January 11, 2012

Bits Bucket for January 11, 2012

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




RSS feed

286 Comments »

Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 03:25:55

23% of the way to President Paul!!

Comment by unc
2012-01-11 04:18:23

Romney Zombies

Comment by palmetto
2012-01-11 05:25:12

Sometimes I wonder if these results aren’t pre-ordained. Romney will NEVER be president of the US unless there’s some severe rigging done.

I can’t wait to get a phone call from some RNC shill about voting for Romney. Am I ever going to give them what-for. I’m going to reduce them to roach turds. And I’m going to be adamant about how I’m voting for Paul anyway.

Paul has a LOT of supporters here in Florida and yet Romney’s supposed to be a forgone conclusion in the state. Maybe he thinks he deserves it for having his nose stuck firmly up Jeb’s posterior for year.

Comment by Surfitall
2012-01-11 07:22:33

I totally disagree. Romney is the least objectionable for all the moderates and even liberals. Don’t get me wrong, they won’t vote for Romney, but left leaning moderates and many liberals won’t vote at all this year because of the disappointment with Obama. They will vote for Obama if the alternative is so objectionable that they feel they need to reelect him.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by sfrenter
2012-01-11 11:10:08

Third party time….

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 12:52:35

I think Huntsman is the least objectionable to moderates and liberals. But at this point, he is too far back to get the nomination.

If Romney has a long primary season and has to continue to campaign from the right, he may end up being too objectionable to moderates and liberals. He was touting cut, cap and balance and large military last night. Doing both requires major cuts to SS and Medicare.

 
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 07:37:56

“Sometimes I wonder if these results aren’t pre-ordained. Romney will NEVER be president of the US unless there’s some severe rigging done. ”

Thank god that’s never happened before.

Oh wait…

Well, in our lifetimes, anyway.

Oh wait…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by desertdweller
2012-01-11 23:24:16

Movie- State of the Union- Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn

great movie showing we had all this crap in the 40s.. if not way before that.

 
 
Comment by Jess from upstate SC
2012-01-11 08:21:37

A year ago we would have felt the same about Romney . Now it all depends on the economy , if it comes back ,Pres. Obama comes back with the media pushing it for Obama’s case . Mitt may make a good President , but he is not a Tea party guy.
What was Nixon’s saying ? “”Run to the right to get elected . Run towards the center after that ”. It corrupted his Political soul , him doing that.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 12:54:58

“Now it all depends on the economy “

I agree. The election hinges on how the economy is doing next fall.

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 11:00:48

“Romney will NEVER be president of the US”

I keep hearing that Republicans will turn out and vote for Anyone-but-Obama, that they’ll support Romney if he is the nominee. I’m not so sure. The left was gunning for Bush in 2004.

On the other hand, Bush had solid support of his base. Obama may have moved too far to the right for his base to be enthusiastic in the fall.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by FED Up
2012-01-11 11:54:03

Comment by palmetto
2012-01-11 05:25:12
Sometimes I wonder if these results aren’t pre-ordained. Romney will NEVER be president of the US unless there’s some severe rigging done.

From the big political insider Carville:

“There is one screaming, huge story here tonight and that is these Republicans just don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney. I mean it’s like you’re trying to give a dog a pill. They keep spitting it up. Now, they’re going to eat the pill, ’cause Romney’s going to eventually be the nominee, but”

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/carville-republicans-voting-romney-its-you

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 12:07:06

I mean it’s like you’re trying to give a dog a pill. They keep spitting it up.

I can relate. Our family’s dogs didn’t just spit the pill up. They’d make a sound like they were hawking a loogie, and then they’d flee the kitchen.

 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-11 15:03:00

Slim: You could try putting it in a section of hotdog. They’d probably wolf it right down and be none the wiser.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 15:33:30

Slim: You could try putting it in a section of hotdog. They’d probably wolf it right down and be none the wiser.

We found that hiding the pill in a spoonful of peanut butter worked very well. They were so busy removing every morsel of peanut butter from the spoon that they didn’t notice the pill.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 17:45:42

If the Republicrat duopoly’s “choice” is between Obama and Romney - essentially the same guy - I fail to see the point of even voting, unless it’s to vote 3rd Party (Gary Johnson) or to write in Ron Paul.

 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-01-11 22:49:43

I haven’t met one person who likes Romney.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 06:17:05

Come on guys, give Romney a chance.

Comment by Dave
2012-01-11 08:36:13

His position on guns is concerning…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 08:54:26

He needs to bring Santorum and Bachmann into his cabinet along with returning John Ashcroft to Attorney General.

Let Freedom Ring!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Doug in Boone, NC
2012-01-11 20:15:44

IMHO, Mitt Romney will be the Republicans’ Mike Dukakis.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 20:30:02

The base doesn’t like him. A lot of this goes back to identity. What do republicans stand for?

I kinda wish I had the ‘I like to fire people’ ringtone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBOqLxzGTx8

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 05:52:38

Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 04:42:26
RAL is pre-programming himself as a loser.

Sad - I thought he had a few great brain cells left.

————————————————————————————–
This was your response to my post last night where I said “take it to the streets if Obama and Romney are the only two options”.

Where am I wrong? Show me. How is it that another election between two lousy options is considered a “choice” in your estimation? The only choice we have with these two is a continuation of rule by entrenched power structures. Show me where WE the citizens of the USA are represented by either one of these pukes?

Comment by michael
2012-01-11 07:39:37

OBAMA/ROMNEY 2012!

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2012-01-11 07:45:19

Trump$ my offering of Palin/Jeb III :-)

(To think that lil’ Opie has to vacation in Hawaii just to keep America guessin’ about his Kansas “What’s-the-matter-with-mother!” Sit-U-A-shun …)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 07:50:45

It’s a false dichotomy.

On one side we have:

A bunch of hypocritical religious freaks peering through my bathroom window watching my wife take a shower while they act so moral in public.

On the other side we have:

The “Free Shit Army”. Free shit for everyone.

And at the top of this rotting pyramid we have evil corrupt bastards like Dimon and the “federal reserve” and their 12 Disciples robbing everyone blind.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 09:05:03

Those “hypocritical religious freaks” are going to Restore America from you secular, coastal elitist, America-haters. Love it or leave it, loosers.

Let Freedom Ring!

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 09:24:17

A bunch of hypocritical religious freaks peering through my bathroom window watching my wife take a shower while they act so moral in public.

You sure it’s your wife they’re hoping to see? :-)

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 09:28:23

No doubt Carl…. I’ve always thought their obsession with everyone else is the result of their own repressed sexuality coming out sideways.

 
Comment by Surfitall
2012-01-11 09:37:02

Awesome! Sounds like Tehran. Let’s just call it a theocracy and be done with it. /sarcasm

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 12:34:57

“The “Free Shit Army”. Free shit for everyone.”

There are very few people in the “Free Shit Army”. Most of us, of every political persuasion, want to be self supporting and contributing members of our community. We also want protection from catastrophic events.

If you have paid insurance premiums for 30 years and then get cancer and lose your job, should you be cut off from medical care that could cure you? Cancer treatment can quickly drain 30 years of savings.

With good planning and good luck, most of us can recover from 1 adverse event. Sometimes, no amount of good planning can overcome bad luck. And 1 adverse event can lead to a downward spiral that leaves you vulnerable to the next adverse event.

I think many of the people who complain about the welfare state expect to live forever as they are now and that nothing catastrophic will ever happen to them if they just plan well. I am of the opinion that in spite of my best efforts to take care of my health and save for my future, I am vulnerable to unexpected events. I would like some measure of a safety net to help me recover if $hit happens.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 13:51:55

Most of us, of every political persuasion, want to be self supporting and contributing members of our community.

+1.7

 
 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2012-01-11 11:25:51

RAL
We have stayed home for the last two Prez elections ourselves and all others. Truly, both sides work for the owners of this country. The late great George Carlin was a wise me.

Comment by Awaiting
2012-01-11 11:31:36

man, not me. Freudian slip maybe. LOL

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 20:53:33

I was inferring that Obama vs. Romney was a poor option, but in the context of yesterday’s exchange you were completely denying the viability of an Obama vs. Paul election.

However improbable, it may prove more illuminating than an “Occupy” mentality. Been there, done that. Felt great at the time but ineffective. By “great ideas”, I was pleading with you to try to find a better way for us to avoid choosing between chunky and smooth peanut butter - :)

 
 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 08:38:41

“23% of the way to President Paul!!”

There is absolutely no way that Ron Paul coming in second in NH with 23% of the vote can be interpreted as 23% of the way to a President Paul. Absolutely none. Even if you ignore the general election (not something I would recommend), you can’t even interpret last night’s returns as being 23% of the way to a nomination. Seriously.

I would be very curious about your reasoning on this.

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 09:32:32

I’ve been doing a lot of driving and listening to various radio shows. The “right wing” guys have changed their tune a bit. Savage sounds suicidal. A guy called in to Hannity yesterday and asked if the host would support Paul if nominated, saying his foreign policy is “left of Obama.” This is where we find ourselves; saying only congress can declare war is leftist? Why is the establishment so afraid of letting the congress decide these things?

I also heard questions posed to Paul supporters; will you vote for the Republican nominee if Paul doesn’t win. Along with this was several minutes on how we will be Greece if Obama gets another term. Some callers said they would support the candidate if he pledges to reassert the constitutions role in the Federal govt. Otherwise, they won’t. This gets to divide, as I see it.

The two party system is a process of exclusion. Left/right, liberal/conservative don’t mean anything if there’s no agreement on what the definition is. And why do we usually see the nominee picked before NY, CA, and TX even get to vote? We are told who is “electable”. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?

FWIW, I’m an independent. But I thought a caller in to CSPAN had a good point when he said he wasn’t going to vote GOP until they stopped putting up all these neocons. Now to the horror of the PTB, after we watched these debates, and all the praise of assassinations, torture, wars, covert actions, fear mongering; people are saying they don’t buy it. We saw all this BS ahead of Iraq. Does the establishment really think the public is that stupid?

I wish there were several candidates that stood up for the constitution, but there’s not. I wish there was a Democratic challenger to the President, but there’s not. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but for the press to act like this disgust with both parties is a big surprise only shows how disconnected they are from the people.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 09:56:37

Does the establishment really think the public is that stupid?

Well, let’s see, a “community organizer”, who never had a real job in his entire life, who spent his entire career working on his resume by getting into elective office, then taking no positions on key votes (vote: present), 1 term State, 1 term US, who basically was put into every position he has gotten as an EEOC appointee from the finest schools in America is President of the United States.
The most unqualified candidate available sits in the White house.
What was the question?

And we compare Ron Paul, a Physician with years of service as a doctor, former U.S. Serviceman, and elected Congressman for 30 years, is put across by the press as “unelectable”. And a “kook”, if you listen to the talk radio radicals.
Your question seems to answer itself.
Yes, the American Public are just lemmings, who will follow anyone NPR says should be the winner. All others go home.
It may be possible that people aren’t really that stupid, but uninformed. Don’t expect the press to provide any information.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 10:46:13

“Yes, the American Public are just lemmings, who will follow anyone NPR says should be the winner.”

Republicans listen to NPR?

 
Comment by Awaiting
2012-01-11 11:39:23

Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
“The most unqualified candidate available sits in the White house.”

As a recovered Republican, I have shame for putting W in office.

RP isn’t perfect, but at least he isn’t bought.

 
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:03:39

Do to redistricting shenanigans, the Texas primary may be delayed until late summer.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 17:56:37

“Yes, the American Public are just lemmings, who will follow anyone NPR says should be the winner.”

The hope ‘n change lemmings probably have a dim perception that they were sold a bill of goods, but lack the intelligence to realize the full magnitude of their mistake or our national misfortune.

 
 
 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 12:13:23

I’ll clarify a bit.

The only reliable way to figure out who is going to get the nomination is to count up delegates to the convention. Romney has about 16 from Iowa and NH and another dozen or so publicly committed super delegates. So Romney has around 30. The total number of delegates to the convention is over 2000. That means that no one has anything even close to 23% (or, really, even 5%) of the delegates needed to win the nomination.

Since not even the person who has the most committed delegates is 23% of the way to being the Republican nominee (not president), saying that Paul’s strong second showing in NH is 23% of the way to President Paul is absurd.

And as I explained earlier, the expectation is that the person who is going to become the nominee keeps getting stronger and stronger as the process plays out partly because other contenders drop out and support that person (and tell their delegates to vote for him - remember the hoopla when Clinton told her delegates not to switch over in the first vote?) and because people like to vote for the person they see as likely to be the winner.

If Paul doesn’t win and his supporters don’t give up (they still show up to vote and still vote for him) as the primaries crawl through the spring, he will have some power. Not sure what he would do with it, but he’ll have it. Because the party leadership are going to want that vote at the convention to be as unified as they can. They will not want 10% or 25% or 40% of the “elected” delegates voting for someone else. It would ruin their visuals and the media would be talking about the divisions in the party, not the happy delegates all fired up to elect their candidate.

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 13:08:21

CNN had a South Carolina focus group last night with 1 Ron Paul supporter who said he would vote for Obama if Paul did not get the nomination.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 13:27:52

It could end up being a brokered convention.

This isn’t a normal election season. We’ve seen the tea party and OWS. We’ve got a recession deeper than any in modern history, with a possible double dip ahead. An unpopular President, an unpopular congress. Europe looking shaky, China going into recession. Arab spring, talk of war in Iran. Then there are these super-pacs.

