January 9, 2012

Bits Bucket for January 9, 2012

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




RSS feed

316 Comments »

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 00:14:49

Never mind those highly-visible green shoots of labor market recovery — the Fed is sticking to the story that the U.S. economy won’t recover unless they provide further housing market stimulus.

ft dot com
January 8, 2012 10:52 pm
Calls for US taxpayers to bear housing costs
By Shahien Nasiripour in Washington

US Federal Reserve policymakers are increasingly urging fiscal authorities to consider reducing distressed borrowers’ loan balances, a politically fraught position for a central bank that has long sought to distance itself from fiscal policy.

William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said on Friday that taxpayers and mortgage bond investors should shoulder the cost of reducing borrowers’ loan principal. Sarah Bloom Raskin, a member of the Fed’s board of governors, added on Saturday that forcing leading banks to cut mortgage principal as a penalty for poor practices was an option “that should stay on the table”.

The calls come as the Fed confronts dwindling options to jumpstart a weak US economic recovery that appears to be stalling because of problems in the nation’s property market. Home prices are falling, property seizures are rising, lending and refinancing remain subdued and delinquencies have barely budged more than two years after the recovery officially began in the summer of 2009.

“Housing markets have shown little sign of improvement so far in this recovery,” Elizabeth Duke, one of the Fed’s five sitting governors, said last week. “This stands in sharp contrast to the important role that the housing sector has typically played in propelling economic recoveries.”

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 07:11:21

“the important role that the housing sector has typically played in propelling economic recoveries.”

Skye’s interpretation of this message from the Fed is that they are still in full predator mode and are arrogant enough to rub it in our faces.

In a reality based world, the houses we build for our families reflect our underlying success in business and our accumulation of surplus. In a debt driven housing expansion, the surplus houses we build enrich others, while dissipating our futures.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 08:30:28

I’ve started to wonder if the problem is there are more underwater owners in trouble than there are people sitting ready to buy but waiting for prices to fall.

Actually the idea has been haunting me for a while but the feeling’s starting to move to to a fever pitch. I just wonder if we’re waiting for a crash that they truly can’t let happen if there’s not enough of us to pick things up when they fall apart. We really did overbuild and a lot of the inventory that underwater owners are in is virtually unlivable due to location (gangland empires), age, or poor building practices. So no one except those without any other options (the former subprimers) are going to be snapping up that sector.

Maybe we should do a thread on the mismatch of the proportion of housing size/costs vs the proportion of income groups. This is where I believe the story is in our market. We’ve had 3 types of housing built here in the last several decades. Housing for the upper middle class 2 income household (3000+ sq foot, moderate to well appointed), housing for the high income (over 5000+ sq foot), or income for the well off retired. The not so well off retired still have a lot of choices as there are a lot of sub 1400 sq foot housing built in years past. They’re not all in good shape. Some have been quite let go and the inventory has switched over from owner occupied housing to rental neighborhoods. That leaves too small a pool for moderate spending families except the aging inventory. A lot of it was once beautiful but either the owners got too old to care for it properly or any extra cash was all spent on vacations and/or kids’ educations.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 09:09:21

income for the well off retired = housing for the well off retired.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 09:48:36

I’ve started to wonder if the problem is there are more underwater owners in trouble than there are people sitting ready to buy but waiting for prices to fall.

I’m thinking the same evil thought here in Tucson. Thanks for putting it into words.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 10:22:28

That’s been my view for a year or two.

The government has to bail out the FBers, because there aren’t enough people out there who can actually qualify to buy houses at existing prices.

A collapse of prices to what the market will bear, ends up screwing 80% of the population. And the banks. And the governments tax receipts, at least those governments that tax homes.

So the plan is multiple rounds of homeowner assistance (to appear to be “doing something”), while letting the banks exercise “mark to fantasy” accounting on their MBS portfolios to get their balance sheets squared away,allowing them to borrow money at 0%, then loan it to the serfs at 10-30%, and turning a blind eye to commodity speculation. Especially the “gotta have” commodities, like food and fuel.

IOW, a back door bailout.

The latest brainstorm, of packaging pools of houses to be sold to “investors” to be turned into rentals, is just another confirmation that the PTB have realized that there aren’t going to be a lot of J6P buyers out there for a long time, if ever.

So they will unload them to the banksters at a discount, and the blood sucking squids will become more firmly entrenched.

Eventually, the squids will be leasing you your transportation as well……

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Moman
2012-01-09 10:36:17

If that is the case, the real problem should be stated as “an oversupply of available housing units relative to the quantity demanded”

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 11:19:40

The government has to bail out the FBers, because there aren’t enough people out there who can actually qualify to buy houses at existing prices.

A collapse of prices to what the market will bear, ends up screwing 80% of the population. And the banks. And the governments tax receipts, at least those governments that tax homes.

Sounds totally plausible that we would therefore do anything to maintain houses at a higher price than what the market wants to price them at.

BUT…won’t that cause homebuilders to build even more houses we don’t need? Can we float the whole market at an artificially high level forever while that is going on?

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-09 12:33:35

What they are really trying to do is to get the old loans taken care of without the new sales price being available to use as a comp, thereby making the actual value of the house and its neighbors so obvious that no one can ignore it.

Also, I’d like to point out that if the banks were willing to hire real, professional staff to make the loans (rather than use a few numbers taken off a computer in five minutes) there might be a lot more qualified buyers. A family that has a bad credit score that can be traced back to some late payments because of a computer error at a hospital or insurance company is still a good risk. People who have low incomes can be good risks for small loans as long as you go through their whole budget line by line (what if grandma can’t babysit your kids for a while and you have to sign up for daycare? what can you afford in that circumstance?). But that would mean a huge reduction in productivity for the financial industry and they would rather not lend at all then spend the money they need to spend to lend responsibly.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 13:40:15

It depends on if the builders can get financing (good luck with that), and if they think they can build one cheaper than current sale prices.

This was predicted on this very blog a few years back. Houses were so overpriced, that builders would be able to undercut the prices of 2-5 year old homes with new construction.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 13:46:19

There you go, assuming these shysters have good business sense.

There’s no money to be made on a $100K loan. Takes the same amount of legwork to throw $800K at a $10K/year no-doc cherry-picker, but that 8ooK loan means a bigger commission.

Due diligence = higher costs = smaller profits.

Get with the program. :)

 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:13:24

There are also more “homeowners” than there are renters. And, “homeowners” are more affluent than renters. Renters are scum, and don’t matter to the Fed, et al.

 
Comment by Dale
2012-01-09 13:00:27

“I’ve started to wonder if the problem is there are more underwater owners in trouble than there are people sitting ready to buy but waiting for prices to fall.”

Well…..we will all just have to buy two, three, four houses each like people were during the hey day.

 
Comment by rms
2012-01-09 13:42:41

I’ve started to wonder if the problem is there are more underwater owners in trouble than there are people sitting ready to buy but waiting for prices to fall.

This is why you don’t see anyone considered important in the MSM presenting this as a continuity problem, i.e., starting with a pie chart representing median household income and looking at the traditional 30% slice devoted to housing expense; they have to avoid this issue because the 30% slice simply isn’t enough given current home prices. Game over!

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 23:03:41

I have to confess that we rent for around 23% of gross income. Throwing away 23% of your income on rent sure beats paying over 30% of your income on a mortgage, even before considering insurance, taxes, Mello Roos, association dues and capital losses on the value of your home.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 10:19:19

“This stands in sharp contrast to the important role that the housing sector has typically played in propelling economic recoveries.”

And it ignores the huge role that housing had in tanking the economy. Housing should never be the centerpiece of an economy.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 23:05:21

And it ignores the huge role the Fed had in first blowing a bubble, then tanking the housing market.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-01-09 23:19:13

How did the Fed take part in “tanking the housing market”?

I thought we just ran out of greater fools who could be enticed into buying even with liar loans…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:16:22

“William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said on Friday that taxpayers and mortgage bond investors should shoulder the cost of reducing borrowers’ loan principal.”

So there you have it. Their goal is to foist this entire burden on the taxpayer. Shut down these insolvent banks, now! Get rid of the Federal Reserve! Arrest Bernanke, Dudley, Geithner, and all of these economic terrorists!

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 22:59:24

I wasn’t alone in my thinking the Fed’s election-year housing market initiative seemed a bit out of line.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
JANUARY 10, 2012

The Fed’s Housing Politics

The central bank compromises its independence with rank electioneering.

These columns have defended the independence of the Federal Reserve from attacks on the right and left, but after last week the central bank is on its own. It’s impossible to defend the Fed’s rank electioneering as it lobbies for more political and taxpayer intervention in the housing market—just in time for the election campaign.

This extraordinary political intrusion came in the form of a 26-page paper that the Fed sent to Capitol Hill last Wednesday, without invitation, graciously offering what Chairman Ben Bernanke called a “framework” for “thinking about certain issues and tradeoffs.” He was underselling his document. The paper is a clear attempt to provide intellectual cover for politicians to spend more taxpayer money to support housing prices.

In case there was any doubt on this point, New York Fed President William Dudley put them to rest Friday when he called specifically for bridge loans for jobless borrowers, more government-assisted refinancings, a new program for principal reductions for underwater borrowers, and floated the possibility of getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the rental housing business. Your average HUD secretary wouldn’t dare go this far.

As America’s central bank, the Fed is responsible for monetary policy and bank regulation. During and since the financial panic, and in the name of preventing a meltdown, the Fed has bought mortgage-backed securities to provide liquidity for housing and keep down mortgage rates. This is a form of credit allocation and should be winding down, though it is at least arguably within the emergency purview of monetary policy.

It is a far different matter to tell Congress and the executive branch that they ought to rescue homeowners who borrowed more than they can afford to repay, or strong-arm banks to loosen credit standards for borrowers, or further entrench government-sponsored enterprises (Fan and Fred) that have already cost taxpayers $142 billion in losses. These are core political questions that belong to elected officials.

The intrusion is especially ill-timed because it looks like an attempt to further isolate Edward DeMarco, Fannie and Freddie’s politically beleaguered regulator. House Republicans have closed off another housing bailout from Congress, so Administration officials and Capitol Hill Democrats are desperate to unleash Fannie and Freddie to spend even more to rescue underwater homeowners.

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 04:41:57

Serenity Now! Serenity Now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZvY_LXJco - 125k -

Fed says expand Fannie, Freddie role to aid housing

By Mark Felsenthal and Margaret Chadbourn
WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:41pm EST

The Fed, in a paper sent to lawmakers on Wednesday, outlined an array of steps that could be taken to help the housing sector, including allowing Fannie and Freddie to provide cheaper mortgages to a broader pool of homeowners.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-fed-housing-idUSTRE8031SE20120105 - 99k

Comment by Montana
2012-01-09 11:02:17

To think, the Fed is as clueless as any reporter or TV talking head.

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 05:10:19

Serenity Now! Serenity Now!

Details of Mortgage Servicing Settlement Between Banks and AGs Begin to Emerge

By Massimo Calabresi
December 23, 2011

The never-ending negotiations between the 50 state attorneys general (minus a few big ones) and five major banks over penalties and standards for past, present and future mortgage servicing are finally ending, and some details are beginning to emerge from sources familiar with the deal. The big number is the $25 billion that the banks will commit to three categories of the settlement: $5 billion in cash payments, mostly to the states, $3 billion in refinancing for underwater mortgages, and $17 billion in principal reduction. Here’s the breakdown:

The bulk of the money—$17 billion—would go to principal reduction for homeowners and a menu of other elements aimed at reducing the impact of the country’s massive housing debt. The $17 billion also is a credit rather than a cash payment by the banks, but it will give some individuals a chance to lower their mortgages. The $17 billion is a minimum number the banks need to hit in principal and secondary lien reduction and other kinds of forbearance. For every dollar of principal reduction, the banks pay off $1 of the $17 billion commitment. Other bank actions would count less to the overall $17 billion, potentially raising the overall amount the banks lose in book value as high as $32 billion or more.

It will be January at the earliest before the deal is finally unveiled.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/23/a-few-details-of-the-ag-banks-deal/ - 74k

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 09:54:17

Without Beau Biden, Kamala Harris, Cathleen Cortez Masto, Eric Schneiderman, and (I think) Martha Coakley on board, this deal’s going nowhere.

And remember Iowa AG Tom Miller saying that they were going to put people in jail? Remember that? Well, that sure isn’t happening, now is it?

Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 10:29:39

$25 billion won’t be enough to buy off the whole country, but it will be enough to buy off all of the Red State AGs out in Flyover.

Especially since all of these problems weren’t caused by the banks, but by all those slimeball subprime borrowers.

Taking 40-45 states out of the equation makes their “problem” manageable. They only have to payoff/bribe/finance the politician’s opponents in fewer than 10 states.

I’m finding the most cynical opinion I can generate, is usually the one that is closest to being correct.

 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 05:28:23

Realtors Are Liars®

Comment by Liz Pendens
2012-01-09 06:40:44

The Federal Reserve is a Doomsday Machine.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 06:49:30

It’s a machine run by people. Corrupt people.

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 07:14:59

The whole purpose of machinery is to provide people with tremendous leverage.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:53:33

And without people, the machine doesn’t work.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 09:12:28

And without people, the machine doesn’t work.

I hate to break it to you but machines are people folks.

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:19:38

When too many operators fall into the meat grinder, it’s time to design a new machine.

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 16:30:21

“I hate to break it to you but machines are people folks.”

What about corporations?

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:19:08

It’s a machine run by people. Corrupt people.

It’s a machine enabled by vegetables. Obama and McCain and Establishment GOP Hollow Man voters.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:36:54

….. and don’t forget the fruits.

 
 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-09 07:24:22

Central banks are people!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 12:46:45

Money is people, too! Oops, I got carried away..

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 05:56:30

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-09/banks-blame-countrywide-for-u-k-mortgage-losses-in-97-lawsuits.html

Countrywide sued by UK banks over mortgage losses. Too bad they don’t go after Chris Dodd - #1 campaign contributer: Countrywide - for aiding and abetting the latter’s massive fraud.

