?

Return of 20% Home Down Payments Looms
July 29, 2011

BOSTON (TheStreet) — Hopeful homebuyers may soon need to shell out more money upfront before being approved for a mortgage.

The public comment period concludes Monday for potential mortgage-related provisions spawned by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Among the potential outcomes is that homebuyers could be required to front a higher down payment — as much as 20% — before they can legally qualify for a mortgage loan.
Government regulators are cracking back into mortgage reforms that could create hurdles for buyers: a return to 20% down payments for homes.

The proposed changes are being reviewed by federal regulators, among them the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the SEC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development. There is no set timeline for when final decisions will be made.

Many in the real estate sector have joined forces to fight such a change aimed at so-called Qualified Residential Mortgage loans, arguing that a 10% or 20% down payment mandate would deliver yet another damaging blow to the floundering housing market.

In past decades, a 20% or more down payment was standard. The lower the down payment, according to conventional wisdom and ongoing research, the greater the risk of default.

As housing prices soared and mortgage lenders dove head-first into what would be the subprime crisis, that common practice fell by the wayside. You may pay more in interest, closing costs or PMI, but just 5% down is enough for many banks and lenders. FHA loans, insured by the government, typically require only a 3.5% down payment.

The Mortgage Bankers Association, in written testimony, says the proposed QRM definition “is so restricted that 80% of loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac over the past decade would not meet these requirements.”

According to the National Association of Realtors, drawing upon national savings rate data, “it would take 9.5 years for the typical American family to save enough money for a 10% down payment and closing costs, and fully 16 years to save for a 20% down payment and closing costs.”

Comment by oxide
2011-07-29 12:10:23

“The Mortgage Bankers Association, in written testimony, says the proposed QRM definition “is so restricted that 80% of loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac over the past decade would not meet these requirements.”

Isn’t that the point? Fannie and Freddie knew they were buying crap and they’re refusing to buy any more crap?

“It would take 9.5 years for the typical American family to save enough money for a 10% down payment and closing costs, and fully 16 years to save for a 20% down payment and closing costs.”

Not if prices DROP, you morons!

Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:57:42

“It would take 9.5 years for the typical American family to save enough money for a 10% down payment and closing costs, and fully 16 years to save for a 20% down payment and closing costs.”

Most people that I know who are in “saving for a home” mode are saving far more than the national savings rate. It’s amazing what you can save if you are financially disciplined with a goal in mind.

If you don’t need to save, you won’t.

 
 
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 12:55:21

“In past decades, a 20% or more down payment was standard.”

However there were still exceptions to the “standard”. My folks purchased the home in which I grew up in the mid-70’s with a <10% down payment.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 10:43:44

Insiders Selling at Unusually Fast Pace
by Mark Hulbert July 29, 2011 MarketWatch

Bad news, stock-market bulls: Corporate insiders are selling their companies’ shares at an abnormally fast pace.

In fact, one measure of that selling activity shows insiders of NYSE- and AMEX-listed companies recently were selling at the fastest rate since data began being collected in the early 1970s, four decades ago.

On the theory that insiders know more about their companies’ prospects than do the rest of us, this is an ominous sign.

Corporate insiders, of course, are a company’s officers, directors and largest shareholders. They are required to file a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission more or less immediately upon buying or selling shares of their companies, and the SEC makes those reports public.

One firm that gathers and analyzes the data is Argus Research, which publishes its findings in the Vickers Weekly Insider Report. One indicator that the firm calculates is a ratio of the number of shares that insiders have sold in the open market to the number that they have purchased.

In the week ending last Friday, according to the latest issue of the Vickers report, this sell-to-buy ratio stood at 6.43 to 1. This is higher than 95% of other weeks’ readings over the last decade.

That’s ominous enough, but consider last week’s sell-to-buy ratio for just those issues listed on the NYSE or AMEX. That came in at 13.10 to 1, which is the highest reading for this ratio since when Vickers began collecting the data, which was October 1974.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:18:51

On my.

 
Comment by rms
2011-07-29 18:35:09

“On the theory that insiders know more about their companies’ prospects than do the rest of us, this is an ominous sign.”