The GOP should have had an easy path into the White House and majorities in congress. But they are divided, because of an identity conflict. IMO, voters aren’t settling for a beauty contest this time. I have no idea what’s to come. Will we see a third party (Dem or Rep) challenge? Another shooting war? The deck is full of wild cards.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 13:47:18

Brokered convention is possible I guess, but is also a bad visual for the party leadership. And who would they give the nomination to?

I don’t see the Ron Paul supporters supporting anyone but him.

I don’t see Romney giving in on anyone else getting the nomination if he has even a plurality of the delegates. He really, really wants to be president.

And I don’t know anyone that could satisfy the supporters of both Romney and Paul. If you can’t find anyone for the brokered convention to throw the ball to, then you can’t have a brokered convention.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 13:51:26

This is all hypothetical, but what about Romney with Rand Paul for VP?

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 14:09:21

I’ve been thinking about that because of Paul defending Romney and then suggesting everyone else should drop out. Made me wonder if he’s trying to look like a good VP candidate.

Personally I can’t see it, though.

Oops, wait…I see you said Rand, not Ron. No idea…

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 14:29:49

Like I said a while back, at least the anti-war group has a seat at the table. Neocons are looking like a fringe element.

‘More and more, many in the GOP are realizing that this time around Ron Paul is a significant phenomenon that’s not going to fade away once the early primaries are over. ‘One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative [candidates] is saying negative things about Ron Paul,’ said Senator DeMint on conservative Laura Ingraham’s radio show. ‘I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.’

‘How badly does the GOP need Paul’s voters? Consider this: In New Hampshire, Paul won 47 percent of voters aged 18 to 29.’

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0111/Ron-Paul-How-badly-does-GOP-need-his-voters

I’ve noticed that Romney has gone out of his way to avoid criticizing the Paul supporters. This is all premature. I’d bet the Paul campaign is in this to win, so this is all guessing.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 16:08:29

I’m not sure about the Romney/Rand Paul ticket. Romney isn’t old enough for the VP talk to be all about his likely demise like it was in the last cycle, but you still have to trust the VP candidate to be your second choice. Ron Paul himself might work better in that slot, but would he do it without being promised a significant place at the policy table? Would Romney be willing to give it to him?

Romney is from a big business background. They tend to be very impressed with their unified “vision.” I just don’t think he would be willing to give either Dr. Paul what they would demand to be willing to play the VP game. The VP candidate has to do a lot of parroting of the policies and avowing the prowess of the top of the ticket. If you see your place as the leader of a movement away from regular politics (a whole new way of running both the economy and foreign policy) then even a few months of saying how great the nominee is will kill your credibility.

And, Romney has done very well so far playing this game the way it is traditionally played. As a moderate, Mormon republican from Michigan and Massachusetts, he is looking for someone who can deliver Southern, evangelical, traditional far right votes. Paul’s appeal to the young demographic could possibly substitute for that, but I just don’t see how either Dr. Paul could agree to do what the Romney campaign would demand.

If I had to predict right now, I’d see a somewhat damaged Romney getting over 50% of the delegates and picking a VP who can deliver a high electoral vote swing state like Florida or Pennsylvania. Whether the disappointed former Obama voters staying home throws the election to Romney or the disappointed Paul/Santorum/etc. supporters staying home throws the election to Obama, I can’t even begin to guess.

 
Comment by Bill in Phoenix and Tampa
2012-01-11 17:31:38

I’m just one Ron Paul supporter. But I do not support any Republicans but Ron Paul. I would vote for Barack Obama before I vote for any of the Republicans only to cancel out the Bible thumpers. Thankfully there is the Libertarian Party, which is anti forced socialism. I will vote for Gary Johnson in that case, but will consider “writing in” Ron Paul if possible, even if he does not get nominated.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 17:51:40

+1. I refuse to go along with the Republicrat duopoly’s puppet show.

 
Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 18:11:31

+2. I’ll be writing in RP if he’s not on the ballot just like I did in ’08.

 
 
 
Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 21:03:00

As a provocateur, I was intentionally challenging the logicians, math heads, and critical thinkers to add to our collective analysis.

Comment by ahansen
2012-01-11 23:14:18

Robin,
will post this again tomorrow.

The Republican primaries are nothing but a sham for benefit of the network television industry. The number of actual voters participating in the process is so minuscule as to be irrelevant; certainly it’s not representative of the Republican electorate nationwide. Seven votes in Iowa constitutes a “victory?” New Hampshire has what, point three percent of the national electorate? And now comes the “day of reckoning” in South Carolina where Stephen Colbert is polling ahead of Jon Huntsman? Puhleeze.

Romney was anointed about the same time the Palin Family went full reality show, and everyone in a position to throw the election knows it. Ron Paul could pull a 70% share in SC and Romney would STILL get the nomination. Our voices have been out-purchased, out-shouted, and outsourced to our corporate masters.

The extreme dissatisfaction we’re seeing here on the street, in the Paul splinter campaign, in the alternative media is the nascent movement toward weighted elections and the dissolution of the two party electoral college system.

Occupy the Tea Party isn’t just a mindless slogan; if the electorate can get beyond the issues that divide us and address the structural inequalities codified in the “Citizens United” decision, we can take our votes back. Concentrate your efforts on your Congressional elections. That’s where strategy will be critical in November.

Here’s an editorial sent to me by my ex-BIL, a veteran newsman who is wisely covering this primary season from the comfort of his lovely DC apartment.

“…As Jon Huntsman wound down his New Hampshire campaign with a stop Monday at Crosby Bakery in Nashua, he was trailed by about 150 journalists. Total number of New Hampshire voters: Perhaps a dozen….”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/journalists-campaign-trail-secrets-revealed/2012/01/10/gIQAW96MpP_story.html

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-12 00:18:28

”Ron Paul could pull a 70% share in SC and Romney would STILL get the nomination’

All I can say is this; in the mid-90s Paul decided to run for congress again in my district. I was asked to meet him for the announcement at the courthouse. There were two of my friends there and a reporter. Afterward, he asked me to volunteer and I said yes. For the next year and a half we all worked our tails off. Here’s what’s relevant; from the first day till the last, I heard every discouragement from every quarter you can imagine. But he won.

IMO people have a natural ability to understand simple truth. I saw it over and over again back then, when attacks seemed to come from every side. Don’t underestimate the peoples ability to make their own decisions.

 
Comment by Robin
2012-01-12 01:20:20

ahansen and Ben,

Don’t know why no capitalization of the “A” in ahansen, but I digress.

After I turned 18, I voted in every federal, state, and municipal election held. Have done so every year since.

In 1972, I quit my several part-time jobs and my college to work free full time for George McGovern. Worked out great! Or not. Very instructive.

May give money, time, and/or energy to Paul because he is the lone patriot on either end of the spectrum.

The mass understanding of simple truth is, indeed, not impossible if given less emotionally and tied to each individual’s situation. Therein lies the difficulty. We are becoming further and further away from homogeneity.

Diversity, IMHO, is great. However, for communicators it becomes more expensive. And who currently holds the PAC-MAN purse strings?

 
 
 
 
Comment by Seen it all
2012-01-11 09:03:52

I never remember the idiot ( i know there are many) on Msnbc who is always saying Paul won’t get more thatn 22 or 23%. well he got 1% more than that.

A real break out? still hoping

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 04:28:50

Bombs kill Iranian nuclear expert

Posted: Jan 11, 2012 3:58 AM EST

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Two assailants on a motorcycle attached magnetic bombs to the car of an Iranian university professor working at a key nuclear facility, killing him and another person Wednesday, state TV reported. The slayings suggest a widening covert effort to set back Iran’s atomic program.

The attack in Tehran bore a strong resemblance to earlier killings of scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program. It is certain to amplify authorities’ claims of clandestine operations by Western powers and their allies to halt Iran’s nuclear advances.

Safar Ali Baratloo, a senior security official, was quoted by Fars as saying the attack was the work of Israelis.

“The magnetic bomb is of the same types already used to assassinate our scientists,” he said.

Roshan, 32, was inside the Iranian-assembled Peugeot 405 car together with two others when the bomb exploded near Gol Nabi Street in north Tehran, Fars reported. It said the person accompanying Roshan died later of injuries at a hospital.

Fars described the explosion as a “terrorist attack” targeting Roshan, a graduate of the prestigious Sharif University of Technology in Tehran.

http://www.whbf.com/story/16493608/report-bomb-kills-iranian-nuclear-expert

Comment by Jess from upstate SC
2012-01-11 08:25:47

The Isrealis are doing something about it , while the rest of the World is talking and so forth . Think I’d rather stick with the talk , besides we need the oil to flow .

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 08:35:08

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” — John McCain, 2008

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 09:04:10

“The Isrealis are doing something about it , while the rest of the World is talking and so forth . Think I’d rather stick with the talk , besides we need the oil to flow .”

Snap out of it.

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 11:37:36

Why do you hate our freedoms?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Seen it all
2012-01-11 09:05:12

Once again Ron Paul is right.
israel has the right to defend itself.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:01:57

Yes, Israel, the country that invented the “pre-emptive strike”.
That Israel. Yes, they are justified in killing people they know don’t like them, because the feel pretty sure that they were going to do something bad, so we attacked and killed our adversaries, before they had a chance to attack us.
Yes, we should support countries that us this approach to conflicts.
In fact, we should probably adopt the same theories of aggression, and say we are just “defending” ourselves.
It seems to sell in the media pretty well.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 10:12:58

Yes, they are justified in killing people they know don’t like them, because the feel pretty sure that they were going to do something bad

I’m no expert in this area, but hasn’t Iran been pretty clear on what they’d like to do to Israel?

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:27:09

Well, let me put it more simply. The AGGRESSOR is the one who draws FIRST BLOOD.
Who might that be?

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 10:33:33

I know what you’d like to do with the top hottest women in your town/state/country. Should we bomb your house with you in it or just give you a 30 year sentence?

 
Comment by drumminj
2012-01-11 11:27:45

I’m no expert in this area, but hasn’t Iran been pretty clear on what they’d like to do to Israel?

We don’t put people in jail in the US for saying things they’d like to do. We put them in jail for the things they actually do (except for the “conspiracy to….” crimes).

I don’t see why we should condone killing people abroad based on a different standard - simply on what they say they’d like to do.

Hell, I’d like to win the lottery. Should I be taxed as if I had won the lottery just because I said I’d like to?

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 11:29:55

If I said it the way Iran says it, there would be a restraining order pretty quickly. And nations don’t have restraining orders.

 
Comment by drumminj
2012-01-11 11:45:36

If I said it the way Iran says it, there would be a restraining order pretty quickly. And nations don’t have restraining orders.

True, but restraining orders aren’t punishment - they aren’t imprisonment or death. It’s simply extra rules you must abide by or face punishment - namely to keep a certain distance from someone.

I’m not sure what would be analogous in this case.

 
Comment by The_Overdog
2012-01-11 12:18:28

Didn’t Japan invent the preemptive strike (at least in the modern sense of the word)? They assumed that the US would side with the other allies against the Japanese empire forming in the far east, and therefore pre-emptively bombed Pearl Harbor before officially declaring war.

I can’t think of any preemptive strikes from WWI or the Civil War off the top of my head, and don’t know enough about any of the European wars post 15th or so century.

 
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:23:01

All of WW1 was a preemptive strike by the US.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 13:50:45

“All of WW1 was a preemptive strike by the US.”

Huh?

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 19:39:02

“We don’t put people in jail in the US for saying things they’d like to do”

If what they’d like to do is kill a person or a bunch of people, and they threaten to do so, as Iran has, they are guilty of terroristic threatening- a felony. (And it even has the word terrorist in it!)

 
 
 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 13:15:03

CNN had this story on this morning followed by a tape of Gingrich saying that if he were in charge, he would be doing covert operations to kill Iranian scientists adn the palusible deniability of it. The comments were made in a campaign speech in NH.

I am not surprised that Iran is accuse the US of being involved and I would not be surprised if the CIA had a hand in it.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 17:54:29

I can’t say I’m grieving for the blown-up nukular scientists, and certainly wouldn’t fault Israel for doing whatever they can to ensure they don’t face an existencial threat to their survival.

 
 
 
Comment by Darrell_in_PHX
2012-01-11 04:48:39

If a Republican wins the White House, what will they do differently from Obama?

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:11:42

They’re gonna take this country back!

Comment by rms
2012-01-11 08:04:58

+1 Ha, thanks for the laugh so early this morning.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-01-11 08:20:50

LOL… good one, PB.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:10:24

Yep! All the way back to the 19th century!

We’re halfway there now!

 
 
Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 06:19:58

My guy Romney said he’s going to run it like a business and fire everybody. Wait that’s not what he said. Oh yeah, he’s going to restore the Constitution to it’s rightful place. Oh wait?

Never mind.

 
Comment by Mike
2012-01-11 06:58:19

Take us from right to righter…

 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 07:46:52

Perhaps an interview with Romney can shed light.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45955056

“The former Massachusetts governor said his administration would be more friendly to the middle class and would restore free-market capitalism in place of the ‘European social welfare state’ in place now.”

So….. End Social Security($770B), Medicare($492B), and Medicaid($271B)?

Those are, what? $1.5T.

End extended UI, cutting $40B? End all housing subsidies: $40B? Eliminate food stamps, $85B? Disability $50B? TANF (welfare) $17B.

There is a good $250B of anti-poverty programs that are no part of SS, MC/C. Heck, $325B if you include EITC and per child tax credits.

Oh, but over the next 4 years, as more boomer retire, SS is expected to increase by $190B and Medicare by $140B. So, even if we totally eliminate all anti-poverty programs with the exception of SS and MC/C, then total spending still increases over the next 4 years.

Exactly what does he mean by “European social welfare state”. Oh, right… he’s just pandering to those that believe the lie that “Welfare” is the problem, not SS, MC/C.