UK Financial Times is reporting “more calls” for offloading toxic mortgages onto taxpayers. Thank you, Obama and McCain supporters, for giving the Fed, Wall Street and the Republicrats the green light for hiving off the banksters’ gambling and fraud liabilities onto unborn taxpayers.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 07:15:33

Maybe instead of being called “Countrywide Mortgage” it should have been called “Worldwide Disaster”

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 07:28:54

You miss the point entirely Sammy: Should we have a Republican President or a Democratic President? We get to choose!

This whole process would be more entertaining for me if the sponsored contestants spoke no words, rather played some pseudo sports contest on TV, with the sponsor’s logos on their blazers, or tatoos even. Sort of a Nascar Studio Wrestling hybrid.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 18:41:10

The Republicrat duopoly’s Tweedle Dee/Tweedle Dum “choice” is for the benefit of morons. I’ll vote for a non-puppet.

 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 06:08:48

Serenity Now! Serenity Now!

Bailout concerns mounting for federal housing agency

By Les Christie @CNNMoney
January 3, 2012: 4:48 PM ET

FHA reserve fund near zero

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Concerns are growing that the Federal Housing Administration will need to be bailed out by taxpayers.

The agency’s latest monthly outlook report revealed a spike in serious delinquencies for FHA-insured loans, posing a further threat to the agency’s already depleted cash reserves.

Foreclosure free ride: 3 years, no payments

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/real_estate/federal_housing_bailout/index.htm - 68k -

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:02:15

Isn’t our centrally planned, crony capitalist economy working out just swell so far? (Unless you’re a future-generation taxpayer who is being saddled with the Wall Street-Federal Reserve Looting Syndicate’s unpayable debts).

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 09:01:59

Edgar Winter IIRC

The mountain is high
The valley is low
And you’re confused on which way to go
So I’ve come here to give you a hand
And lead you into the promised land
So…
Come on and take a free ride [free ride!]
Come on and sit here by my side
Come on and take a free ride
All over the country I’ve seen it the same

Nobody’s winning at this kind of game
We’ve got to do better it’s time to begin
You know all the answers must come from within
So…
Come on and take a free ride [free ride]
Come on and sit here by my side
Come on and take a free ride…. yeah yeah yeah yeah.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 06:16:44

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SX7P:IND

The Fed has already given European banks a massive backdoor bailout, but it looks like trillions more US taxpayer dollars will be needed to stave off the reckoning day for their reckless speculative excesses.

 
Comment by SV guy
2012-01-09 06:19:14

Good morning everyone. One post before I start the grind.

This is an investigative type news broadcast on the “Ron Paul Letters”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkz9btU0zY&feature=player_embedded

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-09 07:30:31

It’s interesting who is behind a lot of this. What do these neocon publications talk about?

‘Jonah Goldberg, Ledeen’s colleague at National Review, coined the term “Ledeen Doctrine” in a 2002 column. This tongue-in-cheek “doctrine” is usually summarized as “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,” which Goldberg remembered Ledeen saying in an early 1990s speech.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Of course, these small crappy little countries won’t be inhabited by white people. I watched the last GOP debate last night where certain candidates discussed the need to re-invade Iraq! It’s amazing what’s considered crazy and what’s considered rational anymore.

Comment by BlueStar
2012-01-09 08:16:54

I guess you were referring to our holy christian warrior Sir Richard of Perry. Perry thinks we need to fulfill biblical prophesy and some how this translates to invading Iraq and Iran. It’s like the worst parts of Pat Buchanan and Dick Chaney wrapped in a creamy Ronald Reagan shell. Mmmmm!

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-09 08:37:40

Gingrich got in on this too. A little history; Saddam Hussein and the Bathists were put in power by the CIA as a counter to Iran. What did they think was going to happen when he was killed? Oh yeah, we were going to democratize the lot of them. Well that was a pipe dream. Now there is a vacuum and Iran is filling it. Lot’s of people tried to tell the neocons that was going to happen, but they listen to no one.

Other debates had candidates going on about the supposed Iranian assassination plot of a Saudi ambassador. At the same time, it’s well known Iranian scientist keep getting killed in their country. Drones are flying around. Who’s provoking whom?

Then there is what this would really mean:

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni said that he liked to respond to advocates of such strikes with “And then what?”

‘After you’ve dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? What happens if they decide, in their hardened shelters with their mobile missiles, to start launching those? What happens if they launch them into U.S. bases on the other side of the gulf? What happens if they launch into Israel, or somewhere else? Into a Saudi oil field? Into Ras Laffan, with all the natural gas? What happens if they now flush their fast patrol boats, their cruise missiles, the [unclear] full of mines, and they sink a tanker, an oil tanker? And of course the economy of the world goes absolutely nuts. What happens if they activate sleeper cells? The MOIS, the intelligence service — what happens if another preemptive attack by the West, the U.S. and Israel, they fire up the streets and now we got problems. Just tell me how to deal with all that, okay?’

‘Because, eventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.’

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2009/09/28/175662/the-consequences-of-a-strike-on-iran/?mobile=nc

IMO, none of this will happen. But maybe the worst aspect of all this is that a candidate could throw out the idea of more war just to pick up some momentum in the polls.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2012-01-09 09:02:47

Well, when your whole mission in life is to experience the rapture before you die then why would a nuclear war matter much ??….These are real sick people…We condemn dictators and communists but honestly, we have our own Nut Cases with power right here in America…

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-09 10:28:40

Uh how about taking out 1000 mosques and fighting a serious religious jihad…every thought of that nah….

‘After you’ve dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next?

 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 10:46:51

“…We condemn dictators and communists but honestly, we have our own Nut Cases with power right here in America…”

That’s true, but we don’t have to elevate them to the presidency. As governors, members of Congress, or “historians”/lobbyists, there’s only so much harm they can do.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 11:12:29

As far as I’m concerned, there isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the Taliban, and our die-hard evangelicals.

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 11:52:48

If Someone dronned my house/family, I sure know what I’d devote the rest of MY life to doing….

 
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-09 12:47:40

Shutting down the Straights of Hormuz would bring about a fascinating response by even the most peaceful of nations.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-09 15:30:41

True GS, but our side doesn’t kill their side over a few misinterpreted lines in a book..

As far as I’m concerned, there isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the Taliban, and our die-hard evangelicals.

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 15:54:41

I wrote here a couple of years ago about the Iranian oil bourse and its moves to replace the USD as reserve currency. You may also recall that India (and China,) were in recent talks with Iran to move out of dollar settlements so they could buy Iranian oil despite a US embargo. China and Russia have been trading directly in their own currencies, and India just signed an agreement with China to use the yuan. This year Japan will start buying Chinese debt. Last month Iran and China signed a trade expansion agreement. Guess how many of these trade agreements will be using the USD as settlement?

So now the US imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran. BFD.

This is not about Iranian nukes or threats to America’s “national security,” this is about US oil and banking interests freaking out that the reserve currency status of the USD is being usurped by gold-backed, rather than debt-backed instruments.

Wall Street is not happy. Send out the carrier groups!

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 18:49:03

Perry thinks we need to fulfill biblical prophesy and some how this translates to invading Iraq and Iran.

As I recall, there’s an Old Testament scripture about God giving Israel a huge swath of land, right up to the Euphrates River. The trouble is, about seven hostile countries that are currently sitting on that territory don’t recognize the validity of the Greater Israel divine imperative. But AIPAC and the neo-cons do.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:42:25

Well Jonesy….. I can concede and agree with the war pigs that we should invade a country. Let’s start with the UK and strip that mofo bare. And I mean bare.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:51:28

…. and then a quick hop skip and a jump to east shoreline of the Mediterranean and roll west and strip that one blind. That ought to set things straight in a hurry.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:55:43

err….. east that is.

 
 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:00:21

When I was growing up, my father subscribed to newsletters published by the Liberty Lobby. The fear-mongering in those things, was impressive, to say the least.

Not to mention the inflammatory rhetoric of the far right wing sort. These folks were so out there that they thought that William F. Buckley’s National Review was a communist publication. I’ll bet that was news to Buckley.

Being the curious kid that I was, I asked my dad why he subscribed to this stuff. Well, you should have seen how quickly he went on the defensive. Apparently, I wasn’t supposed to be questioning this stuff — or even reading it.

He mumbled something about wanting to read from a wide variety of viewpoints, which I believed. But only for a little while.

The truth was, my dad fell for this stuff hook, line, and sinker. It wasn’t until I grew up and got away from home when I realized how poisonous it was.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 11:19:50

My Dad was so far right he was ready to come out the other side.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-01-09 11:36:35

+1. My pops has come around quite a bit since being conditioned to hate “Slick Willy.”

I’m now working one by one on my publicly employed anti-public employee (except, of course, for THEIR public employment) friends. It’s a tough job, but someone’s gotta do it! ;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 11:48:05

These days, my father’s mental capacity is so diminished that he doesn’t recognize Barack Obama as being President of the United States. He also didn’t realize that last Friday was my mother’s birthday.

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 16:32:45

My mom was so far left she thought Stalin was a good guy. Honest.

 
 
Comment by Bill in Phoenix and Tampa
2012-01-09 16:27:37

AZ Slim - your dad must have known my dad. They subscribed to that same newsletter. I was a teenager and read every issue. It was racist, fascist, and promoted Jerry Fallwell and his so-called “Moral Majority.”

It was enough to convince me to NOT become a Republican and investigate the Libertarian Party instead.

I think if more youngsters our age in the late 70s read what their conservative parents subscribed to, they would have become libertarians instead of gung ho voters for Reagan.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 06:20:16

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-09/hungary-runs-out-of-options-as-orban-bonds-routed-in-imf-row.html

And yet another nation surrenders its sovereignty in exchange for IMF “assistance.”

Comment by rms
2012-01-09 08:13:39

And yet another nation surrenders its sovereignty in exchange for IMF “assistance.”

+1 Great observation!

The new world order is beginning to gel.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 08:47:19

And yet another nation surrenders its sovereignty in exchange for IMF “assistance.”

…and on “austerity” (From March 29, 2011)

Brazil’s Lula Tells Portugal To Reject IMF Bailout…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/03/29/brazils-lula-tells-portugal-to-reject-imf-bailout-as-lisbon-faces-downgrade/

…Visiting Brazil’s former colonial power alongside hand-picked successor Dilma Rousseff, “superstar” ex-president Lula took a stab at the IMF saying “whenever the IMF tried to take care of countries’ debts, it created more problems than solutions.” Lula’s timely comment came as S&P downgraded Portugal’s sovereign debt, leaving it one notch above “junk” status and sending yields on 10-year Portuguese bonds to their euro-era record. Greece, the first of the peripherals to implode and take bailout money, was also downgraded, sending it deeper into junk status. (Read Portuguese Parliament Rejects Austerity Plan, PM Socrates Resigns).

….Lula, though, urged Portuguese policymakers to reject any austerity measures. “The IMF won’t resolve Portugal’s problems, like it didn’t solve Brazil’s” he told Portuguese reporters on Monday, making the point that accepting an EU-IMF bailout would results in stricter austerity measures which would hamper growth, according to The Washington Post. Sharing her visit with predecessor Lula, President Dilma Rousseff told reporters “Brazil could help Portugal like Portugal has helped Brazil.”

Comment by rms
2012-01-09 14:00:22

Brazil’s Lula Tells Portugal To Reject IMF Bailout…

Lula is right, reject those blue-eyed IMF bankers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Dave of the North
2012-01-09 09:13:01

I think they surrendered it when they ran up the amount of debt they owe: “Hungary will have the highest debt level, at 76.5 percent of gross domestic product, and the slowest economic growth, at 0.5 percent, among the EU’s eastern members in 2012, the European Commission forecast on Nov. 10.”

and they already had a 20 billion euro bailout in 2008…

“They included the effective nationalization of $13
billion of private pension-fund assets, extraordinary industry
taxes to raise revenue for the budget, Europe’s highest bank
levy and forcing lenders to swallow exchange-rate losses on
foreign-currency mortgages.”

Policies not designed to inspire consumer or business confidence…

 
Comment by BlueStar
2012-01-09 09:56:10

Did you also note they just passed sweeping changes in their constitution including restrictions on the press, all non-christian religions and sweeping cuts in social programs. Just another pawn on the chess board.

 
 
Comment by combotechie
2012-01-09 06:27:50

Bill in Carolina -

Here is a book that might interest you:

“On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society”, by Lt Col. Dave Grossman.

For a brief on what it says you might want to Wiki up the title.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:05:24

+1. Grossman has also looked at the effects of violent video games on kids. The true costs of the neo-con’s misbegotten war in Iraq will be felt for a generation to come as young, alienated, deeply disturbed combat vets go off the deep end.

Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-09 07:19:05

and the worst part is we didn’t even siphon I-rackz oil to pay for this “war”

We are so overwhelmed and have no clue how to fight a religious jihad.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:22:18

Chinese and Russian oil companies deeply appreciate our sacrifices so they could reap the benefits.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 11:13:39

And the Germans and the French.

 
Comment by vicever
2012-01-09 13:30:42

They will “reap” more if USA did not engage in war. Any way, they reap. But the fact is nobody can have it all.

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 08:35:52

We didn’t get their oil and increasingly they are not using the US dollar to trade oil w/others. All around a total failure.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Montana
2012-01-09 11:23:57

wait, I thought we went to war for oil - ?

 
Comment by rms
2012-01-09 14:04:31

wait, I thought we went to war for oil - ?

That’s the version for the dull folks.

 
Comment by Avocado
2012-01-09 17:32:15

huh?

 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:25:17

One vet just went sideways in Washington State. He shot up a house party, then ran off to Mt. Rainier where he killed a Ranger, then died of exposure as they hunted him.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 11:50:29

I hate to say this, but I think this is but one of many incidents of this sort that we’ll have to deal with.

Not to be disrespectful to anyone here who has served our country in uniform, but there’s a certain element that never should be been let into the military, let alone deployed to a combat zone. I think that, in time, we’re going to find out that Bradley Manning is a classic example.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 12:18:53

I, for one, am very grateful they let Bradley Manning in. He did more to disrupt America’s disastrous statecraft than anyone since Daniel Ellsberg. What he did was nothing short of heroic patriotism.