So who’s buying, the public pension plans?

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 12:13:59

Merck to Cut Up to 13,000 Jobs (Bloomberg)

Merck & Co., the second-largest U.S. drug maker, plans to eliminate an additional 12,000 to 13,000 jobs by 2015, expanding a restructuring program to save as much as $4.6 billion a year.

As much as 14 percent of the company’s 91,000 employees will lose their jobs, based on the size of the workforce at the end of last month. The Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based drug maker also reported today that second-quarter earnings excluding one-time items were 95 cents a share, matching the average estimate of 17 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Merck is cutting costs, expanding in emerging markets and spending on research and development as the company tries to gain momentum before it loses patent exclusivity next year on its Singulair medicine for asthma. The company just introduced a new hepatitis C drug, Victrelis, and is testing an experimental treatment to raise good cholesterol in a 30,000-patient trial.

“They are focusing on costs,” said David Maris, an analyst at CLSA in New York, in a telephone interview. “That is exactly what they need to do under the new environment we operate under.”

 
Comment by wmbz
2011-07-29 12:17:25

Good News…

Improving Mexican economy draws undocumented immigrants home from California. - sacbee.com

There are fewer undocumented immigrants in California – and the Sacramento region – because many are now finding the American dream south of the border.

“It’s now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico,” Sacramento’s Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. “We have become a middle-class country.”

Mexico’s unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

An estimated 300,000 undocumented immigrants have left California since 2008, though the remaining 2.6 million still make up 7 percent of the population and 9 percent of the labor force, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Among metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, Sacramento County ranks among the lowest, with an unauthorized population of 4.6 percent of its 1.4 million residents in 2008, according to Laura Hill, a demographer with the PPIC.

The Sacramento region, suffering from 12.3 percent unemployment and the construction bust, may have triggered a large exodus of undocumented immigrants, González Gutiérrez said.

The best-paid jobs for undocumented migrants are in the building industry, “and because of the severe crisis in the construction business here, their first response has been to move into the service industry,” González Gutiérrez said. “But that has its limits. Then, they move to other areas in the U.S. to find better jobs – or back to Mexico.”

Hill said it’s hard to know whether the benefit of having fewer undocumented migrants outweighs the cost to employers and taxpayers.

California may have to provide less free education to the children of undocumented immigrants and less emergency medical care, she said, but it will also get less tax revenue.

In 2008, at least 836,100 undocumented immigrants filed U.S. tax returns in California using individual tax identification numbers known as ITINS, said Hill, who conducted the tax survey.

Based on those tax returns, the study found there were 65,000 undocumented immigrants in Sacramento County that year, far fewer than in many other big counties.

Comment by Rental Watch
2011-07-29 13:03:18

“California may have to provide less free education to the children of undocumented immigrants and less emergency medical care, she said, but it will also get less tax revenue.

In 2008, at least 836,100 undocumented immigrants filed U.S. tax returns in California using individual tax identification numbers known as ITINS, said Hill, who conducted the tax survey.”

So, we are giving them free education that they are paying for? I recognize that many illegals pay no tax; I was struck however by the number who do pay taxes. The reason? The illegals want to have evidence that they were tax payers in the event such a thing was necessary under any amnesty law that was to be passed in the future.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2011-07-29 14:11:20

Reid, Obama, McCain: Shut Up. You Lost.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=190985

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 14:18:23

Our top elected leaders have been taken hostage by the Tea Party, who have loaded guns trained on their heads.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 17:36:19

Not sure now whether the weapon is a gun or a knife…

How the Tea Party put knife to world’s throat
Published 24 minutes ago
By Mitch Potter Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON—Some call them “Hobbits,” others brand them the Republican Party’s “Hezbollah wing.” Others still see them as economic suicide bombers, so dedicated to vaporizing the Obama presidency they are willing to blow the global economy along with it.

Yet as a bitterly divided Washington slides ominously into the home stretch of a debt debacle that will see the United States lose the capacity to pay its bills on Tuesday, all agree the Tea Party insurgency is rewriting the rulebook of American politics.