Back to Romney’s words:
“how can we make America more of an opportunity nation, how can we make America a better place for entrepreneurs and business worldwide to say, ‘We want to come to America, we want to invest in America, we want to manufacture in America, we want to make products of all kinds in America.

That’s the only way I know of to have good jobs for our people.”

No minimum wage and end unemployment insurance? $2 an hour for everyone? Last I checked, manufacturing was moving out of China because $3 an hour was getting too expensive.

“With the economic recovery still sluggish, Romney said his policies of tax cuts and smaller government will help growth more than what Obama has done.”

Soooo……. What parts of government are you going to cu, and by how much. Be specific.

Oh, right.

Commerce: $8.8B. Half of the functions will move under Dept of Labor. Total savings: $4B.

Energy: $30B. $18B nuke defense moves under DoD. Half of the rest moves under Interior. Total savings: $6B

Education: $77B. $32B in Pell Grants and $40B to K-12 education. Shut down all the colleges and drastically increase state and local taxes.

So, what? $85B in savings? About 1/4th the amount the SS and MC are expected to increase over the next 4 years.

No Mr. Romney. What exactly do you mean by smaller government?

Oh, eliminate the EPA and let the oil industry run rampant frac-ing shale fields, polluting the water supply and ignoring global climate change.

I think we need to eliminate the words “politics” and “politicians” from the language, and just replace their usage with the more accurate “total bull sharts” and “slinger of total bull sharts”.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 08:42:20

Exactly what does he mean by “European social welfare state”.

He must want to get rid of our National Health System … oh, that’s right, we don’t have one.

Then he must mean getting rid of free college education … oh wait … we don’t have that either.

He must mean getting rid of worker protections. like mandatory severance pay, mandatory paid holidays and mandatory paid vacations … oops, we don’t have that either (I once told some former colleagues from Bangalore, India about that and they were shocked that these were not mandatory in the US, because they are in India.)

I guess he must mean getting rid of foodstamps. I wonder if the LDS will step up to the plate when that happens? Our churches and charities will have their hands full trying to feed 50 million poor people.

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 09:31:46

from Bloomberg: White-Collar Workers Join Crowd Straining Food Banks

“Only about 7 percent of those who lost jobs after the 2008 financial crisis have found work that matched or exceeded their previous job … The percentage of households in the U.S. using food stamps has more than doubled in 6 of the nation’s 10 wealthiest counties, according to data compiled by Bloomberg”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:34:33

In the 1980s, when off-shoring of blue collar jobs accelerated, there was a concerted and relentless campaign to demonize unions, their skills and jobs as well as ANY blue collar worker who was making a (god forbid) good living.

This was LOUDLY echoed by the white collar class and the in-between clerical class. Who eventually got reamed themselves.

The only ones left singing this song are the ignorant, hardcore neocons or sock puppets for the 1%.

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:16:49

I guess he must mean getting rid of foodstamps. I wonder if the LDS will step up to the plate when that happens? Our churches and charities will have their hands full trying to feed 50 million poor people.

There are not 50 million poor, starving people. Most of them are FAT and overfed. The have cell phones, wide-screen color televisions, computer-links and PDA devices. They spend most of their time texting their buddies and friends and “hanging out”.
I see all this crap going on every day.

If they didn’t have all this other stuff, they could easily buy food, but I can tell you for certain that many will buy DRUGS and BOOZE, before they buy food, Cigarettes, too.
Lot’s of Food Stamps (EBT CARDS) are used as forms of trade for buying other things.
ALL free programs expand to fill as much as will be allowed for people to drain their “fair share” of the graft.
You need to get in touch with the many recipients of EBT Cards and shop where they shop. I do. See how malnourished they look to you. In fact, you will probably find their carts filled with stuff you and I can not afford to buy.
I’ve watched deadbeats buying steak and lobster and the finest cuts of meat, and all kinds of junk food. It’s not about “NEED”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 11:10:39

recipients of EBT Cards….See how malnourished they look to you.

I think to get food stamps there should be a monthly low-grade malnourishment requirement test.

cell phones, wide-screen color televisions

Color TVs? And when Black and White TV’s are cheaper!

Cellphones? If your broke you don’t need a phone.

deadbeats buying steak and lobster

One time I saw a fat lady with a gold ring on food stamps buying brown rice! And get this…I saw a bearded dude with an EBT cards in a suit with a black hat buying Pastrami and Matzah balls!

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 12:59:03

There are not 50 million poor, starving people. Most of them are FAT and overfed.

Wow, so it’s not enough for you that the poor eat cheap food that is low in nutrition and high in empty calories. You want to see them emaciated.

In fact, you will probably find their carts filled with stuff you and I can not afford to buy.

With their $400 month stipend for a familiy of five? I’ve seen their shopping carts at the beginning of the month at the local Walmart. They’re full of store brand baloney and mac-n-cheese.

 
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:31:54

Food stamps are run by the Deparment Agriculture.

First primary is in Iowa.

Food Stamps ain’t going no where.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 16:06:12

“There are not 50 million poor, starving people.”

Because most of them can get foodstamps. Our food banks and church kitchens are already being stretched. Throw all of the food stamp recipients into the mess and they will not be able to cope.

Your anecdotes about obese, livin large food stamp recipients do not negate the question of what will happen when food stamps are not available.

 
 
 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 08:50:54

An AP puff piece to condition broke boomers to accept their Lucky Ducky future:

Some reject retirement, keep working even into 90s

“The idea of a set retirement at age 65 is changing as companies drop pensions, and people are living longer and staying healthier (no mention of diabetes or other lifestyle-induced illness in this article)

U.S. Department of Labor statistics show that the number of people 75 and older who work full or part-time has risen from about 487,000, or 4.2 percent, in 1990, to 1.2 million, or 6.9 percent, last year.”

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 09:51:17

Oh, for pete’s sake.

I have two eighty-something parents, one who is losing his mind and used to be a brilliant engineer. Fifty or so patents to his name and now he can’t even wrap his brain around the notion that last Friday was my mother’s birthday.

What in the hell kind of job is my father going to get? Or my frail mother?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Montana
2012-01-11 10:35:33

They can all be Supreme Court justices!

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:46:28

Arizona, I have the same situation. My father, weak with dementia. My mother quite frail, trying to care for my father.
They have become my dependents.
However, they get the SS checks. I get nothing.
My father has been “retired” for 20 years. He took and early out at age 62 because his company negotiated and early release to reduce it’s pension obligations. It was small, but would have been possibly smaller or lost if he had not opted to quit then. But still, 20 years on the dole, collecting SS and other retirement benefits, to the point now, where both elderly parents really NEED benefits, because they can’t care for themselves.
My father could have “worked” until he was 70 or longer. But when he quit, he simply did nothing. 20 years of relaxation.

 
Comment by Elanor
2012-01-11 12:21:39

My father, also a once-brilliant engineer, did work into his 70’s. He then had a 5-vessel coronary bypass, came out of it with “pump brain” and has been slowly declining mentally for the past 18 years, aided by Parkinsonism that is probably statin-induced. Nevertheless he was the primary caregiver for my crippled mother until two+ years ago. Now my sister cares for them both. Social Security provides 80% of their monthly income. I shudder to think of their lives without “entitlements” and the thought of either of them working makes me laugh.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 13:10:05

A lot of the elderly my parents help with their volunteer work (helping people figure out their Medicare, especially which D program they should use) live on nothing but Social Security. They end up acting as social workers for a lot of these people, referring them to the local church food pantry. Seems they don’t qualify for SNAP or they’d recommend that too.

 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-11 09:32:20

Well if you have no real job to go to, might as well bring back mass graves…or slavery

End extended UI, cutting $40B? End all housing subsidies: $40B? Eliminate food stamps, $85B? Disability $50B? TANF (welfare) $17B.

Comment by Robin
2012-01-12 01:38:24

Why are graves still allowed? Why aren’t all bodies cremated and a 25-story IPAD display center created for interactive afterlife interpersonal (kind of) transactions?

Can I trademark this?? - :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:08:38

The War machine will continue as is. The “Defense Dept.” will get more money than ever with excuses about national defense, even as we begin spying on Americans who carry firearms and belong to ‘questionable’ organizations. The Obama Camp hasn’t really done anything Bush hasn’t done, except to increase the intensity of government over-reach.
AS for all the “social programs”, they would probably begin cutting back.
The problem is ALL the programs need to be scaled back. We are broke. We need to quit pretending. I supported Paul RYAN and his program of CUTTING spending. Both sides wouldn’t back him.
To actually cut spending is “radical”, “extremist”, and just plain nutty.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 10:27:15

Have you really looked at the Ryan plan?

Basically, his plan is to ignore the deficits for 30 more years. Even with unrealistically high GDP growth estimates, he as debt/GDP increasing at a steep pace through 2035, then not peaking until 2045. The “no changes for anyone over 55″ is a sick joke.

And how does he achieve his unrealistically high GDP growth? Oh, since we’re going to address the deficits 30 years from now when those currently over 55 are dead or dieing off in great numbers, let’s cut taxes on businesses and the rich now. This will create economic growth…

… which past history shows will prove to be nothing but a bubble that collapses after about 5 years, leaving us with less revenue, more debt and larger deficits.

In other words, the Ryan plan can be summed up as “even more of the same stuff that got us here.”

I understand that “protecting entitlements for anyone over 55, while cutting taxes and increasing economic growth” sells. However, if you purchase it, you’re getting a bottle of snake oil.

It is just more of the debt based economics that has brought us to the brink of debt collapse and depression.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:16:58

I agree that protecting people over 55 is probably not doable. We will lose with inflation of the money and loss of value in SS payments received. It needs to be discussed.
Also, I am more in favor of massive cuts in spending and bringing the budget in line with reality over a MUCH shorter time span.
But, I know, it won’t happen.
Congress, and their feeder groups won’t allow any reductions in the handouts they receive, at least not massively.
I would ELIMINATE the Dept. of Energy, Education, and HHS. I would put all those folks out of a job. They are failures, anyway.
I would Cut military spending by 20%. I would close faraway bases. There is LOTS that could be done.
But NONE of it will happen. Congress doesn’t have the will.
So, for me, the only solution was a “path” to go where we could try and work into getting the budgets and spending in line.
I think Ryan actually went too far, but it was a starting point.
EVeryone else has provided NO spending cuts, at all.
The current “reductions” simply remove 200 billion in annual projected Increases for 10 years. We still end up with 5 Trillion more in deficits. We just keep hoping life will get better when everyone in Congress cashes out and sails off to their hide-away on some island.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ahansen
2012-01-11 23:39:36

What is the rationale behind eliminating rather than streamlining the Departments of Energy, HSS and Education? Seriously. Can someone give me the reasoned argument?

And what do you propose doing with those multitudes thrown out of work by the cuts? That’s a whole lot of citizens without a paycheck, no?

Thanks.

 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 10:40:49

I supported Paul RYAN and his program of CUTTING spending.

Cutting spending on the poor (who’ve been hammered) while cutting taxes on the Rich (who had the hammer)? What’s not to like?

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cb8.png

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:06:28

Pure propaganda. As usual, if you can find a chart on a blog that says Republicans are evil, you shoot it out as the undeniable truth. I’ve got a chart-making tool on my computer, too.
There are no give-aways to rich people. Ryan simply pushes to END the loopholes. Most rich people would end up paying more.
AS for the “poor will pay”, what specifics would be “taken” from the poor to support this graph?
I suppose anyone getting government ‘benefits’ is poor, even if they have higher incomes than average.

I don’t agree with Ryan’s over 55 no change position, and haven’t looked at all the details. i am certain there will need to be some kind of scaling back. All that could be debated.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 11:30:17

Pure propaganda. As usual, if you can find a chart on a blog that says Republicans are evil, you shoot it out as the undeniable truth. I’ve got a chart-making tool on my computer, too.

Yawn. You are wrong. The chart is from figures taken directly from Ryan’s plan compiled by the CBPP. You just don’t like the math and the implications.

I don’t blame people for not liking the math and facts of issues but I blame people for not recognizing (because of bias) math and fact’s implications.

Like the math of this chart on Ryan’s plan doubling the health-care costs of those over 65:
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cb10.png

 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 11:43:02

So, let me see if I understand this.

You like the plan, but haven’t looked at the plan.

Here is a hint… lie, lie, lie.. slight of hand… rich get richer, clearly false assumptions, look at my great hair, double speak, double speak, rich get richer, the collapse comes later so its SEP (Someone else’s problem), me and mine will get ours, f everyone else.

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:47:07

Yes, everyone should get all their ‘Facts’ from a left wing organization: CBPP.org.
You’d buy anything put out by people like this. It’s crap.

 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:59:46

Here is a copy of the resolution:

1) The budget resolution explicitly:

Returns non-defense discretionary spending to below pre-2008 level and freezes it there for five years;
Adopts the modest savings on defense spending proposed by Former Secretary Gates; overall levels would continue to rise;
Prohibits the House from considering any legislation that would case discretionary spending limits to be exceeded;
Prohibits the House from considering any legislation that would substantially increase mandatory (entitlement) spending over any of the next four decades;
Calls for tax rates to remain stable at around 18-19% of GDP;
Recommends spending levels declining from the current level of around 24% of GDP to about 20% by 2015 and just 14.75% by 2050, virtually eliminating the national debt by that time.

Yes, it caps spending and reduces it. So yes, if you want more handouts, forget it. They are being stopped out, unless there are cuts in other places.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 12:20:59

Yes, everyone should get all their ‘Facts’ from a left wing organization: CBPP.org

It’s math from the CBO. And CBPP made a chart. Sorry. It’s the numbers. You can’t hide from the math. You are guilty of the false argument Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue):

if an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right (or wrong). The idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue.