 
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-09 14:12:50

None of the Wiki leaks has endangered the US or any individuals ( except the ambassador to Mexico).

But the have made our allies look very foolish and stupid.

I just don’t see how an NCO would have access to all those documents.

It had to have been an inside job.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 15:11:19

I just don’t see how an NCO would have access to all those documents.

It had to have been an inside job.

Isn’t Bradley Manning a private?

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 16:07:43

Agreed. I’ve made the argument that Wikileaks was part and parcel of the Obama State Department to dismantle the Cheney Oil cartel. Just look at the timing of the Arab Spring and the release of documents the NYT and The Guardian had had for SIX MONTHS.

You don’t think the White House had access to this information?

But making Bradley Manning the stooge was reprehensible. I hope he and Julian Assange are well-compensated for their troubles.

 
 
 
 
Comment by scdave
2012-01-09 09:11:58

+1 + 1….

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 09:37:22

OK, this is from the Amazon description.

“Now, Grossman has updated this classic work to include information on 21st-century military conflicts, recent trends in crime, suicide bombings, school shootings, and more.”

Umm, those recent trends show violent crime has been going down each year. Here’s a table from the FBI web site for the last four years. How many Iraq/Afghanistan vets were mustered out in that period of time? Also, the WSJ had an article in December that said FBI statistics showed a per-capita reduction in all types of violent crime for the last TWENTY years.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011/data-tables/table-3

This thread brought to mind the poem “Tommy” by Rudyard Kipling. There really is nothing new under the sun.

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html

Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 13:18:38

“Freakonomics” demonstrated a direct correlation between the dramatic drop in crime rates and the legalization of abortion-on-demand nationwide.

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 16:58:23

Statistics show that assertion to be invalid.

From 1979 (unaborted fetuses from that year are now 32-33 years old) to 1994 (unaborted fetuses from that year are now coming of age as 17-18 year-olds), the number of abortions in the U.S. according to the CDC were roughly constant at 1.2 to 1.4 Million each year. In 1979 the U.S. population was 222 Million. In 1994 it was 265 Million. So the abortion RATE per million people declined a bit during that period. How come the crime rate didn’t stay level or go up a bit, but instead went down significantly?

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

BTW, I am pro choice. The world already has too many people.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 22:31:08

Crime fell sharply in the United States in the 1990s, in all categories of crime and all parts of the nation. Homicide rates plunged 43 percent from the peak in 1991 to 2001, reaching the lowest levels in 35 years. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) violent and property crime indexes fell 34 and 29 percent, respectively, over that same period. These declines occurred essentially without warning: leading experts were predicting an explosion in crime in the early and mid-1990s, precisely the point when crime rates began to plunge.

-Steven Levitt

Abortion was made legal in 1973. Those aborted fetuses would have reached their peak crime-committing years in the early 1990’s.

Crime rates went down significantly (and geographically, correlated to year in which abortion became commonly available in each state,) because more unwanted fetuses were now being aborted instead of growing up with resentful/uncommitted/insolvent mothers. You’re trying to relate two different data sets– rate VS availability.

 
Comment by Jinglemale
2012-01-09 22:53:42

Because the aborted created fewer unwanted children (which are more likely to grow up criminals.)

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 06:44:40

This is an interesting prediction, as at a comparable point after the Japanese asset bubble collapse (around the mid-1990s), Japanese stocks remained in the doldrums and continued languishing, while Japanese government bond yields remained low and continued paying off in terms of safety and positive real returns for the time up to the present.

I guess it is different here in the U.S.?

Stocks to beat bonds for 20 years

Heavy hitters such as Jeremy Siegel and Jack Bogle see superior upside potential in stocks, with the outlook for bonds tethered tighter than ever to inflation, writes Jonathan Burton.

Jan. 9, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EST
Why stocks will beat bonds over the next 20 years
After ‘lost decade,’ U.S. equities poised to reward investors for risk
By Jonathan Burton, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — With so much volatility in stocks, many investors have increasingly favored the relative security of bonds and bond mutual funds.

Using history as their guide, and weighing current stock valuations and interest rates, various investment pros believe stocks have a much better chance than bonds to beat inflation in the long run.

That isn’t to say they are particularly bullish on stocks. It’s just that they are profoundly pessimistic when it comes to bonds.

As a result, the consensus among the investment experts interviewed for this article is that U.S. stocks will outperform long-term U.S. government and corporate bonds over the next 20 to 30 years and resume their traditional role as the safer hedge against inflation.

I certainly wouldn’t get out of the stock market,” said Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard Group, which offers funds of many types of investments, including stocks and bonds. “The risks we face today are deeply serious,” he said, “but the odds are that stocks will do better” than bonds.

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 07:37:05

The long term outlook for bonds is poor because of Peak Credit. If you don’t understand that, invest in stocks.

Comment by combotechie
2012-01-09 07:52:08

“Peak credit.”

I like it. It says a lot.

 
 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 09:39:37

These people are completely safe in making a prediction that won’t be verified one way or another until 20 years has elapsed. No one will remember the prediction.

 
Comment by measton
2012-01-09 10:19:29

I think Gross has changed his tune after being incredibly wrong on treasuries in 2011. .

Comment by rms
2012-01-09 20:05:29

It’s risky betting against the house.

 
 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 13:53:05

I tend to agree with Bogle. Once inflation starts up I believe the FED will let it run to decrease the federal debt.

This could backfire resulting in a lower standard of living for Americans who get paid in dollars and can’t get pay increases tied to the inflation rate.

Question: what will this senerio do to housing prices ?

Answer: in areas of the elite who can get paid increases equal or above inflation not much , others areas it will continue down. Kinda like now.

 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 06:47:19

Housing Prices Falling-CHECK

Interest Rates Falling- CHECK

Why buy a house today when you can buy later for 65% less?

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:08:21

Ben Bernanke’s deranged money-printing is going to mean hyperinflation ahead, so it might be a good idea to buy a house now and pay it off with cheaper wheelbarrow dollars, a la the Weimar Republic, once the inevitable effects of Ben’s runaway printing press kick in.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 07:11:31

All the printing in the world won’t prevent prices from falling.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 07:45:40

The hitch in your plan Sammy is that the hot money is going to the top tier and governments. The trickle down will not provide the lower level enough to carry the house, especially when the alternative choice is food. The power center is inflating still, the rest of us face deflation now.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 08:21:03

Hyper-inflation ahead?

You haven’t been to the grocery store in the last year, have you?

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-09 08:33:42

The pigmen could care less if the slice of their household income devoted to gas and groceries goes from 5% to 6%. For the Lucky Duckies the change from 15% to 30% is more acutely felt. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by scdave
2012-01-09 09:28:27

Yep…But I would argue that it is Stagflation….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2012-01-09 10:21:22

I’m sure they suggested this 20 years ago in Japan.

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:32:59

Where is this hyperinflation I have been hearing about for several years time now? What is taking it so long? Most people I know are experiencing wage deflation, which doesn’t bode well for the demand side of the equation. I do see an increase in food and energy prices due to greedy pigs speculating in commodities, but I also see massive sales in grocery stores as items slowly rot on the shelf due to said lack of demand.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 11:52:48

I’ve been hearing about the hyperinflation hobgoblin since 2008….. from really smart people who are friends of mine. Where is it?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 15:43:21

Be careful what you wish for…

I’ve seen grocery prices increase by 150% over the last 2 years, utility bills go up 50%, gas staying over $3 gal.

Rents up. Insurance up. Fees up. Clothes up. Restaurants up.

Don’t know where you guys live, but consider yourselves very lucky.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-09 21:52:54

I was led to believe that borrowing was different than printing. Please show me the difference.

 
 
Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-09 21:59:49

This is going to be the bad kind of inflation. Prices will go up because the currency is deflating. Wages will be far behind for the average worker because they are needed not as much.

 
 
Comment by Hard Rain
2012-01-09 06:48:22

Romney’s pink slip remark is going over even better than “corporations are people”.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:12:30

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/12/mitt-romney-bain-capital-advantage.html

Romney’s puppet strings are glaringly obvious, but that won’t stop the retards who voted for McSame in 2008 for shifting their support of yet another statist, corporatist Republicrat Hollow Man.

Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-09 22:04:36

True dat , true dat. Vote for Ron Paul. That’s what we’re here for.

 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 07:24:40

I must have missed that one. What exactly did he say? That getting laid off is good for you?

I had a classmate (from the MBA program) was laid off from a long career at HP. One of the young pups in the program said that getting the axe was a “good thing” for my friend. I was simply appalled upon hearing this. “Bob” was well into his fifties and was unable to recover from this layoff. This happened 6 years ago and he is now in his 60’s and is bouncing around from temp job to temp job, which pay less than his old job, plus he has no bennies.

I suppose the young pup meant that “Bob” would grow as he left the old job behind. The young pup, BTW, also bounces from temp gig to temp gig. The last time I bumped into him he was a software tester, which meant he was getting maybe $20/hr with no benefits. And he’s an EE.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:06:06

I suppose the young pup meant that “Bob” would grow as he left the old job behind. The young pup, BTW, also bounces from temp gig to temp gig. The last time I bumped into him he was a software tester, which meant he was getting maybe $20/hr with no benefits. And he’s an EE.

That whole personal growth through layoff/downsizing/uncertain work thing just makes me angry. I’d like to invite some of those personal growth rhetoric spouters to walk a mile in the shoes of people they’re spouting at. That’d shut them up real quick.

Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 11:00:11

I have no tolerance for those that try to get ahead on the backs of others by spouting the latest corporate buzzspeak. Those people too often get promoted into positions where they do a great deal of damage. But when they occasionally get theirs, it’s so fun to watch.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 11:51:45

A friend of mine, 42, refused to buy a house when prices went sky high. He rented, much to the chagrin of his family, etc. (sister is a REALTOR). He makes decent money ($75k-$80k), and he finally bought a house less than 6 months ago, in a market down more than 50% from the peak.

Fast forward to today and it turns out his company has decided he makes too much money, and they are doing everything in their power to make his life miserable in an attempt to get him to quit. His newly hired boss makes less than him, and they are cutting pay across the board for all new hires. The problem for my friend is that the job he has are few and far between. He’s in trouble.

Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-01-09 12:44:15

Amazing that’s where we are in this, isn’t it? I can’t believe I’m saying it when I tell people NOT to strive for TOO much money at their jobs. I’ve seen it happen where justifications are made to push the highly paid types out, myself included. (In my case, both I and my boss - who had the job before I did - were living in the same region making good money but the level of business didn’t justify it. Guess who took it in the shorts?)

I have a friend in Finance for a large corporation and told him to watch his back, as he is in a situation similar to your friend’s. For right now his skill set fits well, but he is the highest paid in his group and was from day one. Keep your nose down, work hard, don’t ruffle feathers, stay out of any drama, etc.

I must admit I practiced what I preached in my current position, being satisfied with the base salary I was presented with. I resisted a bit, but realized I’d be able to make it up with bonuses, commission, etc.

I wonder what came of the lady I overheard talking to her headhunter at SBUX about a year ago:

Headhunter: “They’re offering $90k.”
Lady: “Pfft! I won’t even talk to a company if they won’t offer $120k or more.”

I’ll also admit that part of my defensive positioning comes from the anecdotes, articles, and comments from the HBB.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 13:51:46

“He had it comin’…….”

“We all got it coming……..”

 
 
 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 14:00:32

I must have missed that one. What exactly did he say? That getting laid off is good for you?”

I think he said he would be laid off if he didn’t do his job well, back when he was a worker like the rest of us. I also think he was born rich and never really was in danger of getting laid off.

Comment by polly
2012-01-09 14:37:53

He said that he liked being able to lay off people who provided services for him if he thought they did a bad job. It was all in the context of him claiming that health insurance companies would do a good job helping to keep you healthy in an individual market because they would want to keep you as a customer.

It fits in with his strategy of “running” against the President since he is claiming that the market will make insurance companies behave well as opposed to needing to be regulated to keep them from just dumping expensive customers. Unfortunately for him, there are still other republican candidates in the race and they have finally figured out how Bain made its money. The phrase fits in with the attack theme of the day, so they ran with it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 15:15:19

It was all in the context of him claiming that health insurance companies would do a good job helping to keep you healthy in an individual market because they would want to keep you as a customer.

Oh yeah, right. I’m dealing with a health insurance company that’s being sued by the city of Los Angeles for selling worthless policies. And it’s been barred from writing policies in Massachusetts for at least five years.

You know who the majority owners of this wonderful company are? Blackstone Group and Goldman Sachs. Yet they just sent me a letter raising my rates. I protested because they recently raised rates, and this latest increase would put them at an almost 10% rate hike in less than a year.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

 
 
 
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 10:00:59

Romney made his money as a corporate raider.

Never forget this.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 10:06:00

Romney made his money as a corporate raider.

Corporate raiders are people folks.

 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 11:03:02

How many jobs did he destroy for every job that was created after he left? And if weighted by wages and benefits, what was the net?

Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 11:31:37

The KC Star has an article online about how Bain put a local steel company into Chapter 11.

Typical “Private Equity” Buy-Strip-Pump and Dump.

-Buy the company

-Use the company’s money to “reward themselves” for their business acumen.

-Cut the serfs pay, under the threat of outsourcing/moving the factory to some Hillbilly state where the workers know their place. Pocket the cash.

-Run up the company’s credit lines. Pocket the cash generated.

-Raid the pension plan. Pocket the cash.

-Cut all of the budgets to the bone. Don’t fix or replace worn out equipment. Don’t do any training. Start delaying payments to your vendors. Try to do this in a manner that pumps the stock price for a quarter or two, before your customers and/or employees that know where all of the skeletons are buried get pizzed and leave.

Then,
-Do an IPO, walk off with more cash, and let the new owner find out how those great numbers were generated, or ….

-If you are unlucky and can’t dump it quick enough, file Chapter 7 or 11, and pay yourself a gazillion dollars for managing the “transition”.