The self-made crisis that barely a week ago was written off as high political theatre now is on a collision course with reality, as a time-challenged Congress works around the clock to browbeat the Tea Party’s austerity hawks toward face-saving compromise.

Another 97-point haircut Friday left the Dow Jones Industrial Average down nearly 500 points for the week, a stark taste of the anxieties rattling global markets as traders brace for default and/or a credit downgrade against the once almighty U.S. dollar.

Many of Washington’s oldest hands acknowledge they’ve never seen anything like it. A simple lifting of the $1.3-trillion U.S. debt ceiling — a gesture once routinely matter-of-fact — now is stuck against the unbending fiscal purity of Tea Party lawmakers, for whom rage is all the rage and compromise a dirty word.

“I’ve been in Washington for 50 years. We’ve seen various groups come and go but we’ve never seen an uncompromising insurgency the size and concentration of the Tea Party,” said Stephen Hess, of the Brookings Institution, an adviser to four previous U.S. presidents.

“They are holding a gun to the heads of their own folks, egged on by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the 24/7 media universe that in itself raises the temperature.

“Yet we are still in the eighth inning. As serious as this is, I still expect they will figure out a way to avoid debt default in a way that does no serious harm to the world economy. We might still do great harm to ourselves if the deal fails to satisfy the credit rating agencies and the U.S. suffers a downgrade. But that will be our problem, not the world’s.”

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2011-07-29 20:12:45

So saying “enough!” to endless increases in the debt ceiling and opposing continued massive fiscal prolifigacy while passing the bills off to unborn taxpayers makes one a financial terrorist?

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:27:46

It depends. Too much conviction and unwillingness to compromise are typical characteristics of terrorists. There is such a thing as too much of a “good thing.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:30:00

Tea Party congressmen are behaving like uncompromising terrorists

To the Editor:

The debate over the debt ceiling has revealed to America what the Tea Party members of Congress really are terrorists. Terrorists, who instead of strapping dynamite to their bodies and threatening to kill innocent bystanders unless they get what they want, threaten to destroy the American economy unless they get devastating cuts to vital programs in the federal budget without a single cent in revenue increase via elimination of tax entitlements to the extremely wealthy.

And let’s not kid ourselves, downgrading the credit rating of U.S. savings bonds would be devastating to the country and all of us. Just as terrorists, these Tea Party radicals refuse to compromise in the slightest, presenting the dilemma as their way or devastation.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:33:48

Republicans Are Economic Terrorists
By John Thorpe
Benzinga Staff Writer
July 25, 2011 4:14 PM

After years of fighting Al Qaeda, it seems the Republicans have decided if they can’t beat ‘em, may as well join ‘em.

Emulating the terrorists’ actions, the House Republicans have decided to hold the President — and 300 million Americans — hostage as they demand tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for everyone else, in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling by just enough to avoid the United States government from defaulting on its debt.

That’s right: Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and his Tea Party caucus are driving a jumbo-jet 747 into the world’s tallest economy, and no one on the right-wing seems to give a damn.

Perhaps someone should educate the Tea Party on the basics of American government. I suppose I can lay out the very basic realities for the Tea Party. Here is the short version.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:37:15

A reckless, childish approach to cutting spending
Friday, July 29, 5:42 PM

Judson Phillips [“Why the Tea Party says ‘no,’ ” op-ed, July 28] and the Tea Party are correct on many of their opinions about the state of the national deficit and inefficient government. Their approach to making changes, however, is arrogant and reckless.

“Americans are angry at the federal government and do not want their taxes raised,” Mr. Phillips wrote. This may be true, but most Americans didn’t expect a utopian government in one legislative session and the debt problem to be solved at the cost of the economy going into a free fall. History is full of examples of people in the minority doing the right thing and dragging along the majority. But this is not the right time for any faction to be unwilling to compromise.

The Tea Party should take credit for the concessions it has forced and move on before Americans get angry at politicians whose fixed opinions become counterproductive to the goals they were elected to represent.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by michael
2011-07-29 14:14:04

“You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up at those jobs.” - George Carlin

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 16:21:32

Oh so true.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 17:37:52

One thing is for sure: Once this debt ceiling debacle is past, the top 1% will have more money and the other 99% will have more austerity. Most of those who stand mesmerized by the debt ceiling showdown will be none the wiser nor wealthier for it.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 17:59:36

We had a term for that when I was younger: ROAD KILL!