Left wing? CBPP.org? Nowadays maybe according to you, FOX and the John Birch society.

One of their main contributors is the Ford Foundation:

Over the course of its history, the Ford Foundation has been a target of criticism from both the political left and the right. wiki

 
 
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-01-11 12:05:16

“To actually cut spending is “radical”, “extremist”, and just plain nutty.”

That’s the double edged sword in all of this. I have plenty of friends screaming for this to happen and yet, their jobs are dependent on continued spending. They don’t realize how dependent THEY are on low interest rates and funny money, while they rail against it. “Amazingly” they think their jobs are the important ones, but maybe the other guy can sacrifice.

They DESERVE to retire at 50 with a full pension. But the private sector? The ones actually losing jobs overseas? The ones upon whom their salary was derived in the first place?

…crickets…

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 13:51:05

It’s only welfare if you don’t benefit from it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 13:42:56

“AS for all the “social programs”, they would probably begin cutting back.”

Their idea of beginning to cut back is the over/under 55 split.

If they had the balls to stick to their “cut Medicare/SS” guns, The would get props from me for courage. But they realized that is a losing strategy. So they will run on cutting welfare for the po folks. Bait and switch. Then after the election, if they gain control of the WH and Congress, they will ram through their Medicare/SS cuts.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 14:26:59

There is an election every 2 years… No way are they going to ram through any SS or MC cuts.

We’re just going to continue running massive deficits until we Greece.

Even if they did make massive cuts to SS and MC, it just slams us into depression, receipts fall as much or more than the cuts, we’re back in full 2007-2008 collapse mode.

We have massive trade imbalances that must be fed a steady supply of new money, which is backed by debt. The private sector is maxed out, so the federal government is the only borrower remaining that can push the level of new debt/money to the tune of $1.2-$1.5T a year that the trade imbalance plagued economy needs to function.

Catch-22.

Slash deficits now, trade imbalances drain money from circulation and we collapse.

Don’t slash spending now then debt continues to explode until we Greece, are forced to cut spending, and we collapse.

Only other option is to directly attack and reverse the trade imbalances that are draining money from circulation and forcing us to generate unsustainable amounts of new debt/money in the first place….. As if.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 15:28:04

SS cuts will be based on the over 55/under 55 split. So they will cut the deficit by loading the cuts at least 10 years in the future. The real objective here is to force all of the under 55s into the Wall Street machine.

Medicare they will block grant to the states and those will impact immediately. Medicaid cuts are already being felt. Aging boomers are mitigating the effects on the health care providers for now.

And I agree that budget cuts will slam us into depression. Based on recent behavior by the Tea Party caucus, I think they don’t care. They are of the opinion that we should suffer now so we can recover later. The rip the bandaid off crowd.

If they show gains in the next election, they will be emboldened to push for more cuts, balance the budget now.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 17:19:45

The rip the bandaid off crowd.

I thought that was us?

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 18:09:48

“The rip the bandaid off crowd.

I thought that was us?”

Some of us. :) I am of the opinion that it is not a bandaid, but a tourniquet. And that ripping it off may kill the patient.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 19:55:18

I am of the opinion that it is not a bandaid, but a tourniquet. And that ripping it off may kill the patient.

+1

And if you notice, most of those who call for ripping off the bandaid (or tourniquet), also call for the destruction of our current system, and its replacement with something else- ie, they’re not really hoping for a ‘recovery’. They see this as a ‘golden’ opportunity to start all over.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 04:57:19

Posted at 09:59 PM ET, 01/10/2012

Ron Paul New Hampshire primary night speech (TEXT)

By Felicia Sonmez

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) delivered remarks to supporters Tuesday night at the Executive Court Banquet Facility in Manchester after placing second in the New Hampshire GOP presidential primary.

Yes. And the Fed, right (inaudible) yeah.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, in studying monetary history from the beginning of our country, and even throughout all of history, monetary policy on periodic occasions will come — become the dominant issue. And we have emphasized that, and it has become an important issue.

Just think: This is the first presidential campaign that the subject ever came up since the Federal Reserve was started. So we are now — because of what is happening, it will remain a dominant issue. There’s no way they’re going to put it to bed, because they have destroyed our money. It’s worldwide. There’s a financial crisis going on. And it’s only sound money and personal liberty that can solve the crisis that we have today.

(APPLAUSE)

But the one reason — the one reason I talk about the monetary system so much, it was a sneaky, deceitful way to pay the bills. You know, an honest government that wants to be a big spending government would tax the people, and then the people would know what they were doing. If — if we had to pay taxes for everything that they do, you know, the people would rise up and — and stop it. So then they started borrowing money a lot, and then people didn’t notice that quite as much, because they didn’t pass that on.

But then they resorted to the printing of the money. And that is why the Federal Reserve was established, to take care of the powerful interests, the military industrial complex, the banking system, and deficit financing. And there’s a couple of reasons they have deficit financing. Sometimes there are conservatives that want deficit financing, and sometimes there are liberals who want deficit..

(BOOING)

And they have resorted — they have resorted to this. And, of course, this is why we are facing this crisis today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-new-hampshire-primary-night-speech-text/2012/01/10/gIQACW2WpP_blog.html -

Comment by Posers
2012-01-11 06:29:17

This is precisely what Paul needs to say everytime he opens his mouth. Excellent stuff.

His problem continues to be an uninformed electorate. He needs to educate them because many are either ignorant (i.e., uninformed), or not quite capable of understanding (sadly). The latter also need to understand that the free money ride they’ve enjoyed for decades is about to disappear no matter who wins.

Sadly, Paul can’t talk about the latter and beat the candy crapping unicorn that is Obama. The leeches will vote for Obama the second anyone says their drugs (welfare) will be cut off.

Paul also can’t talk about how he’d throw everyone in jail (not yet, anyway), due to the elitists that might take him out, and due to NDAA. I think NDAA is going to have a contrary effect - none of the guilty elite will be thrown in jail because of the real horror of ANYONE potentially being thrown in jail.

Comment by Montana
2012-01-11 07:05:21

has he talked about that stupid fed paper from last week yet?

 
Comment by Kirisdad
2012-01-11 11:01:05

Wrong! Paul doesn’t want to talk about jail, because he doesn’t want taxpayers to pay for jails.

Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:44:35

At $46.5k per prisoner/year, it’s getting down right pricey to keep all those people in prison.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 13:56:14

Indeed it is. And, when so many of them are non-violent drug offenders, shouldn’t there be a different way to go about the business of corrections? Like intensive, and I do mean intensive, probation? Or drug courts?

 
Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 22:37:17

+1 Slim

 
 
 
 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 06:41:15

“they have destroyed our money. It’s worldwide. ”

If anyone wants to get rid of their destroyed money, please send it to me.

“if we had to pay taxes for everything that they do, you know, the people would rise up and — and stop it.”

How would we have fought WW2? That’s what we were paying off for two generations after the war- up until Reagan cut the wealthy’s taxes and started spending like a drunken monkey, and fired Volcker and replaced him with ‘Little Froth’ Greenspan. So I guess Paul’s saying we would have stopped Reagan in his tracks, since I assume we’re allowed to borrow in an existential war.

And how do we know the people wouldn’t rise up and demand higher taxes on the rich, instead of ’stopping it’, whatever ‘it’ is. The people seem quite fond of Social Security and Medicare. I bet they’d just vote to raise taxes on the wealthy, rather than end those programs. That’s sure what the polls say.

Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:46:02

Paul probably would have kept us out of WWII.

Comment by stewie
2012-01-11 15:30:34

Sieg Heil!!

Oh, wait….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 05:17:38

Unemployed borrowers may get more time with no mortgage payments

by Kim Miller
11:18 AM Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Freddie Mac announced Friday it is giving its mortgage servicers the authority to provide up to six months of forbearance _ reduced or suspended payments _ and up to an additional six months with its approval for eligible unemployed borrowers.

The new policy begins Feb. 1.

Previously, Freddie Mac’s servicers could grant up to three months of forbearance with no payment and without prior approval, or six months at a reduced payment with prior approval.

Longer forbearance required prior approval and was generally restricted to events such as natural disasters, permanent disability or long-term medical expenses.

Fannie Mae said they’ve had a similar policy to what Freddie announced since September 2010. Fannie said it will announce additional guidelines on the policy tomorrow that will impact how servicers should handle homeowners whose mortgages are delinquent prior to the request for a forbearance.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ - 92k -

Comment by combotechie
2012-01-11 06:28:11

Hmmmm. If a person decides to stay and not pay on his own, does he still owe the money to the lender? Does he owe interest earned on the money? Will people who haven’t made a payment in years be hounded for the money that was not paid, along with the interest earned on the money that was not paid? Does the lender have to (gasp) write off the owed-but-not-paid money? Yes? No? Who knows?

But if a person is officially GIVEN PERMISSION to stay and not pay then he officially DOES owe the lender the money that was not paid; He owes the money plus he owes the interest earned on the money, yes?

If yes then it is the lender that benifits from the official stay-and-not-pay program, not the FB. All the program does for the FB is to help keep the “F” firmly attached to the “B”.

Comment by combotechie
2012-01-11 06:32:32

It seems to me that Fran and Fred have surrendered; They couldn’t beat them so they joined them.

They couldn’t beat the deadbeats so they redefined the term deadbeat by giving them permission to become deadbeats.

Comment by combotechie
2012-01-11 06:39:32

And if the term “deadbeat” is redefined as something more acceptable then the money that is owed-but-not paid can be redefined to something more acceptable and maybe will not have to be written down on the books.

And if the owed money is not written down on the books then that means the loan must still be performing and generating interest (and thus profits) for the lenders.

Soooo, it is all good.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by combotechie
2012-01-11 06:48:37

One great thing about accounting and banking and finance and such is that one gets to define his own reality, i.e. one gets to show a profit when he really should be showing a loss.

There are very few places on this planet that allows a person to do this, to define his own reality.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 07:03:10

And if the term “deadbeat” is redefined as something more acceptable

Well, if everyone who has become unemployed (which is who this program is for) and now can’t pay their mortgage is a ‘deadbeat’, then ‘deadbeat’ has already been redefined. That’s not what it used to mean.

I guess this new meaning of ‘deadbeat’ is one of those examples of ‘defining your own reality’.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-01-11 08:33:27

And if the owed money is not written down on the books then that means the loan must still be performing and generating interest (and thus profits) for the lenders.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, combo. This is exactly my take on the “new” policy.

The now-performing loans don’t show up in their delinquency data. And they also don’t show up as taking forever to get through the foreclosure pipeline.

In other words, yet another attempt to extend-and-pretend, and to manipulate the housing market by withholding inventory.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 08:46:52

I guess this new meaning of ‘deadbeat’ is one of those examples of ‘defining your own reality’.

It’s our version of Newspeak.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 10:06:52

There are very few places on this planet that allows a person to do this, to define his own reality.

This is patently, clearly and totally false.

Otherwise I wouldn’t be the King of Sparta.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-11 10:41:10

nor I Lord of the Isles.

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 07:15:54

“And if the term “deadbeat” is redefined as something more acceptable”

Let`s have a contest!

How about…

Payless? No that`s a shoe store.

Robo Cop? No that was a science fiction action film.

Turnip?

I have three turnips on my block. Works for me.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-11 18:47:13

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” — Alice In Wonderland

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 10:40:30

Combo, I think you’ve gone over the edge on this one.
I agree with the forbearance program. If you have lost your job, then you should get a break. I’ve been there. Keeping my mortgage payments going, with almost no income for most of a year was a real strain. Fortunately for me, at the time, I lived beneath my means and my payments were low. I have no problem, since the entire national employment situation is terrible, allowing mortgage holders to backload the payments.

As for the other thoughts, do those not paying, without approval, just because they don’t want to pay still owe the money?
Well, yes, they do.
If they come up with a bailout for deadbeat program for those people who are strategically defaulting, I would loose my mind.
With Obama the Candy-man in the Whitehouse, nothing would surprise me. However, we know, for sure, it will not be the Banks who suffer any loss. It will be Us, in a diversionary deficit spending scheme.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 13:47:55

“Keeping my mortgage payments going, with almost no income for most of a year was a real strain.”

I kept up my rent for over a year. No leeway for me. If I had fallen behind, I would have been out on the street posthaste. Where are the forebearance programs for renters?

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-11 14:48:11

Happy you’re a loser like me let’s have some ramen tonight….and celebrate.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 15:01:36

“Where are the forebearance programs for renters?”

That`s just crazy talk. If you weren`t smart enough to know realestate only goes up you don`t deserve any forebearance programs.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 17:24:04

I have been thinking about your situation, jeff saturday. I think one of the reasons you are so upset at your landlord for not paying the mortgage is that if the bank forecloses, you could be evicted. His behavior puts you at risk. If it were only that he was getting something for nothing, you might be able to let it go.

The only time I have ever been evicted was on a lease option. The landlord didn’t pay and the bank foreclosed. We fought it in court as a way to recoup our deposit and gain time to look for another rental.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 05:24:27

http://news.yahoo.com/mafia-now-italys-no-1-bank-crisis-bites-192212818.html

Mafia now Italy’s #1 “bank”. They are probably less predatory and conduct themselves more honorably than the regular banking system.

Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 06:21:44

I’d rather deal with a real “Don” instead of our Birkenstock wearing variety.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 08:35:45

HA! How do you think the modern FIRE sector became the way it is?

 
Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-11 18:49:36

Both do “God’s Work” - extracting wealth from the society without adding anything, and concentrating in the hands of a few.