The only reason you don’t hear about this much anymore, is because there aren’t that many companies left to screw over, or the current management has learned the same tricks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 11:50:04

My question about those tactics is why did the company sell as cheaply as it did if it had more than enough raid-able resources to cover the purchase cost?

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 11:52:01

Then,
-Do an IPO, walk off with more cash, and let the new owner find out how those great numbers were generated,.. ….

Then…

Pay a bunch of fake bloggers to “blame it on the Unions” in the KC Star?

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 13:53:34

Ahhhh…..you are familiar with the story…… :)

 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 14:07:26

It all works but this

“Then,
-Do an IPO, walk off with more cash, and let the new owner find out how those great numbers were generated, or ….”

strip a public company just like you descibe then sell it very cheap to private investors who “flip it ” then do a IPO or more likely sell it to a competator.

sharholders lose but who cares about them ?

 
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 19:59:52

Romney still thinks these are the boom times. That it’s still the 87 to 2008 bull market. For him personally, with a fortune of many hundreds of millions, it still is. He saw the ‘Cult of the rich guy’ build up over the decades and he still personally seems to believe it.

Romney doesn’t have that politician’s gift of being able to listen to the electorate and reflect back to them what they want to hear. Newt is particularly gifted with this ability.

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2012-01-09 07:02:06

Americans, love ‘em: ;-)

(From the 5,715 comments sections):

JudyP:
“Since when does being stupid get you banned from the White House?”

RD:
“Only one of them failed the background check?”

Hacksaw43:
“If they run a check on the Congress,the White House would be EMPTY!”

Hwy’s favorite :-)
CLW:
“How come the bowling champion doesn’t get to go to the White House??”

(It should be noted that Mr. West was a Celtic not a Maverick when Dallas was crowned)

Mavericks’ Delonte West: ‘I’m banned from going to the White House’:
By Kelly Dwyer | Ball Don’t Lie – 11 hours ago / Yahoo Sports

Dallas Mavericks have earned themselves a visit to the White House on Monday, as each of the 2011 champions will be awarded a meeting with President Barack Obama, along with new editions to the 2011-12 Mavs outfit. All save for one Maverick, oft-troubled off guard Delonte West.

West, who had a high profile arrest over two years ago while under the influence of prescribed medication, is “banned” (to use his words) from stepping foot in the White House after the President’s security team ran a routine background check on the guard.

“I’m banned from going to the White House, so I’m not going to make it,” West said “But I’m going home to D.C., I’m just not allowed to go to the White House. That’s what happens when you make bad decisions in your life. You can’t go to the White House.”

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 07:09:31

“That’s what happens when you make bad decisions in your life. You can’t go to the White House.”

But once your in the White House it`s OK.

Comment by palmetto
2012-01-09 07:50:10

+a zillion, jeff. Most occupants of the White House and their guests have done far more to injure people on a large scale than some petty thug.

Just read about that Hollywood party the bammys had back in ‘09. LOL, what a complete joke. But I’m so glad Tim Burton decorated the tables. Actually, it sounded more like the fall of the House of Usher than the White House.

Comment by scdave
2012-01-09 09:37:07

+1 Palmy….The system is set up to crucify the weakest…They are the ones that can put up the least resistance….Your walking around more evil people at a posh country club then you are in Compton California…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:10:04

West, who had a high profile arrest over two years ago while under the influence of prescribed medication, is “banned” (to use his words) from stepping foot in the White House after the President’s security team ran a routine background check on the guard.

Take a look at American history.

One of our most drug and alcohol addicted presidents was none other than Richard Nixon. Guy took Dilantin like it was candy.

And he had a special office in the Executive Office Building for the purpose of drinking by himself. He didn’t want to be seen doing this in the Oval Office.

After he left the White House, he and Pat Nixon moved back to San Clemente. On one occasion, Pat was seen crawling back into the house because she was too drunk to walk.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 12:28:54

JFK was on a constant round of pain killers for his back along w/other chemical enhancements.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 12:32:09

True, dat. One of his physicians was even referred to as Dr. Feelgood.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 07:17:30

http://www.dailypaul.com/201767/for-new-hampshire-ndaa-breaks-through-to-major-media-not-american-one-the-bbc

Concern over NDAA breaks through to major media (BBC, not the corporatist Ministry of Truth MSM media outlets).

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 07:24:14

So, you’ve been indefinitely detained.

Comment by palmetto
2012-01-09 08:01:25

Who, me? Wait, someone’s pounding on the door…

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 09:24:01

Your papers, please.

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 09:43:57

Wait a minute. I distinctly remember Harry Reid saying “We killed the Patriot Act.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 10:03:22

Ihre Papiere, bitte!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-01-09 12:56:07

Is that the pamphlet you get once detained?

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer ate poisoned part of the Fugu. The pamphlet they handed him at the hospital was titled:

“So, you’re going to die.”

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 08:00:00

At 14 minutes Joe Biden referred to a call between Jon Corzine and Team Obama during the 2009 January transition into the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyIVZqWm50&feature=player_embedded

GC from the Trends Journal is predicting an economic holiday for the first quarter of 2012. At 12 minutes plus he describes what this might look like. He seems to expect a dollar devaluation.

You might just say that’s the gold bug talking. I know I am not prepared for anything like a 40% devaluation. I’m not trying to buck the crowd or be a troll when I say this. I’m asking the people here who are out in the field, how realistic this prediction seems to them. Because if this prediction does have some merit I might prefer that downpayment $ be in real estate or something else that will survive a crash. Although I’m not sure how mortgage payments would be payable after your income’s purchasing power was decimated.

Can anyone advise what we’d be looking at after a dollar devaluation?

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 08:41:54

Carrie,

Celente is like a machine gun, but he talks out goth sides of his mouth. The point of a bank holiday is that not all the money is there, so you won’t get all your money back when there is a payout. Celente’s problem is that you don’t even get back your fair share, the power brokers get first dibs. The only way his “devaluation” idea works is if you get back a new currency that is worth less than what you deposited. He ranting against the fractional reserve system and calling for a collapse of the credit system, and at the same time ranting against the currency itself. It’s a contradiction.

JMO, but you don’t preserve your nest egg by leveraging it.

Stay out of debt.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 09:06:46

Thanks for responding Blue. That’s been the plan but sometimes we second guess ourselves.

He referred to the Great Depression but made it sound like the bank holiday itself was the reason for the 40% devaluation but really FDR and company confiscated gold and then revaluated it. It was the gold revaluation in a gold backed currency that he’s referring to. So I’m not sure how that could happen w/fiat other than like you said issueing a new currency. I looked up Argentian peso and Russian ruble on Wiki to see if I could shake out a bit more info but I’m not looking in the right place.

If our resident hbb librarian is in the house, I’m thinking she could recommend something.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:13:39

I need to do more reading about FDR and the Great Depression. Will get back to everyone with some recommendations.

BTW, I just finished Curtis Roosevelt’s book, Too Close to the Sun. He was the son of FDR’s daughter, Anne. From reading the book, I gathered that being born into great wealth — and having two very troubled parents — really set him up for a tough go in life. Curtis had a hard time getting going as a kid, and as an adult.

With regards from your HBB Librarian…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 09:22:08

A devaluation also dilutes debts. Of course, it also dilutes incomes.

 
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 08:00:54

I get so tired of trying to speak to people that have no clue…. then they turn around and call me ignorant.

Doesn’t matter if the topic is the nature of money, The Fed, Social Security, the federal budget, the debt….. People have wrapped themselves in a blanket of lies in which they feel so warm and comfortable, that they can’t pull their heads out long enough to take a look around and check a couple facts.

One guy writes this long post on the local paper’s website about how the Fed was created with less than 15% of the congressmen voting, how the Fed owns 70% of our national debt, how the private bankers are profiting off all this debt held by the Fed since they are the stock holders, etc….

So, I take some time and link to the actual congressional record showing more than 85% of congress members voted, I show how the Fed holds about $1.6T of the $10.5T publically held debt, how the Fed stocks can’t pay any dividends, how all the extra interest collected by the Fed is returned to the US treasury…… I provide link after link after link to the real data and the real laws.

His response is to call be a donkey hole, a branwashed sheeple that is clueless how it really works, blah, blah.

Then there was another thread, this one on Social Security and Santorim’s call to cut for everyone now instead of phased in cuts. Oh did the seniors go off on their “cut welfare, not SS and MC”…. People, how much of welfare is left? $400B a year maybe? Compared to this years $1.3T for SS and MC, expected to increase 60% over the next decade as the first half of boomers retire? Total elimination of anything smelling of welfare, excluding SS and MC, doesn’t even cover half of the expected increase in the SS and MC budgets….. Oh, the ignorance spewed by people on the topic of SS will make you pull your hair out. And when you link to the real data, people just call you an idiot that doesn’t know what you are talking about.

Seriously, what’s the point of even trying to talk to people. They are sop happy wrapped up in their ignorance and lies, that if you present them with a little truth, you just anger them and get persoanlly attacked for your troubles.

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 08:14:56

At least the welfare crowd was smart enough to have babies to increase their benefits. The now SS crowd just built houses.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-09 08:21:11

‘the Fed holds about $1.6T of the $10.5T publically held debt’

Assuming this is true, how much US debt do the corporations that the Fed gives ‘liquidity’ hold? Doesn’t that prevent the recipients for being under pressure to sell? And it could be other holdings like mortgage backed securities. What’s the purpose of providing liquidity?

‘all the extra interest collected by the Fed is returned to the US treasury’

A few months ago, after some multi-trillion $ loan episode was revealed, Bernanke said they hadn’t ‘printed it’. Well, where did they get it then?

‘how the Fed stocks can’t pay any dividends’

Don’t the wall street corporations, who receive almost interest free loans from the central bank, pay their employees and shareholders well?

But let’s go along with the idea that these people are really benevolent public servants, that nothing is wrong. Then why do they fight the calls for audits? And just as importantly, why do they succeed?

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 08:55:06

‘the Fed holds about $1.6T of the $10.5T publically held debt’

“Assuming this is true,”

What you think they might be keeping a secret?

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress

By Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun and Phil Kuntz - Nov 27, 2011 7:01 PM ET Bloomberg Markets Magazine.

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

The size of the bailout came to light after Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, won a court case against the Fed and a group of the biggest U.S. banks called Clearing House Association LLC to force lending details into the open.

The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma — investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort — and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis. Clearing House Association fought Bloomberg’s lawsuit up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the banks’ appeal in March 2011.

$7.77 Trillion

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

No Clue

Lawmakers knew none of this

Moral Hazard

Getting Bigger

‘Wanted to Pretend’

Prevent Collapse

‘Regulatory Discretion’

‘Can We Survive?’

‘Serious Burden’

Geithner, Kaufman

Below Market

Added Income

Standing Access

Occupy Wall Street

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html - 214k

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-09 09:20:08

“$7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S.”

Half of GPD? That’s a far cry from “things produced”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 09:50:36

Loan out $1 trillion, 1 week at a time, then within 2 months it is more than $7 trillion in loans.

It it really worse that they loned out $1T, 7 times, at 1 week per loan, instead of $1 trillion for 3 months at a time?

The short-term nature of the loans make the total loaned out seem much worse.

 
Comment by cargocultist
2012-01-10 05:15:52

Darrelll is quite right Ben.

Its the difference between lending somebody $40 dollars for a month, and somebody else $10 for a week, 4 times. That report just reeked, whatever the agenda behind it is, is the more interesting question.

 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 09:56:31

But let’s go along with the idea that these people are really benevolent public servants, that nothing is wrong. Then why do they fight the calls for audits? And just as importantly, why do they succeed?

All particles in the universe have information associated with them. Information management is central to all human interaction.

So, moving to the financial realm. When dealing with currency, stock, debt and other non-physical items - items which are merely logical constructs, not physical things - dissuading the average person from contemplating these logical constructs too deeply and just accepting them as “real” prevents a risk of the failure of these constructs. Things like currency, debt, stocks are a kind of mass hallucination - they have value because people accept that they are real and have value.

Fractional reserve banking itself relies on confidence in the system. Without it, banks would be required to have 100% of deposits on hand at all times. With confidence, people can feel that they can access their money at any time. A mass hallucination which if it failed and a large number of people tried to access their money at once, the system would fail.

So, it’s natural I think for financial institutions to be secretive. They know of the ethereal nature of finance and financial products and constructs. How it is all delicate constructs based on confidence - and based on limits to what Joe Sixpack knows.

I think they believe they are masters of the universe, the ones sitting behind the curtains pulling the levers to allow the rest of the economy to exist.

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 10:05:52

Master-bators of the universe.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 14:10:16

some people want to back this hallucination with Gold or some hard asset

but they are just doubting Thomases

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 18:31:11

The problem is though that any currency is dependent on the mass hallucination - the “It has value because people believe it has value” concept. Even gold.

Now, I agree that gold as a currency has been around for a long time, giving this particular hallucination credibility because of its age.

But the concept of some weight of gold being equivalent to a cow or a shirt or a haircut is still part of the “currency” logical construct / mass hallucination.

 
 
 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 08:47:56

So, I take some time and link to the actual congressional record showing…

I think one problem is the sources behind the “proof”.

Sometimes the sources are referred to as pathological liars. We pick the numbers apart and talk about manipulation. Days later that same source’s words and numbers may be held up by another poster (or maybe even the same) as unadulterated truth and we use them to make a point to a 3rd party we don’t agree with.

We all zero in on different sources we believe and disbelieve. I think you have to understand where you listener stands on those sources before you use them to prove a point. You might also want to take note of Congress’s low approval numbers and understand how when someone is imagined to be a snake in the grass, that anything they publish might be looked upon dubiously.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-09 09:26:59

‘We all zero in on different sources we believe and disbelieve’

Everybody does it. That’s one reason that no one has a monopoly on the truth.

As some of you may know, I’ve been forcing myself to listen to Fox radio talk shows recently. I began to wonder what bugs me so much (beside the repetition of points). I think it’s the framing of everything into conservative vs liberal. And of course, they have a ‘conservative’ point or counter point to everything under the sun.