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 14:55:20

July 29, 2011 10:36 pm
America’s debt ceiling face-off: The audacity of hopelessness
By James Politi and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Tea for one? John Boehner, Republican speaker of the House (left), with Barack Obama last Saturday. Talks are continuing with still no resolution in sight

With a week to go before the US faced a potentially disastrous default on its debt, Kevin McCarthy was thinking of ways to quash a rebellion from a group of conservative Republicans in no mood for compromise.

To persuade them that the party’s plan to raise the debt ceiling was not a sell-out, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives showed them a clip from The Town, a modern-day gangster film.

In the scene, a bank robber played by Ben Affleck tells a friend he needs help for something. “I can’t tell you what it is,” he says. “We’re gonna hurt some people.” In the next scene the two men, wearing masks, beat their rivals with tyre irons and shoot one in the leg.

As the US edges closer to not being able to pay its bills next Tuesday, the nature of divided government – a Democratic Senate and White House, a Republican House of Representatives – dictates that the two parties will have to negotiate an agreement to increase the federal debt ceiling. But Mr McCarthy’s cinematic inspiration goes to the heart of the atmosphere that has settled on Washington: it is one of destruction, not dealmaking.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 14:59:23

Posted at 03:13 PM ET, 07/27/2011
McCain erupts: Conservatives are lying to America
By Greg Sargent

So the debt limit debate has come to this: John McCain, who you may recall was the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer, is now openly accusing conservatives of actively misleading America with their completely unrealistic demands, which he labeled “deceiving” and “bizarro.”

In a seminal moment in this debate, here’s some video of McCain on the Senate floor today, unleashing an angry tirade at conservatives who are still holding out for a balanced budget amendment as part of any compromise on the debt ceiling. McCain accused them of “deceiving” America into believing such a thing can pass the Senate:

There are Republicans in both the House and Senate who are still pushing for another vote on the balanced budget amendment, even though “cut cap and balance,” which contains such an amendment, has already failed in the Senate. Tea Party GOP senators such as Jim DeMint and Rand Paul are calling on colleagues to reject John Boehner’s proposal for a two-tiered debt-ceiling increase and are instead demanding another vote on “cut cap and balance.” Meanwhile, House conservatives such as Mike Pence are also urging another vote on a modified version of a balanced budget amendment.

To such conservatives, McCain offered a simple answer: You’re in fantasy-land, and you’re doing your constituents a disservice by perpetuating the falsehood that such a thing can ever happen.

“What is really amazing about this is that some members are believing that we can pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation — and that is foolish,” McCain said angrily. “That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents.” McCain went on to rip the idea as “bizarro.”

Comment by Neuromance
2011-07-29 15:09:55

Congress already wrote the checks and spent the money. Now they were supposed to execute a pro forma maneuver to pay for the money they already spent.

It’s a great time to pose and posture. The politicians love the spotlight and the media loves the danger danger story. Big O himself voted against a debt limit increase when he was a senator I’ve heard.

And - the balanced budget amendment is like term limits. Everyone knows it won’t pass. I listened to a local politician deal with this issue and her response was, “well, let’s just see who votes against it.”

That’s great, I’m for a balanced budget, but now’s a curious time to do it.

Term limits help get the Republicans in, in 1994. They got in and dropped it like a hot potato. It was a lesson for Republican voters. Obama promised an end to the wars and a closing of Guantanamo, and instead, they get a continuation of both wars, and a new one in Libya.

 
Comment by butters
2011-07-29 15:51:10

One more reason to like the tea party.

There’s never been a politician so conistently wrong than McCain in US history. He’s probably pissed off that we are still not bombing Iran.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:32:23

It’s still a free country, and you may feel free to admire those who employ terrorist negotiating tactics if you wish.

Opinion Contributor
The tea party’s terrorist tactics
By WILLIAM YEOMANS | 7/29/11 8:22 AM EDT Updated: 7/29/11 5:06 PM EDT

It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.