As William K. Black put it, “The best way to rob a bank is to own one.”

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 05:36:45

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ron-paul-to-everyone-but-mitt-drop-out

Ron Paul calls on all the Hollow Man GOP candidates but Romney to drop out and go away, so it can be a straight-up contest between the oligarch’s cardboard cutout and the sole candidate in the race who embodies the principles this country was founded on.

Comment by Posers
2012-01-11 06:17:09

That’s a dumb thing to say. For someone who rightfully tauts personal liberty, to ask others to drop out of a voluntary contest is assinine.

The other candidates can do as they please legally, whether it is to Paul’s liking or not.

Now, if the other candidates dropped out, that would be a good thing. Romney should drop out, too.

I don’t like everything Paul has to say (his economic and Constitutional liberty stances are right on, his isolationism is not), but he does represent an alternative.

Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 06:31:10

You’re so right. Paul should just be quiet. He was asked very recently if he thought Newt should drop out and he said that was Newt’s decision not his. What a kook.

And you’re right about isolationism. RP wants to worry about America and American’s first and foremost. What’s up with that? We should be stepping over our homeless Lucky Duckies to load cargo planes with food and supplies bound for a foreign countries homeless. Our homeless just need to suck it up and get to work. My man Romney will spread democracy around the globe. Why I even heard he’s going to paper every bomb we drop somewhere with a copy of our old Constitution to show them our real message of truth and freedom. He might even use the actual Constitution on one. It makes sense as we really don’t need that outdated rag anyway. That’s why I’m all in for Romney.

Romney 2012! Let Freedom Ring!

Comment by Posers
2012-01-11 06:59:47

So, you’d respect an Olympic or professional athlete more (for example) if he asked his rivals to drop out of the contest so that he could win?

If you’re representative of the typical Paul supporter, then we’re really in trouble. If I’m correct in my opinion of you, and if there are millions like you, then Paul won’t be the answer either, as much as I like the guy.

I want a leader. Clearly, you want someone who simply will just make all your troubles go away.

BTW, were you an “Anyone but Bush’ voter?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SV guy
2012-01-11 08:01:05

“So, you’d respect an Olympic or professional athlete more (for example) if he asked his rivals to drop out of the contest so that he could win?”

Oh absolutely. I’m even hoping that Jim Harbaugh is on the phone with Sean Payton right now asking N.O. to forfeit the upcoming playoff game. It’s just so much easier that way instead of getting all sweaty & stuff.

I want a leader too. Maybe even a “decider”. I just want someone who will make all my troubles go away.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 14:05:16

Posers, I think you need to turn your sarcasm dedector back on.

 
 
 
Comment by Posers
2012-01-11 06:51:45

Sorry - should be *touts*

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 17:30:03

From the article: ““The race is becoming more clearly a two-man race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the candidate of authentic change. That means there is only one true conservative choice.”

Ron Paul is merely pointing out the obvious: There are already multiple Establishment GOP Hollow Man candidates in the race. The Establishment has annointed Romney to be the puppet of the banksters and corporate cartels, ergo, the others are just a distraction and redundant. I don’t think RP realistically expects Santorum et al. to drop out, as they are far too power-hungry, but since they are all basically the same guy - corporatist, statist, neo-con Wall Street errand boys - why not go with just one empty suit instead of several clones.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 05:54:28

Central banks
Crazy aunt on the loose
For central bankers in the rich world, unconventional is the new conventional

Jan 7th 2012 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition

THERE was a time when the Federal Reserve wouldn’t say whether it had changed interest rates. Soon it will say where it thinks rates will be years from now. Beginning with its policy meeting on January 24th-25th, Fed officials will disclose when they expect to start raising their short-term interest-rate target, which is at near-zero now, and what they expect its path to be over the coming years. Behind such radical transparency is a grim fact: at the start of a fourth successive year of extraordinarily low short-term rates and a still-moribund economy, the Fed is desperate for new ways to stimulate demand.

It is not alone. Of the rich world’s four major central banks, Britain’s and Japan’s already have their policy rates stuck near zero and the fourth, the European Central Bank (ECB), is likely to get there this year. Meanwhile, the balance-sheets of all four institutions have ballooned as they expand the volume and range of assets and loans they hold (see charts).

Central banks have never been comfortable with unconventional monetary policies such as verbal interest-rate commitments and quantitative easing (QE), the purchase of assets by printing money. Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and former Fed official, has likened them to a family that lets its crazy aunt out of the closet only on special occasions. QE is “best kept in the locker marked ‘For Emergency Use Only’”, is how Charlie Bean, the Bank of England’s deputy governor, put it in 2010.

The unconventional, however, is now conventional. In a presentation to this year’s annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Mr Blinder will argue that the circumstances—low inflation and low nominal interest rates, persistent excess capacity, and fiscal policy paralysed by large debts—that have forced central banks to operate through unconventional policy will be a recurring feature of the economic landscape. “We can’t stuff the crazy aunt back in the closet,” he says.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 09:34:03

“We can’t stuff the crazy aunt back in the closet,” he says.

The crazy aunt keeps getting stronger. Soon we’ll see who stuffs who back in the closet.

 
Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-11 21:22:26

They’re finally getting it: higher interest rates stimulate the economy!

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 21:29:47

Seldom-discussed fact: Higher interest rates put more money into saver’s pockets, increasing funds available for them to spend on household-generated economic stimulus.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:02:00

The Fed is taking some political heat now. Once it becomes clear the housing bottom the serial bottom caller brigade has called again for this year will not materialize, the Fed can turn the tables and blame the never-ending housing malaise on politicians who did not follow the White Paper’s recommendations.

Bloomberg
Republican Senators Rebuke Fed for Offering Advice on Housing
January 11, 2012, 7:10 AM EST
By Caroline Salas Gage

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Republican Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Bob Corker of Tennessee rebuked the Federal Reserve for overstepping its role by making policy recommendations on how the U.S. government should take new steps to spur the housing market.

Hatch, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said yesterday that a housing study sent by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to Congress last week, along with recent Fed speeches, “intrudes too far into fiscal policy advice and advocacy.” Corker said New York Fed President William C. Dudley’s suggestion last week that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reduce the principal of the loans they guarantee was “absolutely egregious.”

Fed officials have been increasing their calls for government measures to boost the housing market after record-low interest rates failed to revive borrowing. Bernanke last week sent lawmakers a 26-page staff study discussing policy options to help boost the housing market that said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might have to bear greater losses to stoke a broader recovery.

“It was kind of unusual for the Fed to get into that kind of detail on these institutions, which I’m sure everyone at the Fed knows right off the bat are very controversial political issues,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte, North Carolina. “It’s just asking for criticism.”

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 06:07:48

1) The Fed is telegraphing housing is headed down in a very big way.

2) The two elected clowns in the article are the real proponents of more inflated, overpriced housing and Fed involvement in it.

3) Nothing will come of this except for housing shrinking as a % of GDP.

Comment by Montana
2012-01-11 10:39:26

I like it.

 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 09:54:21

Corker said New York Fed President William C. Dudley’s suggestion last week that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reduce the principal of the loans they guarantee was “absolutely egregious.”

Yeah, we’ve got to keep sucking money out of people to keep them paying those loans for far more than their houses are worth. Because if they stop paying, they’re deadbeats.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 10:46:06

Republican Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Bob Corker of Tennessee rebuked the Federal Reserve for overstepping its role by making policy recommendations on how the U.S. government should take new steps to spur the housing market.

I like it and I like most of what Romney says about foreclosures. Some Democrats should get on this train.

Comment by Neuromance
2012-01-11 18:51:13

We need to be careful that they don’t say all the right things during the election, then return to business as usual once they get into office. A politician’s gift is figuring out what the voters want to hear, and repeating it back to them. Newt is a master of this.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:06:20

“…while other policy makers want the companies to do more to help the housing market, even if that requires absorbing greater upfront costs.”

Any particular other policy makers?

BUSINESS
JANUARY 11, 2012

Fannie Mae CEO Williams Resigns
By NICK TIMIRAOS

Fannie Mae Chief Executive Michael J. Williams resigned Tuesday, saying he will depart as soon as the mortgage-finance giant’s board names a successor.

His exit leaves the government scrambling to find new caretakers for Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac, at a time when policy makers at the Federal Reserve and the White House have singled out housing as a key obstacle to an economic recovery.

Just three months ago, Freddie’s chief executive, Charles E. Haldeman Jr., said he planned to leave his post this year. Both companies have seen many changes within the senior ranks since the government takeover in 2008.

‘This is a good time to move on and get someone to run the company for the next two to three years,’ Michael Williams said.

Mr. Williams, who is 54 years old, joined Fannie Mae in 1991 and was promoted to the top job nearly three years ago. He is the second chief executive to leave the company since the government replaced management following the takeover.

“This is a good time to move on and get someone to run the company for the next two to three years, because we still have a long way to go in housing,” Mr. Williams said.

His departure comes as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac face competing pressures. The firms’ regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is focused on limiting losses, while other policy makers want the companies to do more to help the housing market, even if that requires absorbing greater upfront costs.

“I am grateful for Mr. Williams’s steadfast dedication to ensuring Fannie Mae meets its public mission…while both leading his company and working with government officials,” said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the FHFA, in a statement.

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 09:51:47

“This is a good time to move on and get someone to run the company for the next two to three years,’ Michael Williams said.”

January 4, 2010, 9:05 am Legal/Regulatory
Fannie’s Christmas Eve Surprise
By STEVEN M. DAVIDOFF

The government did something naughty on Christmas Eve.

On Dec. 24, the Treasury Department said in a short statement that it would provide uncapped support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years so they can maintain a positive net worth.

In connection with this announcement, the mortgage giants also announced in regulatory filings that they would pay their executives up to $42 million in compensation in 2009.

When done by private companies, this type of stealth announcement provokes cries of bad disclosure practices. In this case, however, we’re talking about Fannie and Freddie, whose new government backstop is momentous and likely to be the financial story of 2010 as the government risks hundreds of billions of dollars on these entities to try and shore up the housing market.

In case you missed it over your vacation, I want to talk about the more incendiary issue, the compensation one. Let’s begin with Fannie’s announcement, which disclosed Fannie’s 2009 executive compensation:

Name and title 2009 Annual Base Salary 2009 Annual Deferred Pay Long-Term Incentive Award
Michael J. Williams, chief executive $900,000 $3.1 million $2 million

The $6 million potential payday for Michael J. Williams, Fannie’s current chief executive, is a raise from 2006 and 2007 when he made $5.6 million and $5.2 million, respectively, as the company’s chief operating officer. Apparently, the price of losing tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars is a raise and a promotion. Still, according to Fannie’s 2008 proxy statement, it is about a 50 percent drop from the $11.7 million paid to Mr. Williams’s predecessor as chief executive, Daniel Mudd, in 2007; that paycheck was sharply criticized.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/fannies-christmas-surprise/ - 91k

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:08:27

Fannie Rating Faces Cut as Lawmakers Siphon Funds, BofA Says
By Jody Shenn - Jan 9, 2012 7:34 AM PT

The odds of credit rating downgrades on the bonds of Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) rose after lawmakers tapped the government-supported mortgage companies to pay for last month’s extension of a payroll tax cut, according to Bank of America Corp.

Investors in the so-called agency debt market should favor the bonds of other government-sponsored enterprises such as the Federal Home Loan Banks and Federal Farm Credit Banks because of the risk, Ralph Axel, a Bank of America analyst in New York, wrote in a Jan. 6 report.

Congress, to finance the two-month extension of the tax cut in December, ordered an increase in the premiums that Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in McLean, Virginia, charge to guarantee mortgage debt. The funds generated by the extra fees will be directed to the government for the next 10 years.

“This greatly diminishes the last remaining avenue for revenue growth, and we believe the credit rating agencies will see this as a net negative for their credit,” Axel wrote in his report. “When combined with the issue of limited capital, this significantly increases the possibility of a rating downgrade in the medium term.”

Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-11 21:32:55

NHZ was exactly right when he said that the gov’t can keep these bubbles going for years and years, (I paraphrase), wasn’t he?

So how is that purchase at the bottom of Rancho Whatever in SD working out fer ya? :)

Comment by Ben Jones
2012-01-11 21:39:42

‘gov’t can keep these bubbles going’

Tell that to the millions of FBs in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Florida, California, etc. You sound kinda like a troll. I think I put you in the pokey for a bit.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 21:40:29

If my wife and I were locating our family here today, instead of over half-decade ago, we would be in home shopping mode. I posted a link to a home of identical description (same floor plan, square footage, neighborhood, etc) to the one we rent a couple of nights back priced in the low $400s — down by $130K (25%) from what our investor-landlords paid for it back in 2004.

But in reality, our family needs are changing now, along the long march to empty nesthood, and our rent hasn’t gone up for three straight years and represents a declining share of our income. So it seems like renting remains the financially prudent choice for us at this point.

 
 
Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2012-01-11 21:45:09

I’ll tell you what, Get Stucco: It’s the same way it’s working out for me in metro NY. It ain’t! about 30% discount in the burbs,but no more, so far. meanwhile taxes have gone up substantially. Best of luck, fellow HBBer.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 23:59:17

Serenity now!

I am good with it, actually. Just recently, I decided on some major personal financial steps, none of which involve buying a home.

For instance, I bought a brand new (2011) violin. Through the course of a three-month period of trying out instruments from five different violin shops, I arrived at the shocking conclusion that the violin market is as bubbly as the housing market. In particular, prices were driven skyward in the years leading up to the great big Fall 2008 financial collapse, and now those who thought they would enrich themselves by purchasing violins whose price “always goes up” (or so the violin dealers all say) now find there are few qualified and interested buyers at the prices they expected to receive.