But when you really listen to them this election season, none of them agrees on exactly what’s ‘conservative.’ Is it Limbaughs definition, or Levine or Hannity or Savage. Is it Reagan, or Bush or Goldwater? And they bring up Hitler a lot. They pick and chose to fit the topic.

One minute they are going on about how great the patriot act is, torture, killing ‘Merikan terrorists, then they are attacking Obama for circumventing the constitution. They talk about how ‘principled’ they are; give me a break! But one thing comes through, always; they are good and the opposition is evil.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2012-01-09 09:48:26

they are good + [benevolent] and the opposition is evil + [unpatriotic].

;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 10:05:01

Modern Neo-Conservatism can be summed up like this:

One of us = good.
Anyone else = evil.

The government exists to enforce a Bible Thumper’s view of 1950s social morality on everyone on the planet, and to ensure the rich keep getting richer.

I think they face a real show-down over things like Medicare and Social Security…. Easy to get the Tea Partiers chanting “rugged individualism and self-reliance” right up until you have to tell them that you are going to slash SS and MC so that you can further lower taxes on billionaires.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 11:06:59

Modern Neo-Conservatism can be summed up like this:

One of us = good.
Anyone else = evil.

I didn`t know that Bill Maher was a Modern Neo-Conservative.

Bill Maher under fire for Tim Tebow tweet

December 28, 2011 10:19 AM

Tebow, known for his strong religious faith, often gets down on one knee to pray during the games - a move that was recently mocked by “Saturday Night Live.”

So, after the Broncos lost in a landslide 40-14 game against the Buffalo Bills last Saturday, Maher poked fun at Tebow, tweeting, “Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57349127-10391698/bill-maher-under-fire-for-tim-tebow-tweet/ - 113k -

If that is what cbs news calls “poked fun” I`d hate to see their idea of a verbal attack.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 11:24:38

Tebow, known for his strong religious faith, often gets down on one knee to pray during the games

You know what? I don’t think this Tebowing after a TD shows much respect to God, Jesus or Christianity. Does it not cheapen them all? I mean other than asking or thanking for no injuries why get God involved in a football game or any game? Is that what God’s for? “Please let my team win”? “Oh, golly, thank you god for the TD”?? What’s up with that?

Yea, I’ve come close to praying before a “huge” game but then I realized God’s got bigger things to worry about.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 11:52:40

You know what? I don’t think this Tebowing after a TD shows much respect to God, Jesus or Christianity.

I seem to recall a New Testament Bible verse about not making a show of your piety in public. Rather, you were supposed to pray in private. To the point of praying by yourself in a closet.

Specific citation and verbiage would be appreciated. And I don’t care which version of the Bible it’s from.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 12:34:52

“You know what? I don’t think this Tebowing after a TD shows much respect to God, Jesus or Christianity. Does it not cheapen them all?”

I don`t care one way or the other, I just laugh at people who celebrate the 2 Navy girls kissing photo (which is fine) and say everyone should be accepted for what they are get all up in arms about some dude thanking Jesus.

When I went to get married 20 years ago it was my second (still married) couldn`t get married in a catholic church because I didn`t have an anulment from my first. My current wife liked the way a Baptist church in Jupiter looked so we called and had a meeting with the minister (if that`s right). He told us that #1 we were going to hell because we were catholic and #2 we were going to hell because we were living together. But luckily for us if we moved into seperate places, accepted Jesus as our savior (which I belive would require getting wet) came to his church and tived (if that`s right) we could not only use his church to get married but we wouldn`t be going to hell.

I stood up shook his hand and said…Thanks for seeing us and we`ll let you know. We got married in a rinky dink little church in Gardens but it took. So I don`t throw the same net over all Christians or Jews or Muslims or atheists. There is good and bad everything.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-09 12:58:24

Matthew 6:5-6: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 13:00:38

get all up in arms about some dude thanking Jesus.

for a touchdown…..

How is is phrased?

“Thank you Jesus for the 6 points. Please God, Please….bless us with the point after” ?

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 13:23:37

Matthew 6:5-6:

“….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”

How big is that closet?

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-20.htm - 27k -

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 13:44:41

How big is that closet?

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

And you just know that some real estate is going to say that the Lord wants you to have a walk-in closet. For praying in, of course.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 14:43:07

Rio after this I am done because I really don`t care, but it is funny that people who say things like…..

Modern Neo-Conservatism can be summed up like this:

One of us = good.
Anyone else = evil.

Get so upset by Tim Tebow and what he does.

“for a touchdown…..”

“How is is phrased?”

“Thank you Jesus for the 6 points. Please God, Please….bless us with the point after” ?

Critics often accuse Tebow of displaying a flawed theology, saying he expects worldly, football game type rewards for spirituality. However, some critics often overlook his humble acknowledgement of defeat that also accompanies a resolve to make corrections.

At a press conference after a Broncos loss to New England Patriots on Dec. 18, he said, “First and foremost I have to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ.”

On Dec. 24, when Broncos lost to the Buffalo Bills, Tebow tweeted, “Tough game today but what’s most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB².”

Meanwhile, Comedian Bill Maher continued mocking Tebow and Christians. Maher’s Christmas Eve tweet, “Wow, Jesus just [expletive deleted] #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler ‘Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,’” began the firestorm.

Last week, Maher posted photos on Twitter showing himself on one knee with his fist pressed to his forehead. In one photo, Maher is up in a tree, calling it “Treebowing” and wishing his followers a Happy New Year.

Tebow has not publicly addressed Maher, and continues quoting scripture and giving Bible verse addresses.
Just hours before the game on Sunday, he simply tweeted, “Jeremiah 9:24 GB².”

“GB²” is short for God bless and Go Broncos.

The verse states, “‘But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the LORD.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/do-tebows-losses-bring-him-down-to-earth-66149/ - 52k -

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 16:37:34

“Thank you Jesus for the 6 points. Please God, Please….bless us with the point after” ?

It would have been more like….

Thank you Jesus for the 6 points, we don`t need the extra point in an overtime playoff game.

 
 
Comment by measton
2012-01-09 10:52:24

Everybody does it. That’s one reason that no one has a monopoly on the truth

Which is the beauty of the blog. Plenty of people challenging your opinion and facts.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 23:12:43

“…they are good and the opposition is evil.”

I’m guessing Fox enjoys the same support from a Higher Power as does the Republican party, but that is just a guess.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-10 00:34:18

“…you just anger them and get persoanlly attacked for your troubles….”

And they all have the vote….

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-09 08:23:42

“Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Canada’s unemployment rate rose for a third month in December, the longest advance in two years, as a gain in jobs trailed growth of the labor force.

The jobless rate increased to 7.5 percent from November’s 7.4 percent and the recent low of 7.1 percent in September, Statistics Canada said today in Ottawa. Employment rose by 17,500, the first gain in three months. Over the past six months, the number of jobs has grown by 7,400, compared with a gain of 191,800 in the first half of 2011.

The labor market may stay stalled in 2012 with unemployment averaging 7.4 percent, according to a Bloomberg News survey of economists taken last month. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said “the news isn’t all good” in today’s report, speaking to reporters in Edmonton, Alberta.

“Job growth has cooled,” said Doug Porter, deputy chief economist with BMO Capital Markets in Toronto, by telephone. “I wouldn’t at all be surprised if we are averaging 10,000 jobs a month, which won’t cut into the unemployment rate at all” over the next six months, he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-09/canada-jobless-rate-rose-for-third-month-in-december-to-7-5-.html

I wonder if their unemployment numbers are gamed like ours are?

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 09:18:04

Interesting how “red hot” economies have highish UE rates.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 08:40:07

This site makes a case that about 6% of our Federal budget is spent on the welfare for the poor. Is 6% too much?

http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 08:54:55

This weekend, I think it was Reuters who reported that last year the Italian government had gone into a monied ski resort town and tracked down the owners of some pretty flashy vehicles. A very high percentage of them had reported little or no income to the government for taxation purposes. The article then went on to say that this year tax receipts from that area spiked as more people felt the need to follow the law.

Before we start kicking our poor out into the street I really feel we need to kick up the fraud and graft prevention ourselves.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 10:38:05

That’s just damn class warfare socialist commie talk, Carrie!

How dare you suggest the 1% should follow the law!

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 13:58:29

I don’t even think these people are 1%ers. They’re small business owners at the resorts. I’m thinking they’re like 80-85%ers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-09 14:19:55

The owners of Ferraris are 80-85%ers? (There’s that expression again- thank you, OWS.)

The article actually said there were two aspects to the ‘raids’. One checked ownership records of high-value cars in the area. It turned out many were owned by people claiming very low annual incomes. Another looked at tax-receipts (or the lack thereof) of some local businesses, and found great under-reporting there.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 08:57:39

How much do we spend on military (wel)fare and bombing people?

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 09:21:50

Total national defense is almost $1 trillion a year, or 27% of the budget.

That includes (going from memory so off a little probably) $725B direct DoD, $150B VA, $50B military pensions via income security, $20B nukes via Dept of Energy, $40B homeland security, i forget how much of State and foreign affairs is considered security vs. disaster and poverty assistance….

Other’s would add all of Dept of State and foreign affairs + about half the total interest on the debt, and come up with a figure closer to $1.3T a year being spent on national security.

Comment by scdave
2012-01-09 09:50:52

$1.3T a year being spent on national security ??

National ?? I would say its more like “world”….Protecting the world on our nickle…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 09:15:30

Is 6% too much?

It is for the rich.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2012-01-09 09:52:35

“It is for the rich.”

Agonie$ & Pain$…it is for the $uffering So’$!

Hurry, hurry, hurry, … they’ve been taxed-$lapped and can’t get up…Help ‘em!

 
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 09:16:21

This article makes one valid point in that there is no clear definition of what is and is not welfare. Is Social Security, “welfare”? Medicare? If Medicare is not because it goes to all elderly, not just the poor, then how about Medicaid? If Medicaid is but Medicare is not, then how about the portion of Medicaid that covers long-term care for the Medicare eligable?

This article seems to be focused just at ‘income security” super function. I correctly points out that much of this category is not specifically directed at the poor including things like military and other federal worker’s pensions, disability, etc, EITC, per child tax credit, etc.

It fails to look outside the income security super function for other “welfare” type programs. Medicaid is the big hitter of course, but there are also big items under education, health, etc.

But, let’s say it is 12%. Is 12% of the budget too much?

Let’s say there is a poor 7 year old kid with cancer. $100K treatment is likely to gain him… say 70 or 80 years. Oh, sorry, we can’t cover that because he’s not part of the AARP voter block. Make that a poor 70 year old person instead…. Same $100K treatment, but now we’re likely to get 10 years or less of life RoI. We cover the 70 year old, but not the 7 year old? How does that make ANY kind of economic sense?

Oh, right… it isn’t economics, it is politics. The 70 year old has the ubber powerful AARP protecting their coverage. The 7 year old has no PACs.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 09:20:15

This article makes one valid point in that there is no clear definition of what is and is not welfare. Is Social Security, “welfare”? Medicare?

If it included those programs it would be much more than 6% of the budget.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 09:38:48

Exactly. But, you will find many people, especially younger and richer, that would argue all “entitlements” including Social Security and Medicare are part of the “Cradle to the Grave, Liberal, Socialist, Welfare state”.

If we lump SS and MC in as welfare, along with Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, and the rest then we find that welfare jumps from 6-14% of the budget to more like $1.8T-1.9T, or 50% of the budget.

So,in that view the budget breaks down somethign like this:
50% SS, MC/C, welfare.
27% national secuirty (DoD, VA, military pensions, nukes, homeland security).
5% debt
3% non-military pensions, disability
2% justice
2% transportation
2% education
a bunch of little stuff that is 1% or less

Slice out elderly as a category seperate from welfare, $770B SS, $500B MC, and $75B of medicaid going to seniors for long-term care, but leave the rest of medicaid under Welfare, then the budget looks more like:
36% SS, MC, long-term care of elderly via Medicaid.
27% national secuirty (DoD, VA, military pensions, nukes, homeland security).
14% welfare, including Medicare excluding the long-term-care of elderly
5% debt
3% non-military pensions, disability
2% justice
2% transportation
2% education
a bunch of little stuff that is 1% or less

However, that only gives a snapshot in time, prior to Baby Boomer retirement.

Increase “care of elderly” by 60% as is projected over the next decade as the first half of the boomers retire and we get care of the elderly being 58% of this year’s budget.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 10:03:15

a bunch of little stuff that is 1% or less

This is where the deep cuts need to be made. Especially the out-of-control foreign aid component.

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 12:50:40

$700 billion was the Pentagon “base” budget for 2010, but it does not include a whole range of other U.S. military spending. Nuclear arms are part of the Energy Dept. budget.

The State Department’s budget is also largely military aid. Then there are all the military subcontractors who are not included in the DoD budget calculations.

The true cost for the U.S. military-related spending is estimated to hover around $1.5-2.0 trillions a year or more. If you include military sub-contractors and State Department in the equation, it tips heavily to “defense.”

All this was discussed at length here a year or so ago.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 09:28:45

I heard a curious thing on DC news radio yesterday. They had a realtor on who said that “they” would be selling all houses in DC “as-is”.

(DC or thereabouts - the language and location were vague - key indicators to set off my BS detectors)

I haven’t been able to find much about it on the internet. I don’t know if it’s just this guy touting this approach and pretending it’s some grand law change or what the story is.

Implications of such a thing are interesting. It would make it impossible to distinguish from the standard “as-is” - code for dilapidated - from regular homes. This would benefit sellers. The radio realtor’s casual tone and understated advocacy indicated he believed it would be good for sellers. I’ve heard them squeal when discussing regulations which might benefit buyers.

Just a data point.

(As a side note, the realtor suggested something that I thought was illegal. That when a home inspection is done and defects are found, the seller can then pay the buyer a set amount. Instead of just knocking it off the sales price. Because of course, knocking it off the sales price would reduce our hero’s commission and reduce comps. But isn’t this sort of shenanigan illegal?)