They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.

As we stumble closer to Aug. 2, it has become clear that many in the tea party are willing to inflict massive harm on the American people to obtain their political objective of a severely shrunken federal government. Their persistence in rejecting compromise, even as the economic effects of the phony crisis they have created mount, has taken their radicalism beyond tough negotiating, beyond even hostage-taking.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 23:02:35

I thought the song went, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iraq“?

 
Comment by Bill in Phoenix and Tampa
2011-07-30 03:59:57

McSame is an embarrassment to Arizona. He has made so many goofs, such as supporting amnesty for illegals, supported $100 billion giveaway to the mortgage fraudsters in his 2008 campaign, opposed the tax cuts that allowed employees to save more of their money in Roths and IRAs, as well as allow them to pocket more money from capital gains - yes I know many engineer “wage slaves” who are happy with the 15% long term capital gains tax break.

McSame tries to be the perfect centrist, in hopes of capturing the increasing amount of people who call for the middle between pure economic democracy (mob rule) and pure freedom. Yet the middle is still mob rule.

 
 
 
Comment by comrade mike
2011-07-29 16:18:52
 
Comment by BlueStar
2011-07-29 17:26:50

Just got an email from a friend in Belize who is freaking out about Washington DC and wanted to know if there was a right-wing coup in progress. I laughed and told him he hasn’t been paying attention, the coup happened back in 2000 when the Supreme Court picked ‘Bush the lessor’ over Gore. Everything is chronicled in the sacred archives of “YouTube” and Comedy Central.

Meanwhile, it’s time to kick the deadbeats out of all those nursing homes and make room for the really needy.
“Nursing Homes Drop as Medicare Says It Will Cut $3.87 Billion in Payments”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/nursing-homes-drop-as-medicare-says-it-will-cut-3-87-billion-in-paymemnts.html

Comment by ecofeco
2011-07-29 17:58:21

Dear god, they really ARE kicking grandma to the curb. :mad:

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 23:00:19

“…if there was a right-wing coup in progress.”

Yes. (Yawn…)

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:23:44

The Financial Times
July 29, 2011 9:37 pm
US Treasury makes plans for default
By Michael Mackenzie in New York and Tom Braithwaite in Washington

US Treasury officials raised the possibility of delaying its benchmark quarterly debt sales in August at a meeting with big Wall Street dealers on Friday held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Treasury decided against releasing a contingency plan on Friday but – with one eye on Capitol Hill and another on Wall Street – officials could announce as soon as the weekend guidance over any potential problems with the payment system.

According to a note from Morgan Stanley, the meeting with the 20 primary dealers – who underwrite Treasury debt sales and deal with the markets desk of the New York Fed – focused on the bill auctions next week and a possible delay of the quarterly debt refunding sales, which involves the auction of new three-year, 10-year and 30-year securities.

The news accelerated the fall in Treasury yields in mid-afternoon trading on Friday, with the 10-year note at 2.79 per cent, down 16 basis points – its lowest level since November.

As it stands, the sale of three-month and six-month Treasury bills on Monday will go ahead.

If the debt ceiling is raised before Wednesday morning, the Treasury will announce details of the refunding and hold the debt auctions the following week.

“People are coming to the realisation that there is a bigger debate over the debt ceiling and that ups the ante for risk assets and people fly to safety, which ironically are US Treasuries,” said Jim Caron, head of global interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-07-29 22:25:51

This one’s for ComboTechie:

The Wall Street Journal

MARKETS
JULY 30, 2011

For Investors, Cash Is King
Washington Stalemate Spurs Flows Out of Markets and Into Bank Accounts
BY LIZ RAPPAPORT AND MATT PHILLIPS

Investors, companies and small savers are stashing billions of dollars in plain-vanilla bank accounts, taking cash out of short-term markets, in an effort to shield themselves from any market convulsions caused by Washington’s stalemate over the debt ceiling.

The movement of money, akin to that during the peak of the 2008 financial crisis, is one more sign that skittishness is on the rise as officials in Washington remain deeply divided about ways to reduce the deficit and lift the debt ceiling ahead of the Aug. 2 deadline.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post