I was feeling slight remorse over not having forked out a lot more for an old Italian instrument, when this timely article reached my mailbox just yesterday:

The Economist
Aesthetics and money
Fiddling with the mind
Old, expensive violins are not always better than new, cheap ones
Jan 7th 2012 | from the print edition

THOUGH individual tastes do differ, the market for art suggests that those who have money generally agree on what is best. The recent authentication of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci, for example, magically added several zeroes to the value of a work that had not, physically, changed in any way. Nor is this mere affectation. In the world of wine (regarded as an art form by at least some connoisseurs), being told the price of a bottle affects a drinker’s appreciation of the liquid in the glass in ways that can be detected by a brain scanner.

It seems, now, that the same phenomenon applies to music. For serious players of stringed instruments the products of three great violin-makers of Cremona, Nicolo Amati, Giuseppe Guarneri and Antonio Stradivari, have ruled the roost since the 17th century. Their sound in the hands of a master is revered. They sell for millions. And no modern imitation, the story goes, comes close. Unfortunately, however, for those experts who think their judgment unclouded by the Cremonese instruments’ reputations, Claudia Fritz of the University of Paris VI and Joseph Curtin, an American violin-maker, have just applied the rigorous standards of science to the matter. Their conclusion, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is that the creations of Cremona are no better than modern instruments, and are sometimes worse.

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:10:26

Too-Big-to-Fail Bank Definition May Be Expanded by Regulators
By Ben Moshinsky and Jim Brunsden - Jan 10, 2012 4:00 PM PT

Global regulators may expand the definition of a too-big-to-fail financial firm, signing up domestic lenders, clearing houses and insurers to capital rules designed for the world’s biggest banks.

The “framework should be in place for domestically systemically important banks by the end of the year,” Mark Carney, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, said yesterday after a meeting of the group in Basel, Switzerland.

Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), BNP Paribas SA (BNP) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) were among 29 banks subject to the so-called capital surcharge on globally systemic financial institutions drawn up by the FSB in November. Banks will have to boost reserves by 1 to 2.5 percentage points above minimum levels agreed on by international regulators.

“The world contains a whole slew of institutions like that which are not systemic on a global level but are on a national level,” Simon Gleeson, regulatory lawyer at Clifford Chance LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The institution most interesting in this regard is Erste Bank,” he said. “The more you look at it the more you think it’s systemically important to Hungary.”

Comment by Dave of the North
2012-01-11 10:42:36

There’s a few IOU’s in the piggy bank on my dresser at home. That’s sytematically important on my individual scale. Am I now too big to fail????

 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:17:50

Was it just a coincidence the Fannie Mae CEO resigned right after the Fed released its White Paper on helpful recommendations to revitalize housing, including how the GSEs could provide a greater role?

Bloomberg
Bernanke Doubles Down on Fed Bet Defied by Recession: Mortgages
January 11, 2012, 6:40 AM EST
By Jody Shenn

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Ben S. Bernanke is signaling his willingness to double down on a three-year bet that’s failed to revive housing, showing the extent of the Federal Reserve chairman’s effort to wrest a recovery from the deepest recession.

Since the Fed started buying $1.25 trillion of mortgage bonds in January 2009, the value of U.S. housing has fallen 4.1 percent, and is down 32 percent from its 2006 peak, according to an S&P/Case-Shiller index. The central bank is poised to buy about $200 billion this year, or more than 20 percent of new loans, as it reinvests debt that’s being paid off. Some Fed officials have said they may support additional purchases that Barclays Capital estimates could total as much as $750 billion.

Even as Bernanke and fellow U.S. central bankers consider expanding their efforts, they are acknowledging their inability to turn around the housing market without help from the rest of the government. Bernanke underscored the importance of residential real estate, which represents 15 percent of the economy, in a study he sent to Congress last week that said ending the slump is necessary for a broader recovery.

“They’re definitely frustrated and disappointed,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC and a former Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond researcher. “I’m sure they would have anticipated they would have gotten more bang for their buck.”

While the Fed has helped push mortgage rates to record lows of less than 4 percent, home-loan borrowing in 2012 is forecast to decline to the least in 15 years. Americans who might refinance and buy properties are getting shut out by stricter lending standards or avoiding transactions as values tumble amid mounting foreclosures, according to the Fed study.

Eventual Losses

Bernanke’s report urged Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration to consider steps with short-term costs for taxpayers, such as widening the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-supported mortgage guarantors.

Comment by rms
2012-01-11 08:36:38

Too bad that the median household income of $50k/yr boils down to roughly $1,350 “take home” every two weeks. This means that 25% of net monthly income is something like $675, which is what Joe Sixpack should be spending on shelter.

That’s $675/mo for PITI, principal, interest, taxes and insurance. Anymore than that, and some other family need will not be met. The housing game is over for the average family, and Bernanke knows it.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 08:56:12

I’d say that a family needs about twice that income to live a middle class lifestyle. (You know, one where you can “afford” the average priced car, which is about $30K these days, afford to pay tuition for the kids at the local State U, be able to pay the deductible on your HD health insurance and still be able to pay the mortgage) and even more in a high cost of living metro area (which is pretty much anyplace where there are good paying jobs these days).

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 09:15:42

Always with the tired, class-warfare rhetoric, sigh. Why do you hate our freedoms?

“You work three jobs? How uniquely American” — the Decider, 2005

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 09:55:37

The housing game is over for the average family, and Bernanke knows it.

Does this mean that houses will go back to being places to live rather than in-VEST-ments?

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:28:25

Bernanke doesn’t know anything. Every plan and pronouncement proceeding from his lips has been a failure or just plain wrong.
Bernanke believes we can “inflate” our way to prosperity.
That is the only game he knows. His entire thesis of the Great Depression is that it was cause by TOO TIGHT CREDIT. It wasn’t rampant malinvestment and speculation that needed to be cleansed. No. The Banks should have rained money down to prevent falling prices. That would fix everything.

So, here we are, in the next Great Recession. We are lab rats in the FED’s box of experimental theories. We have Krugman with the NYTIMES writing everyday about the wonders of Keynesianism and egging on his cohorts at the FED. .PRINT… PRINT>…SPEND…Stimulate… SPEND.
“TURN THE MACHINES BACK ON”. He is sadly, a clown.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 09:56:46

Yeah, a coincidence.

That’s the ticket!

 
Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-11 10:21:08

This chart always comes to mind when I read articles like this.
http://tinyurl.com/75s9jbl

Might as well throw in some deadbeat student loan or credit card debt along with the other toxic debt (er, assets) in their portfolio.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 11:20:07

Since the Fed started buying $1.25 trillion of mortgage bonds in January 2009…..

Good gosh people, can you imagine if all this money and effort spent propping up failed banks and housing were instead spent on creating jobs or becoming energy independent?

Or that AND the money spent on wars?

But we’re “broke” and none of that ever happened.

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:36:28

I believe Marie Antoinette always whined “poverty”, didn’t she.

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 14:11:39

The American People want Real Leadership and Real Solutions, not the politics of envy

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-11 14:18:13

Yup OHbahMa has no moral compass…..and thats being nice

took him long enough to get out of Irak….and dont forget the Deadbeats they are still the exalted ones

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 15:40:55

I don’t have a lot of love for the Ds, but I have a difficult time believing that we’d be out today if McCain had won.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 18:03:26

McCain/Palin in the oval office should give any thinking person a shudder of pure horror.

 
Comment by Robin
2012-01-11 23:06:37

Sammy - Would Iran still exist?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 06:25:57

Markets & Finance January 05, 2012, 3:30 PM EST
Washington Wades Deeper into Housing
Congress taps Fannie and Freddie for cash and expands the Federal Housing Administration’s reach
By Clea Benson, Lorraine Woellert and Roben Farzad

Lawmakers began 2011 with sweeping ambitions to shrink the U.S. government’s involvement in mortgage finance. They ended the year enacting policies that increase it. An 11th-hour extension of the payroll tax cut, signed into law on Dec. 23, will for the first time divert funds from Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), the two mortgage finance companies under U.S. conservatorship, to pay for general government expenses. Congress also took steps that are likely to increase the role of the Federal Housing Administration in the market—at the same time that the agency’s reserves hit a record low. And some economists are charging that the FHA’s finances are even worse than they appear.

Last February, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced three options for reducing government’s role in housing finance. Soon after, Republicans introduced bills to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have cost taxpayers about $153 billion since 2008 because of defaults on loans they guaranteed. The legislation never advanced because there was no agreement even among Republicans on the best way to proceed.

Then in December, as Congress looked for $36 billion to cover a two-month payroll tax cut, it ordered a 10-year increase in the fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders to guarantee principal and interest on home loans. The money will go into the U.S. Treasury. The move is drawing criticism because it relies on long-term revenue from entities that Democrats and Republicans want to shrink or eliminate, and the money won’t be spent to offset the risk of loan defaults. “The goal was, at the beginning of the year, how do we wind these down?” says Edward Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based research organization that favors limited government. “And at the end of the year we have further entrenched them and made it more difficult to wind them down, which is classic Washington.”

The controversy comes on top of other policy changes that housing analysts say could keep the government involved in the mortgage market. In November, House and Senate lawmakers increased the maximum size of FHA-insured loans to $729,750, from $625,500. Congress also failed to extend a tax break on private mortgage insurance for borrowers with low down payments that expired on Dec. 31. Private mortgage insurers indemnify lenders against loan defaults, with the cost of premiums passed to homeowners. Eliminating the tax deduction raises the cost of private insurance and makes FHA insurance a more attractive alternative.

Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 10:37:25

“Soon after, Republicans introduced bills to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have cost taxpayers about $153 billion since 2008 because of defaults on loans they guaranteed. The legislation never advanced because there was no agreement even among Republicans on the best way to proceed.”

There is no will to shut them down because every one of the congressional crooks are profiting from Freddie and Fannie.

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:37:51

Exactly.

And HUD.

And FHA.

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-11 11:04:53

In order to extend the payroll tax reduction for the remaining 10 months of 2012, the FN & FM fees can simply be raised for the next 70 years. This balancing budgets thing is just too easy.

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 06:40:06

This was on XFINITY home page this morning, but now it`s gone. “Obama’s Plan to Boost Home Values. The administration is close …” Peaked my interest but I can`t find it.

XFINITY by Comcast — Official Customer Site | Email | Watch TV Online
Visit the new XFINITY customer site to get the most out of your subscription. Watch TV online … Obama’s Plan to Boost Home Values. The administration is close …
http://xfinity.comcast.net/ - 111k - Cached - Similar pages

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 07:59:51

Hey Turnip
I’ve seen your face before my friend
But I don’t know if you know who I am
Well, I was there and I saw what you did
I saw it with my own two eyes
So you can wipe off the grin, I know where you’ve been
It’s all been a pack of lies

“Obama’s Plan to Boost Home Values. The administration is close”

And I can feel it coming in the air tonight, Oh Lord

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 09:38:52

Another good one.

 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 07:36:53

German economy feared to have stalled

By David Mchugh, Associated Press |
AP – 30 minutes ago

BERLIN (AP) — Germany’s economy slipped into reverse in the last quarter of 2011 in spite of showing strong overall growth for the year of 3 percent, the country’s Federal Statistics Office said Wednesday.

Most recent economic indicators suggest 2012 will be a tough year, both for Germany and the rest of Europe.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/german-economy-feared-stalled-104955472.html

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 08:05:51

You mean, if you stop lending to the people that were buying from you on credit, they stop buying from you?

No…. Say it isn’t so.

The 1980-2007 period will go down in history as a time when people tried to persist trade imbalances through unsustainable debt growth.

2007-???? will go down in history as a time when the unsustainable debt growth that results from trade imbalances again demonstrates to people why trade imbalances do not persist long-term.

We have increased real national debt (publicly held, excluding intergovernmental “trust funds”) from $5T to $10.5T over the last 4 years. I see no reason to think this will slow in the next 4 years regardless of which spewer of total bull shart wins the White House come November.

For how much longer can we fund the world’s trade imbalance plagued economy via U.S. Government treasury bonds?

Comment by WT Economist
2012-01-11 09:04:13

Exactly. They managed to beat the self correcting mechanism for a while.

Coming soon: $8.00 per hour, no benefit U.S. jobs sewing $200 blue jeans, with patches coming back in style.

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 09:11:11

“Coming soon: $8.00 per hour, no benefit U.S. jobs”

Already here if you are not in a Union.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 13:50:07

Levi’s has always paid by the piece, not by the hour.

 
 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 09:23:18

And the sooner the better. Real American Patriots believe in free-market capitalism and that America is the land of opportunity and that our best days are ahead of us because it’s morning in America and that hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is how to get ahead and that freedom isn’t free and that there is no questioning American exceptionalism.

Let Freedom Ring!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-11 09:44:32

Goon…yes this the land of opportunity for those who dont speak English. Even $hittttybank had an ad yesterday posted on the front door looking for people who speak hindi cantonese and romanian

 
 
Comment by Seen it all
2012-01-11 10:45:33

Anybody heard Perry/Gingrich attacking romney for Baine capital?

Let’s hope the expose on “vulture” capitalism continues.
I’m all for maximizing efficiencies but I think we know “real capitalism” went out the window a long time ago to be replaced with whatever the hell it is we have now….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 11:56:24

I think that while we were sleeping, we became a nation based on the Nietzsche philosophy that morality is simply the weak man imposing his limitations on the greater man. If you do things because they are in the interest of the greater good, then you are a fool that suffers for no reason. The wise man is willing to do anything necessary to improve his enjoyment of life, even if that causes pain to others.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 18:04:30

The general welfare clause of the Constitution is as dead as the Bill of Rights.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 11:36:51

$8.00 per hour, no benefit U.S. jobs

Atlas Farted

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 13:07:18

And boy, did he ever stink up the place!