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 09:45:06

It is not illegal to give back cash considerations at closing, AS LONG AS, it is clearly spelled out in the closing documents and the funds are really going to be used for te intended purpose.

If you agree to buy the house for $200K, then discover it needs $10K of electical work, then the assumption is that the home’s value was based on the house with wothout the electrical problem. The assumption is that the $10k will be used to repair the house, and that will bring the house’s value back up to the appraised value that the loan is backed by.

What was illegal was to buy a $150K house for $250K, using an inflated appraisal, then kick-back $80K to the buyer without that being listed in the closing documents nor actually using the $80K to fix up the house.

Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 10:13:52

What was illegal was to buy a $150K house for $250K, using an inflated appraisal, then kick-back $80K to the buyer without that being listed in the closing documents nor actually using the $80K to fix up the house.

This is very interesting. You can have the same structure as an iillegal kickback:
1) Official price higher than legitimate sales price.
2) Money flows back to buyer so buyer on pays lower legit sales price.

But if you have the right paperwork signed, it’s not illegal.

I think this kind of very thin line invited abuse on Wall Street. If you just need a few pieces of paper to make the difference between a gargantuan commission and a pittance, what’s the harm? It’s downright stupid not to get the paperwork in order, if that’s all that stands in your way.

 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 09:46:53

I don’t think paying for repairs is illegal. When it comes to repairs, you have a couple of choices:

1) lower the total price by the cost of repairs. Sure, that’s ok, but it doesn’t really put money in your pocket to make the repairs, and is changing from $300k to $295 for $5k in repairs really gonna make a huge difference in your payment?

2) Have the seller do the repairs: The repairs cost $5k? My brother in law can fix that for $2.50, and we’ll spend an extra $97.50 covering it up with caulking to make it really hard for an inspector to get to. Haha suckers. $4900 straight back into my pocket, and I’ll be long gone before the consequences hit.

3) Give the buyer a negotiated amount of cash to fix it themselves once they purchase.

Which one would you choose?

And as for selling all houses as-is, the condition of the home is a negotiated part of the sale, and except in short sale/foreclosure cases (where the house is theoretically sold for less - though you can still negotiate for repairs) there is no reason for the seller to give away that negotiating point.

Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 09:48:19

*Buyer* to give away that negotiating point. I”m sure the seller would be happy to not be concerned about the condition of their house.

 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 09:59:48

1) lower the total price by the cost of repairs. Sure, that’s ok, but it doesn’t really put money in your pocket to make the repairs, and is changing from $300k to $295 for $5k in repairs really gonna make a huge difference in your payment?

This is a curious school of thought. So, I pay the seller 300K and they give me 5K, and that does “put money in my pocket”? Whereas just selling for 295 does not put money in my pocket?

FYI, the one that I would choose would be to reduce the price by the amount of the repairs.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-09 10:14:15

Unless you actually use the $5K for the repairs, don’t have the $5K laying around inthe bank after making a down, and can’t get a loan for that $5K as cheaply as the mortgage.

It is a game these days….

I want to sell for… say: $150K. I list for $160K hoping for an offer for $150K.

A buyer then bids $150K, contingent on the findings of an inspection…. the status of the house becomes “under contract” so Realtors stop showing it.

The buyer’s inspector comes up with a long-list of $10K wort of repairs that they want done. If you do not agree to do the repairs, they can walk from teh contract and you are starting back at step 0 looking for another buyer.

So, you start to negotiate…. you end up agreeing to $5K at closing so the buyer can do some of the repairs on your dime.

As-is, simply removes the contigency of the inspection from offers that will be considered. By labeling a house as-is, the seller is saying “don’t try this contigent on inspection, find a bunch of issues, BS game with me”.

Personally, I would never consider putting an offer down on an “as is” house whithout a top to bottom inspection first.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 10:51:39

But then you are out another $5k cash straight out for repairs, so you didn’t save anything. You could have a liquidity problem, you could need that for things the inspector didn’t find (in my experience with home buying, that covers 70% of repairs), you could need that because you car decided to break down, etc. Also, the useful life of a sewer pipe or furnace is measured in the dozens of years, so why not match the payments to the useful life?

In my opinion, being concerned about comps or a realtor’s commission at that point is sort of odd. If you are concerned about comps or a realtor’s commission, then you should just find a cheaper house, not try to stick it to them concerning repairs.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Avocado
2012-01-09 13:43:50

wha?? some one like Realtors?

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-09 14:01:18

“so why not match the payments to the useful life? ”

Because when you do that you have to pay more because you are compensating the lender for the value of having their money over time. That cost is likely to be way more than your opportunity cost by keeping the money.

A house is not an exercise in corporate finance where you are playing games with interest costs to maximize the profit you report to shareholders while minimizing the profit you report to the IRS. It is a house. If you don’t have the money to repair it, you might have to play this game. If you have the money, negotiate a lower price and pay for the repairs.

The idea is to maximize the money you get to keep while saving for retirement (and education, etc.) and having some emergency savings. It is a very different game than minimizing your taxes.

 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 15:14:46

Well, again, if you have $5 spare grand to fix all the problems with your example house along with a sizable emergency fund, then sling it out of your pocket. I also think if you have that for repairs, it sort of begs the question, why not keep paying more and more to lower your total mortage amount if that is your primary concern? What’s the cutoff point that liquidity wins out over some cost borne over a longer period? In my opinion, it’s somewhere between 20-30% down, but that’s just an opinion.

And I don’t believe that you can make the call that the opportunity cost is less. I’d like to see your math and assumptions on that. There are way too many variables to make that call. I’d say in most cases, rolling it into the mortage would give you the lowest rate and the most options, and if you want to pay it off early, you still can.

Assuming that all the other costs of home purchase are taken into account~ moving, new things, etc, I’d say an extra $25 a month over 30 years vs an immediate outlay of another $5000 seems pretty reasonable, even if I made the choice to pay the $5k down 6 months or a year later when things calmed down and life was back to normal.

Especially if my only reasoning was comps (who cares?) and that realtors are paid too much.

 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 15:25:48

And as an aside, I get that ‘match the payments to the useful life’ is for depreciation/taxing purposes in the corporate world, but I still think it’s a pretty good rule of thumb on what should and should not be financed in the regular people world too.

Should I put my groceries/vacation on the credit card and pay it off when I get my tax refund ? Only if the food/vacation is going to last for a year.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-09 16:14:28

Works for things that absolutely never should go on a credit card. Agree that you don’t want to still be paying for food that you ate 4 weeks or 4 months or 4 years ago.

I don’t see that the opposite applies. Why pay interest for something you could buy for cash? Unless you have cash flow problems (broadly defined) or investment opportunities that give you a guaranteed higher rate of return than the interest you will pay on the loan, it makes no sense.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-01-09 09:59:28

Not illegal and it’s actually done to benefit the buyer (in his mind, though it’s false). Say the buyer offers $200K and the inspection finds $10K of repairs will be needed. The buyer finances the full amount (or as much as the lender will allow), and the seller pays the buyer $10K directly so the buyer has the cash to make the repairs. Otherwise the buyer would have to come up with $10K additional cash after he moves in.

Of course those repairs end up costing several times more than $10K as the amount is amortized over many years.

The realtors split $12,000 in total commissions vs. $11,400. With that commission usually being split four ways (two realtors plus two broker companies) the extra $150 per entity is not a big deal.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 11:02:04

The value of the unrepaired defects as a way to chip away and wear out the seller is far greater the cost of the repairs. You really have to know what you’re talking about and come up with detailed estimates when it comes to this stuff but I can itemize a $5k punchlist without even trying.

I’ve often thought about this as a business model if I were to get laid off. “Inspect” houses while truly representing the buyer. I throttle the sale price down $50k for the buyer on the basis of defects I punchlist and collect a percentage of it. Say 5% of the difference between ask and sale price. “Buyers Reconstruction Consultant”?

Comment by polly
2012-01-09 14:48:11

So, the first line in all your advertising is:

Every Realtor in [name of town] hates me.

?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 17:27:51

Who give a crap about Iying reaItors? Isn’t that the issue here Polly?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 09:52:11

The Obama administration, in conjunction with federal regulators and led by the overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is very close to announcing a pilot program to sell government-owned foreclosures in bulk to investors as rentals, according to administration officials.

There currently are about a quarter of a million foreclosed properties on the books of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and millions more are coming.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:17:12

Here in Tucson, we have a 16% rental vacancy rate. So, putting more houses into the rental pool isn’t going to solve anything. Unless, of course, you’re selling those “for rent” signs down at the Ace Hardware.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 11:19:47

Wait for the Mexodus to restart.

Out here it’s actually noticeable that the illegals have been moving on. On the rare ocassions when I enter a WalMart I see very few of them. They were legion just a few years ago.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 11:54:29

Same thing’s happening here in Arizona. That’s one reason for Tucson’s high rental vacancy rate. And you can trace it back to the real reason, and that is our job market. It stinks out loud.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Jinglemale
2012-01-09 23:17:58

In Sacramento suburbs east of town rental availability is very tight. Beacon Economics point is CA did not overbuild, just oversold. It is so hard to build housing in CA they could not outrun need. Now that prices have reset, the big problem is inventory availability.

 
 
Comment by measton
2012-01-09 10:59:46

This must mean we are nearing the bottom.

Step 1 - Banks lend like crazy to anyone driving up real estate prices. CEO’s profit.

Step 2 - FED bails out banks and WS CEO”S, pumps them full of cheap cash, and gov buys up worthless real estate for 99 cents on the dollar.

Step 3 - Gov bundles real estate and sells it back to WS elite at 40 cents on the dollar, they loan them the money at 0% interest, and they put in a guarantee that they won’t loose money as long as elite don’t sell houses into the market. You’ll notice that they aren’t planning on selling these to the public only to the elite.

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 11:52:27

It was 6 years to bottom of the S&L disaster.

We’re only 5 years into this one.

And it DWARFS the S&L mess.

Comment by JingleMale
2012-01-10 07:48:08

The peak in Sacramento occured December 2005. We are into the cycle 6 years, going on 7 and there are signs we have been on a relatively flat bottom for about 3 years. It is turning up a bit and I bet you see solid signs of recovery in 2012…..right after the Superbowl.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-09 23:17:00

“…a pilot program to sell government-owned foreclosures in bulk to investors as rentals, according to administration officials.”

That sounds just like a big part of the recommendations in the newly-released Fed white paper. How did the White House so quickly manage to digest and voice support for a key policy proposal in the independent Fed’s brand new white paper?

 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-09 10:09:10

I had a discussion recently with some acquaintances. I wondered about the usefulness of a buyer’s agent, especially since that adds another middleman who has to be paid and adds to the cost of the house.

The standard response is, “Oh, don’t worry about that, the seller pays both their commissions.”

Which always amuses me. Pays them with what? Money that I provide. The seller distributes the money to both agents (which is illustrative about who the agents are really working for).

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 10:21:27

I used a buyer’s agent when I bought the Arizona Slim Ranch. I wouldn’t use him again on a bet.

Why not? Because of the home inspector he so strongly recommended. What that guy didn’t find cost me around $3k to fix. And, when I discovered the first of these problems, guess who dropped me like a hot rock? The buyer’s agent, that’s who.

In retrospect, I should have realized that the inspector would be sending a kickback to the agent. And I should have hired my own inspector. I even knew one of the most respected ones in town.

Oh, well. Live and learn — and pay $3k in tuition while doing so.

Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-09 10:40:42

I used a buyer’s agent when I relocated to WA. I feel it was worth it. She was prompt, courteous, professional, and really knew what we were looking for through innumerable correspondences. Plus, they were pretty tech savvy (imo) and gave us a pretty comprehensive idea of what neighborhoods we wanted and those we should stay away from. Was it worth the eight grand in fees? Probably not. But through their (there was a team of a few of them) help, we found a house in one day. If I knew the town or area, however, I don’t see how much value they would add, other than driving you around in their shiny Lexus SUV for a day.

Now our selling agent was a total cheeseball, and cost us a couple grand in something he overlooked in the contract (can’t recall what – this was back in 2003). But he was a discounted 2% broker, so I guess you get what you pay for. If I did that again, I would go FSBO, consider paying the buyer’s agent fee, and list the house on MLS.

Hopefully I won’t be selling for a long time.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 11:17:18

What that guy didn’t find cost me around $3k to fix.

So many incompetent people made out like bandits during the bubble. A lot of them were very smug, but they also blew what they made (because it would go on forever). Every now and then I encounter oneof them now working at Home Depot or WalMart.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 11:56:51

Funny you should mention incompetent people, ’cause I don’t think this home inspector is in business anymore. As for the really reputable guy I should have used? He’s still around.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 12:04:10

Maybe this works differently in different areas of the country but I’ve bought homes in 2 states and as you know have tried to buy a 3rd. LOL Either the seller’s agent collects the entire commission (although they do split it w/their brokers) which for us locally is 7%. If there is a buyer’s agent involved, she/he’ll collect 3 1/2% and the seller’s agent will collect 3 1/2%. There are no saved costs when you don’t use a buyer’s agent.

 
Comment by Anon In DC
2012-01-09 17:09:27

This is the exact argument I use against freespending progressives (liberals) who always want to tax business. Where do they think business get their money? Taxes are overheard like rent, salaries, etc.. and get built into the prices. But some still don’t get it.

Comment by Anon In DC
2012-01-09 17:15:15

Then again these are the same folks who think things from the government are free. Guess it almost is for the 50% of the people who pay no federal income tax. Time to raise taxes. Those who do pay ought to be giving a free ride to at least 75% of the people.

 
 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2012-01-09 10:17:11

Fed Identifies Markets Primed for Bulk REO-to-Rental Programs
http://www.dsnews.com/articles/fed-identifies-markets-primed-for-bulk-reo-to-rental-programs-2012-01-05

Cactus-Thank you.

Comment by cactus
2012-01-09 14:26:54

if the government sells to certain investors who make sure they can get Section 8 government rent subsidies ..

the buddy system. Probably not comming to simi valley any time soon though. This is “indian reservation thinking” moving chronicaly under employed to “reservations nobody wants “Like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Sacramento, etc.” all being managed by investors who have bought the excess homes “cheap ” but with a noble purpose to house poor unlucky Americans.

Curious lots of deserts towns where over built that could fare poorly if the drought continues.

 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 10:29:13

If one’s blood isn’t boiling enough over the role of unprosecuted fraud in the housing bubble, one could read the account of WMC Mortgage Corp, owned by GE:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/06/7802/fraud-and-folly-untold-story-general-electric-s-subprime-debacle

“Twenty-something salespeople with little education or mortgage experience ran the show, he says. They pulled in $250,000 to $350,000 a year while sales managers made $1 million or $2 million, thanks to generous production bonuses and the network of independent mortgage brokers that fed the lender business.”

“We had ex-strippers working there,” Argueta says. “The whole point was to have someone attractive to talk to the brokers. One of the salespeople did porn before she worked there. When someone told me that, I couldn’t believe it. Then I saw the video and I realized it was true.”

“I have an ethical problem with covering things up,” Riedel says. Given a chance, he adds, he’d be willing to talk to the FBI about what he uncovered during his time at WMC. The feds should be turning over rocks, he believes, across the mortgage industry. People who committed or condoned fraud and helped crash the economy, he says, need to be held accountable.

“I can’t tell you who broke the law and who should or shouldn’t go to jail,” he says. “But I can tell you that these people should have to answer to somebody about what happened.”

Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-09 11:03:33

I like this comment (though an isult to dogs):
“Corporations are more like dogs than people. When one starts to run and bark and slobber, they all do, chasing squirrels, mail men, cars.. It’s a pack mentality, and when some are getting rich on the new criminal innovations, the others just see them getting rich and it makes them slobber. There’s no mystery here; corporations are profit driven and their internal structures are skewed to promote that, not ethical behavior. If they were people, they’d be feral children raised by wolves.”

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 11:18:05

Corporations are more like dogs than people.

Good point. (but dogs are people).

 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-09 11:31:19

“If they were people, they’d be feral children raised by wolves.”

That reminds me of my favorite quote from last week - “We are a nation of sheep being led by a coalition of pigs.”

 
 
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-09 10:35:21

Anyone see this from ecofeco’s post yesterday?

“What is the one major similarity here to the RE market?”

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/3856684

Holy moly!

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 10:53:18

Sell them or close them? Close them “pending sale”? Is this temporary “pending sale”? Who would buy a used refinery to close it?

Sunoco and ConocoPhillips have recently proposed the sale of three refineries in southeastern Pennsylvania that account for more than half of the Northeast’s refining capacity.
…….ConocoPhillips said it would idle its Trainer refinery pending its sale,

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 11:12:17

ConocoPhillips said it would idle its Trainer refinery pending its sale

Which is why free market forces do not apply in the gasoline market.

 
 
Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-09 11:30:50

I was under the impression that the existing refineries were already producing perilously close to capacity throughout the US. I understand that they closed earlier than expected in my recent trip to Philly (originally supposed to close in September). I think like 700 decent-paying jobs will be lost.

In Peak Oil circles, we always used to discuss how new refineries did not pencil due to the huge CapEx and reduced supply of lighter-grade oil to make them viable long-term projects. Then there’s the NIMBY factor…

The thought of the refinery smell on those ninety-degree summer mornings will always evoke fond memories from my living there in the eighties.

 
Comment by measton
2012-01-09 12:01:56

My guess is that it’s a good time to buy an electric car if you live in the North East. Although that market is manipulated as well, but as solar panel prices fall at some point you can just throw up panels and guarantee your electric rate for 30 years.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 12:33:17

Although that market is manipulated as well, but as solar panel prices fall at some point you can just throw up panels and guarantee your electric rate for 30 years.

And that’s when Yours Truly pops for putting solar panels up the roof at the Arizona Slim Ranch.

Comment by ecofeco
2012-01-09 19:14:17

Better not wait.

Do research and install now.

Efficiency and longevity now make it competitive with the grid in almost 90% of the country, right now!

But even more important is having total control over your own power. It doesn’t get more “individual power and freedom” than that.

That’s REAL liberty.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2012-01-09 19:16:30

Weird. Oil is what this country runs on and yet nobody had a single comment regarding the proven, outright manipulation of the market that I’ve been talking about for years.

Oh well… we truly have the government we deserve.

Comment by ahansen
2012-01-10 01:15:30

Um, I did…do…will continue to. (Maybe in an earlier thread?)
Don’t despair eco. It will occur to some more of us when US kids start dying in Iran. Maybe.

 
 
 
Comment by irmaron
2012-01-09 10:48:39

I know what I would do but just curious where the others stand in 2012.

Poser: you have been renting since you sold in 2004 and are in no hurry to buy at this time. Your wife starts the new year by wanting to go house hunting over your protests, but you agree to keep peace in the family. For seven years you could not find anything that has met your basic requirements:
1. Location
2. Pre 1998, quality construction (2000-2500sq.ft)
3. Turn key, 20+ year roofing, custom design, public water, sewer
4. lg. lot, 3+ bd, lg. kitchen, 3 car garage
5. no HOA
6. affordable payment

And then you find something that fits every one of your criteria (except $40 HOA fee, gated area). Do you bid high, do you put in a one time bid only, do you walk away and wait for rates to drop further?

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 10:50:57

Offer 50% of asking. Yes I’m serious.

Comment by irmaron
2012-01-09 13:25:23

Here in Salinas in areas I don’t want to be or want the house I could get 50% off and would get the offer accepted. Where I am talking about the 1991 pricing plus inflation to 1998 would equal bid pricing and doesn’t account for upgrades and additions.

Comment by Avocado
2012-01-09 13:49:18

If you have job security, go for it at 90% offer.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 22:06:55

And how do you know you can’t get the house you want @ 50% of asking?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 11:10:06

On the “disturbed vet” meme……..

JMO, but most of the “disturbed vets” in our family were fooked up even before they joined the military. Back in 2004-2006, the policy of giving “troubled youth” the option of going to the Army, or going to jail, was in full force. (Seems that even out here in the reddest of Red States, nobody want’s to join the “real” Army when there is an actual chance your azz might get shot).

Add to them the kids that thought they were enlisting to learn a skill, like diesel repair, or truck driving. Too bad nobody explained to them that in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the truck drivers and construction equipment operators were at the tip of the spear, like the infantry. Or that, once you’ve signed the papers, your azz is going where the military needs you to go. Realtors start their OJT working as military recruiters.

It’s part of our history. 20% of Custer’s men at the Little Bighorn had been in the Army less than 7 months, many had never fired a rifle, and many couldn’t speak English. During the Civil War, the Union’s movers and shakers could pay some poor schlub to go in their place. In late 1944-early 1945, infantry replacements were found by stripping Army Air Force ground support, and other service units, of their men deemed most “expendable” Currently, our officer class is filled with guys from the Flyover states, with miniscule representation from the Ivy League, or any of the other “elite” Universities.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 11:30:18

During the Civil War, the Union’s movers and shakers could pay some poor schlub to go in their place.

As they can now….

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 11:51:05

Same as it ever was? Except maybe for a short time in the 40s?

Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 14:39:41

And in WW I. A lot of Ivy Leagers volunteered to be pilots. Some of them actually paid for their own flight training.

Many Admirals and Generals lost sons in WWII.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 15:16:30

And recall that Teddy Roosevelt’s son, Quentin, was shot down in WWI.

 
 
 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 11:51:22

Currently, our officer class is filled with guys from the Flyover states, with miniscule representation from the Ivy League, or any of the other “elite” Universities.

This is only anecdotal but I seem to run into a fair number of families that are very proud to have their kids accepted at West Point or the Naval Academy. The kids and their families are both pretty accomplished.

I do agree w/your troubled youth comment though. In our extended family there was a youth with an attempted suicide in his background. The service that was wooing him knew that but showed up at the doorstep at least once a week. Once in the service the depression deepened. His stories were that his CO told him to go out and get sh*tfaced as a way to work things out. So on top of depression he also became a binge drinker. We used to brace ourselves for one of those phone calls no family wants to ever get despite no combat duty ever. It was the early 90s when he enlisted.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 12:00:25

One of the smartest guys I know is an Air Force veteran. He has both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in English, which opened a lot of military career doors, and he served in the fighter pilot corps. Helluva nice person too. Hope to see him, his wife, and their dogs this evening.

Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 12:06:40

Yeah, they don’t let you take those pretty jets out for a ride unless you’ve got 1/2 a brain on your shoulders.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 12:35:26

My friend has told me what it was like to fly the F-15 Eagle. Running all the controls on the yoke was called “playing the piccolo.” And that was just the yoke. There were other things you had to be aware of/keep an eye out for.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 13:35:15

Yeah, they don’t let you take those pretty jets out for a ride unless you’ve got 1/2 a brain on your shoulders.

You need to be smart AND you need to absolutely positively be willing to cheerfully do what you’re told no matter how stupid or bad the order. I didn’t have a full understanding of that part when I joined.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 13:47:04

You need to be smart AND you need to absolutely positively be willing to cheerfully do what you’re told no matter how stupid or bad the order. I didn’t have a full understanding of that part when I joined.

And that’s precisely the reason why my dad resigned his commission as a naval officer. He just wasn’t into taking orders from stupid people.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 14:08:43

What’s the difference between a pilot, and a jet engine?

At the end of the flight, the engine quits whining.

 
 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 12:55:29

Please explain how a “helluva” nice person can drop bombs and fire incendiary rockets on villages from 30,000′ knowing that the people living in them will be incinerated?

Maybe he talked to the chaplain first and was told that Jesus was okay with it?

Puhleeze.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-09 13:03:57

he talked to the chaplain first and was told that Jesus was okay with it

But what if Jesus was too busy helping the Broncos score a touchdown?

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 13:07:08

He was never in combat. He served from 1973 to 1997, and his unit wasn’t called up for the Gulf War in 1990-91.

As for the Jesus reference, he’s an atheist. Has been since the age of 13.

 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 13:23:47

The fact that he was never in combat does not negate that that’s what he signed up to do and abetted with his “service.”

I imagine the heroes who push the buttons on the drone controls rationalize it the same way.

Have a nice dinner.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 14:22:55

Contrary to opinion on this blog, we actually drop an occasional bomb on some people that richly deserve it.

In war, there is nothing wrong with maximizing your opponents casualties, while minimizing your own.

Our current problem is that we’ve done such a good job minimizing our casualties, the pain threshold (and the disincentive) for getting involved in shooting wars is way too low. And this says nothing about how much is spent to minimize casualties.

Is there anyone out there that thinks we would have invaded Iraq if the DOD said the cost would be 50,000 KIA, and x 4 wounded?

I’m a contrarian. I think the Iranians should get some nukes, the more, the better. Notice how we haven’t started any all out shooting wars with nuke armed governments since 1945? Our government is full of BS about everything. But we believe them when they say Iran is a threat?

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-09 15:00:32

If Al Gore had been president of the US and 9/11 had still happened (he had been involved in of some of the Clinton administration tracking of Al Queda so might have paid more attention to the “determined to attack the US” memo), we would never have invaded Iraq. And when the military leadership had asked for pretty much all the special forces to be sent to Tora Bora when that is where Bin Laden and his best buddies were still living, he would have sent them instead of saying they were busy gathering intel for the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan would have taken less than 2 years and Iraq would never have happened.

Yes, elections matter.

 
Comment by Anon In DC
2012-01-09 17:23:50

Maybe because winning the war saves more lives. See Truman and the atomic bombs.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2012-01-09 19:19:13

But polly, Al Gore WAS elected.

But elections don’t matter when it comes to coup d tat.

 
Comment by Bronco
2012-01-09 21:05:38

based on popular vote, yes. based on our current electoral system, no he wasn’t.

 
 
 
Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-09 12:26:00

A friend of mine, whose son is in the Army, was telling me of how overwhelmed the VA services will be once these vets return back to the states and need to settle back into ‘normal’ lives. I was talking to someone with mild PTSD - not bad enough to require serious treatment, but enough to show up on his health records as a black mark against hiring. I wonder how many with PTSD will go untreated? Or other long-term complications of these engagements that have yet to surface?

Comment by Avocado
2012-01-09 13:51:52

More Bush expenses not factored in.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 13:09:08

In my small rural village, kids were called to duty with touring monster trucks, shiny buses full of flashing video games, be-ribboned “heroes” at school assemblies, and weekly personal phone calls from recruiters. Many of them thought they were signing up for a scholarship program. Many more took one look at the $20K signing bonus and envisioned a new truck, or new roof for mom’s house.

The community joined in with patriotic rodeos and “military appreciation days.” The church pastor extolled the virtue of America’s “patriots” in his weekly sermons. These poor kids never had a chance.

Out of eleven kids in my son’s eight grade graduating class, two were killed within the first year of their enlistment, another one had half his brain blown off. J—– just sits at his mom’s house tweaking. After the second funeral, the pastor finally shut up.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-09 15:06:35

When daughter #was 2 graduating from HS we had a military recruiter call. I told him to leave my kids alone.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 15:17:42

I got one of those calls too. My mother voiced her very strong approval to my continuing the conversation. So I didn’t.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 12:03:47

Serenity Now, Serenity Now

I CAN`T TAKE IT!

Robert Palmer
Bad Case Of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor)

Wooah

A Deadbeat delight, rent they don`t sweat
I can`t find a new shack yet
I need you, to let it crash
Cause Benny I`m runnin out of cash

Ben Bernanke give me the news
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues
No plan’s gonna cure my ill
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues

Low interest rates no money down
They`re living free, all over town
Stop that press, you little man
Hey buddy, I don`t want a workout plan

Ben Bernanke give me the news
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues
No plan’s gonna cure my ill
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues

Wooah

I know you like it, when prices don`t drop
Tell me Benny are you gonna stop

You got me down, 21 to zip
Smile of Judas on your lip
Shake my fist, knock on wood
I’ve got it bad like the Deadbeats should

Ben Bernanke give me the news
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues
No plan’s gonna cure my ill
I’ve got a bad case of Deadbeat blues

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-09 12:29:02

http://www.chron.com/business/article/Insurers-profit-from-health-law-they-bitterly-2446764.php

“Insurance companies spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the U.S. health care overhaul, saying it would raise costs and disrupt coverage. Instead, profit margins at the companies widened to levels not seen since before the recession, a Bloomberg Government study shows.