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 09:23:29

Rosie’s in hot water after reeling in hammerheads off South Florida’s coast

By David Fleshler Sun-Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted: 9:02 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012

Enlarge Photo The souvenir photo with the caption Rosie and her kids with Chelsea’s Hammerhead shark she caught! Handout photo provided by: Mark ‘The Shark’ Quartiano

Rosie O’Donnell and her family caught huge hammerhead sharks in fishing trips off South Florida.

Now the TV personality is catching abuse from environmentalists, irate at the killing of ocean predators that are considered overfished around the globe. Florida banned killing them Jan. 1, long after O’Donnell’s fishing trips, which took place over the past two or three years.

Mark “The Shark” Quartiano, the famous Miami Beach shark fisherman who guided the expeditions, recently posted a photo of O’Donnell next to a dead hammerhead on his website as “This Month’s Celebrity Angler.” Since then, as other photos of O’Donnell’s shark-killing expeditions surfaced, environmentalists have attacked her via Facebook and Twitter, accusing her of going after species that are struggling to survive.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/rosies-in-hot-water-after-reeling-in-hammerheads-2094403.html -

30 COMMENTS

@ Stumped, the shark’s the one with an attractive figure.

Capt Queeg
7:40 AM, 1/11/2012

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 18:05:36

Before next Fall, I predict the housing market will be uglier than a truckful of Rosies.

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 09:30:50

Save The Turnips

Sadly, I know many Turnips do not get to spend this day with their kids. So we here at Save the Turnips offer this celebration for Turnips!!! We love you. And we …

http://www.savetheturnips.com/ - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 09:35:22

And we have ‘free trade’ with these people?

300 Workers at an Xbox 360 Factory Threaten Mass Suicide
Yahoo
mashable

Three hundred Chinese factory workers who manufacture Microsoft Xbox 360s threatened mass suicide last week, according to unconfirmed reports.

The Foxconn employees threatened to throw themselves off of a factory roof due to a payment dispute, according to Record China and Want China Times.

Foxconn Technology Group, the world’s largest electronics contract manufacturer, counts Apple, Dell and HP among its clients — most famously producing the iPhone. But despite the employee talent shows, sports tournaments and training programs in its promotional material [PDF], the company has a lousy track record when it comes to employee suicide. Wired calculated in its March 2011 issue that 17 Foxconn workers have killed themselves in the past five years.

Some of Foxconn’s factories are surrounded by anti-suicide nets, and employees have reportedly been asked to sign a “no suicide” pact.

Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-11 10:18:14

And whiny Americans complain because of no paid vacation or other bennies. See how good we have it?

 
Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 11:30:05

Why do you hate free trade and free market capitalism, perhaps because you hate our freedoms?

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 11:58:56

Because it is unsustainable in its current form, destructive over the long-term, and produces the least good for most people.

Free market capitalism is a lie told by the persons behind the curtains that are pulling the stings to steal the majority of the wealth for themselves.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 12:04:10

Work makes free!

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-11 11:49:15

employees have reportedly been asked to sign a “no suicide” pact. with strict repercussions if violated…

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 12:27:42

Or the beatings will continue until moral improves, dammit!

 
Comment by Next Shoe to Drop
2012-01-11 17:41:37

“with strict repercussions if violated…”

There’s something worse than being dead? LOL

Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-01-11 20:05:27

They clock your corpse back in, and make it work the weekend at half pay.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-01-12 09:20:17

“with strict repercussions if violated…”

There’s something worse than being dead? LOL

(That was the joke)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by FB wants a do over
2012-01-11 10:27:38

North Korea Punishes Citizens for Lack of Emotion at Leader’s Death

http://pik.tv/en/news/story/27805-north-korea-punishes-citizens-for-lack-of-emotion-at-leaders-death

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:58:12

Thank god our freedom loving corporate government doesn’t punish people for not showing the proper obsequious actions!

Oh wait…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-creditcards-idUSTRE80925A20120110

 
 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-11 10:57:55

How to save 1 million dollar’s in your 401K by the time you are 55 years old see it’s easy and all who have failed to acheive this have only themselves to blame so don’t be envious of public pensions.

..Secrets of the 401(k) Millionaires

By Jeremy Olshan | SmartMoney – 23 hours ago
..

“The IRS says it doesn’t keep data on the highest 401(k) balances, and providers of the plans refused to disclose the figures. Anecdotally, however, advisers say it’s not uncommon for savers to rack up balances in the $3 million to $5 million range.

Bedda D’Angelo, president of Fiduciary Solutions in Durham, N.C., says one of her clients amassed $6 million in her 401(k). An executive at a pharmaceutical company, she maxed out her pre-tax contributions each year, and including after-tax contributions saved close to 30% of her earnings annually. She was the kind of person who never had debt — not even mortgage debt, D’Angelo says. “She was a disciplined saver, whenever she got a bonus — she would invest half of it.” Her plan had a mix of large cap, small cap, international equities — and a bit of bonds, and at 56, when she retired, she was earning $450,000.’

You just have to be an executive at a pharmaceutical company and rasie medical care costs at well above the inflation rate,

all of us who only have 200K or so at 50 are just big losers

Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 11:19:47

I would dearly love to make the money that this gal has made as an executive. Believe me, I would.

However, life hasn’t worked out that way. And I think that there are way more people like me than there are of her.

Comment by goon squad
2012-01-11 11:33:19

Don’t be such a Debbie Downer, it’s never too late to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, see article above about working into your 90s.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 11:35:36

I wonder how many of her there are in her tax bracket? Probably a few percent at most.

Let’s see how many of the people getting by on a small fraction of her income can save 30% of their earnings.

I’ve noticed that saving is getting easier as my income goes up.

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:48:04

$6 MILLION puts her squarely in the 1%.

So yes, this is a story that most people cannot, and never will be able to, relate to.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 12:11:52

I’ve noticed that saving is getting easier as my income goes up.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. If my income goes up this year, I might even be able to afford a trip to the dentist.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 12:17:05

As of the 2010 Census, there were 118 million households, and 4.6 million of them had household income above $200K… call it 4%.

The Census does not break down incomes above $200K, but other sources indicate that $300K is top 1.5% and $400K is top 1%.

The article does not indicate if the $450K income is the sole income or if she was part of a larger household or single.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Elanor
2012-01-11 12:35:19

Even maxing out contributions, it is nearly impossible to amass $6 million in tax-deferred accounts by age 56. She may have that kind of dough in all her accounts totalled together, but there are limits to tax-deferred retirement contributions. This is probably sloppy, inaccurate reporting.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 13:46:29

She must have had a decent amount in those accounts during some really big runups in the 80s and 90s.

 
Comment by polly
2012-01-11 15:42:03

You can put money that is not tax deductible (really excluded, but nevermind the details) into a 401(k). The company that manages is will keep track of the taxed money that goes in so you can deal with the complexity of taking out some money that has already been taxed from your 401(k) account. And the issues get even more complex if you ever want to roll over that 401(k) money into an IRA. In that case, YOU would have to keep the records to prove how much money was already taxed or you would end up paying taxes on it a second time.

I think the employer has to decide to set up the 401(k) plan with this option and a lot don’t. I did it at one of my law firms. More trouble than it was worth when roll over time came around. And you should only do it if you really like the investment choices the plan has. Tax deferral on the growth of the extra money you put in is not a trivial benefit, but not always worth it. And like I said, the record keeping can be a pain in the behind.

 
 
Comment by rms
2012-01-11 13:57:27

Let’s see how many of the people getting by on a small fraction of her income can save 30% of their earnings.

I’m saving more than 30% now that the house is paid for. However, the college bills commence in a couple of years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2012-01-11 13:59:48

Most of us can’t set aside 30% of her earnings. 30% of my earnings is substantially less than 30% of her earnings.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 12:04:18

Reading your posts, I believe it would not be possible for you to make that kind of income.

To be that successful, you can’t have an internal moral code.

Increase the price, even if it bankrupts the county and causes the poor people to die needlessly, all for a few more billions for the already rich stock holders?

If you have ANY thoughts other than HELLYA, you would fail as a corporate executive.

 
 
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:39:28

It’s another interesting “story” about the benefits of investing long-term in the stock market. What it doesn’t say is WHEN she retired.
Were most of the investments made during the Booming nineties.
I caught the tail end of that. Then poof.
During the 2000’s she would have gotten basically nothing with those investments. down, then up, then down, then up.
It’s all about timing and how much money you have to put in.
Yes, I am one of those unfortunates, over 50 with about 200k in retirement funds, plus some savings. It is mostly in cash, even as the current market is rising. I don’t trust this market. period.
I can’t afford to lose what i have. I am stuck until things improve.

This is a story of the unusual, not the typical retiree with 401k money.

Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-11 12:14:52

Yeah, I’ve read the average retiree has ~$75,000 in their 401k/IRA. Not a whole lot to retire on.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 12:27:58

This is a little misleading as it is averaging 22 year-olds that just signed up for their first 401(k) and 85 year-olds that have already been taking disbursements for decades.

I think a better number is the “at retirement” balance which is somewhere near $160K on average. So, if you are earning 1% above inflation ($1600 a year) and withdrawing 5% of the initial balance per year so that is lasts 20 years… $8,000.

Yeah, who needs Social Security or Medicare?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by butters
2012-01-11 15:32:39

Average is a worthless measure. We need median.

If you and I were having lunch with Bill Gates, the average net worth of 3 of us would be close 20billion.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2012-01-11 15:34:44

Average is a worthless measure. We need median.

If you and I were having lunch with Bill Gates, the average net worth of 3 of us would be close 20billion.

That is so mean!

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 15:38:35

With that kind of disparity, even median is distorted.

 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 16:14:12

Except we’re talking 401(k) balances, which have per year contribution caps. So even bill Gates would not have $1 billion in his 401(k).

 
Comment by cactus
2012-01-11 17:36:27

Even maxing out contributions, it is nearly impossible to amass $6 million in tax-deferred accounts by age 56. She may have that kind of dough in all her accounts totalled together, but there are limits to tax-deferred retirement contributions. This is probably sloppy, inaccurate reporting.”

I agree I posted it mainly as a crappy story that made little sense.
What does it take to retire at 55 with 100K per year ( CA firemen ) 4M ? 4M spread out over 35 years of work = 115K per year extra not bad

 
 
 
 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 11:45:28

“…whenever she got a bonus — she would invest half of it.”

What is this “bonus” thing they speak of? Is it something like “paid vacation and sick days” and “retirement?”

I’ve heard of these thing, but I always thought they were mythical. And the rate things are going, they will be for me.

Comment by Steve J
2012-01-11 14:04:15

Only the top execs receive bonuses these days.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-11 14:10:57

There are still some bonuses in tech. I think they mostly try to use that to talk you into taking a lower base salary, though.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 16:02:42

YMMV. Bonuses for individual contributors tend to be teensy-weensy, if you get one at all.

 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 16:16:37

My company pays bonuses, but only to top performers… like 25% maybe. It is a way to give below inflation wage increases while attempting to hold on to the best. Who cares if the rest leave for better pay. I got a couple thousand dollar bonus last year.

 
Comment by drumminj
2012-01-11 17:12:10

There are still some bonuses in tech. I think they mostly try to use that to talk you into taking a lower base salary, though.

Yep. We have a 10% annual “performance” bonus if the company hits its sales targets. However, it’s sold as part of the “base compensation” because the company has hit it all but one year. But if you treat it that way, it’s not really a bonus anymore…

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by BlueStar
2012-01-11 11:56:34

Just to note, the home builder stocks are breaking out to new YoY highs today, some up over 10%. Whats up with that!?
The bond market is flying and natural gas is at a 2+ year nominal low at less than $2.75 bcf. Adjusting for inflated dollars and compared to the price of oil the divergence between the BTU content of oil vs. Nat. gas it’s now approaching a black swan level event. Either they shut in existing wells or pray for a record smashing cold snap or companies like Chesapeake are going be killed by their forward futures contracts.

To the point, in its weekly release, Houston-based oilfield services company Baker Hughes Inc. ( BHI) reported an unchanged U.S. rig count (number of rigs searching for oil and gas in the country), as an increase in the number of gas rigs was offset by a fall in the oil rig count.

* More gas rigs???

 
Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-11 12:07:16

Interesting link:
http://tinyurl.com/3cfk8dc

Full-Blown Civil War Erupts On Wall Street: As Reality Finally Hits The Financial Elite, They Start Turning On Each Other

Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 15:42:13

Good thing they won’t pass these costs on to Main St. After all, we know it’s the damn unions that drive up the price of everything anyway!

 
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2012-01-11 12:43:53

Paging ecofeco….

Of course, it seems like a little election-year politics…

Obama aims to reward businesses that invest in US

“WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Wednesday he wants to reward companies that invest in America and eliminate tax breaks for companies that don’t, and he’s planning new tax proposals to do it.

A day after his Republican foes competed in the New Hampshire primary, Obama sought to grab back the spotlight and underscore his focus on the economy by convening a White House forum on how to increase employment and bring back jobs that have fled overseas.”

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 14:34:32

Simple, the Anne Coulter Plan. Eliminate the minimum wage, food stamps and unemployment insurance. All those good for nothing lazy people will get really hungry and accept any job they can get. $2 an hour wages will bring back manufacturing jobs.

Not sure she thought it through. To whom are the manufacturers of the world going to sell their products when everyone is working for subsistance level wages? How are we going to keep paying on out $26T total public and private sector debt with 3rd world wages? Are we really going to be back at full employment when we’re in a global Greater Depression after the debt collapse that would surely follow her plan to crush the wages of developed nations?

Comment by butters
2012-01-11 15:27:49

We will do what we are doing now.

Just print, baby!

 
Comment by In Colorado
2012-01-11 16:16:49

Not to mention the 3rd world levels of crime

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2012-01-11 20:04:27

Take it from me…applying for any job you can get is worse then a prostrate exam, at least that’s over quickly….but to even get offered a “take any job” is a gut wrenching experience day after day after day (lesser people would start drinkin) when having a HS diploma is being very overqualified….eg parking lot attendant, car wash

—-
All those good for nothing lazy people will get really hungry and accept any job they can get.

 
 
Comment by b-hamster
2012-01-11 17:43:57

Yeah, people forget that the transition from a trade to service economy, which lowers the wages across the board, consequently lowers the tax base. If government spending was to remain flat, the factory worker making $30/hr now making $8/hr at target obviously will be making less taxable income, as well as generating less disposable income, if any. The middle class is very quickly becoming a thing of the past.

 
 
Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 14:18:51

About the Ryan Plan:

“Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Fl)
2012-01-11 11:59:46

Here is a copy of the resolution:

1) The budget resolution explicitly:

Returns non-defense discretionary spending to below pre-2008 level and freezes it there for five years;”

For the 2012 budget, the total non-defense discretionary is $546.7B of the $3,700B total budget. Rolling back to pre-2008 level would reduce the deficit by $150B in 2012.

SS and MC are projected to grow by more than that over the next 2 years.

“Adopts the modest savings on defense spending proposed by Former Secretary Gates; overall levels would continue to rise;”

Increase slower than inflation as we draw down troops in Iraq. BFD.

“Prohibits the House from considering any legislation that would case discretionary spending limits to be exceeded;”

Again, with discretionary being 15% of the budget, BFD. Mandatory is where 85% of the money goes and is where 95% of projected increases are.

“Prohibits the House from considering any legislation that would substantially increase mandatory (entitlement) spending over any of the next four decades;”

By 2017, the final budget of whomever we elect to teh White House later this year, SS is projected to be $1,008B, Medicare is projected to be $657B, and net interest on our exploding debt is projected to be $627B (publicly held debt projected to go from $10T to $15T and interest rates from 2.5% to 4.5%).

2.3 trillion just for those 3 line items. Total receipts this fiscal year were projected to be $2.6T this year, unless we again extend payroll and other tax cuts. Last 2 years receipts were $2.1T.

Freezing mandatory spending to current legally required levels simply put us on the path to continuing $1.5T a year deficits into the future.

“Calls for tax rates to remain stable at around 18-19% of GDP;”

But makes unrealistic assumptions about lower tax rates causing long-term sustainable growth to bring back the revenue. This is the whole “smaller slice of a larger pie” that has been shown to be nothing but a short-term bubble that pops, leaving us with more debt, larger deficits and less revenue.

“Recommends spending levels declining from the current level of around 24% of GDP to about 20% by 2015 and just 14.75% by 2050, virtually eliminating the national debt by that time.”

Again, based on unrealistic GDP growth rates. He is projecting 3.2% real GDP growth (above inflation) every year for the next 40 years.

Had we grown at 3.2% above inflation for the last 40 years, GDP would be 25% higher at about $20T instead of our current $15T which is more like 2.2% above inflation GDP growth.

But let’s look at those last 40 years. Each household’s share of private sector debt increased at 3x the sustainable rate from 2.8x median household income to 4.8x median household income. So, we’re going to increase the rate of economic growth, while not being able to continue to increase the debt needed to fuel that growth?

And, let’s consider the demographics. The generations that retired over the past 40 years were significantly smaller than the boomers that followed. The generation that will be retiring over the next 40 years is significantly larger than the baby bust generation that will be expected to provide for them.

So, the Ryan plan assumes a GDP growth rate over the next 40 years 50% higher than the growth rate of the prior 40 years, despite the disastrous demographics and unsustainable debt load that is already crushing the private sector.

AND despite these unrealistic GDP growth rate projections, he still has debt as % of GDP exploding for the next 30 years until most of the boomers die off.

And, tell me. After I’ve spent my entire working career supporting my parent’s generation, and building up a crushing public and private sector debt, how am I supposed to pay 3x as much for my health care as my parents are/will be paying?

Again, the Ryan plan is simply to ignore massive deficits for the next 30 years until the boomers are dead or dieing off in large numbers, ignore exploding deficits, and in exchange for a plan to cut the deficits 30 years from now, let’s cut taxes on the richest Americans now.

Lie, lie, lie, slight of hand, gee my hair looks great, make the rich even richer, it has failed every other time we’ve tried it but it will surely be different this time, more of the same that got us here.

Comment by Blue Skye
2012-01-11 15:34:26

Washington will be populated by delusional any lying spendthrifts until the majority of people wake up to reality. Given how the overwhelming majority of people handled their finances during this great credit expansion, that most likely will be well after the wheels come off.

The best thing for most of us to do is to be optomistic about our own future, and do everything possible to get out of the way of the train wreck.

 
Comment by turkey lurkey
2012-01-11 15:44:37

“he generation that will be retiring over the next 40 years is significantly larger than the baby bust generation that will be expected to provide for them.”

Wrong.

Gen X & Y are FAR larger than the boomer population and have been in the workforce for years now.

Comment by Darrell in Phoenix
2012-01-11 16:44:25

Sure, if you add 2 generations together it is bigger than the Boomers. One of those generations is smaller and the other is the same size. It is still a first in the history of Social Security.

Let’s say someone retiring in 1970, born at a rate of 2.5 million in 1905, being supported by people born at a rate of 3 million in 1925 and 2.9 million in 1945. workers to retirees = 2.36

Someone retiring in 1990, born 3 million a year in 1925, supported by 2.9 million in 1945 and 3.8 in 1965. 2.23 ratio

Someone retiring in 2012, born 1950 at 3.6 million a year. Supported by people born in 1968 at 3.5M and 1988 at 3,9. ratio = 2.05.

It may not seem huge, but it is. Especially if we say the latter generation (gen X like me) are in peak earning year and the next GenY is at lower income.

The ratio gets worse as we slide a few more years forward to the peak of the boom and the pit of the bust.

In short, there has always been 2 generations supporting the one before. This is the first time it is a smaller and same size instead of 2 larger…..

 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 15:12:05

Banks repossess 156,000 South Florida homes

2:56 PM Wednesday, January 11, 2012
by Kim Miller

A new report from the Miami-based Condo Vultures has found that 156,000 homes in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties have been repossessed by banks since 2007.

“Our best estimate is that less than half of the South Florida properties repossessed by lenders have been resold to buyers,” said Peter Zalewski, a principal with Condo Vultures® LLC. “Going forward, we anticipate the number of bank-owned properties formally listed on the resale market to continue at a steady rate for the foreseeable future.”

Zalewski’s report precedes one coming tomorrow from RealtyTrac that will have 2011 year-end foreclosure numbers statewide.

According to today’s report:

As of Jan. 10, 2012, there are nearly 1,600 bank-owned properties listed on the resale market in South Florida, according to an analysis by the licensed Florida real estate brokerage CVR Realty™.

In 2011, buyers acquired nearly 20,700 bank-owned properties in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, according to the analysis based on Florida Realtors association data.

Compare this to 2011 when lenders repossessed more than 34,900 properties in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties after taking title through foreclosure to more than 54,400 properties a year earlier in 2010, according to Clerk of the Court records from Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.

The repossessions represent about half of the nearly 300,000 foreclosure actions filed in the tri-county area during the same period.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ - 94k

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 16:24:30

“156,000 homes repossessed”

“Our best estimate is that less than half of the South Florida properties repossessed by lenders have been resold to buyers”

“The repossessions represent about half of the nearly 300,000 foreclosure actions filed in the tri-county area during the same period.”

300,000 foreclosure actions filed in the tri-county
156,000 repossessed

Why that leaves 144,000 Turnips in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Of course this does not include the Turnips who have not made payments in 9 months and have not had foreclosure actions filed, like the one I am in now. Or the last house I rented that did not have foreclosure actions filed for 3 years or the people who comment in the PB Post who have not paid in a year and have not had foreclosure actions filed. But hey, there can`t be more than 50 to 100,000 of them in the 3 counties.

I`ll go conservative and say 50,000 so that would be 194,000 Deadbeats oops, I mean Turnips in the 3 counties to go along with the 77,000 places the PTB are holding off the market.

But luckily they anticipate the number of bank-owned properties formally listed on the resale market to continue at a steady rate for the foreseeable future.

I`ll let the fudge numbers on those not filed and the workouts wash each other out.

 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars®
2012-01-11 16:02:14

It’s fascinating the Newt GinGrinch has come unanchored from the crazy right wing talking points hate speech he’s known for and sounding like a rational person. He’s talking about economic opportunity. Like The President has been talking about.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 18:13:33

Defendant shoots German prosecutor dead in court

MUNICH, Germany | Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:19pm EST

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - A businessman convicted of embezzlement shot dead a prosecutor as his sentence was being read out in a German court Wednesday, police and prosecutors said.

The 54-year-old man shot the prosecutor with a 6.35-caliber gun as the sentence was read out in the courtroom in Dachau, in the southern state of Bavaria, police said.

Two witnesses in the courtroom managed to overpower the man, who was then arrested, the police added. He is being charged with murder, they added.

“During the oral delivery of the sentence, the culprit pulled out a gun and shot the prosecutor several times,” the chief public prosecutor Christoph Stroetz told a news conference.

The man had been accused of failing to pay 44,000 euros ($56,000) worth of national insurance contributions for his employees.

The 31 year-old prosecutor, who had just started working at the court, was rushed to hospital but died of his wounds, the police said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-germany-court-idUSTRE80A20Q20120111 - -

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 18:28:26

Ba hopa hm mow mow hopa hm mow mow

Ba hopa hm mm mm mm mow hopa hm mow mow

Ba hopa hm mow mow hopa hm mow mow

Ba hopa hm mm mm mm mow hopa hm mow mow

Ba hopa hm mow mow hopa hm mow mow

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-01-11 19:59:39

Got dry lips?

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-12 09:09:29

Sounds like a bad case of Elvira.

 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 18:30:23

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/homeland-security-monitoring-drudge-report-new-york-times/47300/

Homeland Security monitoring the Drudge Report and other blogs for “situational awareness” - tell me again how this is making me safer?

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
Comment by Carl Morris
2012-01-12 09:12:12

I’m sensitive to second amendment issues, but it seems like a stretch to call this a second amendment issue. More of a taxes and fees issue.

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 20:10:13
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2012-01-11 20:16:37

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085163/Children-dumped-streets-Greek-parents-afford-them.html

Greek parents abandoning their children as austerity (gotta pay back the banksters) bites deep.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 21:28:06

A widely-anticipated Fed policy intervention would not really qualify as a “surprise,” would it?

Jan. 11, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EST
One stock to own for the Fed’s QE3
By Jon D. Markman

Stock bulls have tiptoed around slumbering bears in the past week, skirting trouble in Europe, Asia and the Middle East with the reckless daring of cat burglars.

This surprising daylight raid has surprised investors who expected more resistance from sellers. Yet there is a logical explanation. Fund managers apparently have come to believe that the Federal Reserve will surprise the market with more quantitative easing to support the economy’s modest traction.

If that sounds crazy, maybe you need to pay more attention to Federal Reserve Bank presidents who are on the rubber chicken circuit this week. They do not speak with a single voice, but many appear to be giving the impression that they would be open to the idea of more QE as a sort of inoculation against the potential for contagion from Europe and as well as a shot in the arm to employment.

 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 21:32:04

Adjacent articles on ft dot com:

From MARKETS 5:41pm
Wall St rally confounds bets against recovery
S&P’s rise poses challenge to risk-averse investors
———————————————————————-
From MARKETS 8:53pm
Hunt for safety pushes Treasuries below 2%
Demand for 10-year debt third highest on record amid equities caution

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 21:33:34

Is it just me, or do others watching the ever-lower long-term Treasury yields also expect shoes to start raining down from the sky any time now, kinda like Fall 2008-Spring 2009?

Comment by rms
2012-01-11 23:13:00

Before long we’re going to need the ln(1+x) and e^x-1 functions for those small values of (i). The Bernanke functions? ;)

 
 
 
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-01-11 23:50:21

Bloomberg
Home Seizures May Jump 25% This Year as U.S. Foreclosures Resume
January 12, 2012, 12:43 AM EST
By Dan Levy

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) — Banks may seize more than 1 million U.S. homes this year after legal scrutiny of their foreclosure practices slowed actions against delinquent property owners in 2011, RealtyTrac Inc. said.

About 1.89 million properties received notices of default, auction or repossession last year, down 34 percent from 2010 and the lowest number since 2007, the Irvine, California-based data seller said today in a statement. One in 69 U.S. households received a filing.

While the seizure process has been “highly dysfunctional,” there were “strong signs in the second half of 2011 that lenders are finally beginning to push through some of the delayed foreclosures in select local markets,” RealtyTrac Chief Executive Officer Brandon Moore said in the statement.

The number of home repossessions is likely to rise about 25 percent from the more than 804,000 properties seized last year as lenders resume foreclosure actions, Daren Blomquist, a spokesman for RealtyTrac, said in a telephone interview. Settlement talks are continuing with state attorneys general over documentation flaws, known as “robo-signing,” that surfaced in October 2010.

 
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