Insurers led by WellPoint, the biggest by membership, recorded their highest combined quarterly net income of the past decade after the law was signed in 2010, said Peter Gosselin, the study author and senior health-care analyst for Bloomberg Government.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health-Care Index rose 36 percent in the period, four times more than the S&P 500.

“The industry that was the loudest, most persistent critic of this law, the industry whose analysts and executives predicted it would suffer immensely because of the law, has thrived,” Gosselin said. “There is a shift to government work under way that is going to represent a fundamental change in their business model.”

So will the insurance companies now lobby to save Obamacare?

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 12:38:11

I just sent a rate hike rejection notice to my health “insurer.” Also copied a trio of political bloggers in on it. Likewise, two of my state legislators, one of whom I’ve already e-mailed (and he sounded very interested in his reply), and my U.S. Representative.

I’ll keep you posted!

Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 13:32:49

Slim, are you sure you want to be cancelled? Please have an alternative lined up. Weirdness happens, and when it does, you don’t want to be stuck with Medicaid.

I admire your courage– wish I had to gonads to follow suit. If Giffords is your rep, you may actually get a response. Mine, alas, is in the pocket of Big Everything.

Good luck!

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 13:51:18

If they cancel me, I’m going to use my design skills and make a Certificate of Liberation — meaning that I’ll be liberated from their monthly taking of my money. The certificate will be suitable for framing. And I’ll send it to them as I post a copy on the political blog that I just joined.

As for my rep, it’s not Giffords. It’s Raul Grijalva, and I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to reply. His office’s constituent service is nowhere near as good as Giffords’.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Elanor
2012-01-09 16:13:31

Slim, have you looked at catastrophic coverage from our mutual alma mater? I don’t know if you have to join the Alumni Association to get it. It’s cheap and (I hope) would pay out in the event of the unthinkable happening.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 16:36:23

Slim, have you looked at catastrophic coverage from our mutual alma mater?

There is such a thing? Who offers it?

 
 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 13:48:58

After taking over a large visible project from his boss and getting kudoes for it from his co-workers, my husband’s first paycheck is $85 lower than his last one in December. He gets 2 a month so that’s $160/mo. Some of that is a sizable jump in insurance cost, some are changes in tax laws.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2012-01-09 19:20:52

Good catch, H2bH.

I was going to post this yesterday, but forgot.

 
Comment by SDGreg
2012-01-10 04:48:17

This is the year that cost control measures of the ACA kick in, i.e. 80 to 85 percent of the premiums must go to providing care. If not, a refund must be issued. The percentage of premiums going to insurance company overhead is going to have to come down whether premiums go up or not.

Is there some angle the insurance companies are trying to play here trying to get certain customers to quit just before they’d get cheaper premiums (via refunds in some cases)?

 
 
Comment by rusty
2012-01-09 12:46:14

Islamic terrorists in Tampa, now is a good time to buy here!

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 13:28:33

I have a question: Are any of the online trading brokers safe? I was thinking of opening an account with E-Trade, or something similar, but I’m really skeptical (peak Ponzi). Like, for instance, I decide I want to buy a stock, but E-Trade (or the like), buys it in their name (or worse takes my money and doesn’t facilitate the trade), then shows under my account with them that I own it, only they go BK down the road and I find that the stock was never in my name, but theirs, and I lose everything. Is this something that happens? Do I actually get a stock certificate? I’m not sure how these companies work, and I’m just looking for an access point to make my own investments. Any suggestions?

Comment by Avocado
2012-01-09 13:54:56

You sound way to scared to trade on your own. Etrade is as safe as any brokerage firm. Not sure I would be a bull now.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 14:08:41

I am not scared of the market, I don’t trust those who broker the trades. I’m very confident in what I want to invest in.

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 14:10:45

PS- My question was not about the health of the stock market, and whether or not this is a good time to invest. I am questioning, in the wake of the MF Globals of the world, the legitimacy of these online brokerages, and their capacity to abscond with all of my money.

 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 14:13:21

No it is not something that happens. I agree with Avocado, you don’t sound ready for self-directed trading if the brokerage going bankrupt is one of your major concerns. It’s much more worrying (and much more likely) that the invesment you pick will not make any money, or will not make a decent return.

I recommend Vanguard (www.vanguard.com) as a low cost, safe alternative. They have bond, stock, and money market accounts offering mutual funds that are supposed to match the market depending on the fund chosen.

And to answer your question, no you don’t get a stock certificate. It’s in your name, but they don’t produce those those anymore because of the volume traded, everything is digital.

And to thirdly answer your question, I’ve used etrade, Ameritrade, and Bank of America, and couldn’t really tell a difference between them. I currently have ameritrade.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 14:16:23

I appreciate the info. I’m don’t see how a healthy skepticism for brokerages translates into “don’t sound ready for self-directed trading.” I feel very confident in what I want to buy, just not in those who I have to entrust to handle the purchase.

Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 14:38:57

Because all the concerns you posted are half truths propogated by nuts on the internet who have no idea how things actually work.

How about charles schwab? they cost a bit more, but have been around since the ’70s, so it’s safe to say they are actually investing customers’ money, and not throwing crazy parties or whatever. they have phone advisors and some branches if you need to choke somebody.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-09 14:20:01

Oh, and you can tell if a stock is in your name, because ownership conveys the option to vote in proxy elections for board members for the stocks you own. I suppose they could fake all that, but I’m not sure what the value would be, unless you have many billions of dollars.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-09 15:19:06

I recommend Vanguard (www.vanguard.com) as a low cost, safe alternative. They have bond, stock, and money market accounts offering mutual funds that are supposed to match the market depending on the fund chosen.

I second the Vanguard recommendation. One of the truly good companies in a rotten industry. And Vanguard founder Jack Bogle has plenty of scorn to heap on the industry. (I like Jack.)

 
 
Comment by Anon In DC
2012-01-09 17:29:17

Have used Ameritrade for 10 or 12 years. Very happy with them. The online like offline accounts are Fed insured up to $500K I think. But don’t quote me.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-09 22:21:31

+1 for TD ameritrade.

 
 
 
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-09 13:49:16

What Michael Moore couldn’t do…
What MoveOn wouldn’t do…

Newt Gingrich’s ScorchedEarth Productions in association with Karl Rove StrikesAgain presents:

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town.” (Trailer now on YouTube.)

This summer is gonna be SOOOOOO MUCH FUN!

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 14:01:13

My prediction is that it’s over by spring and Mitt is the nominee. What I will find amusing is the whiplash that will come from Mitt being attacked for not enough/wrong religion in the spring, to being attacked for too much religion this summer and fall. It makes more sense to attack him as a corporate raider IMO, but I don’t expect that to be the primary focus once it’s him versus Obama. Not saying I expect religion to be brought up by Obama himself…more from the atheist wing of the left.

Comment by butters
2012-01-09 14:52:41

Not saying I expect religion to be brought up by Obama himself…more from the atheist wing of the left.

I have had the same thoughts. Romney is despised by the evangelicals, but so far they have done a good job of not bringing religion in to the mix. Sure few wackos have compared Mormonism to a cult and asserted that Mormons are not Christians, but largely it’s been about Romeny being not “conservative” enough. Like you, I see that the citizens of America will get a Mormonism 101 in the summer or Fall if Romney is the nominee. DNC and MSM will make sure every child in America knows abut the magic underwear.

 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-09 14:13:30

I don’t think Romney is electable.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-09 14:29:27

In the general? He would appear to be very electable in the primary. And I would be curious about what would make him electable in the primary and not in the general…?

I would think that the things most likely to make him unelectable in the general would also make him unelectable in the primary.

Comment by butters
2012-01-09 15:21:18

Dead voters in Chicago?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-09 15:22:13

I for one would like to give this guy some credit, at least he made a $500 down payment.

Muslim man from Kosovo charged in Fla. bomb plot

By TAMARA LUSH The Associated Press
Updated: 5:06 p.m. Monday, Jan. 9, 2012
Posted: 11:33 a.m. Monday, Jan. 9, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — A Kosovo-born Muslim man was charged with plotting to attack crowded locations around Tampa, including nightclubs and a sheriff’s office, with a car bomb, assault rifle and other explosives, federal authorities said Monday.

According to a federal complaint, 25-year-old Sami Osmakac recorded an eight-minute video shortly before his arrest explaining why he wanted to bring terror to his “victims’ hearts” in the Tampa Bay area. Osmakac is a naturalized American citizen born in Kosovo, then part of the former Yugoslavia in eastern Europe.

In the video, Osmakac is seen cross-legged on the floor with a pistol in his hand and an AK-47 behind him. Osmakac said in the video that Muslim blood was more valuable than that of people who do not believe in Islam, according to the complaint. He said he wanted “payback” for wrong that was done to Muslims, the complaint said.

The area’s Muslim community helped provide authorities with information, said Steve Ibison, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Tampa division.

“This case is not about the Muslim religion and it’s not about the Muslim community,” Ibison said. “It’s about an individual who committed a crime.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli ordered Osmakac held without bail. If convicted on the single count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, Osmakac could face life in prison.

Osmakac was arrested Saturday — the day officials said he was planning his attack — after he allegedly bought explosive devices and firearms from an undercover agent. The firearms and explosives were disabled by law enforcement before the sale.

Osmakac lived with his parents in a tan stucco home in Pinellas Park, Fla., a small city west of Tampa. He worked occasionally at the Balkan Food Store and Bakery in St. Petersburg, a small store owned by his parents.

On Monday, a man identifying himself as Osmakac’s older brother was at the store. He would not give The Associated Press his name but said his brother was innocent.

“It’s all made up,” the man said. “I don’t believe it.”

According to the federal report, Osmakac walked into the source’s business looking for al-Qaida flags. The confidential source then hired Osmakac and was in constant contact with federal officials and audio or video taped their conversations.

Two months later, the federal complaint said, Osmakac and the confidential source discussed and identified potential targets in Tampa that Osmakac wanted to attack.

Osmakac allegedly asked the source for help getting firearms and explosives for the attacks, and the source put him in touch with an undercover FBI employee.

On Dec. 21, Osmakac met with the undercover agent and allegedly told the agent that he wanted to buy an AK-47-style machine gun, Uzi submachine guns, high capacity magazines, grenades and an explosive belt. During a later meeting, Osmakac gave the agent a $500 down payment for the items.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2012-01-09 17:22:06

Riddle me this…….

Business says that they always pass along increases in taxes/labor/materials on to their customers.

If this is true, why are they always complaining about the cost of taxes/labor/materials?

And why do price increases always get passed on as higher prices, but any savings they create/stumble into are NEVER reflected in MSRP?

My former employer isn’t charging any less for their bizjets, even though a bunch of the content is now made in Meh-hicco.

Comment by Anon In DC
2012-01-09 17:36:43

Because they rather sell 10 gallons of gas at $1 each (no tax) than 5 gallons of gas at $2 each because of a gas tax of $1 a gallon.
Uncle Sam is silent partner who always gets paid.

Saving do get factor into the price. Look at the cost of cell phones, computers, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you houses.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-09 19:22:42

http://news.yahoo.com/housing-market-blooms-cuban-provinces-194931829.html

Suzanne has been spotted researching real estate in Cuba.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 20:28:20

Comments about closures of Friendly’s restaurant from

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2012/01/friendlys_closes_5_restaurants_in_albany.html

sigman40

“Greg, You really should do a story on what is happening at the Friendly’s Head Quarters. It is as of today Jan. 9th called Friendly Ice Cream LLC. All employees had to fill out new forms and are considered new hires. People who have a pension with the company can’t get an answer on how much money is in the pension fund. Sun Capital Partners is doing a job on the company and its sad that employees with 20,30,and 40 years of service are going to be screwed.”

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 21:38:40

The system has got to be close to capitulation. This is just nuts. And isn’t the FHA rumored to be ready to ask taxpayers for a bail-out? Maybe they’d be better off getting some paying customers in those homes!

Homeowners who lose their jobs will be able to skip payments on loans backed by Freddie Mac for up to a full year under a new policy taking effect Feb. 1 at the mortgage finance giant.

The change, doubling the forbearance extended to the unemployed, squares Freddie Mac’s policies with those that its sister company, Fannie Mae, adopted in September 2010. The two firms, operating under government conservatorship since nearly melting down three years ago, own or guarantee more than half of all U.S. mortgages.

The other pillar propping up the mortgage market, the Federal Housing Administration, also began providing a full year’s forbearance as of last summer on the low-down-payment loans that it backs.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0107-freddie-loans-20120107,0,3769966.story

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2012-01-09 21:50:46

More MF Global fall-out:

CME Shares Keep Falling In After-Hours; Is Breakup On The Table?

Last week, the New York Times reported that regulators investigating MF Global’s collapse had widened their inquiry to CME, whose exchanges were used by MF Global. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission has been probing the disappearance of some $1.2 billion in customer funds from MF Global. Now, it’s reportedly looking into the CME’s actions in the days before the Wall Street firm’s filing for bankruptcy on Oct. 31. The Chicago-based CME Group owns the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade and the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Also last week, the NYSE Euronext’s (NYX) fledgling U.S. futures exchange announced it would launch a new type of interest-rate futures contract in coming months, ramping up competition with CME.

This afternoon, FOX Business Network’s Charlie Gasparino reported that “a breakup of the CME is on the table” as the firm’s executives face increasing scrutiny over their involvement in the collapse of MF Global.

Gasparino said that a breakup of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in theory would make “the regulation arm of the CME tougher on member firms like MF Global.”

The CME responded by saying “the system did not fail, the firm did by breaking the law,” according to Gasparino.

http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2012/01/09/cme-shares-fall-in-after-hours-is-breakup-on-the-table/?mod=BOLBlog

 
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